4 ms·

I don't know how to tell you that you can't jump to conclusions from 3 data points. I guess you don't understand that. "I meant to discuss the original comment

by jshen 3y ago

I don't know how to tell you that you can't jump to conclusions from 3 data points. I guess you don't understand that. "I meant to discuss the original commenter's opinion that global warming was accelerating. It's not accelerating. It's slowing." I don't think you can conclude this at this time, but even if you want to believe it, it's still increasing (GHGs in the atmosphere and temperatures), and that's very bad news. "You can also see this in how the actual temperature of the earth (the only metric that matters) has not increased in the past few years" Again, you can't draw conclusions from 3 data points. Not sure if you are arguing in bad faith here, or simply don't understand. Look back at either the temperature graph or the emissions graph and you can find several 3 year periods where it didn't increase, then it shot right back up again. In the case of the last few years of temperatures, that's due to the La Nina (link below) which lowers temperatures, when we switch back to the El Nino it's going to shoot up again, and likely start breaking records again. We are not on the right track, and all of the evidence shows this. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64192508 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64192508

wilg 3y ago
Firstly, you keep lowering the number of data points you’re complaining about. First it was 5, and now 3. Also, I discussed trends of more than 5 data points, so get your story straight. It’s also not true you can’t draw conclusions out of a small number of data points. More is better, obviously. Emissions not accelerating is of course important because 1) it was what the conversation was literally about and 2) it’s a necessary prerequisite for them going down. Plus, as I showed, emissions are going down, not just not accelerating, in developed nations. Emissions going down is the right track, emissions going up or accelerating is the wrong track. What is it you want to see? Zero emissions? Obviously that’s going to take a while, it won’t happen overnight. And before it does, they have to start going down. And zero emissions isn’t even enough, we have to go negative by capturing carbon. Unless we think 1.1C over pre industrial is acceptable. Which obviously we don’t because people are talking about current effects of warming. So no, not all of the evidence shows that we are not “on the right track”. It’s true only if you ignore the evidence that contradicts your worldview.
- jshen 3y ago
  "Emissions going down is the right track" Emissions are NOT going down, full stop. At this point it's clear you are arguing in bad faith, so I'm done. 20 years ago people made the exact same dishonest arguments you are now, that over a few data points temperatures stopped going up, climate change was over! Every time there's a La Nina the same bad faith argument returns. In 5 years when it's clear that what you've said is wrong, you'll move on to some other bad faith argument like they did. I've seen the pattern over and over again over the last 25 years. The evidence I've provided is clear, and I'm confident that anyone with more than two brain cells that reads it will see the obvious reality that it illustrates.
  - wilg 3y ago
    It's not bad faith, you're literally just not responding to what I'm saying! Only one of the metrics I brought up (actual global temperature) could even be affected by La Nina. And I'm not saying it isn't affected by it. It seems like its easier for you to pretend I'm some kind of global warming denier than to actually engage with what I'm saying. It's fascinating psychologically, but obviously we're not having a productive conversation. I hope you're able in the future to look at this stuff with clearer eyes. It doesn't seem like you'll be very helpful in solving this problem if this is how you approach it.

by jshen 3y ago

wilg 3y ago

Firstly, you keep lowering the number of data points you’re complaining about. First it was 5, and now 3. Also, I discussed trends of more than 5 data points, so get your story straight. It’s also not true you can’t draw conclusions out of a small number of data points. More is better, obviously. Emissions not accelerating is of course important because 1) it was what the conversation was literally about and 2) it’s a necessary prerequisite for them going down. Plus, as I showed, emissions are going down, not just not accelerating, in developed nations. Emissions going down is the right track, emissions going up or accelerating is the wrong track. What is it you want to see? Zero emissions? Obviously that’s going to take a while, it won’t happen overnight. And before it does, they have to start going down. And zero emissions isn’t even enough, we have to go negative by capturing carbon. Unless we think 1.1C over pre industrial is acceptable. Which obviously we don’t because people are talking about current effects of warming. So no, not all of the evidence shows that we are not “on the right track”. It’s true only if you ignore the evidence that contradicts your worldview.

jshen 3y ago
"Emissions going down is the right track" Emissions are NOT going down, full stop. At this point it's clear you are arguing in bad faith, so I'm done. 20 years ago people made the exact same dishonest arguments you are now, that over a few data points temperatures stopped going up, climate change was over! Every time there's a La Nina the same bad faith argument returns. In 5 years when it's clear that what you've said is wrong, you'll move on to some other bad faith argument like they did. I've seen the pattern over and over again over the last 25 years. The evidence I've provided is clear, and I'm confident that anyone with more than two brain cells that reads it will see the obvious reality that it illustrates.
- wilg 3y ago
  It's not bad faith, you're literally just not responding to what I'm saying! Only one of the metrics I brought up (actual global temperature) could even be affected by La Nina. And I'm not saying it isn't affected by it. It seems like its easier for you to pretend I'm some kind of global warming denier than to actually engage with what I'm saying. It's fascinating psychologically, but obviously we're not having a productive conversation. I hope you're able in the future to look at this stuff with clearer eyes. It doesn't seem like you'll be very helpful in solving this problem if this is how you approach it.