[Blue_Nose]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

$1:

It is completely counterintuitive and it is completely silly on first blush, but if you're going to argue in favour of AGW at all then you MUST consistently attribute AGW effects to all unusual weather events.

Agreed. The climate change theory must match observatiosn and must have predictive ability in order for it to remain a valid theory. So far, though, no one has been able to knock it off its perch.

Zip: he's not saying that all observations must be in line with the theory (what you appear to have agreed with here); he's saying that all observations are a direct result of that theory.

Supposedly in the mind of Bart, since people advocate global warming as causing climate change, any climate phenomenon whatsoever must be attributed to global warming, not simply agree with it.

[BartSimpson]

You still arguing with yourself?

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You still arguing with yourself?

Nope - teaching you a lesson.

[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You still arguing with yourself?

Nope - teaching you a lesson.

So far what I've learned is that you'll keep typing no matter how futile the effort is.

[Blue_Nose]

I'm still typing to maintain attention to the fact that you're unable to address a few simple points - why are you still posting?

Is a relevant post really that hard to get out of you? You've certainly got enough time to make plenty of irrelevant ones.

[BartSimpson]

For someone who is ostensibly one of history's great intellects you sure are dense.

You keep addressing this thread as if it was actually about AGW when, in fact, it is simply about logic.

Nomure got it, Sasquatch got it, Zip got it, too.

Just waiting on you.

[Blue_Nose]

I already addressed both Numure and Zipperfish's comments.

Neither indicated that they agreed with the notion you put forth - that climate change has necessarily caused this early freeze.

Still waiting for you to address relevant posts, as I addressed the logic of your comments quite explicitly.

[sasquatch2]

Actually I think everyone got except BN....

Perhaps we should do a poll.

[Blue_Nose]

I'll concede the point when Bart can address these, to which he notedly has made no attempts.

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Secondly, the consensus of AGW proponents is that AGW is the most powerful force guiding climate change right now.

Not the sun. Not natural cycles or processes, but AGW. We've heard it over and over ad nauseum and if you ask me to post links or proof of the average AGW news story of the past fifteen years I'm going to just laugh my butt off at you.

Not the most powerful force guiding the climate altogether - just climate change. An early freeze isn't an indication of climate change.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Thirdly, if AGW is NOT affecting this early freeze then it is also NOT affecting any incidents concerning heat.

affecting =/ causing

Here's a tip: go back to school and take a intro course to logic.

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, but what we do have here are three people who are by default arguing that this unusual cooling event is unrelated to other events in the climate.

You're trying to place the event squarely in response to climate change - there's no evidence of this whatsoever, nor any claims. Cold falls are not proof of climate change any more than warm summers.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It can't be unrelated and only Nomure has logically stood by the AGW argument to state that, yes, this early freeze must be driven by AGW if AGW is to be argued as the dominant factor in the global climate.

It may be considered by some to be the dominant factor in climate CHANGE, but that's not to say it's the dominant factor in overall climate behaviour.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Which is consistent with the AGW argument that melting ice will shut down or affect the Gulf Stream and cause the northern latitudes to get cooler. If this is true then the Arctic ice melt observed over the summer could logically be considered as resulting in an unusual cold snap.

The shutting down of the Gulf Stream hasn't actually happened, nor has it been cited as the cause of this early freeze - again, you're pulling shit out of your ass.

That climate change is argued to affect everything in the world is not proof that it causes everything in the world. Bart has yet to substantiate this argument. Similarly, the argument that global warming drives climate change is not evidence that it drives all climatic phenomenon.

[sasquatch2]

What a thoroughly confused young man.

Instead of seeing the light (BS) about AGW---he just keeps spinning.... chasing his own tail....now he's yelping because he caught it and can't bring himself to let go.

[Blue_Nose]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

What a thoroughly confused young man.

Instead of seeing the light (BS) about AGW---he just keeps spinning.

I didn't defend "AGW" - it's not my fault that you can't see that.

[Numure]

The theory I posted wasnt about the Golf Stream stoping, but being affected by the northern ices melting (Yes, they are melting Sasq). I don't believe in the hole AGW Theory though.

The problem right now is that we don't have enough data/understanding of how our oceans and atmosphere affect our climate.

Just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[BartSimpson]

All of the other comments I made were filler. The original comment/bait is all that matters.

$1:

It's freezing early because of global warming.

*If* AGW is true to any extent whatsoever then this statement of mine is true to some extent as well.

You argued against *me* and trapped yourself into arguing against the statement. I then added petrol to your fire.

Nomure didn't fall for it and Zip caught on to me, too.

Now one of the classes I would recommend to you, if your school offers it, is forensic debate.

One of the classic debating tactics is to have your opponent destroy his own argument by offering it yourself, then your opponent argues against himself.

You win the logical point by agreeing with your opponent.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

All of the other comments I made were filler. The original comment/bait is all that matters.

$1:

It's freezing early because of global warming.

*If* AGW is true to any extent whatsoever then this statement of mine is true to some extent as well.

Only in a trivial way. Yes, the freeze happened early because of global warming. It also happened because of cloud patterns changing the local heat balance. It also happened because I let one rip five months ago instead of holding it back a la the butterfly effect.

$1:

You argued against *me* and trapped yourself into arguing against the statement. I then added petrol to your fire.

Nomure didn't fall for it and Zip caught on to me, too.

Now one of the classes I would recommend to you, if your school offers it, is forensic debate.

One of the classic debating tactics is to have your opponent destroy his own argument by offering it yourself, then your opponent argues against himself.

You win the logical point by agreeing with your opponent.

Yea, that technique would work great if anyone here actually took the position you're oh so cleverly trying to discount...

[Zipperfish]

Yeah, I'm going to argue the sceptic side for ythe next couple of days, just for fun.