Arctic Greening - a negative feedback cycle?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, he isn't, and he is a climate change skeptic.

Singer argues there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Skeptic? A skeptic is someone who has not made up their mind and is skeptical about both a proposition and its converse. Singer is an anthropogenic climate change denier. I object to the hijacking of the term skeptic by people who have a clear position (ditto Euroskeptics, they should be called anti-Europeans or some such).

Just to be clear I'm not having a go at you, I just think it's worth avoiding letting people dignify their position with what amounts to a cheap rhetorical trick.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Skeptic? A skeptic is someone who has not made up their mind and is skeptical about both a proposition and its converse. Singer is an anthropogenic climate change denier. I object to the hijacking of the term skeptic by people who have a clear position

Perhaps something like "opinionated" (meaning here in this narrow context irrationally and science-ignorantly opinionated about climate change and/or climate science) rather than "skeptic" might be a better term here.

And they are best said to be "climate opinionaters" rather than "climate skeptics" ("opinionater" is a new word I invented here to mean a person who is opinionated).
And note, given the overwhelming evidence of climate change and man's influence, "climate opinionaters" are almost invariably deniers of climate change and/or man being partly responsible.

Originally posted by humy
You said he is a climate scientist, which is a lie. He is an atmospheric physicist, which is not the same thing as a climate scientist and he is less qualified to have an opinion on climate than the climate scientists.
What has him being "retired" got to do with it? He not only is not a climate scientist, he NEVER WAS a climate scientist.
Are you now saying he is a "retired" climate scientist? If so, you lie again.

Lindzen is the same and he is on the Wikipedia link of climate scientists. Either admit you are wrong or resort to claiming Wikipedia is wrong. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Lindzen is the same

same as what?

Originally posted by humy
same as what?

Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist just like Singer and he is on the Wikipedia link of climate scientists. Either admit you are wrong or admit Wikipedia is wrong. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist just like Singer

where did I imply he was not?

Originally posted by humy
where did I imply he was not?

Either admit you are wrong or admit Wikipedia is wrong. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Either admit you are wrong or ....

What are you on?
How can I be wrong about saying Lindzen NOT being an atmospheric physicist when I never said this?
You are asking me to admit I was wrong for saying something you know I didn't?
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by humy
What are you on?
How can I be wrong about saying Lindzen NOT being an atmospheric physicist when I never said this?
You are asking me to admit I was wrong for saying something you know I didn't?
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You must be playing stupid. You know darn well that you claimed an atmospheric physicist is not a climate scientist. If that is true for Singer it is also true for Lindzen. You are contradicting yourself and pretending to be clueless to avoid facing your contradiction.

Either Wikipedia is wrong or you are. Which is it?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You must be playing stupid. You know darn well that you claimed an atmospheric physicist is not a climate scientist. If that is true for Singer it is also true for Lindzen. You are contradicting yourself and pretending to be clueless to avoid facing your contradiction.

Either Wikipedia is wrong or you are. Which is it?

you claimed an atmospheric physicist is not a climate scientist.

I explicitly claimed an atmospheric physicist is not THE SAME THING AS a climate scientist, because it isn't. I showed you two links that explains the difference.

If that is true for Singer it is also true for Lindzen.

Singer is an atmospheric physicist but NOT a climate scientist.
Lindzen is BOTH an atmospheric physicist AND a climate scientist.
Comprehend?

You are contradicting yourself and pretending to be clueless to avoid facing your contradiction.

I am not contradicting myself. Where is the contradiction in someone being an atmospheric physicist but NOT a climate scientist when an atmospheric physicist is NOT THE SAME THING AS a climate scientist?

Either Wikipedia is wrong or you are. Which is it?

Neither; Wikipedia is right here AND I am right, moron.
I agree with Wikipedia here; they are both atmospheric physicists but only one is a climate scientist.

Originally posted by humy

you claimed an atmospheric physicist is not a climate scientist.

I explicitly claimed an atmospheric physicist is not THE SAME THING AS a climate scientist, because it isn't. I showed you two links that explains the difference.

