The Bogus practice of posting Local/Regional Daily Weather as proof/disproof of GW/AGW

[abu afak]

Is Rampant here especially among Warming deniers.
("It's cold/snowed in Alaska today")
It has no place in the section.
Should be deleted/banned.
Weather is still 'environment' but NOT 'Climate' UNLESS a case can be made that we're having, ie, more tornados over a Longer period BECAUSE of it.

There are daily and whole threads here doing so. The Stupidest one, an 8 YEAR BLOG - and running - with help from the board's worst clowns, that not only denies AGW but GW by using Short Term local, regional, or Backyard cold weather events.

Let's refrain from this, or better yet post a Sticky saying threads/posts of this nature will be Deleted.

`

 

[Donald H]

Is Rampant here especially among Warming deniers.
("It's cold/snowed in Alaska today")
It has no place in the section.
Should be deleted/banned.


`

In my opinion it's always better to correct those who are making obvious mistakes on understanding the science, instead of censoring the ignorance.

Pointing out that large or heavy snowfalls doesn't equal colder climate is an example that can correct wrong thinking. It doesn't really matter that the deniers won't acknowledge the facts.

 

[abu afak]

In my opinion it's always better to correct those who are making obvious mistakes on understanding the science, instead of censoring the ignorance.

Pointing out that large or heavy snowfalls doesn't equal colder climate is an example that can correct wrong thinking. It doesn't really matter that the deniers won't acknowledge the facts.

No, correcting them does NOT work.
Not in the least.
I corrected Crusader Frank on his ONE day Arctic snapshot, and he not only ignored it, but post another on top of it.

You are clearly BLIND to what is happening in this section.
100% numb.
Read my OP again and look at the section.

Skookerasbil is an intentional TROLL and especially egregious offender/juvenile baiter.
And not alone.

`

`

 

[1srelluc]

Ever notice that someone on either side of the issue can always point to some bias "study" to support their view?

That's called being played for profit. Don't be a rube, it's just weather and we have been having it for quite some time.

 

[Donald H]

No, correcting them does NOT work.
Not in the least.
I corrected Crusader Frank on his ONE day Arctic snapshot, and he not only ignored it, but post another on top of it.

You are clearly BLIND to what is happening in this section.
100% numb.
Read my OP again.

`

Thanks for your opinion but I disagree. To begin with the deniers are starting at a huge disadvantage and that should be capitalized upon. Each wrong claim they try to put forward needs to be discredited. This is not to say that we as laypersons are capable of the discrediting but there are almost always expert opinions close by and available.

If they propose a wrong opinion then they deserve to be known as owning it. The heavy snowfall question serves as a good example of them not willing to own it.

 

[abu afak]

Ever notice that someone on either side of the issue can always point to some bias "study" to support their view?

That's called being played for profit. Don't be a rube, it's just weather and we have been having it for quite some time.

Some weather is caused by long term Climate trends.
IF YOU CAN POST A STUDY evidencing that instead of saying "It snowed in Denver/my backyard today," then you have at least a sincere attempt.

The posts of ie, Skookerasbil, OTOH are intentional and knowingly Fallacious Trolls/Baits.

`

`

 

[abu afak]

Thanks for your opinion but I disagree. To begin with the deniers are starting at a huge disadvantage and that should be capitalized upon. Each wrong claim they try to put forward needs to be discredited. This is not to say that we as laypersons are capable of the discrediting but there are almost always expert opinions close by and available.

If they propose a wrong opinion then they deserve to be known as owning it. The heavy snowfall question serves as a good example of them not willing to own it.

The Alaskan snowfall poster is a Knowing TROLL (as is the Arctic Daily snapshot one.)
This is USMB, home of RW trolls who delight and in majority engage in this practice.
This is Fox News Junior High.

In case you missed it. Skookerasbil has an 8 year BLOG Thread ("skeptics are winning"), with the sole purpose of posting weather, participated in by ostensibly 'serious' RW posters. Nonetheless he also breaks out with new threads like Alaskan snowfall.
You cannot 'embarrass' them with the truth.
They will just goof on you like the 8 yr olds they are and continue forever.

They are Trolls who are a HUGE and encouraged part of USMB which is 60% RW one-line Trolls that would only be allowed here.

`

 

[abu afak]

You cannot 'embarrass' them with the truth.
They will just goof on you like the 8 yr olds they are and continue forever.
just now the skooker entity/CHILD: Arctic Temperatures Today

Again, this is Fox News Junior High and a Haven/dumping Ground for low IQ and juvenile RW Trolls.

`

 

[1srelluc]

Some weather is caused by long term Climate trends.
IF YOU CAN POST A STUDY to evidencing that instead of saying "It snowed in Denver/my backyard today," then you have at least a sincere attempt.

The posts of ie, Skookerasbil, OTOH are intentional and knowing Fallacious Trolls/Baits.

`

`

Those that post their local weather and tying it to "climate change" are just goring your ox a bit but you might want to stop and reflect on why that is.

Hint.....Because your ox is so fuckin' easy to gore. It seems to me that the concept of tongue-n-cheek is completely lost on some people here, especially the climate change weenies.

You could just play it off, respond with something pithy, and go on but nooooooo, you people have to launch into a retarded tirade and then start posting those bias "studies" I referred to.....It's so tiresome.

I know, I know, it's hard to be pithy when you are so invested in something but as a suggestion give it a try next time and maybe they will not find you such a easy mark.

BTW....You might want to contact someone right-leaning to come-up with something pithy to post as I know you guys are not very good at it.

