There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[JoeWeber 2,294]

37 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

"that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet and its inhabitants?" Double-parallel question (a/k/a double barrel question) Addresses more than one issue, but allows for only one answer.

Here's my answer:

1. The planet will survive - It may get angry and kill us all, but in some form; it will survive. 

2. Current inhabitants: I don't agree with your response. There's enough evidence by WHO to suggest otherwise.  

What's your definition of current inhabitants? Those alive today and dying relatively soon (my definition) or their descendants?

[brenthutch 383]

26 minutes ago, olofscience said:

No, asking the loaded question is dishonest.

Saying you included something else in the statement does not erase the fact that you did say it.

Do you really think when I said “threat to the planet” I meant the big rock orbiting the sun?  You are being overly pedantic to avoid addressing the issue.  Very dishonest.

[olofscience 420]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Do you really think when I said “threat to the planet” I meant the big rock orbiting the sun?

Ah, the "I didn't mean what I said" argument.

You were clearly constructing a strawman argument which is why you said "threat to the planet", that's what's dishonest.

If I'm rigorous and precise (you might call it pedantic) see how quickly you have to retreat?

[SkyDekker 1,119]

On 3/14/2021 at 8:14 AM, brenthutch said:

I’m not disputing .... slight rise in temperatures

Right after posts proclaiming how a colder February shows global warming doesn't exist.

 

#priceless

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Ah, the "I didn't mean what I said" argument.

You were clearly constructing a strawman argument which is why you said "threat to the planet", that's what's dishonest.

If I'm rigorous and precise (you might call it pedantic) see how quickly you have to retreat?

“Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way.”

As I said.....pedantic 

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Right after posts proclaiming how a colder February shows global warming doesn't exist.

 

#priceless

No, I just shared NOAA’s report that this February’s global temperature was less than 1998’s February temperature.  If you have a quarrel with that, take it up with NOAA.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

"that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet and its inhabitants?" Double-parallel question (a/k/a double barrel question) Addresses more than one issue, but allows for only one answer.

Here's my answer:

1. The planet will survive - It may get angry and kill us all, but in some form; it will survive. 

2. Current inhabitants: I don't agree with your response. There's enough evidence by WHO to suggest otherwise.  

The "current inhabitants" will continue to live and die pretty much as they have. The pandemic threw a pretty good 'monkey wrench into the works', but it killed well under 1% of those inhabitants. And it seems to be winding down. 

Personally, I don't see AGW affecting me much. The changes are coming, but slowly. 

The real 'death and destruction' is a ways off. Maybe a hundred years, maybe a couple hundred. 
Whether it's from actual 'climate change' (major storms, heat waves, sea level rising, that sort of thing) or our reactions to those (primarily wars from immigrating populations), that chaos will be an 'existential threat' to humanity. Not the planet.

And, of course, the really fun aspect of that is the 'tipping point' concept.

The idea that the damage path will become irreversible once we do enough. And that we won't see the results of that for a long time after we've passed the 'point of no return.'

It's kinda funny. There was a quote going around at the beginning of the pandemic:

"Every disaster movie starts off with a scientist predicting trouble...
And being ignored completely."

It turned out to be eerily accurate.

It can be similarly applied to AGW.

And I gotta love how the resident anti is cherry picking the month of February out of the winter. Ignoring completely the fact that the previous 4 months were all above average temps. 
So one cold month means it's 'all a hoax', yet the 4 previous mean nothing.

Edited March 15, 2021 by wolfriverjoe

[olofscience 420]

26 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Right after posts proclaiming how a colder February shows global warming doesn't exist.

 

#priceless

1. "climate change isn't happening, look at this [cherry-picked data]!"
2. we then proceed to show irrefutable evidence that it is changing
3. "well it is happening, but the change is good for us! Look at the massive improvements we had in the past 100 years as if CO2 is entirely responsible for that!"
4. ...
5. "climate change isn't happening, look at this [cherry-picked data]!"

Rinse, recycle, repeat.

[wmw999 2,114]

30 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So one cold month means it's 'all a hoax', yet the 4 previous mean nothing.

After all, what good is discretion if it can't be used on cherries and context?

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,379]

39 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

And, of course, the really fun aspect of that is the 'tipping point' concept.

The idea that the damage path will become irreversible once we do enough. And that we won't see the results of that for a long time after we've passed the 'point of no return.'

Keep in mind that one of the goals of deniers is to get to that point as quickly as possible.  Then they can throw their hands up and say "See?  Nothing we can do.  Might as well get an SUV and a bigger boat."  It's one of their get-out-of-jail free cards.  

Also, as you mentioned, they won't have to deal with it in a big way.  Their grandkids will - but people who start out with the denier mindset tend to care less about what happens to future generations to begin with.

[billvon 2,379]

19 minutes ago, olofscience said:

1. "climate change isn't happening, look at this [cherry-picked data]!"
2. we then proceed to show irrefutable evidence that it is changing
3. "well it is happening, but the change is good for us! Look at the massive improvements we had in the past 100 years as if CO2 is entirely responsible for that!"
4. ...
5. "climate change isn't happening, look at this [cherry-picked data]!"

Rinse, recycle, repeat.

