Global warming, global cooling

[jimpeel]

Many scientific models do materialize. It's very tiring to have a discussion with you when you constantly make illogical generalizations Jim. It's been pointed out to you again and again.

As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that those same models, when applied to climate which has already occurred, could not "predict" historic climatic events. If the models are accurate, why can they not "predict" climate events which have already occurred? If they are credible models, don't you think that they could accurately show historic events based on that model?

Here's a good example. You've created this group "GW proponents" that I assume you think of as some singular entity. Your above argument goes something like this:

GW proponents said all sea ice would disappear in 2008->All sea ice has not disappeared->therefore all GW proponents are wrong.

This falls by the wayside as soon as you look at it logically.

The problem with your thinking is this: You take something someone says like "GW proponents have stated ..." and turn it into "ALL GW global warming proponents of EVERY STRIPE AND KIND have stated ...". You simply cannot do that. Do you want me to name specific names of persons and groups? Do I have to say "Al Gore" when I can say "adherents to the beliefs of Al Gore"? Do I have to name every person who is an adherent to his beliefs, or am I allowed to generalize them as "adherents to the beliefs of Al Gore"?

I your case, answer me this. What do you disagree with on the subject of GW that is generally believed by the majority of GW proponents -- Al Gore, IPCC, NOAA, et al?

Do you believe that those who state the polar bears are endangered are correct? If you have doubts, what are they and why?

Did you believe, up until my post above, that the polar ice would likely disappear completely in 2008? If you had doubts, what were they and why?

Do you believe that those who state GW will be a completely bad thing are correct? If you have doubts, what are they and why?

Do you have any reservations whatsoever about the veracity of those who are proponents of GW regardless of their singular or group, status? If so, what are they and why?

On January 27, 2006, Al Gore stated that we have ten years to save the planet. He stated, "To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years." So he used the generalization of "the world's scientists". Do you believe that he meant every single scientist in the entire world? That is the standard to which you insist I be held.

Do you believe that we have only ten years to save the planet? If not, what are your reservations and why?

There is no group "GW proponents" that unanimously claimed that all sea ice would disappear in 2008. Perhaps someone or some people said that. Perhaps that person or people believe there is a danger of global warming. Don't know.

I never stated that there was a "group". You contrived that. The fact is that the vast majority of GW proponents -- individuals all, some of whom belong to organized groups -- believe:

GW is real.

GW is man made.

GW is going to kill us all if we don't stop it.

GW can be stopped.

The polar bears are dying in unprecedented numbers.

The polar ice cap is melting and may disappear entirely.

GW will continue to escalate.

GW will cause the seas to rise inundating coastal areas throughout the world.

Warming is caused by CO2.

And many more.

How many of those beliefs do you subscribe to; and, if you have reservations, what are they and why?

 

[jimpeel]

dude, put a klamp on it. everyone knows jim (among others) has issues about being right all the time but what you've been posting lately sucks just as much as his drivel.

jimpeel says: HE'S WRONG!!!


He just can't handle it. He is here as an agent provocateur and his sole duty is to attack me. So give him a break. We all know what he is and what he's about.

Plus, as long as he is concentrating on me the rest of you don't have to put up with his attacks; and you can also place him on ignore as I have and then you don't have to see his inanity.

 

[randomJACKASS]

I know you wish you were that important Jim, but you're not. I just haven't found anybody that even comes close to making as much of an ass out of himself as you do. Just repaying you in knid!

 

[Inkara1]

Just because you jerk off to fantasies of posting the same snarky remark about Jim over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't mean we want to see it. The dramatics kinda lost their edge after being posted for the 200th time, you know?

 

[MrBishop]

Just because you jerk off to fantasies of posting the same snarky remark about Jim over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't mean we want to see it. The dramatics kinda lost their edge after being posted for the 200th time, you know?

Damn Inky...I hope you used CTRL-V for that...it gives me hand cramps just thinking about typing that over and over...again.


