Mini Ice Age animals know first

[phaZed]

Aaron, I admire your passion and drive for scientific evidence. I think that's commendable.

What I'm uncomfortable with is how your wording seems to kick people while they're down, so to speak. If someone isn't as well read and researched as you, or you can debate circles around them... making statements like "thanks for the cannon fodder" and "want to have another go at it?" just seem belittling and unnecessary.

That's just my opinion of how it comes off, I don't respect you any less as a professional.

Point humbly taken, and you are correct. It is somewhat of a flaw that I have been trying to work on... I have gotten in trouble here on the forum once before for being "too direct" in which I have held back heavily on derogatory statements. On the other hand, when I use "Thanks for the Cannon Fodder" and "Want to have another go at it" I do not mean to be derogatory at all, though I suppose it may read that way. I don't feel I'm kicking them while they are down, rather, they are kicking themselves down and into a corner by posting such silly nonsense that could easily be proven incorrect if they dared to read more than a headline. It is the lack of any research by these sorts of posters and lack of response to criticisms thereafter that prompts my bold statements. I only wish to instill a bit of humility in these posters and directly point out how silly they seem in an effort to curtail further ill-conceived posts. I still want them to post, but if they do so, hopefully a small bit of humiliation will make them think twice about not doing their own research. If I am too complacent, these guys will just move on to a different talking point without addressing previous ones.

On a larger scale... it is this type of Far-Right Republican'esque and Fox News "no think" talking points that have been the biggest barrier to doing something proactive about rising CO2 and Global Warming. I have nothing against Republicans when dealing with the individual, but there is no question as to where this misinformation is being ultimately sourced from.

Thank you.

 

[Kitten Kong]

I think this thread has gone round the houses enough times now.

It appears that no one will change each other's views.

In this case I feel it's time to shut the thread.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

I rest my case. Everyone here on the board can go to the report and CTRL+F and search for 1.64 degrees or 3.0 degrees C and see it's not in that report. I believe you are failing to read and comprehend basic sentences. I do not intend to be mean or degrading when I say that. Your just poorly able to understand and logically deduce. The values you quote from the report are not temperatures! LOL!

Are you serious? Everyone please do that search for 1.64. You will come to table 4 on page 16. Where it states a best ECS of 1.64.If you don't think that is related to temperature then see the blog post from one of the papers author's where she spells it out in layman's terms and post the EXACT same chart only interchanging K with C:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/

And you did not teach me anything about ECS & TCR I did not already know. You are still wrong about the TSI chart as well.

 

[phaZed]

This is interesting that they have presented K as C on the webpage you posted as opposed to what they submitted to the IPCC. Good find! It still doesn't change the fact that they are talking about "Climate Sensitivity" ranges which is quite different than what you propose it is.

Yes, let us allow the board to review the information and see who is correct.

I am going to respect Cadishead's post and assume he truly does want this conversation closed and will cease posting. Thank you for the stimulating conversations guys.

 

[Kitten Kong]

Thanks Aaron. I am attempting to find out exactly how to close the thread. May take a few mins.

 

[NYJimbo]

Thanks Aaron. I am attempting to find out exactly how to close the thread. May take a few mins.

Ok, now the thread can be closed.