Lightning from thunderstorms looks like war zone

[The_Animus]

I remember when I used to live at my parents house we would occasionally sit in the living room and watch lightning from the windows. Now this was oh 6-8+ years ago. The lightning bolt would occasionally flash in the sky, followed shortly by thunder.

In the last couple years though the storms haven't been like this anymore. Especially these last few months. Now almost every time there is a storm here (I live on the western central edge of Wisconsin) it's like a war zone. There is not nearly as much thunder and it is not nearly as loud. Despite this, Lightning flashes constantly for anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour straight. I look out my window and it reminds me of the video footage of bombs dropping in Iraq or as if God decided to turn on a strobe light for the entire sky. Constant flashing, with varying light intensity. Most of the time it rains when this happens but sometimes its just constant lightning flashing. I would guess this happens for about 4 out of every 5 storms.

Has anyone else noticed this too? Would global warming have anything to do with why the storms are like this now?

[dudalb]

Sounds like a typical Great Plains Thunderstorm to me.
You have to be really careful to avoid taking individual weather events as "proof" for or against Global Warming.

[The_Animus]

Well I'm not debating whether Global Warming is real. Most scientists will agree it is.

I'm just wondering if it has anything to do with the changes I've observed in my local weather.

[Biscuit]

I live in Tucson AZ where we get amazing summer monsoons that just blow you away.

From the valley looking north over the catalina MT the storms will cross over behind the range in the evening. When the lighting strikes go off they illuminate the whole range and the clouds. I have often remarked how easy it would be for early man to mistake far off storms as gods at war with each other or warning man that they were displeased. These days it reminds me of cannon fire or a battleships deck guns at night.

I wouldn't look to much into it, just enjoy the show.

[baron]

In the UK we don't get much in the way of storms. We rarely get a lot of lightning either. A couple of years ago, however, I was on the balcony watching a storm when lightning struck a tree 50 yards away and hellfire, I'll never forget that sound! :)

[genesplicer]

It may be possible that the changes in storms are being caused by climate change. However, in order to demonstrate this, we would have to collect data over many years to get enough evidence for it. I think the same is happening here, in the desert of So Cal, simply because of the changes we have seen in the last 20 years. Whether it is a long-term thing or merely a blip on the radar is still up for grabs.

I do think the evidence is quite clear that global warming is happening, and that this will bring about climate change. Whether this has actually had a major influence on local weather already is still unclear.

Of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The graph at the church of the flying spaghetti monster shows that...
www dot venganza dot org/about/open-letter/

[Tokenconservative]

Well I'm not debating whether Global Warming is real. Most scientists will agree it is.

I'm just wondering if it has anything to do with the changes I've observed in my local weather.

25-30 years ago, where I live, we used to get very deep snow, several hard storms every winter.

Then, about the mid-70s, that pattern changed and it stopped snowing so much (in the flatlands) in the winter. I very clearly remember summers when it would rain virtually every day...that stopped about the same time, and it would rain again in the fall for a couple or three weeks, pretty steadily....

Now, we are getting socked in again every winter; it rained virtually every day this summer from May-July...we've had a week of rain this fall... Well, there's only one reason this could possibly be happening right now... disn'tt
member the big, scientificy word describing it's human cause, but it can only be.... Global warming....Global WAAAARRRRRRRRMMMIIINGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or course, more rational thinkers than I might call it "cyclical weather and climate patterns...just like we've had since the beginning of weather and climate here on ol' Ma Earth."

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

In the UK we don't get much in the way of storms. We rarely get a lot of lightning either. A couple of years ago, however, I was on the balcony watching a storm when lightning struck a tree 50 yards away and hellfire, I'll never forget that sound! :)

We virtually never get earthquakes where I live.

Three-four years ago, we had a little one.

Therefore....what?

Tokie

[UserGoogol]

Now, we are getting socked in again every winter; it rained virtually every day this summer from May-July...we've had a week of rain this fall... Well, there's only one reason this could possibly be happening right now... disn'tt
member the big, scientificy word describing it's human cause, but it can only be.... Global warming....Global WAAAARRRRRRRRMMMIIINGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!

Except that like no scientists use local weather conditions as evidence of global warming, so I don't see what your point is. You can't infer global climate change from local weather change (unless it's something insane shouldn't happen like the oceans boiling), but we can (sort of kind of) infer local weather change from global climate change, and that's what this thread is about. If global warming is happening, then might it have anything to do with such-and-such local weather change?

[Tokenconservative]

Except that like no scientists use local weather conditions as evidence of global warming, so I don't see what your point is. You can't infer global climate change from local weather change (unless it's something insane shouldn't happen like the oceans boiling), but we can (sort of kind of) infer local weather change from global climate change, and that's what this thread is about. If global warming is happening, then might it have anything to do with such-and-such local weather change?

I don't infer that. Indeed, a more careful reading of my post should indicate to the discerning reader that I imply exactly the opposite.

Indeed. Local weather--whether that's more lightning over Podunk, or a year with several more hurricanes than the year before over the Gulf of Mexico--can only be an indicator of larger climatological changes, and not be looked at as proof-positive. Just because gran'pa tells you that back in the day, why, he had to walk to school 15 miles each way through snow up to his neck does not mean that:
A. He did
B. It matters
C. Deep snow then was not simply an indicator of the 20-25 year weather cycle, but was sent by an angry God to punish gran'pa, who used to steal eggs from Farmer Brown's coop on the way home.

Your rebuttal here is aimed at the wrong person. I fully agree that we cannot infer from local weather events that GLOBAL WARMING IS NIGH!!! IT'S TEOTWAWKI!!! GIVE ALGORE MONEY!!!! STOP THE AMERICAN ECONOMY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!!!

I take a more...sanguine view of these things. I recognize for example that what the geologic record tells us is that typically, just before a period of glaciation (ice age) the planet (globally) experiences rises in temperature. Personally, I welcome warming with far less trepidation than I would, say, glaciers covering the North American continent to a depth of 2-3 miles from the arctic to the Great Lakes.

I dunno....seems like a little warm weather, even sea levels rising a centimeter or three would be a much easier thing to handle. Especially if you are in say, Montreal.

On the other hand, a nice Ice Age, covering Michigan with a few thousand feet of ice would probably stop that strike at GM in a hurry.

Tokie

[The_Animus]

This topic really wasn't about global warming. I was just commenting on my local weather pattern. In the case of local weather you may be correct. It may just be cyclic changes. It may have been like that before and now its like that again.

Global warming is not the same at all. Your posts seem to show only a vague understanding of the facts supporting Global warming, and your caps lock sarcasm makes me question how much you know about the subject.

On a global scale whether is indeed cyclical as well, we have records going back over 600,000 years ago. What we are seeing now is a rise above and beyond anything we have seen in those 600,000 years of records.

There isn't even a real debate about this anymore. Global warming is a fact. All scientists in the field of climate will tell you it is fact. All scientists who have read all of the information on global warming will tell you it is fact. The United Nations has said that it is fact, but that there is low political will to address the problem.

Just the idea that 6 billion people using mass amounts of energy and resources on a global scale wouldn't affect the globe is kidding yourself.

