[hurley_108]

neopundit neopundit:

How did I know that clicking on this thread for the first time would reveal a Global Warming debate?

Courtesy Bart's trolling, yea.

$1:

Let me guess the argument: North has early freeze = No global warming, am I right?

If only it were that straightforward - it wouldn't have gone seven pages.

[Blue_Nose]

Now the thread is about Bart being an ignorant liar... until he actually responds to any of the arguments revealing said ignorance, that is.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Perhaps because what this represents, in the larger cxontext, is an attack on rationality on science itself. It can't help but be noticed that a lot of the most fervent criticism of AGW comes from the US--by far the most Chirstian country in the First Wolrd--and that many of its most ardent opponents are right-wing Christians. People who think that ideology should trump science.

In many ways this debate is similar, but lesser, to the Intelligent Design issues of a couple of years ago. Maybe the Christians have spotted a winner with AGW--a much more complex issue that doesn't have the hundred-odd years of success that Darwinism has had.

If you look at a lot of the criticism of anthropogenic global warming here, it isn't based on rationality. The opposition is rarely scientific. Indeed, when confronted by science, the opponents tend to print ridiculous posts about hockey pucks, make assertions about the size of Al Gore's house or print ridiculous claims like some of yours.

In fact, most of the campaign against climate change is a complete end-run around the science in a cynical media campaign dedicated to using rhetorical, as opposed to rational, tools to influence people on the issue. It's a campaign designed to spread ignorance; to deceive, to inveigle, to obfuscate.

That's why I care about it.

AGW must be valid and true all the time in every circumstance or else it is not valid and true.

If it is only valid during the summer then the most likely cause of heat would be summer.

AGW proponents don't get the intellectual right to claim that unusual instances of warming are attributable to AGW while conveniently ignoring unusual instances of cooling.

Numure is the only person on this thread so far standing by the logically required stance for AGW that it MUST affect every event to be valid and true. He also refused to be sucked into my very obvious little game so I have to give him credit for that, too.

You other folks here are making the point that Sasquatch has repeatedly made that AGW proponents cherry pick their "evidence" by ignoring or discounting cooling trends and events.

See, the correct response to my original comment of

$1:

It's freezing early because of global warming.

would be Yes, it is.

It is completely counterintuitive and it is completely silly on first blush, but if you're going to argue in favour of AGW at all then you MUST consistently attribute AGW effects to all unusual weather events.

[neopundit]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

See, if AGW is NOT affecting this early freeze then it is also not affecting anything else.

For AGW to be a valid assertion then it must be true and valid all the time and in every measurable circumstance.

If AGW affected the global climate then it must affect the global climate.

YOU do not get to pick and choose what event are or are not attributed to AGW because ALL events must be affected by AGW as all climate and weather events are part of the same system.

Let me preface this by saying I didn't bother reading anything but this last page of posts.


Bart, you're not seriously going to argue that a single event can be used as evidence against a trend, are you?

[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Now the thread is about Bart being an ignorant liar... until he actually responds to any of the arguments revealing said ignorance, that is.

I neither lied not demonstrated ignorance.

I merely said: It's freezing early because of global warming.

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It is completely counterintuitive and it is completely silly on first blush, but if you're going to argue in favour of AGW at all then you MUST consistently attribute AGW effects to all unusual weather events.

Ignorance - this has been countered numerous times.

[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish

$1:

Perhaps because what this represents, in the larger cxontext, is an attack on rationality on science itself. It can't help but be noticed that a lot of the most fervent criticism of AGW comes from the US--by far the most Chirstian country in the First Wolrd--and that many of its most ardent opponents are right-wing Christians. People who think that ideology should trump science.

In many ways this debate is similar, but lesser, to the Intelligent Design issues of a couple of years ago. Maybe the Christians have spotted a winner with AGW--a much more complex issue that doesn't have the hundred-odd years of success that Darwinism has had.

Actually and the truth is out there this has little to do with Christian ideology. It is political not ideological. It has to do with a well, orchestrated attempt by eurocrats to destroy their despised enemy---North american society. Naturally the NA resists this. So you have the EU/UN and NA lunatic fringe promoting CO2 AGW and the rational NA ripping it up.

Attacking CO2 AGW is not difficult due to it consisting of a preposterous theory, supported by fraudulent "studies" and ridiculous computer models. INDIA/CHINA do not comment---they just keep "shovellin' coal".

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Now the thread is about Bart being an ignorant liar... until he actually responds to any of the arguments revealing said ignorance, that is.

