As noted, this isn't exactly the strongest proof of your assertion. But assuming it's true, do you think CA has never had a drought of this magnitude in the past? Because I remember droughts that lasted 3, 4 years when I was growing up. Restrictions on watering, washing your car, all sorts of stuff. It's always been dry and when you have a drought obviously that makes things worse. So, are you pulling an Al Gore and saying that because CA is in a drought it's absolutely proof of AGW?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
Koya
Footballguy
Honestly, it's almost time to stop pretending that certain posters have any interest in a legitimate, openminded discussion.
1. I never claimed this was scientific. It was an example of an extreme weather event
2. What is scientific, is the apparent increase in more of these extreme weather events, across the world.
3. I was answering a question.
When you see species adjusting to a changed climate (birds generally not going as far south in the winter for example) and flowers blooming sooner, coupled with human observation of more extreme events in addition to the actual hard scientific data, there is a compelling reason to believe something is amiss.
Once again, I am a skeptic that at this point believes there is far more evidence of something bad happening weather wise with some probable human contribution to this dangerous trend, than evidence that suggests this is a natural, cyclical occurrence.
Unfortunately, I see many / most pushing one side or the other for ideological reasons based on party politics and at this point, its disgusting me. This is too ####### important to be ideologues on.
Koya
Footballguy
Jeez, stop it.
This is one example I gave. It doesn't prove ####. It's one anecdotal piece among many other anecdotal pieces as I mentioned above.
So back to this for a moment. You asserted that the wildfires were an extension of last years wildfires, and when questioned about that you said you questioned my motives because I was cherry picking "facts." Now, it turns out that your "facts" are what you heard in an interview? I may have to start questioning your motives here.
You stop it. You called something a fact that is nowhere near a fact. Don't get all defensive now. You pulled a Tim. Own it.
Koya
Footballguy
Not defensive. Sick of ideologues and politics trumping an honest effort to look at the facts.
What did I call a fact, just so I know? Perhaps I mispoke, perhaps I was wrong, but I don't know to what you refer.
Can't tell you how many times in various threads where I DO have hard knowledge and facts (i.e. transportation related), provide links, studies etc, that people ignore my post or gloss by any request for them to provide facts in return.
On this subject I admit I'm almost as lost as everyone. So I gather my opinion from what's out there. And unfortunately, the ideologues from the left and the right do so much distorting, it's near impossible to get past the BS.
1) I am neither an ideologue nor do politics have anything to do with my position. I bet you can't even cite my position on this issue despite the fact that I've posted it numerous times.
2) Read post 1455. I cut the quotes down to just the relevant ones. It should be pretty easy for you to determine what you said was fact that clearly isn't.
It's hard to take your rant seriously when you're citing things as "fact" that aren't. That's my point. Don't be part of the problem you're complaining about.
Koya
Footballguy
Leading electeds and fire dept officials in LA flat out said that there was no end to last year's fire season, it's just been continuous. No closures of certain fire houses, no usual break / wet season.
Now, this might not be an empirical fact, but not sure what else it is. If you are looking to win a game of semantics, congrats.
Now, this might not be an empirical fact, but not sure what else it is. If you are looking to win a game of semantics, congrats.
Actually, that doesn't seem to be very scientific either. Most of the non anecdotal evidence shows a decrease in severe weather events.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/08/sorry-global-warmists-but-extreme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme/
On your first point, I totally agree. I stopped pretending you had an interest in legitimate discussion long ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
Number of wildfires per year:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/number_fires_per_year_1960-20111.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/number_fires_per_year_1960-20111.jpg
You said you heard an interview. That would be ONE person. And you can't provide a link to anything about this. If it was such a big "fact" you'd be able to support with more than just an assertion. Again, as I said above, you're wading in to Tim waters here.
Koya
Footballguy
Then I should learn a bit more about this, because my knowledge of the subject has told me otherwise. And once again, there is so much ideology thrown in, ever piece from each side seems more tainted than the other.DrJ said:
For example, I recall a number of folks calling out Forbes for presenting a business bias approach... honestly, I just don't know who/what to believe at this point and it's very, very frustrating. And, at least for the minions on the left, I don't see them pushing an agenda for their own personal benefit, even though I've heard the theory of some widespread conspiracy to help insurance companies and such, but rather an honest belief that our environment is at risk. I don't feel that from the other side
The Football Freak
Footballguy
Just Googled it. He's right.StrikeS2k said:
Droughts have been less frequent, and less severe: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL025711/abstract
The Football Freak
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
You are not worth me getting in a ### for tat.StrikeS2k said:
It was one or two people that I heard on the radio. I said as such. Twist it how you wish, which honestly is cementing my feeling that your tact is somewhat disingenuous.