If that is true for Singer it is also true for Lindzen.

Singer is an atmospheric physici ...[text shortened]... e with Wikipedia here; they are both atmospheric physicists but only one is a climate scientist.

Are they contemporaries? We know Singer is in his 90's now.

Originally posted by humy

you claimed an atmospheric physicist is not a climate scientist.

I explicitly claimed an atmospheric physicist is not THE SAME THING AS a climate scientist, because it isn't. I showed you two links that explains the difference.

If that is true for Singer it is also true for Lindzen.

Singer is an atmospheric physici ...[text shortened]... e with Wikipedia here; they are both atmospheric physicists but only one is a climate scientist.

They are both atmospheric physicists and Lindzen has no more qualifications than Singer. You are wrong and so is skeptical science or other bunk lying websites that spread misinformation.
They are both climate scientists, you just have a hard time admitting you are wrong so you pretend to not know what I'm talking about when you do. It is a pattern with you. Kazetnaggora was the first to make the false claim and you jumped on his bunk bandwagon and let you make a fool of yourself while he stood on the sidelines watching you get run over by the truth.
You are wrong despite your out of control ego preventing you from admitting it. FAIL!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
They are both atmospheric physicists !

correct.

and Lindzen has no more qualifications than Singer.

Wrong. Lindzen is qualified as a climate scientist. Singer is not.
I have already shown you two links that explain the difference between atmospheric physicist and climate scientist, so no excuses.

They are both climate scientists,

So PROVE it to us by showing your source of information that Singer is a qualified climate scientist and not just a qualified atmospheric physicist.
-you can't. We all know why, moron.

You are wrong and so is skeptical science or other bunk lying websites that spread misinformation.

You had implied that the Wikipedia link was RIGHT (which it is) with your previous quote of;

"Lindzen is the same and he is on the Wikipedia link of climate scientists. Either admit you are wrong or resort to claiming Wikipedia is wrong.. "

Are you now backtracking by claiming Wikipedia is WRONG for not listing Singer as a climate scientists because it is one of "bunk lying websites that spread misinformation"?
Can you give us ANY website that, according to you, 'correctly' states Singer is a qualified climate scientist and thus isn't spreading such 'misinformation'?
If not, why is that?
Is it because we should believe there is a vast mass conspiracy that ensures that EVERY website, without a SINGLE one exception, is spreading misinformation by not listing Singer as a qualified climate scientist?
If so, then HOW did you ever get to know that he is a qualified climate scientist in the first place!?
-please tell us all....

Originally posted by humy
correct.

and Lindzen has no more qualifications than Singer.

Wrong. Lindzen is qualified as a climate scientist. Singer is not.
I have already shown you two links that explain the difference between atmospheric physicist and climate scientist, so no excuses.

They are both climate scientists,

So PROVE it to us by ...[text shortened]... t to know that he is a qualified climate scientist in the first place!?
-please tell us all....

"I have already shown you two links that explain the difference between atmospheric physicist and climate scientist, so no excuses."

You have not done that at all. I went back and looked and you posted no such link. Try doing that!

Originally posted by Metal Brain


You have not done that at all. !

Do you deny that the two are different things? Yes or no?
If "no"; I DON'T CARE if you you think I haven't shown the difference.
If "yes"; as you are apparently too lazy to look at the links;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
"....climate science is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.
...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_physics
"....Atmospheric physics is the application of physics to the study of the atmosphere. Atmospheric physicists attempt to model Earth's atmosphere and the atmospheres of the other planets using fluid flow equations, chemical models, radiation budget, and energy transfer processes in the atmosphere (as well as how these tie into other systems such as the oceans). ...
...
It has close links to meteorology and climatology
..."

The words "close links" above wouldn't be used there if atmospheric science was equivalent to climate science (climatology).

Also observe that they are usually not defined on the same websites and they are never defined as being equivalent on any website and also the university qualifications for one are generally done separately from the university qualification of the other etc.

Now I have twice shown you links showing the difference between the two, can you show me any links to show that climate science is the same thing as atmospheric physics? -answer, no.