Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

It is interesting to note that not one single climate alarmist prediction has ever come true. Only in religion do people with a 0% accuracy rate still manage to hang on to their followers and their credibility.

 

We can change the word “assumption” to something else if you have a recommendation. All IPCC predictions have assumptions of future emissions. What would you prefer we call them? Sagan chose a scenario and described it in succinct detail.

It doesn’t matter how we try to change what he actually said. No matter how we twist it it is wrong if you accept the IPCC predictions. But he was very clear. The man was a professional communicator as well as a scientist. It’s unlikely he didn’t choose his words very carefully.

 

Your posts have been anything BUT factual. You repeated a headline you read on some science denialist website, and never bothered to check if it was accurate. it has happened to you several time. But it could happen to anybody. I remember it happened to me ONCE. That was quite a few years ago. After that, I learned not to trust headlines. You'll be fine if you learn from it and don't let it happen again. When it happened to me I didn't look for excuses. I admitted my mistake. Maybe you could also try that. It's up to you, though.

 

They can use a different definition of "woman" if they want. Science doesn't have a strict definition. And if it makes them happy... it doesn't affect me at all. I don't know how you think that affects you. Most people who complain about it just want to... complain. They can't see other people being happy.

Off topic, anyway...

 

Please explain who your "alarmists" are, and document their erroneous predictions.

... We’ve really evolved mostly past denialism because the impacts of climate change are staring us in the face. They’ve become so obvious we can see them play out in real time. And there is a resurgence, a superficial resurgence of denial, like on social media, Twitter, for example. But it’s not real in the sense that the actual public survey work that’s been done shows that it remains a fairly small fraction of the American public, roughly 10 percent, who are climate dismissives. So in reality, most people have moved on. The vast majority of the public gets it. They understand because they can see it, they can feel it. It’s not like the fossil fuel industry has given up. They’re still doing everything they can to prevent us from moving on. But they’ve largely moved away from [outright] denialism toward these softer denialist tactics.

What do you call it if it’s not climate denialism anymore? What are we facing now?

So there are other D-words. There’s delay. There’s division...

[https://www.vox.com/climate/23885799/climate-change-denial-fossil-fuel-companies-exxon-mobil]​

 

My posts accurately represent what Sagan said. You edit his comments. I have never seen that video anywhere but from the posters I have quoted from on PF. You and Bowerbird. She is where I first saw the video.

I do not look at “denialist websites”. Why would I? I’m not a denialist. That’s why everything I post can be verified to be accurate. It’s all based on evidence. The evidence Sagan was incorrect comes from the IPCC. That is why when I see Sagan’s claims it’s obvious they are incorrect. Because they conflict with the IPCC predictions drastically.

So now you are inferring the IPCC is a science denialist website? Reading their reports is how I know Sagan was incorrect. You apparently need to read more of the IPCC and less of whatever you are consuming. Because you have now thrown the IPCC and their predictions under the bus and driven back and forth over them repeatedly.

I set a trap and you fell for it. You chose Sagan’s claims from 1985 over current IPCC reports. That’s fine, but it shows you do not value the scientific method and prefer dogma and personal opinions over evidence.

Sagan was wrong. You are wrong. I was right because I accept current IPCC predictions to be more accurate than predictions made in 1985.

It was fun seeing you trash the IPCC. Thanks for playing. I also appreciate your false claims and thinly veiled personal attacks. When I’ve posted actual numbers from the IPCC showing Sagan’s error and you come back with a post of pure fallacy it’s exactly what I planned. It shows your position is bankrupt and mine is based on solid evidence.

 

So you still don't understand the difference between "level" and "rate". Ok... Maybe I was wrong to think that you would learn from your mistakes.

 

Imagination is good if it makes them happy. I think the problem is more with people who can't stand it that others are happy about something that doesn't affect them... or ANYBODY... in the least. If they want to say they're women... let them be happy.

Off topic, though....

 

I’ve described the difference to you twice and you still don’t understand? Here you go. One more time.

 

It took Edison 47 tries before he got it right, so he should have stopped after one?

 

A statistic is never performed that way. They are allowing the person who is part of the of the survey to choose himself. It allows the opportunity to cherry pick the studies. On top of that people are discouraged from submitting papers because they might be criticized. It should be a random survey where the scientist can express his opinion without anyone except the surveyor knowing that opinion.