Aside from your feelings on Tim, I am putting forth something I heard on the radio. Do you think Im making this up? Lying?
Please. This is the exact type of non-instructive nor constructive discussion that holds most of the water in this discussion and that's what I am getting completely sick of at this point.
SO MY USE OF THE WORD FACT might be up for discussion. I've already "given" you that. Local leaders / experts in the field of firefighting STATED that there was no break from last years' fire season.
Call that what you want so you can get past more distraction and we can actually try to get to an objective understanding of wtf is going on here.
And it does seem that certain areas of the west have experiences decreased precipitation, and increased droughts. They are the outliers though, as the overall trend across the country was shorter and less severe droughts.
Koya
Footballguy
Thank you. If someone thinks I'm actually lying, they should not be so preoccupied with what I am posting. Im now done bothering with them as it's just counterproductive overall.
Koya
Footballguy
Dr. J - is there any data on what types of droughts we are talking about? As they say there are lies, damn lies and statistics...
What I mean by that is that if droughts are less frequent in areas such as the east coast, where they are far less damaging and severe in general, but greater in areas like the west where the consequences are much greater, shouldn't we take that into account?
Also, lets say you go from 100 on average to only 80, but those 80 include far more truly severe and dangerous instances than the 100 did before, we should also acknowledge that.
Am I making sense?
Right, but it seems you're willing to take these assertions at face value while discrediting people that claim bias from the other side. Kind of like Tim. This is what leads me to believe that you personally have a strong bias. I do, and I'm willing to admit that. You want to pretend you're above the fray though.
Yes, the link I provided includes an entire scientific paper on this. Although you'll find that there isn't a true scientific definition for what a drought actually is...
Here it is again: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL025711/abstract
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
Hardly above the fray and I've admitted that I hold biases, some of which I recognize , some not.
I'm saying that it's hard for me to believe anyone on this issue which is what's frustrating since I certainly don't know the core facts or science myself.
Over the years, however, my sense is a fast majority of the scientific community has presented a far stronger case for something being amiss than those who are skeptical about this. If those ten years of observation on my part are mistaken, I'm not going to be dissuaded by one forbes article.
It's a lot of noise but the most coherent and consistent noise by those best positioned , IMO , to understand this issue has been the scientific communities that seem to strongly believe that change is upon us.
What else am I to go by?
In addition, when the deniers are often the same camp that discounts other HARD science (pushing against evolution, women's medicine etc) that must be taken into the equation .
In terms of science based information, the right has rally hurt its position because of those efforts
Yes, I have a problem with people repeating what they hear on the radio. It's like that experiment where you're in a room with people and you make up a story. Then you tell the guy next to you the story. He tells the guy next to him the story, and so on around the room. When it gets back to you the story is usually completely different than the original story. So yeah, I like to read things for myself and not rely on what some guy on the Internet heard from some guy. If you can't understand that I don't know what to tell you. And you never answered my question from earlier. Can you cite my stance on climate change?
Koya
Footballguy
No, I can't.
You seem more preoccupied with my semantics and repeating what I said on radio than helping me better understand the issue as Dr J at least appears to be doing.
If you don't trust me or want to believe what I hear, that's your decisions, doesn't much matter to me other than I need to better focus on responsive posters who aren't trying to call me out, question my motives or my integrity. I should probably start they after this post.
Probably should have already
I don't think the consensus is nearly as strong as some outlets will lead you to believe. Tim makes suggestions like you do here, that about the only significant voice of dissent is American Conservatives. And we can of course go ahead make a bunch of stereotypical and offensive claims about them like you have here. But here's a gallup poll from 2007-2008 around the globe. It doesn't actually seem to bear this out. The perception of this as a threat varies wildly by country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
And honestly, I'd expect that these numbers have gone down as we're seeing a lot of problems in the projections that were put forth. The lack of predicted results, the pause in the warming. The case is getting weaker at this point in time and I'm sure the public's perception has shifted some as a result.
We have an example of a scientist that has "shifted sides" that is claiming that it's more like a witch hunt than actual science at this point. But we can of course fabricate reasons to be suspicious of his motives and discount him as well...
We have an example of a scientist that has "shifted sides" that is claiming that it's more like a witch hunt than actual science at this point. But we can of course fabricate reasons to be suspicious of his motives and discount him as well...
