|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..12~13~14~15~16..58..99..140..181..222..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
MaxfieldsMagic Inner circle Instead of practicing, I made 3009 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-18 22:21, rockwall wrote: There's no contradiction. One year of data is but a point on a much larger chart - a small timeframe deliberately chosen because you find the data supportive. Expand your focus to a larger data sample, such as the trends of the last 25 years, or even the last 150 years "taken together," and you'll see a line that goes up and down year to year, but the upward trend is undeniable.
Now appearing nightly in my basement.
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-18 23:59, MaxfieldsMagic wrote: That's how folks do it, on both sides...choose the data that supports you, and ignore the rest.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Down to guilt by association, Lobo.
How about the way that climate scientists do it? Liking or disliking an expert's opinion, doesn't recruit them to your "side".
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
I'm not sure what you mean by guilt by association here. I agree that liking or disliking an expert's opinion doesn't recruit the expert to one's side; however, the side that one is on often tends to determine which experts are liked.
More directly, if you peruse the thread for the last day or so, you'll see that MM, who accused Rockwall of deliberately choosing information to provide because he finds the data supportive, in turn posted what he thought was "supportive" information about tornados in Virginia. When confronted with evidence that suggested that the actual data didn't support his claim, he first 1) denied the facts ("Sorry. Not true. Don't know what website you're looking at..."); then, when confronted with unimpeachable sources, 2) moved the goalposts (Well, ok, we had lots of tornados way back when, too, but they weren't that big), then 3) dismissed the whole metric - HIS own metric introduced that very day when the claim appeared to support the AGW hypotheses (Why are you focusing on the tornados, anyway?). No guilt by association involved; just describing a rhetorical device that's not limited to one side or the other - quote the stuff that supports your position; ignore the rest. So, who is it that was choosing what information to provide based on whether or not he finds the data supportive, again? By the way, along the way, he picked up some support from you (Who ever said that AGW would lead to more tornados, anyway?)
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-19 00:08, LobowolfXXX wrote: But what is being suggested is simply to look at a much larger time frame- back to when records were first kept, as in the sea level data I cited above which shows that the increased sea level is undeniable evidence that the earth is warming. |
|||||||||
Bob1Dog Inner circle Wife: It's me or this houseful of 1159 Posts |
Yikes, don't y'alls have jobs or something? Geeze so much time wasted here not solving anything. Yikes again. Carry on for my continued amusement.
What if the Hokey Pokey really IS what it's all about?
My neighbor rang my doorbell at 2:30 a.m. this morning, can you believe that, 2:30 a.m.!? Lucky for him I was still up playing my drums. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-19 01:38, mastermindreader wrote:... In which case the planet is cooling and its rotation is slowing ... basic physics. here's a readable discussion of the warming observations and argument. The longer term thermal issue is described here toward the bottom of the page.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Lobo, I'm disputing the whole notion of "sides". Lots of people have opinions and we can conveniently group them in a number of ways--by conclusion seems to be the most obvious. But they aren't on the "same side" in any interesting sense. Any more than all men are on the same side, or all Californians with Spanish as a first language are.
By assigning sides, it becomes much too tempting even more easy to dismiss everyone because of one or two wacky members.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
MaxfieldsMagic Inner circle Instead of practicing, I made 3009 Posts |
Quote:
Actually, if you go back and look at my original post where I mentioned the frequency of tornados (something that folks here in Northern Virginia will support, by the way, based on the increased disruption to our lives over the last several years), you'll see that it was just one of many "anecdotes" I mentioned. The post was a response to an assertion that because this year has been low in hurricanes (limited data set which, BTW, was compiled before the massive typhoon in India), implying that AGW is not supported by observable facts. In every one of your responses, you focused on the tornados alone and ignored the others. Again, divide and conquer. Pull back your focus a bit and look at the big picture and long term trends. That's what the scientists do, because that's what matters.
Now appearing nightly in my basement.