I would highly suggest you watch An Inconvenient Truth.

[Tokenconservative]

This topic really wasn't about global warming. I was just commenting on my local weather pattern. In the case of local weather you may be correct. It may just be cyclic changes. It may have been like that before and now its like that again.

Global warming is not the same at all. Your posts seem to show only a vague understanding of the facts supporting Global warming, and your caps lock sarcasm makes me question how much you know about the subject.

On a global scale whether is indeed cyclical as well, we have records going back over 600,000 years ago. What we are seeing now is a rise above and beyond anything we have seen in those 600,000 years of records.

There isn't even a real debate about this anymore. Global warming is a fact. All scientists in the field of climate will tell you it is fact. All scientists who have read all of the information on global warming will tell you it is fact. The United Nations has said that it is fact, but that there is low political will to address the problem.

Just the idea that 6 billion people using mass amounts of energy and resources on a global scale wouldn't affect the globe is kidding yourself.

I would highly suggest you watch An Inconvenient Truth.

I probably know more about GW than you do, it's just that I know about it from a non-believer (heretic) perspective. Your suggesting my wathching that ridiculous, mercenary Algore schlocumentary cements that in my mind. No serious thinker on this subject on either side does much more than scoff at Gore and his self-aggrandizing, ill-researched and inaccurate movie.

When you start a thread wondering whether very localized weather patterns that "I've NEVER SEEN BEFORE!!!" are signs of the coming apocolypse, I have to assume (rightly, it's now abundantly clear) that you are a Global Warmingist, and your suggesting I see the Gore movie makes that even more clear.

We have HISTORICAL records going back a few thousand years, and reliable ones going back a few hundred regarding weather, if not climate. Please explain the so-called "little Ice Age," or the fact that avg. mean temps were about 60 degrees (F) higher in the late Jurassic than they are now?
While you are at it you might explain why global tems are also rising on Mars, Venus, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto right now, at the same time they are on Gaia, if ONLY MAN CAN BE CAUSING THIS HORROR!!!!!! as you and AlGore believe.

There isn't any debate because of the politics involved. For the past 6-8 years or so, any scientist daring to posit that either, GW is not happening, or is not TEOTWAWKI!!! or that human activity has nothing or little to do with whatever warming is NATURALLY occuring, quickly sees his or her career destroyed by those with a POLITICAL interst in seeing to it that the lie told loudly and long enough becomes the truth.

A suggestion: think with your head, rather than running around shrieking about the end of the world as we know it.

The UN also hosted and supported the findings of a anti-Semitic fest a few years ago...so when you cite the UN as the last word, you expect me to what, exactly...NOT laugh in your face?

Don't hold your breath.

Tokie

[fishbob]

Put the caps lock key down. Back away from the caps lock key.
Thank you.

By the way, 2005 or maybe 2006 there was a lightening strike in Barrow Alaska. The first one ever seen by most of the long term residents, and the first thunder ever heard. Made the local papers.

[PBTree]

What about this for a theory:

I remember when the Atlanta olympics was on and one of the meterorolgists came on TV and tried to explain the heat/humidity etc. His view was that Atlanta had grown so much over the last 'n' years that it now had an affect on its own local weather. This was due to all of the heat being created and saved (concrete, brick etc) by the city itself. He actually showed a thermal map of the city and it was a bright red. This meant that weather which used to travel over that piece of land, now went around it in the main, due to the heat.

20 years ago in my city, we used to get huge thunderstorms that would cause havoc in certain suburbs. Trees and power lines down. Flooding etc. These suburbs haven't been touched for quite a while.
Now the storms seem to split in half, go around the city and blast two other suburbs miles away. I can only assume that it is because the city has just about doubled in size over that time and now it forces the weather off in different directions because of its heat signature.

Just a thought.....

[maledoro]

I live in the American MidWest, and last month, it would be clear skies and hot during the daytime, but overnight it would thunderstorm badly and then clear up during the morning. This went on for the better part of a week: clear skies in the day, t-storms at night. This type of pattern had never happened here before (to the best of my knowledge).

I haven't been able to find any explanation other than good old fashioned coincidence, but could it be possible that global warming may have sparked this?

[Tokenconservative]

Put the caps lock key down. Back away from the caps lock key.
Thank you.

By the way, 2005 or maybe 2006 there was a lightening strike in Barrow Alaska. The first one ever seen by most of the long term residents, and the first thunder ever heard. Made the local papers.

O
M
G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TEOTWAWKI!!!!

TEOTWAWKI!!!!!

[Tokenconservative]

What about this for a theory:

I remember when the Atlanta olympics was on and one of the meterorolgists came on TV and tried to explain the heat/humidity etc. His view was that Atlanta had grown so much over the last 'n' years that it now had an affect on its own local weather. This was due to all of the heat being created and saved (concrete, brick etc) by the city itself. He actually showed a thermal map of the city and it was a bright red. This meant that weather which used to travel over that piece of land, now went around it in the main, due to the heat.

20 years ago in my city, we used to get huge thunderstorms that would cause havoc in certain suburbs. Trees and power lines down. Flooding etc. These suburbs haven't been touched for quite a while.
Now the storms seem to split in half, go around the city and blast two other suburbs miles away. I can only assume that it is because the city has just about doubled in size over that time and now it forces the weather off in different directions because of its heat signature.

Just a thought.....

This is called the "heat island" effect and it is broadly ignored by zealous Global Warmingists or, when forced to look at it, they will shriek that data about this is "incomplete" (unlike our understanding of climate, say) or fudged on behalf of "Big Oil!!!"

For example: the glacier atop Mt. Kilamanjaro is melting. There is no doubt about it. Of course, Global Warmingists shriek "prooooooooffffffff!!!!!"

In fact, it's more likely that this is as a result of heat island effect..not concrete and asphalt as in the case of cities like Atlanta, but rather because of the deforestation of the base of the mountain. As anyone who has taken Bio 101 knows (stop reading now, Dr. Kitten and ID), a ground cover of plants tends to keep temps down.

We have the same problem with much of the Holy Writ of Global Warming (the NASA/GISS long-term temperature records--of course, only PART of this is Holy Writ for some reason) in that especially some of the older parts of this record up to about the 1970s, really, and in some cases well into the 90s(oddly, we din't get a lot of really usable data from places like the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, E. Germany et al. for some few decades) the places these temps were gathered from tended to be...um, cities. That suffer from um...heat island effect.

But shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Don't mention this aloud to doctrinaire Global Warmingists unless you want to be burned at the stake.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I live in the American MidWest, and last month, it would be clear skies and hot during the daytime, but overnight it would thunderstorm badly and then clear up during the morning. This went on for the better part of a week: clear skies in the day, t-storms at night. This type of pattern had never happened here before (to the best of my knowledge).

I haven't been able to find any explanation other than good old fashioned coincidence, but could it be possible that global warming may have sparked this?


It very well could be. Once thing we DO seem to know about local weather is that it is impacted by larger climate systems, some of them global!

Whooda thunk it!?

We also know that the oceans and (this always comes as a surprise to doctrinair GW'ers, so any reading this should probably get out some rationality bane and rub their screens with it before continuing) the sun both impact climate, and therefore local weather.

