Yeah, accepting scientific fact makes me an "alarmist". Are you serious?
You're not citing sources for this, but I can confidently state you're either making shit up, or completely failing to grasp what you're trying to cite.What happened to those projected 7 metre ocean rises..what did the IPCC say later...70 centimetres?
And in this case, "anthropogenic climate change theory" is in the same territory as "germ theory" and "evolutionary theory". Pointing out that it's technically falsifiable, in theory, actually goes against the point you're trying to make.Science, real science NEVER says this is indisputable fact and there is no way we can be wrong" You use what data you have to prove or disprove a hypothesis.
There is no way in Hell you can prove these models are even halfway accurate without having a time machine to go forward 150 years and then come back and say "yup we were right"
Since you're going to cherry-pick and ignore pretty much all climate data we've gathered regarding the last several hundred thousand years, there's no reason I could possibly give you that you won't just ignore. You've decided to be irrational and rely on feels rather than evidence, so I really don't find your request for a rational argument to "convince" you is an honest one. You've already decided that you won't be convinced by overwhelming amounts of data that all point to the same conclusion. If that won't convince you, the best we can hope for is exposing that silliness so that anyone else paying attention can see how much you're ignoring.Given the plethora of BULLSHIT claims and repeated doomsaying, catastrophes, dogs and cats living together, NONE of which have come to pass and that includes Flannerys repeated failures and dud predictions ...give me one good reason why I should listen to any of these garbage mongers?
Every single example you're picking up is one single individual who made a tentative-maybe-possibly guess about a potential future outcome that, due to weather's variability, didn't actually come true. That has nothing to do with the state of climate science, on any level. It's an inherently dishonest way to go about things.
It's like saying "hey, these paleontologists thought that apatosaurs and brontosaurs were different species, and they're NOT, therefore dinosaurs never existed and the Earth is 6000 years old!" That's what you're doing, here. It makes no sense at all.
Last edited by Endus; 2016-04-16 at 02:51 AM.
Of course you are correct - we - human- only affect the rate of change.
Without human "intervention" it would have taken probably thousands of years. With us polluting the shit of this planet - hundreds.
Bottom line: considering for the moment that the change is a natural phenomenon, and happens once in a hundred thousands of years, we surely affect it by ... simply polluting.
So
was sarcasm?
If so I've been Poe'd.
- - - Updated - - -
Not sure how you're presenting this, but we have a pretty good understanding on all known long term cycles. 20kyr 45kys 360 kyr or whatever you're talking about.
I've never seen anyone present their dishonesty so openly. Your mixing time eras willy nilly because you don't want to accept that reaching back 100 years is meaningless.
And Flannery is the favorite whipping boy for people who can't be arsed to read statements in context. When you read what he says in context, you'll find that he's actually rather cautious; he says what he thinks will happen but stresses that it's not a definite prediction. Read his elaboration on the Sydney damns.
So Flannery makes cautious statements, as he should. And then the media spins it to look like a set in stone prediction and you buy it. Plus, Flannery is really speaking about trends. Flannery's time scale was off because as it stands now, the more local you get the more inaccurate you get. But his message is correct: rainfall is dropping in temperate areas.That's right. That looks to be the case. We'll know probably within two or three years, I suppose, how this is going to play out, particularly for Sydney, because its water supply is limited to that sort of scale, but it is my fear that the new weather regime is going to be a much drier one, and while we may get the odd good rainfall event, they're going to be much less frequent than in the past, and we'll just be in a different climatic regime.
Did you read what David Viner wrote? You quoted it. He's not saying snow will be gone, he even says right there that it will be a very rare and exciting event. He elaborated later on in that interview:
It's like you guys always miss the point that we'll see less events on average, but that they will be more intense. And then we have the irony of people thinking that heavy snow for three months disproves Viner's statement when he literally did say that we'll see heavy snows.Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time."
Wikipedia - Straw man:
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition."
"In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)