[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2018-May-08, 16:26, said:

I have a beef with this post. I've argued with a lot of the religious and I get tired of hearing cries of "ad hominem" when no such thing occurred.

Richard was replying to the argument you presented that the climate change views from 2010 of a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist should somehow be recognized as "expert testimony", if you will. He did not attack you in his response but simply pointed out that your "expert" had other beliefs that were considered superstitions of the ignorant, at best.

That is a valid counter-argument to your assertion of "he's an expert". No one has to respond to the claims in the Mullis video because he didn't make the argument. To have been a true ad hominem attack, he would have had to say along the lines of, "Don't listen to Al because he's an idiot".

Truth be told, you were the one who made the ad hominem attack in your next post calling Richard less smart than your "expert", and it is you who should apologize to him.

Or Wil Happer, or Freeman Dyson or even Richard Lindzen (a real, honest to goodness climatologist) all of whom are way smarter than all of us. Obama got a Nobel although it was before he had a chance to do anything so its value is overrated. Nobel prizes aside, even a strawman can be knocked down, if it makes you feel better. And one Nobel prize beats no Nobel prize AFAIK.

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of Nobel laureates (2 to 0 and counting) ...

[Winstonm]

NYT:

Quote

By Brad Plumer

May 15, 2018
WASHINGTON — In the Trump era, it has mainly been blue states that have taken the lead on climate change policy, with liberal strongholds like California and New York setting ambitious goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, at least one deep-red state could soon join them: Alaska, a major oil and gas producer, is crafting its own plan to address climate change. Ideas under discussion include cuts in state emissions by 2025 and a tax on companies that emit carbon dioxide.

While many conservative-leaning states have resisted aggressive climate policies, Alaska is already seeing the dramatic effects of global warming firsthand, making the issue difficult for local politicians to avoid. The solid permafrost that sits beneath many roads, buildings and pipelines is starting to thaw, destabilizing the infrastructure above. At least 31 coastal towns and cities may need to relocate, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, as protective sea ice vanishes and fierce waves erode Alaska’s shores.

[Al_U_Card]

A tax ... hmmmnnn

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-May-15, 09:44, said:

Speaking of Nobel laureates (2 to 0 and counting) ...

Congressional Expert on Global Warming

Rocks falling into the sea is the reason for rising sea levels according to Republican Mo Brooks of Alabama. I've looked at this theory for hours and can't see any flaws in this reasoning. I'm going to put out another cause for rising sea levels and that is the increasing numbers of people going to the beach and taking a wiz in the water because of the hotter (which hasn't been scientifically proven) weather.

[Al_U_Card]

 johnu, on 2018-May-17, 15:33, said:

Congressional Expert on Global Warming

Rocks falling into the sea is the reason for rising sea levels according to Republican Mo Brooks of Alabama. I've looked at this theory for hours and can't see any flaws in this reasoning. I'm going to put out another cause for rising sea levels and that is the increasing numbers of people going to the beach and taking a wiz in the water because of the hotter (which hasn't been scientifically proven) weather.

Droll, very droll strawman 0. Congressman, so what else is new?

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-May-17, 17:14, said:

Droll, very droll strawman 0. Congressman, so what else is new?

Brooks said this as a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. I will sleep well tonight knowing that the best and the brightest are running this country.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2018-May-06, 17:05, said:

1. Winston recognizes that this is a bridge site. Most of his postings are bridge related

2. Winston actually engages in debate. His posts are an attempt to generate discussion rather than a never ending gish gallop

3. Winston has an internally coherent world view. Your posts are inherently contradictory. Yes, they all criticize global warming, but the mechanisms and methods that they use can not put into a self consistent framework. If one holds true, most of the rest of them must be false.

4. You have admitted to knowing posting factually incorrect information that you hope will support your case. You're not involved in an honest discussion.

1. True, but this is the climate change thread.
2. Debate is a good thing. We should all strive to engage fully with each other, without ad hominems.
3. A world view, while generally accepted, is not always true. It is what the general folk believe. Not that it is inherently false, but tends to be based more on emotion than fact. This is also not an either/or situation either, but a continuum. The truth lies somewhere in between, but may be closer to one side than the other. This is still an evolving discipline; what we know today is several orders of magnitude greater than what we knew 10 years ago, and likely to be so 10 years from now.
4. Too many post factually incorrect information or (more likely) highly skewed information that is factually correct, but highly misleading. I always ask myself, why did someone choose a particular wording or start date for their analysis. Are the conclusions the same beyond these qualifications? This is dishonest, and only leads to a diminished view of the poster by the rest of the community.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2018-May-18, 05:38, said:

4. Too many post factually incorrect information or (more likely) highly skewed information that is factually correct, but highly misleading. I always ask myself, why did someone choose a particular wording or start date for their analysis. Are the conclusions the same beyond these qualifications? This is dishonest, and only leads to a diminished view of the poster by the rest of the community.