Yeah.  I broke it down a little differently but it's basically the same progression:

1) The planet isn't warming!  It's all a hoax!
2) OK so the planet is warming.  But we're not doing it!  It's all natural!
3) OK so maybe we are doing it.  But all the changes will be good!  Planet greening!  Warm Alaska!
4) OK so maybe the changes will be bad.  But it's too late to stop it.

And (fun fact) we can see three out of those four coming from one poster right here in this thread - even though those three points all contradict each other.

 

 

[brenthutch 383]

9 hours ago, olofscience said:

First: the planet is not a living thing, it's a lump of rock weighing about 6000 quintillion tons (about 5.9722×10^24 kg).

 

When I went shopping today at my local Giant grocery store, at checkout I was prompted to make a donation to help “heal the planet”. They must be thinking along these lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

You should spend you bandwidth on setting these guys straight and not crossing intellectual swords with me.

[BIGUN 1,042]

8 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

What's your definition of current inhabitants? Those alive today and dying relatively soon (my definition) or their descendants?

Humans, plants, animals, insects, bees

Entire ecosystems will cease to exist!! Yes, of course! Hence the name: Cease to Exist!!!  It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? An eco-revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the eco-revolution.” Wait, sorry, flashback to the nineties.. 

Seriously, tho . . . it's not just about us humans.

[BIGUN 1,042]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Do you really think when I said “threat to the planet” I meant the big rock orbiting the sun?  You are being overly pedantic to avoid addressing the issue.  Very dishonest.

Your exact words were, "

/collapse that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet "AND" its inhabitants?

A simple yes or no will suffice but feel free to elaborate.

That's a double-parallel question. As in an immediate concern/fear for the planet's safety OR its inhabitants. Anytime someone uses "and" in a question with more than one issue, but asks for one answer - it is they that are being dishonest.     

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

You should spend you bandwidth on setting these guys straight

If they posted here, I would. But they're not the ones posting ridiculous pseudoscientific crap here.

[olofscience 420]

22 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Seriously, tho . . . it's not just about us humans.

Even if it was, brenthutch probably won't mind eating just jellyfish for seafood and roaches for lunch as biodiversity doesn't seem to matter to him - the world is greening after all!

</sarcasm>

[ryoder 1,380]

On 3/14/2021 at 1:11 PM, Phil1111 said:

"Bobby Outten, a county manager in the Outer Banks, delivered two pieces of bad news at a recent public meeting. Avon, a town with a few hundred full-time residents, desperately needed at least $11 million to stop its main road from washing away. And to help pay for it, Dare County wanted to increase Avon’s property taxes, in some cases by almost 50 percent.

Fark.com has a link to this story with the one-liner:

Sam Kinison would have had an apt suggestion

LOL!

[brenthutch 383]

21 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Your exact words were, "

/collapse that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet "AND" its inhabitants?

A simple yes or no will suffice but feel free to elaborate.

That's a double-parallel question. As in an immediate concern/fear for the planet's safety OR its inhabitants. Anytime someone uses "and" in a question with more than one issue, but asks for one answer - it is they that are being dishonest.     

I originally thought to just say “planet” but then I knew that some pendant would take issue with that, so I added “its inhabitants”

olof is being too clever by half.

[mistercwood 287]

49 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

olof is being too clever by half.

Someone had to pick up the slack.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Humans, plants, animals, insects, bees

Entire ecosystems will cease to exist!! Yes, of course! Hence the name: Cease to Exist!!!  It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? An eco-revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the eco-revolution.” Wait, sorry, flashback to the nineties.. 

Seriously, tho . . . it's not just about us humans.

I never said it was. What I did propose was that if you play time frame games, as Brent does, you can always claim a winning argument.

[Phil1111 905]

[BIGUN 1,042]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I never said it was.

Well shit, I was slow on the uptake. 

[brenthutch 383]

According to the IPCC, global warming has lead to no significant trend in floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires.  That leaves sea level rise......what does the IPCC say about sea level rise?  Let’s check in.

”The IPCC-endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm finds a warming Antarctica results in more precipitation locked up as ice on the continent. This contributes to reducing sea levels: a -1.2 mm/year⁻¹ mitigation of sea level rise over the next 80 years.”

 

[BIGUN 1,042]

26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 Let’s check in.

15 fucking years of this same circular discussion. It's like dealing with someone who really really needs rehab. They're never going to learn another way until they are receptive to another way. I just can't do this anymore, so I'm going to AL-AGAW. It's a safe place for me to understand why the loved ones of us who come to AL-AGAW are in despair, feeling hopeless, unable to believe that things can ever change. We want our lives to be different, but nothing we have done, said, shared or tried  has brought about change in those we love that are deniers.  The deniers come from all walks of life; young or old, rich or poor, man or woman. Deniers are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children or grandparents, whose denial causes pain and fear for all who love them. 

[olofscience 420]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

According to the IPCC

Your reputation here has been so busted that hanging it on the IPCC coattails won't do a thing to save it.

In this post, we have:

• no sources, just appeal to authority of the IPCC (because his own reputation is busted) - IPCC sea level page is here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/sea-level-rise/
  • a more detailed report from the IPCC is here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/sea-level-rise/
• cherry-picking, even if increased ice accumulation contributes -1.7mm/year, since 1993 sea levels have been rising for 3mm/year

Summary: brenthutch is full of shit as usual, now he's desperate enough to cherry pick and misquote the IPCC to make his points. You know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That IPCC.