OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Love of cold/snow? Sure, some of the offenders will claim to not be deniers, but when the only time the subject is breached is in a mocking way, you begin to wonder about the motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Its not, but attribtuing every event to it is ribbed. I've posted warming stats in there before...how come you didn't complain about that? One has to wonder about your motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 Its not, but attribtuing every event to it is ribbed. I've posted warming stats in there before...how come you didn't complain about that? One has to wonder about your motives. i wasn't talking about you. You at least come in here and post about the existence of AGW. The only time I see some people in there even posting about it is in a mocking way. It's annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 and really who is contributing every event to AGW? The media? I mean who is the real beef with here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 and really who is contributing every event to AGW? The media? I mean who is the real beef with here? Well we had a poster recently blame most of our weather on it in our own subforum, but I'm not going to get into a names battle. As for AGW snow/cold...if people have a big snow bias, they should be promoting the ideas of AGW attribution since recently some have argued that increased mid-latitude cold and snowy winters were a direct result of blocking that was being attributed to global warming. So bring on AGW to get cold and snowy winters! I personally find some of these findings a bit of a stretch, but perhaps there is something there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 Well we had a poster recently blame most of our weather on it in our own subforum, but I'm not going to get into a names battle. As for AGW snow/cold...if people have a big snow bias, they should be promoting the ideas of AGW attribution since recently some have argued that increased mid-latitude cold and snowy winters were a direct result of blocking that was being attributed to global warming. So bring on AGW to get cold and snowy winters! I personally find some of these findings a bit of a stretch, but perhaps there is something there. yes, I saw. There's a couple posters in there that will mock any type of AGW connection or post that is made...it's definitely more one sided than the other. Forky posted a scholarly article in there a few months back about the blocking/agw connection...and that was mocked too...so it's not just all about the media, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 the biggest joke of the whole thing is the media doesn't have all that much power...it's a boogieman. The money and political power is centered on one side of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 see, scientific studies are being mocked. I knew this wasn't just about the media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Looks like once again posts are taken out of context. The beef is not with AGW, but how the media loves to have a bias about only the "bad" that comes with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 Looks like once again posts are taken out of context. The beef is not with AGW, but how the media loves to have a bias about only the "bad" that comes with it. dude, you and ginx both mocked a scientific article about agw too, so it must not just be about media. The only time you post about AGW is to mock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Looks like once again posts are taken out of context. The beef is not with AGW, but how the media loves to have a bias about only the "bad" that comes with it. Looks like once again posts are taken out of context. The beef is not with AGW, but how the media loves to have a bias about only the "bad" that comes with it. Looks like once again posts are taken out of context. The beef is not with AGW, but how the media loves to have a bias about only the "bad" that comes with it. Yeah, they never talk about the larger crop sizes that would be favored by more CO2 and longer growing seasons. Also, net energy needs could quite possibly be reduced with less heating needs vs. more airconditioning related cooling needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 dude, you and ginx both mocked a scientific article about agw too, so it must not just be about media. The only time you post about AGW is to mock. What are you talking about? Find my post this morning where I mocked an article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 What are you talking about? Find my post this morning where I mocked an article. You mocked the article when it was actually linked by forky a month or two back...not this morning. Forky/ginx/and will are talking about that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 Yeah, they never talk about the larger crop sizes that would be favored by more CO2 and longer growing seasons. Also, net energy needs could quite possibly be reduced with less heating needs vs. more airconditioning related cooling needs. yeah, let's talk about the good that comes from AGW! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 deniers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 there will be more food available due to the deaths from storm surge and rising sea levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 You mocked the article when it was actually linked by forky a month or two back...not this morning. Forky/ginx/and will are talking about that article. I'm not talking about questioning an article that might have some comments that are a stretch, I'm talking about this morning. Even Will mentioned some of the stuff as being a stretch. So I guess only bad weather is caused by AGW...we can't talk about the good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 deniers Nobody is denying...at least I'm not. Nick looks foolish again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 You mocked the article when it was actually linked by forky a month or two back...not this morning. Forky/ginx/and will are talking about that article. The article IIRC was the article published about extreme cold in recent European and Asian winters in the mid-latitudes and was based off of a 4 year period from 2007-2011. It was attempting attribution of lost sea ice in recent years to the blocking. It was an admittedly low confidence study from the paper. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical of it. Forky posted it when we were talking about the cold late March IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 yeah, let's talk about the good that comes from AGW! lol Well, why shouldn't the legitimately good effects also be mentioned by the media and others? Why should only bad effects be mentioned? That sounds like a bias to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Nobody is denying...at least I'm not. Nick looks foolish again. Your post came off that way, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 The article IIRC was the article published about extreme cold in recent European and Asian winters in the mid-latitudes and was based off of a 4 year period from 2007-2011. It was attempting attribution of lost sea ice in recent years to the blocking. It was an admittedly low confidence study from the paper. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical of it. Forky posted it when we were talking about the cold late March IIRC. Let him go, he put his foot in his mouth as usual. It was a good try by him to blame me mocking an article after he realizes he screwed up. Thanks Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Your post came off that way, I've made it clear numerous times that it's a valid subject. People assume too much here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 I'm not talking about questioning an article that might have some comments that are a stretch, I'm talking about this morning. Even Will mentioned some of the stuff as being a stretch. So I guess only bad weather is caused by AGW...we can't talk about the good. 90% of AGW posts in that forum are of the mocking variety...yours included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 Let him go, he put his foot in his mouth as usual. It was a good try by him to blame me mocking an article after he realizes he screwed up. Thanks Nick. I didn't screw **** up...it's obvious where your biases lie. Just like Kevin and Ginx. Same ****, different day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 People who haven't studied climate science a day in their lives have the audacity to mock those whose field of research is devoted to it. The new America, where all opinions are equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 I've made it clear numerous times that it's a valid subject. People assume too much here. I'm not sure what this means. Does it exist or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 90% of AGW posts in that forum are of the mocking variety...yours included. There's a difference between mocking media headlines and mocking the basis of AGW. Attribution is the flimsiest part of AGW as well...so even there, its quite different than someone mocking that CO2 cuases warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 There's a difference between mocking media headlines and mocking the basis of AGW. Attribution is the flimsiest part of AGW as well...so even there, its quite different than someone mocking that CO2 cuases warming. idk man...if the majority of your posts on AGW are about mocking the media...then I don't think you're really "getting it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 90% of AGW posts in that forum are of the mocking variety...yours included. You're out of line. Relax and hit the books dude. Mocking the ridiculous media hype is much different than mocking the science. Keep digging..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.