seedload wrote:If you are that offended by my phrasing, I think it probably has as much to do with your thin skin as it does with my sarcastic tone.
Good humor is one thing. Ad hominem another.
seedload wrote:Considering that you are so comfortable calling other people "warmingists" and actually seeming to believe that anyone who believes in AGW is practicing "Gaianist Gnosticism", I guess I felt that you had set a tone that allowed for a little bit of playful sarcasm. Obviously, I was wrong.
Generalist characterizations /= personal conversation. The later deserves greater civility.
seedload wrote:I find it a little funny that you continue to focus on one phrase and ignor the fact that I am saying that you are picking trends that are INTENTIONALLY misleading.
1998 was an exceptionally hot year. Starting a trend in 1998 is misleading.
I was perhaps overly enthusiastic in my initial post, attempting to make my basic point that the last decade statistically shows little to zilch warming, as often claimed. I attempted this clarification and admission of somewhat overstated claims in my second post, while offering supplemental data to the general claim.
That you exploded that into a grand indictment of conspiratorial intent is... mystifying.
seedload wrote:2002 was hotter than 2000. You intentially claim a flat trend starting in 2002 as evidence that the 2000's were flat. But it was colder in 2000 than in 2002 and 2000 is definitely part of the 2000's.
2002 was the start point I was familiar with from another source, and contains the majority of the decade. However, starting from 2000/month 252, the best fit line through today also appears to be flat, based on appraisal by eyeball Mk1.http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/phot ... _08520.png
seedload wrote:Regardless, reviewing your original post on Gaianist Gnosticism, I am pretty sure that I am barking up the wrong tree trying to suggest adding a bit of moderation to your arguments. I am trying to understand it, but find myself incapable. I even looked up Gnostism. I can't figure out how people can both love Gaia and consider Gaia a prison. But then you don't seem to be sure whether 'warmingists' are 'communists', 'radicalized environmentalists', 'atheist humanists', or 'North Atlantic elites'. They seem to be 'putative', running 'kangaroo courts', 'grabbing power', practicing thier 'religious faith', 'wiggling', following their 'inner spark' to find their 'transcendent focus', and otherwise acting with rather large egos because they believe themselves to be the "Smart People".
Analysis of political trends among the transnational/NGO types boosting global warming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnatio ... gressivism
Huntington has a good tho not unflawed analysis of civilizational dynamics.
In many ways, global warming/activist environmentalism has become the successor to failed communism as the home for social-activist politics.
A point made by Patrick Moore in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... _programme
The "religious" basis of socialism/communism was atheist humanism...
With the fall of the prophet Marx, a new basis of belief conducive to continued social-activist perspectives was needed. Deifying nature fits that bill fairly well, and even molds itself to feminism.
IOW there is a distinct social group and perspective driving the popularization of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming for discrete shared intents. The upper and middle tiers of this group can be correctly described as Davos Men/Transnational Progressives.
"Smart People" is a quote from the tv show "The West Wing" that's always stuck with me. The President was going on that he cares not a darn about what the people think and makes his decisions based on what "the smart people" tell him. It captures the mindset to a "t" IMO.
My apologies if I dove in at too abstract and pre-analyzed a level. You are correct that I should have lined up the fundamentals of my social analysis in a more modular & introductory fashion.