Mind you, I'm getting head cramps reading certain arguments over and over...well, you get the idea.

*Nope: Not talking about you, Inky

 

[jimpeel]

Just because you jerk off to fantasies of posting the same snarky remark about Jim over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't mean we want to see it. The dramatics kinda lost their edge after being posted for the 200th time, you know?

Relax. That's what trolls do. I've had him on ignore since his 20th post. I do follow my own avatar on occasion. It was only too obvious what he was here to do.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response (see HERE) or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

 

[spike]

As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that those same models, when applied to climate which has already occurred, could not "predict" historic climatic events. If the models are accurate, why can they not "predict" climate events which have already occurred? If they are credible models, don't you think that they could accurately show historic events based on that model?

If you're thinking no climate models are accurate I suppose that means we really can't predict that gobal warming is not happening right? Without any acurate models whatsoever that would leave you with no predictions one way or the other.

The problem with your thinking is this: You take something someone says like "GW proponents have stated ..." and turn it into "ALL GW global warming proponents of EVERY STRIPE AND KIND have stated ...". You simply cannot do that.

Unless you use a modifier as nalani suggested like "some" or a "a few" then you are ceratinaly at least implying and generalizing the vast majority have stated what you said and that has simply not been shown to be the case and I'm betting that the vast majority haven't stated that.

In fact I don't even see a reference at the moment from the IPCC staing that. I do see that 2007-2008 were the only know times in recorded history that the Northwest Passage has been ice free.

So what you should have said was something like "a few GW proponents have stated" or "a small minority of GW proponents have stated". If you stop basing so many of your arguments on generalizations they will work better.

Also I would watch who you call a troll because of inflammatory remarks with the intention of provoling other users considering we'd just have to look at the title of your Habitat thread.

 

[randomJACKASS]

That is truly amazing that I could do that 200 times with 39 posts. Some kind of minor miracle!

In any case it is a waste of time because jimpeel is a brick wall, and even I am losing interest....

 

[Inkara1]

hy·per·bo·le (hī-pûr'bə-lē) Pronunciation Key
n. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

[Latin hyperbolē, from Greek huperbolē, excess, from huperballein, to exceed : huper, beyond; see [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] hyper-[/SIZE][/FONT] + ballein, to throw; see gwelə- in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

 

[jimpeel]

If you're thinking no climate models are accurate I suppose that means we really can't predict that gobal warming is not happening right? Without any acurate models whatsoever that would leave you with no predictions one way or the other.

I don't believe that climate models of any stripe are accurate. I believe in actual observation and actual observation says that there has been no warming over the last decade and temperatures have actually decreased over the last six years. The models are wrong. They have been wrong, They will remain wrong. They cannot even "predict" climate which has already occurred. Don't you think that if the models had any veracity whatsoever they could at least "predict" what has already occurred?

Unless you use a modifier as nalani suggested like "some" or a "a few" then you are ceratinaly at least implying and generalizing the vast majority have stated what you said and that has simply not been shown to be the case and I'm betting that the vast majority haven't stated that.

Al Gore didn't use any modifiers when he stated "the world's scientists" in a vast generality; yet and you believe that he is credible even though he has no scientific credentials whatsoever.

In fact I don't even see a reference at the moment from the IPCC staing that. I do see that 2007-2008 were the only know times in recorded history that the Northwest Passage has been ice free.

Key words "recorded history". There have been time that the Earth was much hotter than it is today. Do you believe that the Northwest Passage stayed closed throughout those times?

So what you should have said was something like "a few GW proponents have stated" or "a small minority of GW proponents have stated". If you stop basing so many of your arguments on generalizations they will work better.

Yet, as I have already stated, you are okay with Al Gore making those same types of generalizations.

Also I would watch who you call a troll because of inflammatory remarks with the intention of provoing other users considering we'd just have to look at the title of your Habitat thread.

