• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simpler Question About AGW

Tokenconservative

Banned
T
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
2,202
I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

Please explain.

Tokie
 
The climate is, and has always been, constantly changing. Has anyone said different?
 
Tokenconservative said:
I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

Please explain.

Tokie
Click to expand...

i've not seen *anywhere* that a climatologist standing in "the AGW Stance" (trademark that, it's impressive) has claimed that ONLY human activity can cause climate change. EVER. so perhaps you can provide a link to all these claims you're seeing? or do they even exist?
 
Someday, when I'm writing a textbook of logical fallacies, this will be used as an example of a strawman fallacy.
 
Tokenconservative said:
I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance) ...
Click to expand...
You lied, you lose.

---

There are two meanings of the word "simple". Only one of them is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Tokie,
It's much simpler than you think. When it's warming it's AGW. When it's cooling, it's natural variation. Got it? ;)
 
zeusbheld said:
i've not seen *anywhere* that a climatologist standing in "the AGW Stance" (trademark that, it's impressive) has claimed that ONLY human activity can cause climate change. EVER. so perhaps you can provide a link to all these claims you're seeing? or do they even exist?
Click to expand...

Well, the basic concept of the Mann Hockey Stick was that natural variation was low level noise (shaft of the stick) with no statistically significant rise or fall, then only man's actions in the last century or so caused the statistically significant rise (the puck of the stick). This concept was applied to roughly the last 1000 years in one case, later supposedly to 2000 years.
 
mhaze said:
Well, the basic concept of the Mann Hockey Stick was that natural variation was low level noise (shaft of the stick) with no statistically significant rise or fall, then only man's actions in the last century or so caused the statistically significant rise (the puck of the stick). This concept was applied to roughly the last 1000 years in one case, later supposedly to 2000 years.
Click to expand...

thanks for the answer, but it would be far more persuasive if you actually answered my question. "tokie" said this:

Tokenconservative said:
If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.
Click to expand...

what you're describing is a special case that in no way implies that the climate, in general, is otherwise static.

incidentally i'm on the fence on the climate change thing, so you can blow all your "religion of AGW" stuff out of your posterior. i'm not saying that AGW is happening, not saying it isn't. i AM saying that what i've seen of you so far, is a smoke-and-mirrors show. i'm not impressed and more than a little annoyed.
 
zeusbheld said:
thanks for the answer, but it would be far more persuasive if you actually answered my question. "tokie" said this:

what you're describing is a special case that in no way implies that the climate, in general, is otherwise static.
Click to expand...

Obviously, a statement that climate is static for millions of years until man came along is false.
 
Tokenconservative said:
I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

Please explain.

Tokie
Click to expand...


It is certainly not static nor is it determined entirely by humans. The climate changes and always has. We have been increasing in temperature since the last ice age and would continue to do so but at a very slow amount.

Human activity is not the only force at work and perhaps not even the most dominant in magnitude but it is one of the most rapid in changing the atmospheric composition. As such it has managed to push things to move faster than a natural system would alone. This is combined with the positive feedback that it can generate.

The actual magnitude is rather unimpressive in numeric terms. But that is overly simplistic and ignores that the change has been more rapid than from natural forces and that if it continues it could be very problematic.

I don't think there are any climatologists who will say that they are 100% certain what all the implications of global warming will be in absolute terms. However the fact that it is accelerating at an alarming level is universally agreed upon. Rising sea levels, climate destabalization and such are going to happen but the absolute results are not certain. We are best off keeping it as low as practically possible.
 
mhaze said:
Well, the basic concept of the Mann Hockey Stick was that natural variation was low level noise (shaft of the stick) with no statistically significant rise or fall, then only man's actions in the last century or so caused the statistically significant rise (the puck of the stick). This concept was applied to roughly the last 1000 years in one case, later supposedly to 2000 years.
Click to expand...

Well, we are piling straw on top of straw

Natural variation is between snowball earth and iceless earth, care to provide evidence otherwise?
 
mhaze said:
Obviously, a statement that climate is static for millions of years until man came along is false.
Click to expand...

right, but what "tokie" said was that the AGW 'believers' are making that claim. i have not seen ANY scientist claim that.

whereas

Tokie said:
If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.
Click to expand...

can any of you find ONE example of a paper claiming IN GENERAL, ONLY human activity can cause climate change?

that's hardly the "AGW stance" from what i've seen. if you sincerely believe it is, please provide specific, unequivocal examples.

how stupid do you think i, the marginally interested, undecided layman, am? wait don't answer that, it's obvious.

luckily for you, i am not basing my opinion on AGW on which side tries more ham-handedly to con me. are you sure you lot are not on the payroll of the pro-AGW crowd? you're doing a great job making "climate skeptics" look like snake oil salesmen (and rather poor ones at that).
 
zeusbheld said:
Originally Posted by Tokenconservative
If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.
​
what you're describing is a special case that in no way implies that the climate, in general, is otherwise static.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
zeusbheld said:
i've not seen *anywhere* that a climatologist standing in "the AGW Stance" (trademark that, it's impressive) has claimed that ONLY human activity can cause climate change. EVER. so perhaps you can provide a link to all these claims you're seeing? or do they even exist?
Click to expand...

I don't do links--LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!

But here is the AGWist argument in a nutshell:

Climate is currently changing.
Human activity is responsible for that change.


Please help me out: if climate change now can only be because of human activity (if you deny that this is what AGWists are saying, then you are either being dishonest or ignorant), how can climate have changed in the past absent human activity?

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.
Click to expand...
And also for people who can spell "tedious"?

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.
Click to expand...
That is not the AGW stance. Where did you get that strange idea?

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.
Click to expand...
That is false. No "AGWist" that I'm aware of claims that. Where did you get this strange idea?

Why have you started a thread with 2 pieces of obvious nonsense?

Please explain.
 
David Rodale said:
Tokie,
It's much simpler than you think. When it's warming it's AGW. When it's cooling, it's natural variation. Got it? ;)
Click to expand...

Simpler!?

We don' need no stinkin' simplers!!!

Now it's all clear to me: when it's "bad" humans caused it, when it's "good" our Mother, the Earth caused it?

Ah.

Wait....I hate the cold. We have been having one of the worst winters here since I was a kid...more snow, sustained cold weather for months on end. So to me, cold is "bad." But to AGWist "hot" is?

I think it's time for a war.

Tokie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom