Topic: This should give FirstAscent a stroke... - page 8. (Read 7373 times)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/15/fox-falls-for-tabloid-science/190630

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/03/25/wmo-says-global-warming-accelerated-in-past-decade/

http://news.discovery.com/earth/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.html

Or perhaps because linear regression wouldn't fit '79-'85? Those "conveniently selected" datapoints are from here. You're welcome to build your own graph. To recap:

skeptic:

biased:

Show some scientific integrity, man.

My bad. Now I just see a conveniently selected section of historical temperatures which are rising, and some denier fitted a sine curve to it, conveniently, because linear regression wouldn't have been favorable to his point.

Perhaps you're seeing a different image than I am? There's no volcano in that picture, it's a graph of temperatures.

Why are we looking at a volcano?

FWIW, I found this graph:


They fit a sine curve to the data, which is interesting, but will need more time to see if it bears out.
A quote from the article I found it in:

He's misinformed as well, in this instance. But I really did mean uninformed - meaning he's not really informed about climate change science.

tsk... Do I have to teach you English, too? If the above statement is incorrect, he is not uninformed, but misinformed.

I suggest you stop relying on the libertarian sites giving you the news. Please do read up on current news - not selectively filtered news that latches on to a dated erroneous report. MoonShadow, I'm sorry to say - you're uninformed.

As I said earlier, pay attention to credible reporting (and there's a lot of it). Until then, this conversation is over. You will come back and respond, I know. But there comes a point when one just has to wash his hands of a discussion when the opposite party is pulling material known to have been discredited.

You assume that I am uninformed on these topics, despite my own words.  You are unchangable, as am I.  As I have said, I actually believe that AGW is more likely true than not, but it still doesn't change reality.  The predictive models have repeatedly proven flawed.  There has been zero aggregate warming in a decade or so, and more recently much data to imply that co2 isn't a significant greenhouse gas anyway, or at least there are some mitigating factors we have yet to include into the predictive models.  Furthermore, even if the models are correct in the long term, most of the warming is expected to occur towards the poles, due to how the greenhouse effect actually works.  As far as land mass and growing seasons go, that's a net positive.  And don't hand me any crap about possible changes in the water cycle, that bs has been going on for millinia.  The Salt Flats were an inland sea only about 500 years ago, with the surrounding areas, now desert, as lush and wet as the American Midwest is today.  (Which is to say, not very, but not a desert either)  We have the technology to turn the Salt Flats back into an inland sea again, with the resulting benefits of dramaticly improving the surrounding states' annual rainfall, but we won't do it.  We have the technology to 'seed' the Pacific Ocean with iron fillings, inducing alge blooms at will to sequester co2 at the bottom of the ocean for hundreds of years at least, but we won't do it.  We have the ability to construct safe fission plants capable of nearly replacing oil as an energy source, but we won't do it.  It's not about mitigating climate change, it's about political ideology.

MoonShadow,

When you too want to spend some time reading up on the subject of climate science, ice ages, species migration, and so on, instead of Ron Paul's playbook and the drivel spewed from libertarian think tanks, I've got some reading recommendations for you.

Until then, you're entitled to your opinion on the osmosis of knowledge.

In the interests of impartiality, I have considered that, because I always consider the possibility that intelligent people I encounter might be the first unbiased and educated person that I meet.  Unfortunately, you didn't pass that test, either.  The only unbiased people that I have ever meet are those who are too ignorant or too stupid to form a coherent opinion about a topic.  Anyone who has made any attempt to self-educate invariablely chooses a side long before they are fully informed; which, in turn, colors their further assimilation of information.  Also, the side that they choose is, in my own experience, pre-determined by their pre-existing ideologies.

I am no exception.  Sorry, but neither are you.  I'm an INTP, and part of that personality type is that I'm more able, and inclined, to re-examine my own perspectives and conclusions on any given topic than any other personality type in the Myers-Briggs metric spectrum.  Therefore, no one is less biased, by nature, than one such as myself.  That said, I've found that, even as often I as do it; it has proven to be a very rare event that I would change my own mind concerning any topic.  I generally believe that most people can't alter their perspectives past a certain age, somewhere around 35 or so; even when presented with quite a bit of evidence.  The cognative dissonance might be significant, even stressful, but old people cannot change.  They can only pretend to change.

This is why these kinds of theological debates are not really conducted in public in order to convince the other party that they are incorrect, but to present the arguments to the yet unbiased reader in a manner that does not trigger the natural bullsh*t filters that raise red flags whenever we are directly preached to.  And this, FirstAscent, is why libertarianism is so very common among the young & internet savvy; for this has been utilized as a deliberate tactic by libertarians for over a decade now.  It's already too late to stop it, so whether you choose to participate personally in the destruction of your own worldview or not is already irrelevant.  Everyday libertarian 'trolls' like us have been presenting these arguments across all of the Internet for so long, and for so often, that young people (who can still be convinced) have been gravitating to the libertarian worldview year by year; simply because they are the very people that can look at these arguments objectively and decide which set they find to be more credible, more likely, and therefore more trustworthy.

And there it is, I've just exposed the entire goal of both of the Ron Paul campaigns (and pretty much his entire congressional career) as well as the reason for all of these libertarian leaning websites and think tanks dedicated to all of these various topics, such as Watts Up With That and Reason.com.  They exist to give the seeker some place to go to branch out and learn more, once they have already decided that we are correct, and further arm them to do what then comes naturally, and spread the memes in the same manner that they received them.

Your ideology has already lost, and I believe that I will live to see the rise and dominion of libertarianism in the public sphere within my own lifetime.

Since I've noted a general deficiency in your knowledge about ice ages, (making you susceptible to theories convenient for libertarians), I recommend the following two books. I read these both before I ever had any knowledge of this forum or any real desire or political position on climate change. Neither book is written from the perspective of discussing AGW or GW. I can recommend other reading for you as well. If and when you've read more, feel free to pick up the discussion again.

www.amazon.com/After-Ice-Age-Glaciated-America/dp/0226668126/

www.amazon.com/Cro-Magnon-Birth-First-Modern-Humans/dp/1608194051/

Have you considered that my political ideology has nothing to do with my views on the environment? (I do note that state ownership of production and resources correlates strongly to pollution and mismanagement, but that's beside the point.)

This changes nothing with regard to the truth of myrkul's strong opinions on the subject combined with his general lack of knowledge on the subject. It doesn't matter what you feel is at stake here. But there is a truth here - myrkul's opinion on the matter doesn't match his knowledge on the subject. Using one's political ideology to drive how you read science will always be a failure. Unfortunately, for myrkul, that is his method.

Have you considered that I don't use a political ideology to look for sources? Rather, my political ideology is derived from my general study.