Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On 9/22/2024 5:13 AM, D wrote:

  On Sat, 21 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

D wrote:

>
>
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
>

Hmm, this is very strange. No insults, no ad hominems, somewhere in your text, surely an insult or two are hiding? Can't find it!

>
I leave those to you, and you provide plenty.

>
Now we're talking! ;)
>

Needless to say, there are loads of scientists who are of the opinion that what we see is natural and not man made.

>
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be unqualified individuals.

>
Actually, it is the opposite. Many climate rationalists come from
engineering, physics and the natural sciences,

>
Those who work on global change are physicists, mathematicians, meteorologists, and so forth.  We are not responsible for the words of those in the public sphere who may or may not take our work to extremes.
>
And it is dishonest of you to imply such.

 It is not. Plenty of politicians and rent seekers in the climate field.
This has been proven again and again. There are also physicists who do
not agree, that is a fact.
 

As for your experts, a major source for them has been for years the "Oregon institute of science and medicine" petition.  Examination of those  on that list reveals a plethora of totally unqualified individuals, and of the qualified, some did not sign the list (one I know personally).

 Everyone who disagrees is unqualified, got it.
 

while many climate

hysterics

>
Now you are stating that your opponents are "hysterics".  Again.  That is a dishonest debate tactic.
>
Indeed, as I am debating you, you are attaching those labels to me. I resent that.

 Well, you have been caustic too. I will stop, since you don't like it. I
will refer to you as human, and the doomsday phenomenon of the climate
agitators as climate hysterics. Björn Lomborg is an example of someone I
disagree with, but who I do not call climate hysteric.
 The reason I say climate hysteric is also that many people, and I do not
mean you, call people who disgaree with the narrative climate deniers.
That is possibly even more dishonest, trying to lump climate
rationalists together with holocaust deniers.
 

plain sight due political reasons.

>
I've looked at everything the denialist world has to offer.
>
They have no evidence.
>
I invite you to supply some.  Actual reasoning, that is. Don't bother cut-and-pasting some page you don't actually understand yourself.

 I will give you 5.
 Natural Climate Variability One of the primary arguments against man- made climate change is that
Earth’s climate has always experienced fluctuations due to natural
processes. Rationalists have explained that the warming observed in recent
decades could be part of a natural cycle rather than a result of human
activity. They point to historical climate data showing periods of
warming and cooling over thousands of years, suggesting that current
changes may not be unprecedented.
 Solar Activity Influence Another argument is that variations in solar activity are responsible
for the observed changes in global temperatures. Increased solar
irradiance correlates with rising temperatures and natural
solar cycles have a more significant impact on climate than
human-generated greenhouse gases.
 Questionable Climate Models The climate models are often flawed or overly reliant on assumptions
about human impact. These models have failed to accurately replicate
past climate conditions and therefore cannot be trusted to forecast
future scenarios reliably.
 Oceanic and Atmospheric Absorption Earth’s natural systems, such as oceans and forests, can absorb
significant amounts of CO2 emitted by human activities, mitigating
potential warming effects.  This perspective suggests that the capacity
of these “carbon sinks” could offset any potential anthropogenic
emissions, reducing their overall impact on global temperatures.
 Historical CO2 Levels and Temperature Correlation Studies indicate that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have
historically followed temperature rises rather than preceding them. This
correlation suggests that CO2 may not be a primary driver of climate
change but rather a response to other climatic factors.
 

You don't even try.  And your declaration of closed-mindedness is disturbing.

>
Likewise. See above.

>
Not likewise.
>
I can explain why the pattern of warming we see is distinct - more warming in higher than lower latitudes, more in winter than summer, more by night than day, cooling in the stratosphere.  These are all predicted consequences of increased greenhouse gases, predictions that were made decades ago.
>
Can you explain this pattern without invoking greenhouse gases?  Can you explain the warming at all?

 See 5 points above. Natural variation most likely.
 

No, we are not alike at all.
>
>
I seek reality, you seek factoids to support that which you believe already. You are a creature of politics.

 Now you are insulting me. But I'll let that pass, since this is an
aynchronous medium. I have not insulted you in this post.
 

William Hyde

Over the decades, I've observed that when a Usenet flamefest degrades
to the point that the participants are arguing about how they are
arguing, there's no point in paying much attention.
pt