I neither lied not demonstrated ignorance.

I merely said: It's freezing early because of global warming.

You're wrong, and this has been established.

[sasquatch2]

neopundit wrote:

$1:

Bart, you're not seriously going to argue that a single event can be used as evidence against a trend, are you?

Okay lets just deal with this bit by bit.

What trend?

[BartSimpson]

neopundit neopundit:

Bart, you're not seriously going to argue that a single event can be used as evidence against a trend, are you?

No, but what we do have here are three people who are by default arguing that this unusual cooling event is unrelated to other events in the climate.

It can't be unrelated and only Nomure has logically stood by the AGW argument to state that, yes, this early freeze must be driven by AGW if AGW is to be argued as the dominant factor in the global climate.

Which is consistent with the AGW argument that melting ice will shut down or affect the Gulf Stream and cause the northern latitudes to get cooler. If this is true then the Arctic ice melt observed over the summer could logically be considered as resulting in an unusual cold snap.

Nomure gets this while the other three are making themselves busy arguing against me but in this case I took the pro-AGW position and here they are arguing against me and also arguing against AGW by proxy. And I'm rather enjoying this, by the way.

Think of it this way, If I suddenly agreed with Jack Layton on something I have no doubt that certain NDP folks on this site would reflexively argue against me and, by proxy, make a pretty good case against their own party for me.

Same thing.

Nomure, again, gets props for being smart enough not to play my silly game.

[neopundit]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It can't be unrelated and only Nomure has logically stood by the AGW argument to state that, yes, this early freeze must be driven by AGW if AGW is to be argued as the dominant factor in the global climate.

Which is consistent with the AGW argument that melting ice will shut down or affect the Gulf Stream and cause the northern latitudes to get cooler. If this is true then the Arctic ice melt observed over the summer could logically be considered as resulting in an unusual cold snap.

Maybe I'm not that bright, but I'd argue that this occurred randomly, in spite of Global Warming.

[BartSimpson]

lily lily:

neopundit neopundit:

Bart, you're not seriously going to argue that a single event can be used as evidence against a trend, are you?

Looks like he is:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

AGW must be valid and true all the time in every circumstance or else it is not valid and true.

But I didn't say that this instance was evidence against AGW.

[Blue_Nose]

This has all been argued throughout this thread, yet our ignorant lying Bart missed it, or tries to pretend it doesn't exist. Liar.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, but what we do have here are three people who are by default arguing that this unusual cooling event is unrelated to other events in the climate.

You're trying to place the event squarely in response to climate change - there's no evidence of this whatsoever, nor any claims. Cold falls are not proof of climate change any more than warm summers.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It can't be unrelated and only Nomure has logically stood by the AGW argument to state that, yes, this early freeze must be driven by AGW if AGW is to be argued as the dominant factor in the global climate.

It may be considered by some to be the dominant factor in climate CHANGE, but that's not to say it's the dominant factor in overall climate behaviour.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Which is consistent with the AGW argument that melting ice will shut down or affect the Gulf Stream and cause the northern latitudes to get cooler. If this is true then the Arctic ice melt observed over the summer could logically be considered as resulting in an unusual cold snap.

The shutting down of the Gulf Stream hasn't actually happened, nor has it been cited as the cause of this early freeze - again, you're pulling shit out of your ass.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Nomure gets this while the other three are making themselves busy arguing against me but in this case I took the pro-AGW position and here they are arguing against me and also arguing against AGW by proxy. And I'm rather enjoying this, by the way.

You don't even understand the arguments you're putting forth, much less our criticisms.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Nomure, again, gets props for being smart enough not to play my silly game.

Again, Bart backs down from serious discussion like a coward.

[sasquatch2]

This Bluenose is very quick to yell coward and liar----when he keeps dodging "the Jökulhlaups" he is demonstrating cowardice.

This is typical behaviour of an obtuse, ignorant political partisan. He has no idea what it is and as a result fearfully avoids it.

[Blue_Nose]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

This Bluenose is very quick to yell coward and liar----when he keeps dodging "the Jökulhlaups" he is demonstrating cowardice.

This is typical behaviour of an obtuse, ignorant political partisan. He has no idea what it is and as a result fearfully avoids it.

You're repeating this over and over for no reason.

If you have an argument to make that has to do with "the Jökulhlaups" then state it. I'm not doing your legwork for you.

You failed to address a single question I posed to you - you haven't earned the right to ask me questions until you answer your own.

I take the accusations of cowardice and lying very seriously. I'm not throwing them around lightly.

You're a coward.