Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac

[Al Swearegen]

In your breakneck clamouring and haste to denounce someone that doesn't defend every Muslim under every instance (sorry wrong argument) doesn't say that every instance someone blames a specific change in the climate to man's efforts, they are 100% correct to do so without citing evidence to back their assertion, you have not actually paid any attention to what I said and importantly what I DID NOT say.

So whilst you can say any damn thing you like. Callouts are where you actually HAVE to back yourself.

What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

If you find this part hard, it will get harder as I start highlighting elements of what I ACTUALLY said and not what you imagined or read into things.

Your point of view and narrative of my position will drift further and further away.

This will, of course, degenerate as you well know, because you are unable to admit you had the wrong end of things and were in the wrong with the positions you projected on me, and I will tenaciously pursue it. I WILL keep it to callout UNLESS you choose NOT to resolve it in the callout, in which case I will not vouch for where it will go.

But hey, you could have chosen not to project positions on me I did not hold and double down on them. Your choice. Let's see where this ends up. Let's hope it does not end in months-long feuding and/or more moderation and censorship on this free speech platform built on freedom of expression and combativeness. Especially if a bit of honesty may clear things up.

After all it is Easter.

[odeon]

Well, since it's Easter.

Clinton wanted to invest more in green energy and climate change mitigation.
Trump wants to invest in coal and pretend climate change doesn't even fucking exist.
Even though Big Oil are finally acknowledging the problem of climate change.

Does climate change exist?
Does man's interaction with the environment change the climate measurably?
How measurably?

Here is the thing, people get two positions confused. Is the climate "changing"? YES! Will it continue to change? Yes. Are some of these changes not beneficial for us? Yes.
Has the Earth always been changing? Yes. Was it changing before we were around? Yes. Will it continue to change long after we stop existing on this planet? Yes. Are some of these changes bad for humans? Yes. [/quote]

So, this is your long intro. The concept is familiar. Point out that the climate has been changing since before man was capable of changing it. Point out it's bad, just to keep you on the right side of things.

Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.

Here's where it goes wrong. How much is "to some extent"? Not much, apparently, since you qualify with "perhaps". This is the part where you acknowledge that yeah, sure, maybe, perhaps, some of it may have had something to do with man. Except that your whole attitude here belittles the idea. Remember, I was not the only one to read your comments in this way.

Do you understand how modern science works? Do you understand why scientists practically never say "this is a fact" unless they are 100% sure? No, I did not think you did. My guess is that you've never worked as one, and I'm fairly sure you do do not have the training. It's called a theory because it's not certain. It's pretty damned close, though, because there are no alternatives, no Trump-friendly ideas to cast the theories into serious doubt, just some numbers in independent studies that are not 100% sure. But if you get some of the scientists to meet up, the conclusions they suggest--again theories--are pretty damned scary.

Climate change because of man, because of what we've done in the last 100 years or so, is one of the more stronger theories there is. Do you need to examine the evidence? Would you like to have a look at something recent or would you like to go back to the first half of the last century, when scientists--engineers, actually, if I remember it correctly--started to notice?

Is this where you say that your "perhaps" was just your way of stating that you don't know? If so, just say so. Because anyone with any insight into this particular science already knows you don't. You have no clue. You just want to phrase yourself in some ridiculously hesitant, conservative manner. Why? I have no fucking clue but you're making yourself look stupid and ignorant.

How much? Dunno.

When people deny climate change the Liberals call them stupid and say that it is proved that the environment is changing and the climate is changing and so ...duh....man is changing the environment and so the climate is changing. But is he. If so to what extent. To what extent would any measure make any difference?

It is not known and it is all theory.

This is just more of the same. Not known, all theory.

Here's the thing, though: Yes, it's a theory but its so probable it's scary. Remember that NASA link I posted? It's sort of a beginner's introduction to climate change. It's just the basics.

Read it. Try to understand it.

