climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[Havre]

So clearly there are enough people who could represent the "other side" in debates etc., but I can't think of a single time I have seen anyone whenever those debates are being held.

Neither side has has anything beyond conjecture and belief to present in a debate on AGW.

This tends to make the believers of AGW look bad, when thier arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. While this is equally damning on the side of the AGW deniers, those deniers ally with skeptics and take the position of reality that is - 'we just dont know'. Thus from an objective stand point, deniers and skeptics win the debate because thier position of unsurety is provable. And the surety of the predictions made by AGW belivers are obviously inaccurate, inconsistent, and often rigged.


So now you know why you don't see free debates welcomed by AGW belivers.

Could be yes. All very sad - that the curiosity to get to a better understanding isn't what is driving "us".

[Pemba]

So clearly there are enough people who could represent the "other side" in debates etc., but I can't think of a single time I have seen anyone whenever those debates are being held.

Neither side has has anything beyond conjecture and belief to present in a debate on AGW.

This tends to make the believers of AGW look bad, when thier arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. While this is equally damning on the side of the AGW deniers, those deniers ally with skeptics and take the position of reality that is - 'we just dont know'. Thus from an objective stand point, deniers and skeptics win the debate because thier position of unsurety is provable. And the surety of the predictions made by AGW belivers are obviously inaccurate, inconsistent, and often rigged.


So now you know why you don't see free debates welcomed by AGW belivers.

What stands out in this topic for me is the extent to which neither side addresses arguments or issues raised by the other side and also how emotional (angry) and rude and arrogant many people become. This is the largely the same for both sides - though I wouldn't call it a fair description of your (Matteo's) contributions - they have been interesting in some cases. And off course there are various others. The other is how little middle ground there seems to be. You'd expect there to be two sides of a range or spectrum. But describing it as two sides seems more accurate.

So then it just depends on how long you want to make the summary, but my way of summarizing is to describe one group as saying "yes it is true", and the other saying "no it isn't true" (repeat). The few of those in the middle who are largely ridiculed or ignored by both sides, as well as some other ideas (global warming is positive, I think we' might be heading for another ice age, Joe is going to save us all, etc), which include a number of very interesting contributions, are in my opinion relatively unimportant so left out of my summary. Let me repeat that: relatively. But feel free to feel different.

I think in general, the lack of addressing issues presented by "the other side", at least in my case, is just because of lack of knowledge and lack of time or interest to "dig deeper". But in that case, you'd still expect people to be surprised, curious, interested etc. That doesn't appear to be the case in general.
The comment above ("So now you know why...AGW believers") follows the general trend. Just more finger pointing. Somebody will probably now say, "no it the AGW deniers that don't welcome free debate"...

[slide]

there is no debate anymore its fact ,weather patterns are not stable , and will only get worse

[elguapo]

there is no debate anymore its fact ,weather patterns are not stable , and will only get worse

this is exactly true.

weather patterns have never been "stable"..
..we have "seasons" which involve changes.
changes in the sunspots directly changes our climate.
..this planet does a rotation tilt on her axis roughly every 10,000 years.. which invoke changes in our weather patterns.
..we have recently entered in the 'age of auquarius'.. which will also make earth inhabitable for many of you.

the argument here.. and the illusion for which so many you choose to play the pied piper.. concerns "man made" climate change.
(which was proven false 200+ pages ago)

[Matteo V]

there is no debate anymore its fact ,weather patterns are not stable , and will only get worse

this is exactly true.

weather patterns have never been "stable"..
..we have "seasons" which involve changes.
changes in the sunspots directly changes our climate.
..this planet does a rotation tilt on her axis roughly every 10,000 years.. which invoke changes in our weather patterns.
..we have recently entered in the 'age of auquarius'.. which will also make earth inhabitable for many of you.

the argument here.. and the illusion for which so many you choose to play the pied piper.. concerns "man made" climate change.
(which was proven false 200+ pages ago)

The worst part of the above meme is that there are both AGW deniers and AGW belivers that think the joke is being made about their opposition.

How do you fight idiocy on that level?

[prop_joe]

What stands out in this topic for me is the extent to which neither side addresses arguments or issues raised by the other side and also how emotional (angry) and rude and arrogant many people become.

Unfortunately it is like this for all topics nowadays not just climate change... nuance and debate are no longer a part of western mainstream society. If you disagree or challenge a policy of any given topic you are immediately the arch enemy of said topic and a 'part of the problem' irregardless if your overall goals are the same. Disagree with BLM... you're a N*zi, question Climate Change... you want the world to burn, believe in biology... you hate trannies etc. By the time we realise this the Chinese will have taken over and we'll all be locked up in reeduction camps!

ps - wtf is N*zi censored?

[prop_joe]

Further to that i'd even go as far as to say that for many, the fight becomes of more importance to them than to actually tackle the issue at hand. For example, if somehow climate changed was fixed overnight, I think Greta would wake up tomorrow dissapointed... just my opinion.

For fun, see the insanity for yourselves... type into google 'can men get pregnant?'. We're so fucked! I really hope i'm in the same class as Slide for reeducation.

[Pemba]

What stands out in this topic for me is the extent to which neither side addresses arguments or issues raised by the other side and also how emotional (angry) and rude and arrogant many people become.

Unfortunately it is like this for all topics nowadays not just climate change... nuance and debate are no longer a part of western mainstream society. If you disagree or challenge a policy of any given topic you are immediately the arch enemy of said topic and a 'part of the problem' irregardless if your overall goals are the same. Disagree with BLM... you're a N*zi, question Climate Change... you want the world to burn, believe in biology... you hate trannies etc. By the time we realise this the Chinese will have taken over and we'll all be locked up in reeduction camps!

ps - wtf is N*zi censored?

Have to agree with most unfortunately. The one I was missing is something with religion maybe (If you are for guncontrol... your are marked with the sign of satan). But yes, so many things are polarized with little nuance or constructive debate.

[Matteo V]

Gotta love physics girl for breaking it down.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 8j2VcbcjsX

Happy cunco de mayo!

Mateo

[Havre]

That might explain why I just had to ride my bike in 4 degrees C in May just a couple of hours ago. Absurd.