One thing that no GWer will touch with a ten-foot pole made of recyled materials is why it is Mars, Pluto, Saturn, Uranus and Venus are all experiencing global warming...too!

Apparently either humans are causing this too, or GW alarmists don't like to look at exculpatory data too long. I guess they worry it will burn the eyes from their heads or something.

Tokie

[baron]

We virtually never get earthquakes where I live.

Three-four years ago, we had a little one.

Therefore....what?

I don't know. What? What are you talking about?

[Tokenconservative]

I don't know. What? What are you talking about?


Hmmm...I know this is a site that tends to attract what I'd guess are smarter'n the average bear types, but I keep having to explain myself.

Maybe my fascetious humor is a bit too subtle?

Ok...let me spell it out: the OP (follwed by a dozen others) has posited (tho he/she now claims otherwise) that "unusual" weather he/she has observed locally may be a harbinger of Global Warming TEOTWAWKI.

His reasoning is thus: "_I_ have never seen weather like this 'afore!"

My (fascetious) reasoning follows from his: "_I_ have never seen/felt earthquakes (locally), so the one we had a year or two ago is ALSO evidence of strange goings on!!!

See?

Tokie

[maledoro]

Hmmm...I know this is a site that tends Ok...let me spell it out: the OP (follwed by a dozen others) has posited (tho he/she now claims otherwise) that "unusual" weather he/she has observed locally may be a harbinger of Global Warming TEOTWAWKI.

And at least one of us posted a question about whether the unusual weather may the result of global warming...

;)

[Tokenconservative]

And at least one of us posted a question about whether the unusual weather may the result of global warming...

;)

Yes....at least one. And this may have been a truly honest question. For a forum in a site that prides itself on rationalism and logic, I am quite surprised by the vehement, irrational, zealously religious perspective on the faith of Global Warming. Indeed, I seem to be the lone voice in the wilderness here (this forum, anyway) identifying GW for what it is and questioning the "fact!!!!" of the "consensus!!!!" that "ALL scientists!!!!" have arrived at according to the utterly unassailable view of a UN political committee.

And heck...we all knows I is the won what's barely edjamacated!

But to the question. While it was posited as a quite innocent question and indeed, not myself knowing the OP, maybe it is entirely innocent, I've been a denizen of enough forums to be at least a bit cynical about such things. Zealous GWers believe that ANY "unusual" weather is not simply a harbinger of the actions of the One True God, GW, but actually PROOF of same.

Mayhaps you remember all the caterwauling from their corner during the 2005 hurricane season? It seems that a historically only moderately heavy hurricane season is "PROOOOOFFFFFFFFFF!!!! that GW is not only happening, but also "PROOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFF!!!" that humans are the main cause.

I don't know whether you are an American, but from oh, the late 40s or so on, we had a campaign here in America, started by the Forest Service and the logging industry but in the 1960s wholly embraced by the environmentalists (and believe me, I've mostly good things to say about REAL environmentalists) in which the slogal "Only YOU can prevent forest fires!" became something echoed throughout the land. The idea was that the only way forest fires started was by human hands...It was a relatively innocuous campaign at first...telling us to be careful with our smokes, demonstrating proper fire saftey when camping, etc.

And this, with the full blessing of the environmentalist movement, became the Law of the Land in the 60s and beyond, as environmentalism got onto its feet and took off like Secretariat.

But there was one, teensy, eeensy, tiny little problem: most forest fires were not, in fact, started by careless, stupid people, but by Zeus, tossing lighting bolts around. Oh, and another teensy, eensy little tiny problem: this had, apparently, been the cause of most fires not only in forests, but hell, everywhere else, for either approx. 6000 years, or at least a few hundred million, depending upon your personal beliefs. Since Creation or evolution had had to deal with natural fire, many species relied upon it. Grasses on the prairie, trees in the woods....ponderosa pine, immense Mother Trees that cover the mountains AND prairie where I live (there are three native species of tree on the prairie, this is one of them) rely upon fire to seed. Another problem. The mountains where I live are being denuded of lodgepole pine because of a nasty little pest called the "pine beetle." Of coruse, Global Warmingists are blaming this on...well, man-caused global warming. In fact, these bugs long predate humans, to say nothing of human industry and "greenhouse gasses" and the way the forest has well..."traditionally" been kept from being entirely wiped out by them is (wait for it....) fire!

But since environmentalists in their infinite wisdom have forced (by lawsuit) a "no burn" policy on the Forest Service, forest fires are not permitted...and of course, that's good, because HUMANs start forest fires, right?

So, ponderos pine are being choked into extinction because they cannot seed. And pine beetles are ravaging lodgepole pines (some enviros are screaming that lodgepoles are going to become extinct...No...but we ARE going to have some hellacious fires soon!) because fire--which like the transistor, apparently, is an entirely human invention) must not be allowed to do its job in the forest, keeping our forests healthy.

This is the rather long way of going about saying: environmentalists have been wrong about nearly everything they believe (where's the Silent Spring?) since they first began shrieking with any real power in th e1960s. And since their power and wealth has grown, their hysteria has only gotten worse. Remember how Central American frogs were going to be extinct and it was all human's fault...you don't hear much about that these days... Why? Well, because it turns out a natural fungal disease was causing this, and--as is often the case--the enviros and "researchers" doing the "studies" of this, did...well, let's just say, it was not a yeomanlike effort. You don't for example, get a very good count of organisms by walking down a few well-trod paths and taking your count.

This shamfully shoddy science, howmsoever, did not keep them from running around in circles, waving their hands over their heads and shrieking that humans were causing frogs to become extinct, did it?

And now that the frogs are NATURALLY (this is how it works with EVERY species) bouncing back...silence.

So...what does this all tell us about The One True Faith?

You decide.

Tokie

[fishbob]

I am quite surprised by the vehement, irrational, zealously religious perspective on the faith of Global Warming.

This is the education forum. I don't think we have a 'making stuff up' forum.

As to the "running around in circles, waving their hands over their heads and shrieking", you have clearly exaggerated the actions of a few loonies, and ascribed these traits to the people who are seriously studying the issues.

This strategy is right out of the Limbaugh, Hannity, right-wing whacko talk-show host playbook. The doofuses and the faithful seem to buy it, but some of us are getting a bit tired of it. Tired of incompetence, tired of cronyism, tired of power grubbing, tired of liars. And particularly tired of the suck-ups who defend the incompetent, power-grubbing liars. I hope you are not one of those, but I just barely stayed awake through your last post.

[Tokenconservative]

This is the education forum. I don't think we have a 'making stuff up' forum.

As to the "running around in circles, waving their hands over their heads and shrieking", you have clearly exaggerated the actions of a few loonies, and ascribed these traits to the people who are seriously studying the issues.

This strategy is right out of the Limbaugh, Hannity, right-wing whacko talk-show host playbook. The doofuses and the faithful seem to buy it, but some of us are getting a bit tired of it. Tired of incompetence, tired of cronyism, tired of power grubbing, tired of liars. And particularly tired of the suck-ups who defend the incompetent, power-grubbing liars. I hope you are not one of those, but I just barely stayed awake through your last post.

