Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a
 Smear
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 17:01:53 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <vcnc8b$1o122$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20240913a@crcomp.net>
 <cicbejl8f1hppk447ao6jq1n295sj386f1@4ax.com>
 <pcgeejhh5j013bn1iqo15i5cod7267j15j@4ax.com> <20240915a@crcomp.net>
 <vc8hcj$2m25s$1@dont-email.me> <20240916a@crcomp.net>
 <92767bb42bc741f813f2a5a131e0ce5e@www.novabbs.com>
 <vcd5e0$3ognu$3@dont-email.me>
 <8b0e72a9-cf0c-dd8f-0b07-cdd1136854f3@example.net>
 <vcfkj6$7u9m$2@dont-email.me>
 <44ba55b0-9667-f511-e884-e91e2078a4e0@example.net>
 <vci73c$o1qv$1@dont-email.me>
 <747b854a-2622-4162-68ac-159a85d14140@example.net>
 <vcku7i$19c9j$1@dont-email.me>
 <3da82988-b240-b700-4ec9-f5378d3480af@example.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 23:02:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa25632182572eed4e1060aeac8c2d18";
	logging-data="1836098"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zjGk6jTvaoaIvPWQuh7w1"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.19
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YZdSAqBzYp4AJX9kli569WWN6vc=
In-Reply-To: <3da82988-b240-b700-4ec9-f5378d3480af@example.net>
Bytes: 5854

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.

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).

I know of precisely one qualified scientist in the skeptic camp, Richard 
Lindzen, and none of his ideas have panned out.




  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.



  come
> from gender science, postmodernism, economics, agriculture and other
> hobby-sciences.
> 
>> But it doesn't matter, only arguments do.  Neither you nor Lynn have 
>> offered a scintilla of evidence in defense of your position (the solar 
>> constant variations you mention in another post are the ones I cited 
>> above, and do not explain global warming at all).
> 
> Plenty of evidence and logical explanations as far as I can see.
> 
>>> science is not democracy, where you vote, so it doesn't matter if 10 
>>> people believe X if 1 person can prove Y.
>>
>> But you can't prove Y.  You haven't even tried. But I've presented 
>> evidence for X.
> 
> There's plenty of proof.

Assertion without evidence.  Do you have any other tactic?

Oh yes, insults.



  The problem is that it is mostly hidden from
> 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.



  We all remember climate gate for
> instance, which is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> But the good thing is that eventually the truth will come out. The
> question is if it will happen before or after, we've been reduced to
> medieval times due to eco-fascism.
> 
>> Of course there is inertia in
>>> the system, so the 10 won't change over night, but eventually, with a 
>>> paradigm shift or two they will.
>>
>> On the contrary, if the world of 2100 is two C warmer than today, 
>> denialists will still be denying.
> 
> The temperature on earth has always varied. This is nothing to be afraid
> of. In fact, an increase in warmth will have many beneficial effects, so
> do not be afraid of the future.
> 
>>> So since neither will convince the other,
>>
>> 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?

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.

William Hyde