So now, I don't even know why I am revisiting this site or wasting my time writing a post that probably won't make the cut. It simply remains my hope that science has not been completely politicized and the free flow of ideas not crushed by the institutions that profess to foster them. If this post makes its way to the fraction of participants that once frequented this forum I'd be glad to discuss my concerns.

We are always in either a glacial period or an inter-glacial period. I hope that issue does not require much of your further attention either.

As I read it, you merely stated that you don't believe all the research on climate science and are condescending to all the researchers. That is not a scientific argument, or even an argument at all, merely a point of view that you claim to be informed. I don't see the information.

This is a new thread to hold those comments from new user Paradox, which are not relevant to the original thread "Climate change in the News".

Waiting until your second post before using obscene language may represent great restraint on your terms but it is not acceptable here. Any more of that kind of violation of good manners and your posts will be deleted.

A thorough post?

I agree with Jim, you seem to be expressing an opinion, but are not offering evidence.

Frankly, I'm still not exactly sure what your opinion is, since the whole rant was so long and confusing. If you were writing about psychology, then it would look like psychobabble to me.

Perhaps you could try stating your case clearly in (say) two sentences, then I might understand what you are trying to say.

It would also help me if you could state your qualifications and background, so that I know where your opinion is coming from.

Paradox, my understanding of the situation is that the original phrase 'global warming' was generally replaced by 'climate change' when it became clear that warming would lead to associated phenomena such as changes in rainfall amount and distribution. For example, the attribution study models we have been crunching for CPDN are typically designed to work out whether specific weather phenomena are probably caused by the climate change we are experiencing.

I don't think this change in phraseology was forced upon the scientific community by anyone.

---

Cpdn news

The most recent post from Paradox has been deleted on the grounds of obscene language.

The most recent post from Paradox has been deleted on the grounds of obscene language.

Paradox: Ask yourself whether it is necessary to your argument to insult the people with whom you presumably want to have a discussion and to use obscene language. If those additions are irrelevant to the argument, which I suggest they are, then ask yourself why you choose to include them and what effect they might have on whether people are likely to be persuaded by your argument.

[Paradox wrote:]I'm not here to debate the merits of global warming with anyone. ...I feel vindicated...

That's plain for all to see - it appears we are invited to admire the magnificent statue of Paradox Vindicated and listen with rapt attention to a valediction.

The real world abides, and if climate scientists have failed in their duty as scientists to give a truthful description of that world then that will in time become apparent to everyone; you need not trouble yourself on that account. Thus far, however, every question asked of climate science - the models, the data, the science - has been answered. The description of the world provided by climate science has been rigorously tested and not found wanting.

Your statue is not magnificent at all: it is not enduring marble but is simply a cloud of smoke that has for one short moment assumed the shape of a person and which will in another short moment be gone. Believe what you want about yourself - it will make no difference to climate science or to me.

Hi All,
I very nearly wasted a lot of brain power to provide a logical, fact based, evidence supplied, rebuttal of the first post by 'paradox'. Then having seen its latest contributions, I was going to suggest deleting this thread completely, owing to its complete uselessness in contributing to human knowledge.
However, I realised that this is a public forum and even incoherent babblers are allowed to post and censoring even this is unethical.
The only sensible option is to completely ignore such specious nonsense, leaving the post free for paradox to vent (his/its) (can't be a 'her') verbal flatulence.
It could be amusing to see how far 'fake news' could be stretched.
David

As I suspected, just a rant by someone who has no ability to debate scientific research. Notice that he never answered my question about his qualifications.

It kind of reminds me of declarations made by a certain president whose name rhymes with a British/English word - chump.