Oh....yeah...no Global Warming forum...you are right.

Um...well, sure, that may be an exageration, and I use hyperbole of this sort to spice up the conversation, but that is certainly the response many of those on the "right" side of this issue (your side, apparently) would like to produce in the general populace: panic. This panic is not for its own sake, of course, but is intended to cause fearful, ignorant people to act en masse and demand things like the destruction of the US economy to "save the world!!!"

Notice TIME mag this week...there's that pic of the poor, poor polar bear, his ice all melted....of course, all these "serious researchers" are no doubt as we speak, lining up to decry this use of an image to gin up fear among the ignorant.

Right?

Right?

So um...one of these serious researchers...would his name be Al Gore?

I know the feeling. I have heard the same tired arguments from your side of this for at least 5-6 years nos...trotting out the polar bear pictures, for example. Tell me: the ice has been melting and breaking up every spring/summer for the past 30,000 years...has this driven the bears into extinction each time? What next? Will you trot out that carefully snipped section of the NASA/GISS temp chart and shriek "see!! SEEEEE!!!!" while just as carfully being certain never to show the entire thing, or showing the "new and improved" version just recently released that is so riven with obvious errors in the calculation method anyone with even an American 5th grade education should be able to see it?

How about some hurricane fearmongering? Say....remember in 2005, when youse guys was saying "better get used to Rush, down there in Florida!!! This is what every year is gonna be like until Bush signs Kyoto!!!!" Remember that? And do you remember the 2006 hurricane season? And how about this one so far...true, those in the "news" have been warning us about how bad it's "GOING" to be...but um so far....oh, and howz cum when you guys talk about hurricanes you only talke about them from oh, 1980 or so forward? The 2005 season was absolutely dwarfed by some in the 1970s, the 1940s, the 1930s and the daddy of 'em all, the one in 1919 when some 20 'canes hit the continental US. Now...what Global Warming was causing this in 1919...I misremember.

Or do you have something new? Maybe you too can shriek "nobody since 1993 has said anything but that the world is doomed...DOOOOOMMEEEEDD!!!"?

Oh...or will you simply rely not only on this bandwagon fallacy, but also on the entire host of leftist, anti-American/capitalist fallacies such as the ad hominem, guild by association and of course that ever-present "argument" from your side, oversimplification?

Hmmm...You may already have answered this question.

Tokie

[fishbob]

Right?

Right?


Hyperbole can be used to spice up a conversation, but all hyperbole all the time is simply boring. So, no. Not right. Not even close.

Tip: Consider throwing in a fact or an accurate statement once in a while.

[Tokenconservative]

Hyperbole can be used to spice up a conversation, but all hyperbole all the time is simply boring. So, no. Not right. Not even close.

Tip: Consider throwing in a fact or an accurate statement once in a while.

So the fact that the 1919 'cane season cast some 20+ hurricanes onto the shorline of the continental US is not in fact a "fact" why? Oh...that's right: because back then we didn't NAME hurricanes, and so had no way of keeping accurate records of them.

The fact that in the 1930s, mean global temps spiked upward some 6+ degrees F, well before the agreed upon (by the "consensus") 1970s when "greenhouse gasses" produced by humans first starting impacting global temps is also something we should ignore...right? Or better, cook the NASA/GISS data so that this goes away.

I guess the fact that duh...of course it's getting warmer...has been for at least 20,000 and probably 30,000 years since the end of the last glaciation period is not a good enuff fact, huh?

I love the "logic" of irrational, shrieking, zealous, religious Global Warmingists. It is virtually indistinguishable from that of IDers and Creationists.

Tokie

[Mashuna]

Um...well, sure, that may be an exageration, and I use hyperbole of this sort to spice up the conversation, but that is certainly the response many of those on the "right" side of this issue (your side, apparently) would like to produce in the general populace: panic. This panic is not for its own sake, of course, but is intended to cause fearful, ignorant people to act en masse and demand things like the destruction of the US economy to "save the world!!!"


Remember, there is a difference between 'hyperbole', and 'making things up'.

[Tokenconservative]

Remember, there is a difference between 'hyperbole', and 'making things up'.

Well, yes...there is.

That would be because they are two completely different things.

Maybe.

I'm just guessing now.

Tokie

[The_Animus]

Wow Tokenconservative. I have never put someone on ignore yet, but you are getting mighty close. I would highly suggest you make some drastic changes in order to benefit yourself.

Stop posting in caps
Stop with the blatant sarcasm
Stop with the repeated strawmen

Start reading what people write

The way you post and the way you act makes it very difficult for myself and I'm sure for others to take you seriously.


When you start a thread wondering whether very localized weather patterns that "I've NEVER SEEN BEFORE!!!" are signs of the coming apocolypse, I have to assume (rightly, it's now abundantly clear) that you are a Global Warmingist, and your suggesting I see the Gore movie makes that even more clear.


Strawman

Perhaps you can only read things that are in caps or bolded? Well let me quote some of my previous comments in bold for you this time.

This topic really wasn't about global warming. I was just commenting on my local weather pattern. In the case of local weather you may be correct. It may just be cyclic changes. It may have been like that before and now its like that again.

Or this one from the OP

Has anyone else noticed this too? Would global warming have anything to do with why the storms are like this now?

Is that better? Can you see now that I am not saying that Global Warming is the cause for my local weather patterns? I simply added it as an afterthought as a possible explanation. You were the one that changed the course and purpose of this thread to global warming. You. Not me.


We have HISTORICAL records going back a few thousand years, and reliable ones going back a few hundred regarding weather, if not climate.


We have temperature and carbon dioxide recordings stored in glaciers from up to 650,000 years ago. This data was graphed as a line for temperature change and a line for carbon dioxide levels. They matched up almost perfectly. Are you going to make the claim that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere don't result in higher temperatures?

There isn't any debate because of the politics involved. For the past 6-8 years or so, any scientist daring to posit that either, GW is not happening, or is not TEOTWAWKI!!! or that human activity has nothing or little to do with whatever warming is NATURALLY occuring, quickly sees his or her career destroyed by those with a POLITICAL interst in seeing to it that the lie told loudly and long enough becomes the truth.


Why don't you bring this over to the CT forum and see how well this idea works out for you.

A suggestion: think with your head, rather than running around shrieking about the end of the world as we know it.

Strawman

I never said anything of the sort.

The UN also hosted and supported the findings of a anti-Semitic fest a few years ago...so when you cite the UN as the last word, you expect me to what, exactly...NOT laugh in your face?

:rolleyes:


As to the "running around in circles, waving their hands over their heads and shrieking", you have clearly exaggerated the actions of a few loonies, and ascribed these traits to the people who are seriously studying the issues.

Please don't indulge him at all. He didn't exaggerate. He simply made it up completely as can be seen from my quotes above.

So um...one of these serious researchers...would his name be Al Gore?

No. Al Gore does not do the studies or research. That would be the scientists. Al Gore is a spokesman. He reads and learns about the studies and research that is done by the scientists and tells others about it to educate them. He is an environmental figurehead.

I am done responding to you unless you decide to converse in a mature respectable way.

From http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011


MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.

FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF] (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf), 2005)
The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.



MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.

FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.

People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.

We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.


For a more in-depth understanding please visit.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4418_MythsvFacts_05.pdf

[Tokenconservative]

Wow

For a more in-depth understanding please visit.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4418_MythsvFacts_05.pdf

Oh my goodnesss, yes!

Now THERE's a wholly objective source if ever I saw one!

It's like going to the Planned Parenthood site to learn about whether killing babies is immoral or not.

Tokie

[UserGoogol]

Your rebuttal here is aimed at the wrong person. I fully agree that we cannot infer from local weather events that GLOBAL WARMING IS NIGH!!! IT'S TEOTWAWKI!!! GIVE ALGORE MONEY!!!! STOP THE AMERICAN ECONOMY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!!!

My point is that you're attacking a strawman. No scientist holds these positions you're attacking. Some people do, but some people hold the view that global warming is being produced by a zionist weather machine, so good riddance to some people.

[fishbob]

I love the "logic" of irrational, shrieking, zealous, religious Global Warmingists. It is virtually indistinguishable from that of IDers and Creationists.

Tokie

And identical to yours.

[Tokenconservative]

My point is that you're attacking a strawman. No scientist holds these positions you're attacking. Some people do, but some people hold the view that global warming is being produced by a zionist weather machine, so good riddance to some people.

I am told otherwise, even in these very pages. I am told that "all" scientists have arrived at the "consensus" that the planet is undergoing a rapid, catostrophic rise in mean temperatures that will (not may...WILL) desertify entire continents now covered with rainforest, melt the Arctic ice driving polar bears into extinction, and the Antarctic glaciers, raising sea level 50-60 meters, and that they only way to stop it is for GW Bush to ratify Kyoto and shut down the US economy because in 100 years or so all of this (and worse!) will come to pass...we are doomed--DOOOOOMED!--unless Bush ratifies Kyoto.

Tell me: why have we stopped hearing about the "end of all amphibian life as we know it (due to human activities)"? Well, because a few years ago, when "scientists" were shrieking that frogs and other amphibians (you know...the sam lil' fellers what survived the extinction of the dions?) were "nearing extinction" due to um...well, rather vague and amorphous "human" causes.

Can you tell me why we don't hear so much about all them extinct frogs much 'nymore?

Any idea at all?

Hello?

Hello?

Is this thing on?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

And identical to yours.

Okay...let's say that's true.

MY hysterics and illogic...are they driving a political/religious movement that is about to force the wealthiest nations to engage in global mitigation efforts to stop "global warming"?

You identify me as a fringe kook who believes Da JOOOOSSSS are responsible (um...where did I say that again?) but what is COMMONLY (not out of the far fringes of this movement) on your side of this, being insisted upon is not only the virtual shutdown of the US economy (giving China and India and Pakistan an open-ended pass for some reason) while finding ways to "reverse" warming. I read something about a plan in Japan (I think) to run big pipes into the ocean and fill them with cold water to help cool the ocean. My mind can't conceive of the immensity of a project of this sort that could possibly have any impact, but let's say they've figured out a way to do this...does messing with the natural systems of this planet SEEM like a good idea given our track record when we've messed with local sytems?

For some reason, when I ask this question, it's ignored, and the respondent slams in a non sequitur or ad hom, or some other illogical means of diverting attention from the man behind the curtain AND what he wants to do.

Tokie

[alfaniner]

Another big lightning show last night. This is the third or fourth this season. Unusual in their intensity, and odd that the lightning seems to stay high in the clouds rather than the cloud-to-ground type that is more common. I recall seeing very few of these types of storms before -- they are memorable precisely because of their unique properties.

[Tokenconservative]

Another big lightning show last night. This is the third or fourth this season. Unusual in their intensity, and odd that the lightning seems to stay high in the clouds rather than the cloud-to-ground type that is more common. I recall seeing very few of these types of storms before -- they are memorable precisely because of their unique properties.

Enjoy the show. Weather cycles typically run in 20-25 year spans. You won't see it again for a quarter of a century.

Tokie

[baron]

Hmmm...I know this is a site that tends to attract what I'd guess are smarter'n the average bear types, but I keep having to explain myself.

Maybe my fascetious humor is a bit too subtle?

Ok...let me spell it out: the OP (follwed by a dozen others) has posited (tho he/she now claims otherwise) that "unusual" weather he/she has observed locally may be a harbinger of Global Warming TEOTWAWKI.

His reasoning is thus: "_I_ have never seen weather like this 'afore!"

My (fascetious) reasoning follows from his: "_I_ have never seen/felt earthquakes (locally), so the one we had a year or two ago is ALSO evidence of strange goings on!!!

See?

No. You quoted me. You were replying to me, not the OP. Since I didn't mention global warming and simply stated an anecdote with no hidden implications then I don't see how your answer was relevant.

[fishbob]

You identify me as a fringe kook who believes Da JOOOOSSSS are responsible (um...where did I say that again?) but what is COMMONLY (not out of the far fringes of this movement) on your side of this, being insisted upon is not only the virtual shutdown of the US economy (giving China and India and Pakistan an open-ended pass for some reason) while finding ways to "reverse" warming.

Whoa there, little bubba.
You have concluded, based on my pointing out hyperbolic nattering, minimal substance, making stuff up, and excessive use of the caps key in your posts, that my 'side' wants to shut down the US economy?
Paranoia is not pretty.

[Tokenconservative]

Whoa there, little bubba.
You have concluded, based on my pointing out hyperbolic nattering, minimal substance, making stuff up, and excessive use of the caps key in your posts, that my 'side' wants to shut down the US economy?
Paranoia is not pretty.

Nosirreebob, it shorley ain't! An' thet thar is the TROOTH!

But even paranoids have enemies.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

No. You quoted me. You were replying to me, not the OP. Since I didn't mention global warming and simply stated an anecdote with no hidden implications then I don't see how your answer was relevant.

Best and only reply necessary: whatever.

It is what it is. You are a hysterical Global Warmingist, running around in circles, waving your hands over your head and shrieking "TEOTWAWKI!!! TEOTWAWKI!!! We must stop the eeeevvviiillll USA!!!!"

If it waddles like a Gore and quacks like a Gore....

[Mashuna]

In the UK we don't get much in the way of storms. We rarely get a lot of lightning either. A couple of years ago, however, I was on the balcony watching a storm when lightning struck a tree 50 yards away and hellfire, I'll never forget that sound! :)

Best and only reply necessary: whatever.

It is what it is. You are a hysterical Global Warmingist, running around in circles, waving your hands over your head and shrieking "TEOTWAWKI!!! TEOTWAWKI!!! We must stop the eeeevvviiillll USA!!!!"

If it waddles like a Gore and quacks like a Gore....

You've made a lot of play about how you used to be a teacher, and how you still work as a substitute teacher now. Perhaps you could help me then, I seem to be unable to follow your argument. How did you manage to get from Baron's anecdote above, which to me reads as an entirely innocent story about seeing lightning close up, to your post? I mean, there was nothing about global warming there, no-one is suggesting that lightning didn't happen in the UK fifty years ago, but you seem to have found both global warming and an attack on the US in what Baron has said. Was it in code, maybe?

