The Great CAGW Debate

[_Res Ipsa]

I propose this as the title to the debate:

Are current global warming trends driven by anthropogenic activity?

I'd read a pro and con thread about that so hard.

- Doc

That would certainly be much more focussed and manageable. And I'd be happy to go through my understanding of why climate science concludes that it does. But there are folks who have presented it far better than I ever could. This hyperlinked online book https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents approaches this and other subjects from a historical perspective. I found it extremely helpful in understanding why climate scientists reach many of their conclusions. It addresses much more than your question, but it provides very helpful context for the answer.

[_Gunnar]

I predict WD will present dozens of the most often used PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times) in an attempt to refute the reality of AGW, and when they are refuted again, he will double down on repeating them. This is the same thing Flat Earthers do all the time. I really don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest that many of the most vociferous AGW deniers are very much comparable to Flat Earthers in that respect.

I don't think Trump really cares whether AWG is real or not, because he knows he won't still be alive when when the most dire consequences of global warming are undeniably apparent. All lhe cares about is pleasing his wealthiest corporate donors and the most ignorant of his base supporters.

[_Morley]

No. Really. Trust me. I won't be an ass this time.

[_Water Dog]

So is that what you were doing in the other thread -- not making genuine arguments but acting the fool and posting troll comments? When others were attempting to have a serious conversation about climate change? So how is that supposed to lead me to want to engage you in serious discussion now or ever?

Like it or not, it's simply the nature of the thing. This is a point Doc likes to make. It isn't reasonable for you to expect me to be subject to rules that you don't subject yourself to. Nothing personal against, you, but when threads turn silly and I start getting dogpiled and it's effectively me vs. all of you, what do you expect? You act all high and mighty as if you are not a part of that because you didn't say that one thing, that was someone else, but you're happy to sit idly by as that happens over and over and over, never making any effort to police your own.

It's like Bill Maher. What does Maher do? He constructs a panel designed to make conservatives look like idiots. He'll invite a random conservative to his show, who is usually someone that lacks the temperament to take on what he or she is being setup for. And then he'll invite a "conservative" who's actually a liberal. A "moderate." Then he'll invite two liberals. One who's the muscle, an attack dog, who will make the arguments. And then another who's the comic. With Maher being #5, it will then be 4 on 1. Plus the audience on Maher's side. Conservative says something, comic relief ridicules it with a joke, audience cheers, and then attack dog delivers a nice soundbite. More support from the comic. The moderate will side with the liberal. It becomes a team effort to make the conservative and the conservative position look idiotic and ridicule it without there being any real opportunity to actually have a discussion.

What happens here is the same. Are you Kevin? Are you Mak? Are you Schmo? Are you Chap? Et al. No, you don't fling the poo like they do. Because you know they will do it for you. You know the score. You understand the field of play. And you play to the gallery knowing how that dynamic will be. This may not be a conscious act on your art, I'm not suggesting some kind of coordinated effort. It's not a conspiracy, it's just herd mentality. Y'all have been doing this long enough that everybody understands their role in this game and how to redirect and contribute to the momentum of the discussion and steer it the way they want. Me, being in the weaker position, what can I say? It's not personal. Perhaps I should try to isolate personalities more than I do. But that's pretty hard once the ball gets moving. You know that. This isn't something that should need to be explained.

All that tells me is that you've gone after climate science in full attack mode without even trying to learn about it. That makes me simply think "why waste my time?" What you need isn't a debate -- you need an education.

Perhaps. Perhaps. But, what you don't realize, is I feel the same way about you. I recognize that you "think" you know what you're talking about. But I don't think you actually do. You are like a TBM apologist. Done a lot of certain types of research. You've learned a "lot" about your little Star Trek universe. Do you know more about it than me? Probably. But I think I know a few things you don't. I may not know all the ins and outs of Star Trek World, you'll win a debate about the physics behind the warp core engine for example, but I know enough to know that it's BS. Mountains and mountains of papers and research which is all based on faulty assumptions. An individual paper or study could be 100% sound, mathematically perfect in every way. But, if it's built on top of fundamentally wrong axioms, or erratic data, etc., it becomes total fiction. Context.