The circumstantial evidence is very strong and comes from many different branches of science. Astronomers can point to parts of it, meteorologists to more, and geophysicists to even more. This is not something that should be up to debate unless you have some fresh and conflicting data to counter it with. It's rather like having someone pointing a gun at you and starting to question the need to worry based on you thinking your would-be assassin might have forgotten to load the gun when he just killed someone else.

It would be beyond stupid to thing that nothing man does has any affect on anything or that there is not measurable changes in the climate or whatever. But it would be equally as stupid to blame this all on man. Somewhere on a VERY long spectrum lays the truth and everyone is entitled to an opinion and NO ONE has trhe ultimate truth on this.

Anyone who pretends to is made more foolish by the pronouncement.

So.....your point?

Cast it into doubt, sound reasonable, try to evade. It's all there is?

No.

This is not just any theory. It's akin to that gun pointed at you. Yes, it might not be loaded but the probability speaks against you. And right now, you're not only hinting that the gun isn't loaded but that your would-be assassin would miss even if it was. And that's just stupid.

Here is where you admit that that while you don't actually know, everything suggests that man-made climate change is real. Because every other suggestion you might have would be incredibly stupid and ignorant.

[odeon]

Oh, and you could, of course, say you did indeed say "perhaps", hinting that you meant "probably". In which case you'd do well to clarify. You could say that yes, the evidence does indeed suggest we've done this, we are to blame. It's all it takes. I'll leave you be.

Of course, that will make this callout look stupid, and rightly so. But then, I did not force you to start it.

[Al Swearegen]

Oh, and you could, of course, say you did indeed say "perhaps", hinting that you meant "probably". In which case you'd do well to clarify. You could say that yes, the evidence does indeed suggest we've done this, we are to blame. It's all it takes. I'll leave you be.

Of course, that will make this callout look stupid, and rightly so. But then, I did not force you to start it.

But here is where you have the wrong end of it and I knew you would. What specific aspect of climate change am I talking about? Better still, what can be said to be caused by climate change?

Now at this point, you may wish to reflect that many, many things get accused of being caused by Climate change and NOT all by Scientists. The fact that we know there is a thing called climate change allows people to call any bothersome change in climate, Climate change. Some MAY be right some MAY NOT be right.

So what is the mindset one should have when very ANY specific claim of climate change is made? "Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps."

Yes, scientific enquiry actually demands that at EACH instance of proclaimed climate change it is ACTUALLY Man made climate change or if it is not. IF it is then to what extent is this caused by man and if so how much is solely by him and how much by any other mitigating factor, and how much can the specific factors of man by corrected?

Why? Because it is not enough to say "Well X has change from what I remember, or from what it used to be, therefore this change in climate is climate change (Man made climate change)". Was THIS specific change, man-made climate change? It CANNOT be a default because " Is the climate "changing"? YES! Will it continue to change? Yes. Are some of these changes not beneficial for us? Yes. Has the Earth always been changing? Yes. Was it changing before we were around? Yes. Will it continue to change long after we stop existing on this planet? Yes. Are some of these changes bad for humans? Yes."

So If we know ANY change may not be man-made climate change. The more likely it is to be man-made climate change depends on how much research has been done into it and how much data has borne out solid results. Some of the claims have no such research, data and nor has the Scientific community much to say on a specific claim.

So, therefore we can say that whilst climate change undoubtably exists it DOES NOT make every claim and every instance of proclaimed claim "climate change" equally as valid or credible, and you can throw study after study at me and it does not make this claim any less true. It is the equivalent of me making a proclamation that Blondes are Ditzy and then to back this up, referring you to ditzy blonde after ditzy blonde (Blondes are not necessarily ditzy - this is simply illustrative - and I feel sillier having to point this out).

Furthermore, it is naive to think that we have all the answers, we do not. Even with what we actually know, it is work in progress. "It would be beyond stupid to think that nothing man does have any effect on anything or that there are not measurable changes in the climate or whatever. But it would be equally as stupid to blame this all on man. Somewhere on a VERY long spectrum lays the truth and everyone is entitled to an opinion and NO ONE has the ultimate truth on this.