[baron]

Perhaps you could help me then, I seem to be unable to follow your argument. How did you manage to get from Baron's anecdote above, which to me reads as an entirely innocent story about seeing lightning close up, to your post?

Truly bizarre, isn't it?

[Tokenconservative]

You've made a lot of play about how you used to be a teacher, and how you still work as a substitute teacher now. Perhaps you could help me then, I seem to be unable to follow your argument. How did you manage to get from Baron's anecdote above, which to me reads as an entirely innocent story about seeing lightning close up, to your post? I mean, there was nothing about global warming there, no-one is suggesting that lightning didn't happen in the UK fifty years ago, but you seem to have found both global warming and an attack on the US in what Baron has said. Was it in code, maybe?


Wow...you accuse me of the logical fallacy of a non sequitur...following this "you used to work as a teacher/sub now..." Um...so? I also used to be a dishwasher in a coffee shop....

It's a good idea, when accusing someone of logical fallacies, to actually understand the fallacy you are accusing them of (and I sometimes accidentally, but far more often on purpose, pose arguments in logically fallacious terms) and a rilly, rilly good idea not to accidentally use the exact same fallacy you are accusing your oponent of DURING your own argument!

Tokie

[Mashuna]

Wow...you accuse me of the logical fallacy of a non sequitur...following this "you used to work as a teacher/sub now..." Um...so? I also used to be a dishwasher in a coffee shop....

It's a good idea, when accusing someone of logical fallacies, to actually understand the fallacy you are accusing them of (and I sometimes accidentally, but far more often on purpose, pose arguments in logically fallacious terms) and a rilly, rilly good idea not to accidentally use the exact same fallacy you are accusing your oponent of DURING your own argument!

Tokie

So you're ignoring the question? Probably your best bet, I can see how you'd be embarrassed at what you'd posted.

Just to clarify, as you do seem to struggle with logical arguments, my implication was that a teacher should be able to construct a logical train of thought and explain it to others, as their job is to teach. If I had used your example of a dishwasher, then yes, it would have been wrong.

[Tokenconservative]

So you're ignoring the question? Probably your best bet, I can see how you'd be embarrassed at what you'd posted.

Just to clarify, as you do seem to struggle with logical arguments, my implication was that a teacher should be able to construct a logical train of thought and explain it to others, as their job is to teach. If I had used your example of a dishwasher, then yes, it would have been wrong.


LOL!

Wow. So, an art teacher should be able to...

Look, I'll agree that any science or math teacher SHOULD be able to do these things. Absolutely. I'd further posit that EVERY teacher (well, I will excuse art, music, and of course gym and shop teachers) SHOULD be able to do this.

If, in your wildest imaginings, you believe that the avg. teacher in the US (where I am, I have no idea about you and it may be completely different elsewhere) is required to even learn the term "logical fallacy," you are fall-on-the-floor-and-laugh-'til-I-puke funny. For that matter sci. and math teachers here are not REQUIRED to learn discursive logic but many pick it up as a matter of course in their studies.

The clear implication in both the posts you reference is:
We know that global changes in the climate can and do impact local weather (duh).
We "know" that Global Warming is taking place right now.
We further "know" that it is caused by humans.
Still further, we "know" that the humans that cause most of it (not on a per capita basis but by um...other means of measure) are USians
Therefore: Global Warming is happening; Global Warming changes local weather; Global Warming is caused by Americans; America must be stopped (this is why we have Kyoto and why we on the left constantly shriek that GW will stop if only GW signs it!).

Just because an argument does not blatantly state all it's meaning, it does not mean the argument is not being made. When you read The Lord of the Flies, does the first paragraph say: this story will teach you about a host of human failings, chief among them how near to the surface the savage is in all of us?

I haven't read it in a while and am disinclined to either dig out my copy or Wiki it...so you do that and get back to me, okay?

Now, I've answered your question. Sorry for not doing so before, but I fell out of my chair when I saw what you'd done and hurt my back. You simply don't get that kind of almost textbook example of real illogic that often--which may go far in explaining why you believe arguments are always stated as bluntly as you apparently believe they must be in order to be replied to.

Now, you answer mine:
You believe that in this type of forum, the OP and the follow-up post from a Brit agreeing that he too was experiencing verrah straange weather, were just made in passing, and were truly simply a couple of Yankees leaning over the stone wall ayeah, commenting on the unu'shal weather we been seein' of late, ayeah?

Tokie

[Mashuna]

LOL!

Wow. So, an art teacher should be able to...

Look, I'll agree that any science or math teacher SHOULD be able to do these things. Absolutely. I'd further posit that EVERY teacher (well, I will excuse art, music, and of course gym and shop teachers) SHOULD be able to do this.

If, in your wildest imaginings, you believe that the avg. teacher in the US (where I am, I have no idea about you and it may be completely different elsewhere) is required to even learn the term "logical fallacy," you are fall-on-the-floor-and-laugh-'til-I-puke funny. For that matter sci. and math teachers here are not REQUIRED to learn discursive logic but many pick it up as a matter of course in their studies.

Well, my post talked about you being a teacher. I may have been overoptimistic in hoping for some kind of logical training, and based on your examples, I'm happy to admit my error here.


The clear implication in both the posts you reference is:
We know that global changes in the climate can and do impact local weather (duh).
We "know" that Global Warming is taking place right now.
We further "know" that it is caused by humans.
Still further, we "know" that the humans that cause most of it (not on a per capita basis but by um...other means of measure) are USians
Therefore: Global Warming is happening; Global Warming changes local weather; Global Warming is caused by Americans; America must be stopped (this is why we have Kyoto and why we on the left constantly shriek that GW will stop if only GW signs it!).

Seriously, I see no such implication in the post I quoted. The person who posted it also disagrees with your assessment.



Just because an argument does not blatantly state all it's meaning, it does not mean the argument is not being made. When you read The Lord of the Flies, does the first paragraph say: this story will teach you about a host of human failings, chief among them how near to the surface the savage is in all of us?

I haven't read it in a while and am disinclined to either dig out my copy or Wiki it...so you do that and get back to me, okay?

Sure, but there's a difference in drawing out inferred meaning and metaphor and seeing random patterns that aren't there. It's not like you're reading Lord of the Flies, it's like you're applying your own numerological code to other people's posts then claiming you've found the real, hidden meaning.


Now, I've answered your question. Sorry for not doing so before, but I fell out of my chair when I saw what you'd done and hurt my back. You simply don't get that kind of almost textbook example of real illogic that often--which may go far in explaining why you believe arguments are always stated as bluntly as you apparently believe they must be in order to be replied to.

Oh, I don't know, you seem to be pretty good at the whole illogic thing. Don't do yourself down.


Now, you answer mine:
You believe that in this type of forum, the OP and the follow-up post from a Brit agreeing that he too was experiencing verrah straange weather, were just made in passing, and were truly simply a couple of Yankees leaning over the stone wall ayeah, commenting on the unu'shal weather we been seein' of late, ayeah?

Tokie

I believe that the post I quoted, where Baron recounted an anecdote about being 50 yards away from a lightning strike was just that, an anecdote, with no hidden subtext about the need to bring down the evil USA. Perhaps Baron could clarify?