Last edited by a moderator:
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Nuclear power = GODZILLA
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
Nope. I care about your ability to support your statements. I'm sorry but when I make an assertion I can support it. I don't want other people's opinions and unless you can offer support for it then I'm probably going to question it. For a lot of the same reasons you're complaining about the politics and ideologues. Some people say what supports their cause without regard to whether it's true or not. Look at my signature. Tommy makes up numbers. Tim regularly makes statements based upon something he heard on a talk radio show, and presents it as fact. And is often proven wrong. So, if you refuse to support your position beyond "I heard it somewhere" then yes you should ignore me. Because I will call you out on it. I think it's a reasonable thing to do. If you can't support an argument and take issue with someone asking you to do so then your argument just isn't very strong to begin with.
I don't doubt that Koya heard what he said he heard. But this is anecdotal evidence, like he was complaining about on my end. We got snow today, which is funny. And he gets bent out of shape and calls this an example of extreme weather that supports the theory. But it's not historically significant in that regard either, it gets cold for a day or two in May all of the time: http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/daily/USIL0225
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
I recognize it was anecdotal, which is a small and tough to measure piece of the puzzle. Not to be ignored but on its own proves nothing.
That's said observations made by well informed people should not be totally discounted. And again, it's at least something concrete, little as this piece may mean.
It's just one extreme weather event, understood.
Koya
Footballguy
tommyboy
Footballguy
this story out today is pretty bad for the climate alarmist crowd. Bad juju going on in science. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/15/uk-times-headline-tomorrow-scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view-full-article/#more-109332
Koya
Footballguy
Agree totally and it's not just on this issue. However this is such a complex issue it's near impossible to get past the games and false optics to the underlying truth.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
This is going to blow things sky high. I can't believe a Ukip official gave jobs to illegal immigrants. Thanks for bringing this scandal to our attention.
Last edited by a moderator:
To me, it's simply going to take time to get to the truth. We really don't have all that much historical data, and what we do have is entirely incomplete. And these are ridiculously complex systems that we are far from having a clear understanding of. Everyone should try and have as little impact on the environment as possible - that's a nice goal to have. But the alarmist message from this seems entirely agenda driven rather than being based on actual science.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
This is going to blow things sky high. I can't believe a Ukip official gave jobs to illegal immigrants. Thanks for bringing this scandal to our attention.
Sky high.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
About what? That I misused the term fact due to poor internet semantics? Or something that actually could have value but got lost because or appears that to many, winning a pissing match is more important that actual discourse on a topic that actually has huge ramifications?
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
Chaos Commish
Footballguy
Koya was actually correct calling it semantics, Josie. Droughts in CA always mean one fireseason continues into the next. That's because fire departments do not get their non-drought winter/spring downtime. Too much dry fuel. Fire season never ends during a drought, so 13 was a continuation of 12 as 14 has been a continuation of 13. However, the same folks who call it a continuation understand the 2012 fires did pause from Oct to August 13 and likewise the 2013 fires did pause until May 14. So in actual fires there have been annual seasons, not continuations. It's just been one continual fire season for firefighters. Context. Perspective. Semantics. No right, no wrong, not sure what Strikes got so worked up about after you googled it for him. 
Sand
Footballguy
For all those voicing themselves in this thread - a chance to put your money where your mouth is.
Lawrence Livermore is closer to net positive fusion than anyone else, but needs some input (as in monetary input) to get some critical components made. They are crowd sourcing the money for these parts. Want to be part of the clean energy revolution? These guys have about as good a shot at it as anyone.
As an aside, this is the type of stuff I think needs to happen for any chance at reversing global warming trends, if such trends do actually exist. This, if it comes to fruition, is the type of dislocation in energy production that could change everything. The waste product here is helium, so other than annoying high pitched voices, it is about as clean as anything can get.
Lawrence Livermore is closer to net positive fusion than anyone else, but needs some input (as in monetary input) to get some critical components made. They are crowd sourcing the money for these parts. Want to be part of the clean energy revolution? These guys have about as good a shot at it as anyone.
As an aside, this is the type of stuff I think needs to happen for any chance at reversing global warming trends, if such trends do actually exist. This, if it comes to fruition, is the type of dislocation in energy production that could change everything. The waste product here is helium, so other than annoying high pitched voices, it is about as clean as anything can get.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Fixed Cities on a changing planet are a folly. Seas rise and recede for reasons that have nothing to do with man's activity, though now man may be contributing some to that. Continents drift, faults rise and fall, rivers change course, climatic patterns shift. Our narrow perspective has had us set up society on fixed presumptions which cannot hold true on a changing world. Country borders, fixed settlements, fixed infrastructure, all folly. It will be greater folly still to try to control change through carbon legislation or whatever will next come down the pike. Better to begin conceiving resource stewardship and shifting settlements and borders for that will, inevitably, be what is to come.