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-19 12:26, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Nice try at changing what I said by deliberately leaving out the rest of my sentence. It said "back to when records were first kept," (approximately the mid 19th Century) NOT back to the beginning of the planet. The facts show that the planet has been warming and the sea level rising during the second half of the twentieth century at faster rates than from the mid 19th to the mid 20th. If you are going to quote me, please don't selectively edit what I wrote. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-19 12:55, MaxfieldsMagic wrote: I "focused on" tornadoes because 1) I figured it would be the easiest thing to check on (maybe somewhere there's a government agency that quantifies the historic damage that pine beetles have done on an annual basis and provides those results on a website, but it might take a while to find), and 2) They were local to you (as opposed to Indian typhoons) - they were within your firsthand experience. I didn't look for anything else and dismiss it because it didn't fit any agenda of mine; I just grabbed one of your assertions and explored it. Not to disprove it, but because I was curious. Here's how you closed that post: "Again, anecdotes - but anecdotes that are consistent with scientists' hypotheses. Personally, I see a lot more evidence confirming those hypotheses than I do for many other things I'm asked to believe in." When confronted with the possibility that in fact, one of those pieces of evidence that you thought was "consistent with scientists' hypotheses," your first response was to first tell me that my claim - pulled from sources like a government emergency response information websites and a regional climate center - was wrong. The data didn't fit your belief, so they were immediately dismissed. Your second response was to move the goalposts, backing off of the "tornadoes in Virginia were unheard of" claim to latch onto MasterMindreader's lifeline (Well, ok, there WERE regular tornadoes in Virginia going back for decades, but these are REALLY BIG tornadoes). And your third response is to completely disregard the significance of the metric that YOU introduced. It's ok to examine the frequency of tornadoes in Virginia as long as the data support your position, but if they don't, then you've got to look at the big picture, question why I'm focused on the tornadoes instead of the pine beetles, etc. Now, that's all fine. I certainly recognize that there are many, many data. I'm just particularly interested in the question, "What does one do who encounters evidence that he was unaware of and which don't support his belief on the issue?" And the answer for most people - apparently including you; let's just be honest about it, - regardless of their position on AGW, is that it doesn't slow anyone down a bit.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Still playing both Casandra and Polonius? It's the audience that decides whether the predictions are correct and the advice is sagacious or specious.
Do we need to vote how to interpret the words "heat death"? It's a darn good equivocation if asked about "the future" Anyway back to the actual matter (not the egos) at hand - the notion of "negative" carbon emissions got my attention in the cited page. What do you think?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
MaxfieldsMagic Inner circle Instead of practicing, I made 3009 Posts |
Lobowolf - although I'm not backing away from my observation that tornados in Northern Virginia have increased, because they most definitely have over the last 15 years, I did credit you with citing your sources, which gave some historical background of which I was unaware. That's great. I'll admit (and did) that you introduced data of which I was unaware, in regards to one specific point. However, it certainly doesn't erase my personal observations living in Nothern Virginia and having to go through the "to the basement" drill with increasing frequency. There's something about having the lives of your wife and children at stake that focuses your attention on reality, as opposed to "he said, she said" politics.
My fear is that we're going to wait until everyone has these same personal observations before we decide to act. And then it will likely be too late.
Now appearing nightly in my basement.
|
|||||||||
Steve_Mollett Inner circle Eh, so I've made 3006 Posts |
If the bill doesn't come due in their lifetime, they don't care.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth. - Albert Camus |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Norman Spinrad tried to have part of this dialog some time ago. His more recent published effort He Walked Among Us got pretty good reviews.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
The Purple Sage opened his mouth and moved his tongue and so spake to them and he said: - RA Wilson and Robert Shea, The Eye in the Pyramid, Book One of The Illuminatus Trilogy |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Please look at the historical climate graphs in this article. Warm is better than cold, but unfortunately, as far as can be determined, warm periods are usually shorter than ice ages.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
From the foresight place: Amazing sci-fi link and now re-framed as fiction
Quote:
From December 7th, 2009 at 10:07 PM Very interesting. But I was now aware that trees had secrets and that anyone had learned how to talk to trees. Waterboarding??
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-20 19:07, Woland wrote: Quote:
On 2013-10-19 01:38, mastermindreader wrote: I don't think your time frames are large enough Woland. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Love how you intentionally misread what I write. As I made clear in my follow up post, "back to when records were first kept" refers to official climate records dating back to the mid 19th Century.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..12~13~14~15~16..58..99..140..181..222..224~225~226 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |