Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com>
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: <vcpjgc$29acj$3@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>
 <vcnc8b$1o122$1@dont-email.me>
 <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