Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread

Cal wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Cal wrote:Your diagram is, as expected, a laughable, infantile and ill-informed collection of gradeschool nonsense.

All this grandstanding.

What you're seeing in action is this;

Nope - it's Cal once again being caught telling obvious lies/untruths, and then when it's demonstrated to him trying to either change the goalposts or suggest that somehow he was "technically" correct and you're just being difficult and then try and move discussion on as the matter is "settled".

Truth and facts don't matter to him. Ensuring the preservation of the narrative is.

I'll let Winckle bring it home...

Standard.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:This is what Cal has been reduced to? Posting a comic?

I guess that's what happens when you keep getting debunked. You run out of actual arguments.

He's basically descended into becoming a wannabe Fox News reporter: masturbating over some supposed scandal that nobody outside of his particular bubble gives a gooseberry fool about.

Oooohhhh

Responding to more ‘winter weather’ headlines

"...The science does not exist to make detailed forecasts for temperature and snowfall for the end of this month, let alone for December or even the winter as a whole with these types of forecasts only able to provide an indication of how our weather might change, or be different from normal, (i.e. warmer, colder, wetter, drier) across the whole UK or even Europe..."

- Met Office News Blog, 17th November 2012.

Can this be the same Met Office who were to be found advising the IPCC on long term predictions for the implications of (man-made) climate change?

Met Office Hadley Centre aims to:

• Use computer models to simulate the differences between global and regional climates, the changes seen over the last 100 years, and to predict changes over the next 100 years
• Attribute recent changes in climate to specific factors

We undertake studies of the global climate using similar models of the atmosphere, as are used for the prediction of weather.

Oh, fancy that. But I forget: Climate is not weather. Of course not. Unless the models say it is.

Hi Cal.

Since you've consistently shown yourself unable to engage in meaningful debate other than cherry-picking segments of other peoples posts to answer flippantly, why not forgo the pretense of having any sort of conversation and just set up a blog elsewhere? You'd still be able to post random snippets of other peoples work in order to pretend you know what you're talking about and won't have to put up with those damn posters pointing horrible holes in your argument and bringing up nasty contradictions you've made in earlier posts.

Just a thought.

Because no-one will read the blog and he wont get the reaction he so desperately craves.

I find it amazing you'd suggest a guy who bigged up Vampire Rain and Resident Evil 6 could be someone who desperately needs attention.

You could try and read those links you've posted (although I expect you've just found them someone else, seen then agreed with your viewpoint and reguritated without even using what limited critical thinking ability you have)

It doesn't say (and you've so quickly lept to) that you can't model short term weather.

We wrote only last week that it seems that it is the time of year again for colourful headlines about an impending big freeze.

We had them at this time last year, which prompted our Chief Executive to write an opinion piece in The Times. Now we have very similar stories again, with the front page of the Daily Express declaring last week ‘Coldest winter freeze on way’ and warning that temperatures are set to plunge as low as -15C and again a week on we have another front page from the Daily Express which declares ‘Coldest winter for 100 years on way‘. with the UK expected to grind to a halt within weeks.

These longer range forecasts for December and January have not come from the Met Office and a look at our current 30 day forecast provides perhaps a more measured assessment of our weather prospects to the middle of December:

As is usual, there are uncertainties in the forecast for this period. Whilst changeable conditions are considered more likely initially, some signs are beginning to emerge for more settled conditions to develop over parts of Europe. The signal is that these conditions may extend towards the UK during the first part of December. So, although there are no strong indications of any particular weather type predominating, on balance, colder and drier-than-average conditions are favoured over the recent mild and damp weather many areas have experienced.

What is clear from the forecast is that although there are some signs that after a rather unsettled period, the weather may become colder and drier than we have seen recently there is still a lot of uncertainty in the forecast which again the article has failed to pick up on and report to its readers.

The science does not exist to make detailed forecasts for temperature and snowfall for the end of this month, let alone for December or even the winter as a whole with these types of forecasts only able to provide an indication of how our weather might change, or be different from normal, (i.e. warmer, colder, wetter, drier) across the whole UK or even Europe

Ultimately, we’re heading into winter and it is perfectly possible that we will see the whole range of weather that we get in winter at some point over the coming months, including snow and freezing temperatures, but also heavy rain, windy weather and mild conditions too.

Our five day forecasts and warnings will provide you with the best possible guidance on any periods of cold weather, frost or the likelihood of snow, giving detailed local information across the UK to help you make the most of the weather over the coming months.

The first link (rather than just the sentence you've so helpfully cherry picked to infer) doesn't say there's no such thing as modelling - but that headlines are overstating the certainty of the trends and date that the models show. Certainly by stating figures such as "-15c on the way".

The second link says - hey we use modelling.

So, what exactly do you think you've shown? Beyond the fact that Daily Express is alarmist in it's headlines and distorts science?

Beyond yet more evidence of you consistent ineptitude?

Hi Cal.

Since you've consistently shown yourself unable to engage in meaningful debate other than cherry-picking segments of other peoples posts to answer flippantly, why not forgo the pretense of having any sort of conversation and just set up a blog elsewhere? You'd still be able to post random snippets of other peoples work in order to pretend you know what you're talking about and won't have to put up with those damn posters pointing horrible holes in your argument and bringing up nasty contradictions you've made in earlier posts.