And how would you say that Al-U-Card does meeting this goal...

(Please recall, he is the one who openly admits to posting information that he knows to be factually incorrect if it helps him advance his "cause")

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2018-May-18, 05:38, said:

1. True, but this is the climate change thread.

If you actually have an issue with this, you should probably have started with the previous post...
You know, the one where Al asked the following question

"Is Winston a troll, for dominating a thread with his anti-Trump fixation? Does sharing his feelings and opinion alter that situation?"

[Daniel1960]

I refuse to join in the troll calling argument. One could argue that everyone is a troll just be posting here, because they obviously want to advance their own opinion. I, for one, am happy to entertain others opinions. Sometimes they may be beneficial, and lead to better understanding. Other times, it may be so far out that it makes me chuckle. Calling various esteemed scientists unreliable, because of some extraneous belief, seems like a stretch. All these are tactics used by the lawyer that cannot refute the evidence presented, so must rely on discrediting the witness. Any evidence or argument should be judged on its own merits. I do not reject someone's argument just because they belong to a particular religion, political party, social, or other organization. That said, knowing posting false information does nor advance one's cause.

[Al_U_Card]

Welcome back to the thread, Daniel. Have you any thoughts about the latest SLR readings and the possibility that most of the rise is due to adjustments etc.?

[Daniel1960]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-May-18, 16:22, said:

Welcome back to the thread, Daniel. Have you any thoughts about the latest SLR readings and the possibility that most of the rise is due to adjustments etc.?

The SLR readings are all over the map. Some say acceleration, others deceleration, and still others a constant rise. Much of the problem is merging different data sets, and the adjustments made to coordinate them. I understand the importance of adjustments, but they have not been consistent.

[Winstonm]

https://www.hw.ac.uk...-waves-play.htm

[PassedOut]

Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show

Quote

A report led by scientists in the UK and US found the rate of melting from the Antarctic ice sheet has accelerated threefold in the last five years and is now vanishing faster than at any previously recorded time.

A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070. This could lead eventually to the collapse of the entire west Antarctic ice sheet, and around 3.5m of sea-level rise.

Prof Andrew Shepherd, a lead author of the study on accelerating ice loss, said: “We have long suspected that changes in Earth’s climate will affect the polar ice sheets. Thanks to our satellites our space agencies have launched, we can now track their ice losses and global sea level contribution with confidence.”

He said the rate of melting was “surprising.”

“This has to be a cause for concern for the governments we trust to protect our coastal cities and communities,” Shepherd added.

The study, published in Nature, involved 84 scientists from 44 international organisations and claims to be the most comprehensive account of the Antarctic ice sheet to date. It shows that before 2012, the Antarctic lost ice at a steady rate of 76bn tonnes per year - a 0.2mm per year contribution to sea-level rise. However since then there has been a sharp increase, resulting in the loss of 219bn tonnes of ice per year - a 0.6mm per year sea-level contribution.

So warming temperatures cause more melting! Who knew?

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2018-June-13, 11:20, said:

Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show


So warming temperatures cause more melting! Who knew?

Something about volcanic activity in the West Antarctic peninsula might just have something to do with those temperatures and melt? Lots of "coulds" in that article. Who knew? Likely they do.

[Al_U_Card]

Now, about that ice-free arctic in summer meme... we'll check back in September at the end of the melt season and see how it's doing.

[Winstonm]

How many known conditions unaccounted for by volcanic activity does one have to ignore to say "volcanoes did it"?

[Al_U_Card]

Just an ongoing issue with the prevarications of the alarmist crowd. They (The Guardian etc.) will report anything that speculates about disaster but always avoid the caveats or opposing and more reasonable explanations. viz

Just what is happening and when will it matter?

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-June-14, 06:34, said:

Something about volcanic activity in the West Antarctic peninsula might just have something to do with those temperatures and melt? Lots of "coulds" in that article. Who knew? Likely they do.

Swamp gas from Washington DC is also contributing to global warming