Now show me a real study which actually asks the questions. You should at least wonder why there are no such studies.

 

He wasn't make predictions...

 

Please don't confuse "simple" with "simple-minded". Science has never given a CRAP about what people believe. They just give you facts. Look up this guy called... "Galileo". NOBODY believed the Earth orbited the Sun. But science told him they were wrong. Guess who ended up being right: Science or what people believed? You get two opportunities to guess.

 

You been sleeping under a rock for the last sixty years? And again for the four thousandth time by now no one denies that climate changes. The question is whether or not an increase of one part per ten thousandth in a trace atmospheric gas should cause us to give the government complete control of our lives.

 

You did? Great! As a matter of fact I was about to amend my post to say that I'm SURE you probably DID know the difference, but continued to act as if you didn't so you could avoid admitting that what you attributed to Sagan was made up. You would be a much worthwhile poster if you used these obvious mistakes to enhance your credibility by simply admitting you misquoted him.

Of course, that's up to you, though....

 

I’ve made no mistakes and I’ve not made anything up about Sagan.

Now you are being intentionally dishonest. Thanks. It enhances my credibility when you are dishonest.

 

Professional communicator or not I would have put my hand up at that point for clarification.

e.g. in Physics: acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity. Sounds a little like "rate of increase"?

In the absence of the final word from the author himself my interpretation of bold in your post could equally be that he meant that the rate of C02 release into the atmosphere would be increasing.

I guess it's 38 years too late to find out

 

It is absolutely a valid point of comparison to the topic.

You don't get to make up and change the definition of words. Why don't people just make up and change the definition of the word climate?

 

It's the other half thats your huckleberry.

We share a large amount of our DNA with pigs but that doesn't make us swine

 

Absolutely not unless we throw physics out the window. An increase is just that. A change. An increase is not velocity. Rate of increase may sound like velocity but they are completely different animals. An increase in the rate of increase could be velocity. But a rate of increase is not velocity. The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 in 1985 was about 1.12 ppm/year.

Yes. He based his scenario on a 1.12 ppm/year rate of increase. I’ve been through all that several times with Golem.

But no, release rates into the atmosphere can’t increase if you don’t burn more fossil fuel. This means acceleration (if that’s the word you wish to use) of increase can’t occur either. Neither can the rate of increase change. Unless you know of some physical process or feedback loop the IPCC is unaware of.

Are you saying that burning of fossil fuels doesn’t increase atmospheric CO2 and that if we stopped increasing fossil fuel usage in 1985, atmospheric CO2 still would reach 1000-1200 ppm by 2100?

And as I already pointed out, at the “acceleration” of that period, it’s impossible to reach 1000-1200 ppm by 2100. And the IPCC says that is the concentration needed to produce 4.4°C of warming.

If we wanted to twist his statement to make him look correct it would make more sense to claim he meant Fahrenheit, not Celsius.

It’s simply impossible to cap emissions at 1985 levels and get to 1000-1200 ppm atmospheric CO2 by 2100. Or are you claiming “rate of burning” really means “acceleration of burning”? I can’t conflate “rate” with “acceleration” personally. Rate denotes a measure or quantity, not acceleration.

 

I'll reply but I admit I'm not reading the post. Its pretty depressing watching the fall of a once very articulate and knowing at some point it will happen to us all..

Nothing but love bro, I'll keep you in my prayers

 

Irony aside

Believe what gets you through the day, week, month and years..

Their all relatively short, I promise you, all this bullshit will still be around long after we take the final breath! The real question is, was all this social media crap worth the life you gave to it

 

Many ideologues still unable to come to grips with the science, scientists, and the overwhelming, blatant , scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change are also election deniers.

"The concept of global warming was created
by and for the Chinese in order to make
U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."


"We won. We won in a landslide.
This was a landslide!”​

 

And many LWers practice knee-jerk decision making; if anyone on the right even hints at a fact, it automatically becomes a lie to devoted LWers.
Your idiotic quote (sorry, the top one, since both are idiotic). Is a figment of LW spin.

 

I don't confuse snarkiness for intelligence either so maybe this is what you give up.


It's okay I'm glad you're giving up on your stupid religion or at least evangelizing for it. Everyone pretty much in the entire Western world is sick of hearing about it.