WD, I've read hundreds of your posts on this board. You never approach a subject fairly. Why should I have any confidence that you'll do a turnaround after all this time?

Well you're just being grumpy now. Is there anyone on this forum who has transformed more than me? Give me a little credit. I showed up full TBM and have done a complete 180 on a lot of things. I've held my own despite nearly always being in the minority. First I was lumped in with the likes of Tobin. I've forever been accused of being Will Schryver. I've changed my opinion many times when confronted by the evidence. I've also held my ground when I disagree. I don't adopt a position to curry favor with anybody. But I've never been too proud to admit when I'm wrong.

[_Water Dog]

I propose this as the title to the debate:

Are current global warming trends driven by anthropogenic activity?

I'd read a pro and con thread about that so hard.

- Doc

That would certainly be much more focussed and manageable. And I'd be happy to go through my understanding of why climate science concludes that it does. But there are folks who have presented it far better than I ever could. This hyperlinked online book https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents approaches this and other subjects from a historical perspective. I found it extremely helpful in understanding why climate scientists reach many of their conclusions. It addresses much more than your question, but it provides very helpful context for the answer.

I would propose having rounds. We stick to one round until agreed that it is closed. Round 1 - Are there warming trends? Let's examine whether warming exists or not. Round 2 - Is warming human-caused? To what extent is it human caused? Round 3 - Is the warming catastrophic, or harmful? Round 4 - Is IPCC report honest? Does it accurately reflect 1, 2, 3? Round 5 - Is CAGW being politicized? Who is politicizing it, and what effect does this have?

[_Res Ipsa]

Are you going respond to my request or not?

[_Water Dog]

Are you going respond to my request or not?

You mean this?

So, for a start, please post a link to every post in the other thread in which you were trolling or "playing the fool" as opposed to making a serious factual argument.

My response is that suggestion is not the spirit I'm going for here. I expect that I will post some of those things as the conversation develops. Time and place. Let's not put the cart before the horse. How about we just start out establishing whether a warming trend exists? I'll let you start. Present your case that warming exists, define it, explain how we know this, etc.

[_Res Ipsa]

No. I will proceed as I originally planned. No do over for you.

[_canpakes]

Nothing personal against, you, but when threads turn silly and I start getting dogpiled and it's effectively me vs. all of you, what do you expect? You act all high and mighty as if you are not a part of that because you didn't say that one thing, that was someone else, but you're happy to sit idly by as that happens over and over and over, never making any effort to police your own.

It's like Bill Maher. What does Maher do? He constructs a panel designed to make conservatives look like idiots. He'll invite a random conservative to his show, who is usually someone that lacks the temperament to take on what he or she is being setup for. And then he'll invite a "conservative" who's actually a liberal. A "moderate." Then he'll invite two liberals. One who's the muscle, an attack dog, who will make the arguments. And then another who's the comic. With Maher being #5, it will then be 4 on 1. Plus the audience on Maher's side. Conservative says something, comic relief ridicules it with a joke, audience cheers, and then attack dog delivers a nice soundbite. More support from the comic. The moderate will side with the liberal. It becomes a team effort to make the conservative and the conservative position look idiotic and ridicule it without there being any real opportunity to actually have a discussion.

What happens here is the same. Are you Kevin? Are you Mak? Are you Schmo? Are you Chap? Et al. No, you don't fling the poo like they do. Because you know they will do it for you. You know the score. You understand the field of play. And you play to the gallery knowing how that dynamic will be. This may not be a conscious act on your art, I'm not suggesting some kind of coordinated effort. It's not a conspiracy, it's just herd mentality. Y'all have been doing this long enough that everybody understands their role in this game and how to redirect and contribute to the momentum of the discussion and steer it the way they want. Me, being in the weaker position, what can I say? It's not personal. Perhaps I should try to isolate personalities more than I do. But that's pretty hard once the ball gets moving. You know that. This isn't something that should need to be explained.

I thought you were looking to start a thread on undefined 'catastrophic' global warming, but it seems to have turned into a litany of supposed victimization complaints instead.

[_Water Dog]

No. I will proceed as I originally planned. No do over for you.

LOL, ok DCP, have fun in your safe space.