Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Cryptoengineer Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 13:18:04 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 143 Message-ID: References: <20240913a@crcomp.net> <20240915a@crcomp.net> <20240916a@crcomp.net> <92767bb42bc741f813f2a5a131e0ce5e@www.novabbs.com> <8b0e72a9-cf0c-dd8f-0b07-cdd1136854f3@example.net> <44ba55b0-9667-f511-e884-e91e2078a4e0@example.net> <747b854a-2622-4162-68ac-159a85d14140@example.net> <3da82988-b240-b700-4ec9-f5378d3480af@example.net> <4da12558-d945-69e4-f83a-66d1414d4cfa@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 19:18:05 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="856295d01b54aae96346c41ce8203360"; logging-data="2402707"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dibn/aPCjkHULR+uWZOLydeSJVnB0HTA=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:vo9wm6zNDAH9KIuZjkpOUwke2WM= In-Reply-To: <4da12558-d945-69e4-f83a-66d1414d4cfa@example.net> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7455 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