[Tokenconservative]

Well, my post talked about you being a teacher. I may have been overoptimistic in hoping for some kind of logical training, and based on your examples, I'm happy to admit my error here.

Seriously, I see no such implication in the post I quoted. The person who posted it also disagrees with your assessment.

Sure, but there's a difference in drawing out inferred meaning and metaphor and seeing random patterns that aren't there. It's not like you're reading Lord of the Flies, it's like you're applying your own numerological code to other people's posts then claiming you've found the real, hidden meaning.

Oh, I don't know, you seem to be pretty good at the whole illogic thing. Don't do yourself down.

I believe that the post I quoted, where Baron recounted an anecdote about being 50 yards away from a lightning strike was just that, an anecdote, with no hidden subtext about the need to bring down the evil USA. Perhaps Baron could clarify?

I am not sure whether YOU are a teacher and if so, what your ed/training as such consited of. I attended the largest teacher college in my state and there was no requirement in the curriculum (this was 15 years ago) for any sort of logic studies.

I took classes in what was called the "Honors" program, and there I was required to take a "Semantics" and a "Critical Thinking" course before I could take anything else.

Your optimism is well-founded. While I may not always exercise my training in logical discourse, I nevertheless am ABLE to do so, should it either be demanded of me, or when I want.

You may not see that, and in a purely logical sense I would agree it's not there.

But this is not pure logic. This is a discussion forum. The OP, regardless of what he/she now says, IMPLIED exactly what I am saying. He/she may NOW, upon my noting this, be tap dancing around, recognizing the ridiculousness of that argument, but he/she and the followup argument from that Brit, made that implication.

We can go 'round and 'round now, shrieking "Yes, he did!" and "No, he din't!!" as a means of diverting from the illogical premise presented, but that's all that would be, an SOP, Playbook diversion. You, as a True Believer in The One True Faith must, whenever possible, divert rational discussion when you see this sort of thing.

I understand that. It's your religion and you are protecting it.

By the way: it's "you imply, I infer." And it's not at all like that. What is IS like, is recognizing the socio-cultural baggage that such a statement--in context--carries with it. The OP believes in GW. His/her argument is meant, through implication works this way:

1. The weather is strange (I have never seen this before),
2. We know that GW is real
3. GW must be causing the local "strange" weather,
4. We know that humans cause GW (and that it is mostly American humans causing it) therefore,
5. The US is to blame for the strange weather here this year.

Pretty simple stuff.

Tokie

[baron]

I believe that the post I quoted, where Baron recounted an anecdote about being 50 yards away from a lightning strike was just that, an anecdote, with no hidden subtext about the need to bring down the evil USA. Perhaps Baron could clarify?

By all means. You are of course correct. Only a troll or someone exhibiting fundamental mental retardation in the area of language comprehension would infer that a simple anecdote about a lightning strike had some bizarrre hidden meaning relating to global warming. His follow-up post - the astonishing rant reminiscent of an irritable and poorly educated infant - indicates something else is amiss too.

If Tokenconservative genuinely is, or was, a teacher, then I am appalled.

And for those who don't feel the need to read his ranting and backpeddling, here is my original anecdote and response from Tokenconservative. People can make their own minds up as to whether his evaluation and logic skills are worthy of an educator of our future generations ~

In the UK we don't get much in the way of storms. We rarely get a lot of lightning either. A couple of years ago, however, I was on the balcony watching a storm when lightning struck a tree 50 yards away and hellfire, I'll never forget that sound! :)

His response ~

I It is what it is. You are a hysterical Global Warmingist, running around in circles, waving your hands over your head and shrieking "TEOTWAWKI!!! TEOTWAWKI!!! We must stop the eeeevvviiillll USA!!!!"

If it waddles like a Gore and quacks like a Gore....

I think his last post says it all ~

I attended the largest teacher college in my state and there was no requirement in the curriculum (this was 15 years ago) for any sort of logic studies.

I'd never have guessed.

[Mashuna]

I am not sure whether YOU are a teacher and if so, what your ed/training as such consited of. I attended the largest teacher college in my state and there was no requirement in the curriculum (this was 15 years ago) for any sort of logic studies.

I took classes in what was called the "Honors" program, and there I was required to take a "Semantics" and a "Critical Thinking" course before I could take anything else.

Your optimism is well-founded. While I may not always exercise my training in logical discourse, I nevertheless am ABLE to do so, should it either be demanded of me, or when I want.

You may not see that, and in a purely logical sense I would agree it's not there.

But this is not pure logic. This is a discussion forum. The OP, regardless of what he/she now says, IMPLIED exactly what I am saying. He/she may NOW, upon my noting this, be tap dancing around, recognizing the ridiculousness of that argument, but he/she and the followup argument from that Brit, made that implication.

We can go 'round and 'round now, shrieking "Yes, he did!" and "No, he din't!!" as a means of diverting from the illogical premise presented, but that's all that would be, an SOP, Playbook diversion. You, as a True Believer in The One True Faith must, whenever possible, divert rational discussion when you see this sort of thing.

I understand that. It's your religion and you are protecting it.

By the way: it's "you imply, I infer." And it's not at all like that. What is IS like, is recognizing the socio-cultural baggage that such a statement--in context--carries with it. The OP believes in GW. His/her argument is meant, through implication works this way:

1. The weather is strange (I have never seen this before),
2. We know that GW is real
3. GW must be causing the local "strange" weather,
4. We know that humans cause GW (and that it is mostly American humans causing it) therefore,
5. The US is to blame for the strange weather here this year.

Pretty simple stuff.

Tokie

Well, I think I'm going to bow out of this argument now. Your general method of debate follows the same pattern. You claim to know what people 'really mean', what they 'really think', and claim 'it is obvious that'. These are things that exist in, at best, your particular interpretation, and often just your imagination.

Your opinion is clear, your ability to shoehorn the same points into every discussion regardless of what people actually post is also clear, and I'm happy to leave you to it.

Unless I get bored, and come back, of course. ;)

[meg]

Just to throw a little something else into the mix, - There are other things besides global warming that humans do that can directly affect local weather patterns. I was watching a show not long ago about the Niagara Falls, and how the mist and fog around the falls has increased dramatically in recent years. After looking into it, they found that recently built large hotels were blocking/changing the predominant wind patterns of the area, the result being more fog trapped in the area.

If The_Animus has indeed been observing a consistant local weather pattern, perhaps it could be that recent human developments in the area have likewise changed local wind patterns, perhaps creating an area more conducive to turbulent convective winds being trapped over a particular geographical area.

Perhaps lakes being created, or drained, or large buildings creating wind tunnel like effects, or something of that nature could have made his/her local area more conducive to the creation of thunderstorms over that particular site.

[Tokenconservative]

Just to throw a little something else into the mix, - There are other things besides global warming that humans do that can directly affect local weather patterns. I was watching a show not long ago about the Niagara Falls, and how the mist and fog around the falls has increased dramatically in recent years. After looking into it, they found that recently built large hotels were blocking/changing the predominant wind patterns of the area, the result being more fog trapped in the area.

