Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do 97% of scientific studies agree that climate change is manmade?
1. Consipracy 22 41.51%
2. Scientists are not as smart as average Joe 5 9.43%
3. Scientists don't believe in the bible or the rapture 26 49.06%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
Old 05-29-2013, 11:44 AM
13,053 posts, read 12,907,739 times
Reputation: 2618


Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Yes there was, you denied co2 had any impact.
Incorrect. You made an accusation based on manipulated context of your choice. We have had this discussion, I showed you to be incorrect in your inference of my discussion.

Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
I'm really not sure what is more logical than keeping things the same would be optimal? I'm sorry if you can't logically work out how not uprooting our coastal cities would be astronomically expensive considering they are the gateways of man's international trade.....
You base your position on assumptions that have not been validated. You go on about costal cities and imply causation that is not established and reference occurrence which has not even been properly associated to your assumption. You don't even know what optimal is because you can't even isolate the occurrence properly.

Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Can you cite studies showing how warming or cooling would be beneficial? I mean.... you stated such so you must provide support.... that is how logical arguments work.... Or you going to hide behind my initial statement?
I asked you to validate your claim of what is optimal. In order for you to establish this, it must be based on end points to which place it as optimal. If you can not support what is optimal, how can you establish that which is not? You keep spinning here to avoid dealing with the fact that you have no supported your position. You need to cite your position properly. You don't make a claim without any support and say "Prove me wrong". That is an logical fallacy. So again, support your position of what is optimal through proper scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
What are you talking about? Are you saying overpopulation isn't a global issue that ties into energy, water, and food usage on a planet with finite resources?
I am saying establish causation, quantify your position. It is simple. You make a claim, you provide evidence. I have no desire to discuss anecdotal evaluation with you. We are discussing the science here. Provide support, or... well... accept that you are providing improperly supported opinions.

Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Then why do you have to resort to ad hominem attacks? I wonder.....
Grow up. The feigned victim routine is childish.

Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Well then I made a mistake your position is somewhat confusing....

So you admit, through our actions, we are changing the climate, but you contend we do not understand if that change will be positive or negative?

So we should do nothing until you are satisfied that the change will be negative?
There is nothing in my position that a basic understanding of logic and critical reading can not solve. You aren't reading, you are summarizing to your bias. Do more critical reading and less assumptive inference.

I acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes. I acknowledge that man contribtues to CO2. These are facts. What I do not make assumptive conclusions on is that CO2 is a primary driver, that mans contribution is significant in that process and that the climate is outside of natural variability concerning it. What I acknowledge is scientifically validated, what I do not acknowledge is an assumption on cause. You are making assumptions, I am not.

Since you can not properly establish why our current climate is optimal, then you can not properly establish what is positive or negative in result. There is nothing even remotely intelligent about your approach to this issue. You can not identify the cause, yet you make assumptions on solutions? It is absurd.

As for acting, here again you are showing your activist nature. Only a fool acts without knowing. Only a fool jumps to conclusions without proper support. Only a fool attempts solutions based on ignorance. You are promoting foolishness.

Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
I've openly admitted the "catastrophic" portion of CAGW isn't "properly established".....
Yet you use "catastrophic" examples to support your position. You keep going on about sea level rise and other events that you claim is evidence of AGW to which man is responsible? You are making a CAGW argument. AGW does not imply adverse effect. It is simply a fact of nature. It is the "C" that implies adverse effect and that is what you are arguing. You don't seem to even understand your own argument.

Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
What you don't seem to understand is that our inefficient use of resources is a problem that affects everything, not just climate change. My motives are based on verifiable science as we know a lot about what causes smog, what is causing overfishing, why desertification is destroying our arable land, habitat loss, forest depletion, etc. You truly can't comprehend how an exponentially increasing population will need exponentially increasing resources? You can't comprehend how climate change is just a symptom of overpopulation and thus view them as two unrelated issues. I'm not an activist by any means, but it is very clear you can kill many birds with one stone by simply using our resources more efficiently.
More evidence of your environmental activism shaping your position on the issue. You lump multiple issues that each are debatable to their cause of occurrence and then lump them all together to support your argument. The problem with such an approach is it is not scientific, rather it is political and it is the same error in your evaluation of the issues concerning climate. dv1033, your arguments lack structure, support, and understanding. They are that of a random activist supporter who goes to rallies and looks foolish when they are questioned to any detail. You really need to apply more objective evaluation into the issue rather than letting your emotions drive you as you seem to be more concerned about your "cause" than you are of the evidence you use to support your arguments.

Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
However, I'm sure you'll just retort with some sort of variation of, "oh look, he wants to use govt to control our resources, blah blah, blah."
I don't want to discuss the politics. I want you to validate your position and if you can not, if your position is simply that of assumption, then I think it irrelevant to issues of scientific evaluation. If you want to promote dogma, find a church and bring kool aid, I am sure there are those who share your "belief".

Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post

LOL. They show their work therefore they must be correct!!!

But it must be a coincidence that you prefer Steven McIntyre's conservative slant? But hey he shows his work and had monetary connections to mining industries....... And let's not be naive that your blogs don't edit out responses as well in the response section. Watt has been pretty bad about editing out comments.

You pick and choose who you get your info from to suit your own motives, plain and simple.
There you go again, with your stupid politics. Look, I don't care about your activist dogma, your "cause" or your opinions about how you are going to save the world with good intentions. Your opinion using such as evidence is irrelevant and counter productive to scientific evaluation.

I use the sites I mentioned because they show their work. That is, the take a particular method applied in a given set of work and analyze it, discuss its use and explain when it is flawed, why it is flawed and they show how it effects a given outcome. I don't have to "take their word for it" or appeal to their authority because they actually show exactly what they are doing, what data they are using and fully explain their evaluation. They also when they have made errors, been completely accepting of comment and correction. Their work is there for everyone to see.

Now compare that to people like Phil Jones who responded to McIntyre when asked for his data and methodology with "Why would I give you that? You are just going to try and find something wrong with it!" or the enormous amount of effort and work McIntyre had to go through to show MBH98 (and later versions) wrong because Mann refused to release his work.

What about the collusion by your beloved scientists in the climategate emails who admitted the lack of warming and worked to keep the data out of any hands who would actually evaluate their work. What about the same type of unethical actions of them to bully journals and researchers into blocking any work that did not toe the line to CAGW?

You are not in a position to use reputation as the sources you appeal to have been shown many times to be unethical and politically motivated. They have been caught in lies and schemes to hide data and methodology from those who would look closer. The people you appeal to have committed fraud (Peter Gleick) and have used their administrations to promote their "cause".

Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top