Latest from the IPCC

[wmw999 2,444]

He’s told us what he does; posts to hone his arguments. We’re the practice for his real life, even if that real life assumes he’s right and seeks to prove it, rather than trying to find out if he’s right  

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

His posts perfectly fit the definition of trolling.  Of course he's a troll.

Could be but it could also be that you aren't getting the joke because you're stuck on a definition. For example, tossing different colored mice into the herpetarium to see what works could be trolling but it could also be science, the work of a complete asshole, or, for some people, just plain fun. And that's why I think we ought not to be applying a narrow label like "troll" to folks when it's equally likely that we're a part of an important experiment. 

[gowlerk 2,190]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Could be but it could also be that you aren't getting the joke because you're stuck on a definition. For example, tossing different colored mice into the herpetarium to see what works could be trolling but it could also be science, the work of a complete asshole, or, for some people, just plain fun. And that's why I think we ought not to be applying a narrow label like "troll" to folks when it's equally likely that we're a part of an important experiment. 

I'm going to take a hard pass on volunteering to be a rat in that maze.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I'm going to take a hard pass on volunteering to be a rat in that maze.

Too late, you are already. Just blocking someone doesn’t mean they block you. You enjoy posting too much to not be in the experiment.

[gowlerk 2,190]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Too late, you are already. Just blocking someone doesn’t mean they block you. You enjoy posting too much to not be in the experiment.

I may be nibbling around the edges of the bait a bit.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I may be nibbling around the edges of the bait a bit.

Nope, you just need to believe that.

[kallend 2,026]

19 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Could be but it could also be that you aren't getting the joke because you're stuck on a definition. For example, tossing different colored mice into the herpetarium to see what works could be trolling but it could also be science, the work of a complete asshole, or, for some people, just plain fun. And that's why I think we ought not to be applying a narrow label like "troll" to folks when it's equally likely that we're a part of an important experiment. 

When it waddles and quacks, you're not likely dealing with a zebra.

[jakee 1,489]

On 2/24/2024 at 6:49 PM, brenthutch said:

It’s called a summary 

A week or so ago you told us we had to believe that either global warming was real or that El Nino was real but not both at the same time.

So why should anyone give a flying fuck about any other summary you provide? You've pretty conclusively proved your willingness to spout utterly ridiculous bullshit in service of your chosen dogma.

[brenthutch 444]

10 hours ago, jakee said:

A week or so ago you told us we had to believe that either global warming was real or that El Nino was real but not both at the same time.

So why should anyone give a flying fuck about any other summary you provide? You've pretty conclusively proved your willingness to spout utterly ridiculous bullshit in service of your chosen dogma.

It was warmer due to El Niño, what the hell is wrong with you?

[jakee 1,489]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It was warmer due to El Niño, what the hell is wrong with you?

You said "You can't have it both ways". You said it's either CO2 or natural variability, not both.

So what is that global warming does that makes an El Nino / La Nina cycle of warming and cooling impossible? What's the physical mechanism of CO2 build up that means a massive ocean current must stop flowing?

Edited February 26, 2024 by jakee

[brenthutch 444]

10 minutes ago, jakee said:

You said "You can't have it both ways". You said it's either CO2 or natural variability, not both.

So what is that global warming does that makes an El Nino / La Nina cycle of warming and cooling impossible? What's the physical mechanism of CO2 build up that means a massive ocean current must stop flowing?

That comment was in response to Olof who claimed the lack of warming in the face of ever higher CO2 concentrations was due to La Nina, yet when a strong El Niño event results in higher temperatures he attributes it to CO2 and dismisses El Niño and natural variability?

Edited February 26, 2024 by brenthutch

[jakee 1,489]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That comment was in response to Olof who claimed the lack of warming in the face of ever higher CO2 concentrations was due to La Nina, yet when a strong El Niño event results in higher temperatures he attributes it to CO2 and dismisses El Niño and natural variability?

Apart from thw fact that it was a response to Olof, none of that is true. Again, your willingness to flat out lie about what was written in black and white is why no-one should give a flying fuck about anything you present asevidence on the climate.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

On 2/25/2024 at 4:22 AM, wmw999 said:

He’s told us what he does; posts to hone his arguments. We’re the practice for his real life, even if that real life assumes he’s right and seeks to prove it, rather than trying to find out if he’s right  

Wendy P. 

I am pretty sure I observed just that a while back.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It was warmer due to El Niño, what the hell is wrong with you?

Relax. jakee could make a wooden indian scream what the fuck?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

On 2/24/2024 at 5:47 AM, wmw999 said:

It's hard work to find the right page among all the ones saying something different

Wendy P. 

So you do credit him with thorough research? As Carl Sagan observed in Broca's Brain:  "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers."

[olofscience 480]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It was warmer due to El Niño, what the hell is wrong with you?

I already predicted that you'd use this argument.

 

So I said, and you seem to have missed it - an El Niño typically ONLY INCREASES TEMPERATURES BY 0.2C.  Last year, the temperature increase was MORE THAN 1.5

 

I may have to start correcting myself. Not only can you not handle things with two or more variables, you're even having trouble with just one.

Edited February 27, 2024 by olofscience

[olofscience 480]

Here's my quote from the thread "Missing January Update".

On 2/8/2024 at 10:33 AM, olofscience said:

And to anticipate his excuse "it's only because of the El Niño":

While El Niño has given air temperatures an extra boost, it would typically only do so by about 0.2C.

 

 

Now we know why he has to start new threads instead of just continuing that one...

[jakee 1,489]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Relax. jakee could make a wooden indian scream what the fuck?

Do you think what Brent is saying is true?

[tkhayes 348]

13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That comment was in response to Olof who claimed the lack of warming in the face of ever higher CO2 concentrations was due to La Nina, yet when a strong El Niño event results in higher temperatures he attributes it to CO2 and dismisses El Niño and natural variability?

'that comment'.  I notice you had no comment whatsoever on the ACTUAL executive summary that I posted from your referenced paper.  Please, quote that executive summary, especially the parts of it that support your 'summary'

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Do you think what Brent is saying is true?

Do you agree with what I said?

[jakee 1,489]

23 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Do you agree with what I said?

I agree that there is no position you won’t support if I’m on the other side of it. 
 

Which kinda makes you my wooden Indian puppet, when you think about it. 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

I agree that there is no position you won’t support if I’m on the other side of it. 
 

Which kinda makes you my wooden Indian puppet, when you think about it. 

I’m humbled that you’d attempt humor on my behalf. And no, since your rejuvenation I am generally in agreement with your positions, but only the first time.

[jakee 1,489]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

And no, since your rejuvenation I am generally in agreement with your positions, but only the first time.

So what are you doing here then?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

8 hours ago, jakee said:

So what are you doing here then?

Giving you validation. What other purpose could we serve?

[jakee 1,489]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Giving you validation. What other purpose could we serve?

If you’re too embarrassed to say why you really started posting here, why do it at all?