Anyone who pretends to is made more foolish by the pronouncement."

So if someone comes to me and says that the drought in Australia is man-made, I would say "That is an interesting thought. How do you figure?" I would listen them out. They may be right or wrong, naturally, but I would be interested in hearing the evidence they have to support it. As impressive as this may be, I would want to know how they could exclude the very real chance that it is simply the Earth being itself. Furthermore again, I would be more impressed if they came up with solutions to reversing this trend or a minimisation strategy.
The default position is not to say that they are a kook, nor is it to say what they are telling me is truth or that it is completely wrong. That goes for scientists as well. They are not completely infallible.

What I have no time for is someone who may say" Yeah, the drought is bad. Climate change. Man did this", with a knowing and solemn nod of the head, but when pressed about it being an interesting theory to expand on, them saying "Of course it is climate change by man. Don't you know what climate change is? What shape is the Earth? Do you even Gravity?"

No, you will need more than that and you MAY be right. Perhaps? Does this climate change caused by man exist? Maybe. To some extent, perhaps (Man has been in Australia for 50 000 years and has been industrialised for a good couple of hundred years. It is not outside of the realms of possibility that ANY such claim may have at least some truth to it).

But of course this was not THE specific example and there is claim after claim not specific to Australia and the drought but many, many such claims. Are they automatically to be believed when man-made climate change is the go to default? No, you will need more than that and you MAY be right. Perhaps? Does THAT climate change caused by man exist? Maybe. To some extent, perhaps

One thing I have learned is that people like to think that they are smarter than what they are. When they do not know something, they tend to reinforce and general on what little they do know to feel smarter and more superior or intellectual.
Rather than point this out with climate change again, I will give an example of this that most of us know well.

"My child has Autism"
"Righhhtt...Autism. Umm...that is pretty tough. ...Still, they do have pretty unique talents like Maths and photographic memories. They can recall pretty cool stuff"
"Oh, you have seen Rainman too?"

Compare with:

"Uhhhh, it's been a nasty long winter"
"Climate change, huh? Damn, you humans and your driving cars"
"Right, should have known this Winter's length was caused by Climate Change"

So as stated, every instance of "Climate change" does need to stand up to some scrutiny and accepting it exists is NOT saying that every claim is equally as valid or equally as credible.

Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.

Until we know the specific claim in question we do not have the extent of the change or whether it is included in the "some" climate change that is man-made climate change. It's stupid to pretend otherwise. I meant exactly what I meant and do not need you reinterpreting to suit your narrative. Nor does your assassion metaphor bear the slightest resemblence to what I said or inmplied and it would be beyond moronic to think so.

[Al Swearegen]

So Odeon

What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

Any specificity here or are you going to spin your wheels some?

Again this IS my position and this is what you are arguing against:

Between the position of "all the evidence is in and everything is decided on climate change and we know what we pertain to know" (your position) and "climate change is all bullshit and a hoax. None of it is true and it is a monumental scam by stupid Liberals (the position you are stupidly implying that I hold), is a position that I ACTUALLY hold.

[odeon]

That's the problem with you, Al. You produce lots of text but very, very little substance. Your latest efforts here could drive anyone to tears, trying to understand what you actually think about climate change. Me, all I see is still your vague admission of something, somewhere being caused by man. Perhaps. Which is why people reacted and thought you were a climate change (as in caused by man; we're NOT talking about any other change, unless it's required in, say, a comparative statement) denier.

So, again, in your own words (and as few of them as possible), tell us what you actually think about climate change.

[odeon]

Oh, and I meant to ask you:

What is the ideology you mention in the subject line?