Just a thought.

Because

PsychicSykes wrote:I find it amazing you'd suggest a guy who bigged up Vampire Rain and Resident Evil 6 could be someone who desperately needs attention.

It's like you don't even read my posts

It's important to spread anything that shows the "dominant" position is wrong [even if it's contradictory about why it's wrong]. (It's in the thread title. Resist the majority of opinion)

You are dealing with someone desperate to be viewed to be counter mainstream. As rasing questions. Someone challenging preconceptions. A thorn in the side of the big guys.

It's about how Cal views himself (or more likely wants others to view him), but sadly lacks the critical thinking ability to do so effectively, and just undermines himself by continued, demonstratable, idiocy (See: BBC Licence fee debacle in the Paedo thread).

It's all about his desperate need to been seen/validated by others - it shows in games as well, but since that's all subjective opinion rather than logical arguments it's a bit different.

Even now he's convinced himself that everyone thinks he's a twat because of his opinion (you're just trying to shout me down!), rather than his behavoir. And that must mean they're threatened/challenged/worried by what his opinion means right?

Hell even recently he's convinced himself it's a rabbled I've whipped up rather than a large group of people independently realising "Hey. You're an idiot". (Full Disclosure I've offer Skarjo a blowie in response to being awesome, and I did call in Winckle to "bring things home above" - but that's it. )

Standard.

Am I the only one who wants cal to set up a gaming based RTC thread it would be amazing.

PsychicSykes wrote:I find it amazing you'd suggest a guy who bigged up Vampire Rain and Resident Evil 6 could be someone who desperately needs attention.

Look, we may not agree with Cal's position or debate techniques, but assuming he has HIV just because he's gay is completely out of order. And I don't see how Viagra would help. If anything, that would only make the problem worse.

Bots are so insensitive these days.

Would a gay man really want a fake vag though.

Fizheuer Zieheuer wrote:...not like he actually reads anyone else's posts itt, right?

I do read almost all the posts here, even the most abusive. I'm not legally-bound to reply to each and every one. Discussion of the issues is the point.

In this end this is just a quiet corner of the forum to read and post whatever you like about CAGW, the politics of CAGW and other climate-related issues (including things like shale gas and so-called 'renewables') - CAGW is a huge issue of the day for all of us in one way or another, whether you are pro- or anti-. I won't make a fuss if you want to post pro-CAGW comments here all day - in fact, please do. Just remember I'm equally entitled to disagree with you, unless of course you feel (as do the BBC) that, as a sceptic, I'm only entitled to 'due' equality on the issue.

It's been suggested several times that all of this is just attention-seeking on my part. The truth is far more mundane. CAGW is simply an issue I wish to highlight; I feel very strongly about it, in exactly the same way some people feel very strongly about other social or political issues.

I read far too many interesting arguments from voices critical of CAGW to feel that I could dismiss them.

Cal wrote:

Fizheuer Zieheuer wrote:...not like he actually reads anyone else's posts itt, right?

I do read almost all the posts here, even the most abusive. I'm not legally-bound to reply to each and every one. Discussion of the issues is the point.

Is it now? I'll remember you said that

In this end this is just a quiet corner of the forum to read and post whatever you like about CAGW, the politics of CAGW and other climate-related issues (including things like shale gas and so-called 'renewables')

Where's the discussion in here? (And the italics shows how open you are to other ideas.)

CAGW is a huge issue of the day for all of us in one way or another, whether you are pro- or anti-. I won't make a fuss if you want to post pro-CAGW comments here all day - in fact, please do.

Still not seeing dicussions.

Just remember I'm equally entitled to disagree with you

Nope. You're not. If one position is logic, rationale and consistent - and the other is insance, hypocritical and changes more often than the wind.
You're entitled to your opinion - but that doesn't mean that opinion is equally valid as every other opinion. It will only carry due weight or respect that it deserves. And that is, as usual, what you are unable to accept or comprehend.

We're back to (staggering I know) that fact you are unable to get past your delusion that your opinion should carry equal weightPerfering instead to see bias, or shouting down, rather than have to admit the extent of your inadequacy.

FZ (I think) posted a wonderful link explaining why "I'm entitled to my opinion" is the last resort of the desperate. Nice to see you paid attention to him

, unless of course you feel (as do the BBC) that, as a sceptic, I'm only entitled to 'due' equality on the issue.

A) Stop miss using the word sceptic. Many people have explained this to you. You think you're proving a point? All your doing is consistently demonstrating a point blank refusual to learn.
B) Yep. You're entitled to 'due' weight, respect and everything else as above.

It's been suggested several times that all of this is just attention-seeking on my part. The truth is far more mundane. CAGW is simply an issue I wish to highlight;

Not discuss? Or debate?
Well it's nice all the people that have pointed this out endlessly are corrected.

I feel very strongly about it, in exactly the same way some people feel very strongly about other social or political issues.

And yet not a single other person is arrogant enough to have a single devouted blog thread...or so incapable or unwilling to engage in any discussion

I read far too many interesting arguments from voices critical of CAGW to feel that I could dismiss them.

[/quote]

And yet you dimiss or ignore far more interesting arguments from voices supportive of CAGW.