If The_Animus has indeed been observing a consistant local weather pattern, perhaps it could be that recent human developments in the area have likewise changed local wind patterns, perhaps creating an area more conducive to turbulent convective winds being trapped over a particular geographical area.

Perhaps lakes being created, or drained, or large buildings creating wind tunnel like effects, or something of that nature could have made his/her local area more conducive to the creation of thunderstorms over that particular site.

This is similar to the heat island effect in which more developed areas tend to have higher avg. temps than less developed areas. Now, shrieking Global Warmingists will tell you this is accounted for in their facts 'n figgers. But ask one why the glacier atop Mt. Kilamanjaro is melting and they will tell you it's because of American SUVs...not because the local populace has essentially denuded the forest around the base of the mountain....

Yes, humans can and do alter their local environments and ecologies. Look at Aswan Dam or the Ural Sea. Look at the introduction of nutria and kudzu to the American south. Look at feral cats, rats, goats and rabbits in Australia. Look at Easter Island. Look at the now-gone cedar forests that once bisected central Mexico, decimated before that evil, evil man Colombus accidentally stumbled across the New World.

Tokie

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, I think I'm going to bow out of this argument now. Your general method of debate follows the same pattern. You claim to know what people 'really mean', what they 'really think', and claim 'it is obvious that'. These are things that exist in, at best, your particular interpretation, and often just your imagination.

Your opinion is clear, your ability to shoehorn the same points into every discussion regardless of what people actually post is also clear, and I'm happy to leave you to it.

Unless I get bored, and come back, of course. ;)


Certainly. No sense in understanding and commenting upon what's really being said when we can go about, blinders lag-bolted securely to our temples, right?

Tokie

[Mashuna]

Certainly. No sense in understanding and commenting upon what's really being said when we can go about, blinders lag-bolted securely to our temples, right?

Tokie

Exactly! So why do you insist on doing so?

ok, really going this time.

[Tokenconservative]

By all means. You are of course correct. Only a troll or someone exhibiting fundamental mental retardation in the area of language comprehension would infer that a simple anecdote about a lightning strike had some bizarrre hidden meaning relating to global warming. His follow-up post - the astonishing rant reminiscent of an irritable and poorly educated infant - indicates something else is amiss too.

If Tokenconservative genuinely is, or was, a teacher, then I am appalled.

And for those who don't feel the need to read his ranting and backpeddling, here is my original anecdote and response from Tokenconservative. People can make their own minds up as to whether his evaluation and logic skills are worthy of an educator of our future generations ~
His response ~
I think his last post says it all ~
I'd never have guessed.

It's neither "bizzare" nor "hidden." This is quite clearly a thread speaking to "changing" weather and how this is casued by something...hmmmm...what, I wonder?

Your approach to "debate" could be lauded as very logical, were it not so stone-headed. One need only read Baron's words to understand what is being said. He/she is noting how "unusual" the weather is. Again: this is not simply two old apple farmers commention on the weather in these parts this season. Baron and the OP are very clearly making the claim that BECAUSE they are witnessing "strange" local weather, something is afoot!

Hmmm...what could it be?

Tokie

[baron]

One need only read Baron's words to understand what is being said. He/she is noting how "unusual" the weather is. Again: this is not simply two old apple farmers commention on the weather in these parts this season. Baron and the OP are very clearly making the claim that BECAUSE they are witnessing "strange" local weather, something is afoot!

Hmmm...what could it be?


You are truly "out there". What "strange local weather" did I notice? What's strange about a lightning strike? How is a lightning strike "unusual"? How can you take the sentences "In the UK we don't get much in the way of storms. We rarely get a lot of lightning either." to mean that global warming is causing increasing climatic chaos?

And why do you presume to tell me what I mean when I'm telling you that you are wrong, and any right-thinking person would agree with me?

And even if you were right, which you are most certainly not, why would I suddenly change my mind and deny what I wrote?

(Note to self: must not throw food to sub-bridge-dwellers. I'm out too; I'll leave this guy to his mad gibbering)

[The_Animus]

You've made a lot of play about how you used to be a teacher, and how you still work as a substitute teacher now.

Those poor students...

Just to throw a little something else into the mix, - There are other things besides global warming that humans do that can directly affect local weather patterns. I was watching a show not long ago about the Niagara Falls, and how the mist and fog around the falls has increased dramatically in recent years. After looking into it, they found that recently built large hotels were blocking/changing the predominant wind patterns of the area, the result being more fog trapped in the area.

If The_Animus has indeed been observing a consistant local weather pattern, perhaps it could be that recent human developments in the area have likewise changed local wind patterns, perhaps creating an area more conducive to turbulent convective winds being trapped over a particular geographical area.

This could very well be true. The town I live in is in close proximity to Minneapolis/St. Paul. As such our town has been growing lately and there has been much new construction in the area.

[Tokenconservative]

You are truly "out there". What "strange local weather" did I notice? What's strange about a lightning strike? How is a lightning strike "unusual"? How can you take the sentences "In the UK we don't get much in the way of storms. We rarely get a lot of lightning either." to mean that global warming is causing increasing climatic chaos?

And why do you presume to tell me what I mean when I'm telling you that you are wrong, and any right-thinking person would agree with me?

And even if you were right, which you are most certainly not, why would I suddenly change my mind and deny what I wrote?

(Note to self: must not throw food to sub-bridge-dwellers. I'm out too; I'll leave this guy to his mad gibbering)

Oh, okay....so you agree that "strange" weather is um...well, just strange weather and may have nothing to do with the religion of Global Warming?

Whyn't you just say so?

Tokie

[slingblade]

Maybe because he never said it did, to begin with. It's not his job to clean up your sloppy assumptions.

[Tokenconservative]

Maybe because he never said it did, to begin with. It's not his job to clean up your sloppy assumptions.

Hmm....not sloppy, just understandable.

1. I am in an "Education" forum peopled, mostly by American "educators,"
2. American "educators" are, overwhelmingly, of a leftist bent,
3. American "educators" believe, almost to a 100% level that GW is happening, that humans are the cause, and that "strange" weather is yet another "proof" of this.
4. The OP was shrieking about how he "never saw'd nuthin' like it afore!"

What other assumption might one have drawn? That elephants are gray?

Tokie

[Mashuna]

Hmm....not sloppy, just understandable.

1. I am in an "Education" forum peopled, mostly by American "educators,"
2. American "educators" are, overwhelmingly, of a leftist bent,
3. American "educators" believe, almost to a 100% level that GW is happening, that humans are the cause, and that "strange" weather is yet another "proof" of this.
4. The OP was shrieking about how he "never saw'd nuthin' like it afore!"

What other assumption might one have drawn? That elephants are gray?

Tokie

Well, as the opening three words of Baron's post were "In the UK", I'd suggest the poster isn't an American educator. So I'd say that your first three points there would lead you astray.

[Tokenconservative]

Well, as the opening three words of Baron's post were "In the UK", I'd suggest the poster isn't an American educator. So I'd say that your first three points there would lead you astray.

Yes...and they were posted to point up that very fact.

Nice catch.

Um....you should probably avoid things like fly fishing, butterfly hunting and baseballs in future.

Tokie

Please refrain from unnecessary insults.