[Al Swearegen]

That's the problem with you, Al. You produce lots of text but very, very little substance. Your latest efforts here could drive anyone to tears, trying to understand what you actually think about climate change. Me, all I see is still your vague admission of something, somewhere being caused by man. Perhaps. Which is why people reacted and thought you were a climate change (as in caused by man; we're NOT talking about any other change, unless it's required in, say, a comparative statement) denier.

So, again, in your own words (and as few of them as possible), tell us what you actually think about climate change.

Let me think about your request....how about ...no? That is right. YOU have made the claims and regardless of what anyone else may or may not think or your inability to appreciate or understand my position, YOU have sought to make claims regardless. Claims that YOU will back up and, no I do not much care for doing things to make it easier for you to do this.

Here is the thing, Odeon, IF you were to have not understood, then the time to get clarification is BEFORE making unsubstantiated claims and BEFORE the callout. You see how this works, don't you? The horse has bolted and I do not need to pander to you and give you a second chance to make different choices. You get to back your positions.

Be specific, Odeon.

What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

Any specificity here or are you going to spin your wheels some?

If you cannot do THIS much then we can move into whether or not I actually made claims that deny man-made climate change exists at all.

I think you will find that I have not. So this is going to make your case rather difficult regardless of whether I use a few words or a lot. So I am not feeling obliged to help you do so.

[Al Swearegen]

Oh, and I meant to ask you:

What is the ideology you mention in the subject line?

No harm asking. I will even answer.....as soon as you actually address:

What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

Any specificity here or are you going to spin your wheels some?

and

then we can move into whether or not I actually made claims that deny man-made climate change exists at all.

I think you will find that I have not. So this is going to make your case rather difficult regardless of whether I use a few words or a lot.

Tit for tat. But it better be more than you simply taking issue with my way of putting myself across. You make the claims and now you back them. For all your condescension you better have something to back what you claimed.

[odeon]

Idiot. You still think it's about you disputing a specific scientist? Here's what you need to do:

1. Work on your reading comprehension.
2. Edit your posts.
3. Learn to articulate.

And, of course, stay out of callouts that will embarrass you.

[odeon]

This is where you admit that man-made climate change is real and is causing us problems. It's where you acknowledge that those changes outweigh any natural variations over the last century or two.

Just a hint. It will make you look slightly less stupid.

[Al Swearegen]

Odeon, so your counter to me is to take a position that I already took from the first instance and to write according to your wishes?
Well, that is idiocy defined. Take a bow, you clown.

It would be beyond stupid to thing that nothing man does has any affect on anything or that there is not measurable changes in the climate or whatever.

Now, let's go back to find which claim of climate change or which scientist I have denounced. No more deflection. You made big claims of me and now you back them. I will not go racing in to edit my posts to make them palatable to you or easier for you to comprehend. You made big claims, I have called you on them and now you are in a callout to explain your positions.

What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

Any specificity here or are you going to spin your wheels some?

and

then we can move into whether or not I actually made claims that deny man-made climate change exists at all.

I think you will find that I have not. So this is going to make your case rather difficult regardless of whether I use a few words or a lot.

[odeon]

How stupid will you get? Fucking idiot.

[Al Swearegen]

How stupid will you get? Fucking idiot.

Settle down, Odeon.

Throwing insults around has its place in a callout, but you need to back yourself....and you are not.

If you did not want another callout, you would have either not made the claims you did or would have backed what you said. I know you have painted yourself into a position where faux indignation, deflection, distraction, baseless insults and doubling smug feeling of superiority.....but none of that is backing yourself, and I will hold you to that.

It is best it is addressed here than all over the board. In fact, that is why this forum was designed. Everyone prefers that. If you can't back this and address the claims I can't keep it to the forum. I prefer it dealt with here. I hope you do too.

[odeon]

Sorry, Al, but it's the only explanation I have. Most others would have understood the points I made here, and some reacted against your original post exactly the way I did. This means you're bad at expressing yourself and suck at reading comprehension.

Of course, it could be that those two are separate issues but that would be arguing semantics, really.