 

[task0778]

Many GW supporters point to hurricanes, tornados, hear waves, floods, etc., as proof of GW, but they never show the logic behind such reasoning. Correlation does not prove causation, unless I guess you are a GW warrior. It swings both ways.

"Some weather is caused by long term Climate trends."

Bullshit. All weather is caused by current conditions, period.

 

[Donald H]

The Alaskan snowfall poster is a Knowing TROLL (as is the Arctic Daily snapshot one.)
This is USMB, home of RW trolls who delight and in majority engage in this practice.

In case you missed it. Skookerasbil has an 8 year BLOG Thread ("skeptics are winning"), with the sole purpose of posting weather, participated in by ostensibly 'serious' RW posters. Nonetheless he also breaks out with new threads like Alaskan snowfall.
You cannot 'embarrass' them with the truth.
They will just goof on you like the 8 yr olds they are and continue forever.
They are Trolls who are a HUGE and encouraged part of USMB which is 60% RW one-line Trolls that would only be allowed here.

`

I would have to agree with the skeptics when they suggest they are winning.
I just don't see it as unusual that they would be winning at this point in time. But the situation is such that the adverse effects of climate change are going to silence the deniers' protests in the near future.

We've already come a long way from their denial of climate change, to their denial of AGW.

I don't subscribe to the charge of 'troll' or 'trolling' because it's become just a method of censoring opinions one doesn't want to entertain. I would rather refer to them as uninformed and unwilling to 'own' their opinions fully.

I think the board is pretty close to being 50/50 balanced lately if one can ignore the purley ignorant spammers on both sides. And that's being generous to the political right.

 

[abu afak]

Those that post their local weather and tying it to "climate change" are just goring your ox a bit but you might want to stop and reflect on why that is.

Hint.....Because your ox is so fuckin' easy to gore. It seems to me that the concept of tongue-n-cheek is completely lost on some people here, especially the climate change weenies.

You could just play it off, respond with something pithy, and go on but nooooooo, you people have to launch into a retarded tirade and then start posting those bias "studies" I referred to.....It's so tiresome.

I know, I know, it's hard to be pithy when you are so invested in something but as a suggestion give it a try next time and maybe they will not find you such a easy mark.

BTW....You might want to contact someone right-leaning to come-up with something pithy to post as I know you guys are not very good at it.

No, it's not an "easy Ox to gore," and if they had to post credible evidence that the day's weather is tied to a longer term Climate trend they not only couldn't, but would be discouraged by ANYTHING that took any effort beside a 12 word troll or meme. (as immediately below).

`

 

[Oddball]

Ever notice that someone on either side of the issue can always point to some bias "study" to support their view?

That's called being played for profit. Don't be a rube, it's just weather and we have been having it for quite some time.

 

[Donald H]

"Some weather is caused by long term Climate trends."

Bullshit. All weather is caused by current conditions, period.

No, you're wrong. Why would anybody think there is a reason to provide evidence against your claim? It deserves nothing more than I've provided to say it's wrong.

This is why we shouldn't ignore any of it.

 

[abu afak]

I would have to agree with the skeptics when they suggest they are winning.
I just don't see it as unusual that they would be winning at this point in time. But the situation is such that the adverse effects of climate change are going to silence the deniers' protests in the near future.

We've already come a long way from their denial of climate change, to their denial of AGW.

I don't subscribe to the charge of 'troll' or 'trolling' because it's become just a method of censoring opinions one doesn't want to entertain. I would rather refer to them as uninformed and unwilling to 'own' their opinions fully.

I think the board is pretty close to being 50/50 balanced lately if one can ignore the purley ignorant spammers on both sides. And that's being generous to the political right.

The you will be fine with their trolls and can continue to ignore the FACT that the Global Temp, sea levels, and causal GHGs are rising since the Industrial Revolution started and now accelerated.

IOW, you agree with the immature baseless 'cold today' posts.

EDIT: Oddball's post above is standard fare/trolling here.
Some posters in the section NEVER post on topic, but are just the RW rooting gallery.
Looks like you are one as well.
Me?
I'm for On topic and meaty posts.

`

 

[1srelluc]

No, it's not an "easy Ox to gore," and if they had to post credible evidence that the day's weather is tied to a longer term Climate trend they not only couldn't, and would be discouraged by ANYTHING that took any effort beside a 12 word troll.

Sigh, I just can't fathom people like you. You still don't get it and I don't suspect you ever will.

 

[Oddball]

You cannot 'embarrass' them with the truth.


`

Self-Awareness | SkillsYouNeed

Self-awareness is a key component of emotional intelligence (EI), encompassing emotional awareness, accurate self-assessment and self-confidence.

www.skillsyouneed.com

 

[abu afak]

Sigh, I just can't fathom people like you. You still don't get it and I don't suspect you ever will.

IOW, no answer.
Another whiff when confronted/refuted.
`

 

[Donald H]

View attachment 583143

Yes, almost anything. But cautiously keeping in mind that science doesn't get it right all of the time and is therefore willing and even sometimes anxious to hear proof that they got it wrong.

Whereas opposing theory that's founded on religious superstitious myth as no choice but to maintain that's it's 100% right 100% of the time.

Is there any longstanding theory from science, not currently questioned, that a creationist can claim is wrong, and then own the claim?

 

[task0778]

IOW, no answer.
Another whiff when confronted/refuted.
`

Do you deny that when there is a heat wave somewhere that there are posters on the USMB and in the MSM that will cite it as proof of GW? Your side does it as much as the other.


"IOW, no answer."

What was the question?