The Habitat thread was not meant to "provoke" anything but relevant discussion. I believe that it accomplished that judging by the responses.

If you hold to that, then you must also hold that some of your threads have also been for nothing more than provoking other posters.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27784

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27609

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27466

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27591

 

[jimpeel]

By the way, Spike, you failed to answer even one of the questions I posed HERE.

 

[jimpeel]

hy·per·bo·le

I'm tellin' ya, whip away; but that horse ain't gonna move. He's a lost cause with a singular mission.

 

[spike]

I don't believe that climate models of any stripe are accurate. I believe in actual observation and actual observation says that there has been no warming over the last decade and temperatures have actually decreased over the last six years. The models are wrong. They have been wrong, They will remain wrong. They cannot even "predict" climate which has already occurred. Don't you think that if the models had any veracity whatsoever they could at least "predict" what has already occurred?

Actual observations show that that the northwest passage has never been clear in recorded history before now. You have yet to show that most or all climate models are wrong. You have nothing to base predictions on if you don't use models. You are really left without an argument at this point.

Al Gore didn't use any modifiers when he stated "the world's scientists" in a vast generality; yet and you believe that he is credible even though he has no scientific credentials whatsoever.

I made no claim about that statement from Al Gore so that is a dead end argument for you. You however made a generalization that has been shown to be illogical and unfounded.

Key words "recorded history". There have been time that the Earth was much hotter than it is today. Do you believe that the Northwest Passage stayed closed throughout those times?

Trends in recorded history are important. The fact that the northwest passage has never been clear before now certainly shows a warming trend.

Yet, as I have already stated, you are okay with Al Gore making those same types of generalizations.

That is a lie. I have made no statement saying that I was okay with any generalizations made by Al Gore. i have simply proven your generalizatios to be unfounded and illogical.

The Habitat thread was not meant to "provoke" anything but relevant discussion. I believe that it accomplished that judging by the responses.

no that was trolling. You purposefully misspelled Carter's name, used emotional non-fact words like "pride and joy", and mis-characterized the program as "falling apart" all in an inflammatory attempt to troll. It didn't work out very well.

If you hold to that, then you must also hold that some of your threads have also been for nothing more than provoking other posters.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27784

Title and content of that post pulled directly from a straight up factual article.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27609

Title was a factual statement straight from the article.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27466

Contents of an article again. Maybe you take issue with me referring to him as "first dude"? Palin called him that though.

This is the closest you've come to a legitimate case for trolling. You really have to be taking issue with the "first dude" title though, which she was kinda asking for.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27591

Ok, that's just a crazy car. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say on that one.

By the way, Spike, you failed to answer even one of the questions I posed HERE.

Yes, you were trying to change the subject and obscure the irrational logic you've been using. I'm not falling for that.

I'm just going to stick with your faulty reasoning on the sea ice and and the models for now until that's settled and then we can move on.

 

[catocom]

We're all gonna Die!







hadn't been said in a while

 

[jimpeel]

Yep. Its definitely getting mighty warm out there.

Snow strikes as Europe prepares for cold, miserable winter

Cold wave brings disruption to new EU states in East Europe

COLDEST JANUARY DAY IN LONDON IN OVER 10 YEARS.

Heavy Snow, Detroit to New York; More coming to Chicago...
Coldest Weather Possible In Nearly 15 Years...

 

[spike]

ZOMG it's snowing in the winter.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Yeah and it's amazing how long term climate change can be measured by this year. 12 months is a long term study?

 

[catocom]

ZOMG it's snowing in the winter.

yeah, jim shoulda just named this thread "summer, winter".

 

[jimpeel]

No warming since 1998. Cooling since 2002.

Yet the myth continues; Al Gore gets richer; and more idiots clamor to surrender their rights, their freedoms, and their treasure to the religion of GW.

 

[Frodo]

Yeah and it's amazing how long term climate change can be measured by this year. 12 months is a long term study?

Apparently a 5 year study is long enough to establish GW though, huh.