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.
Lot's of click hits from conspiracy theorists and denialists makes everything Watts says factual? Appealing to Popularity to support your agenda?
Nice evasion, not really, but you looked like you could use some positive reinforcement.
You will note, if you read my response (likely you didn't), that I listed various scientists that contribute there as well as Watts own contribution to the field.
As for your attempt to straw man, no... I never said that the volume of his site establishes the content on his site as fact. That is determined by the content itself, though... you likely don't know that because what you know of the site appears to be a talking point.
Also, you will note that the "claim" of him "misleading" is false and I showed you exactly why.
You of course ignored that, picked out one little point to straw man (sorry, I know I didn't leave you much to work with being that I just posted facts about his site and pointed out the falsehood of your claim) and ended up again... with nothing.
Keep deflecting though, the more you fail to attend to the points of a discussion and resort to cheap attacks of name calling, the more people see that you are parroting talking points.
You wonder why people are sick of all the CAGW garbage? You are displaying exactly why.
A scam to some, a reality to others. Do you really think that all the pollutants we put into the air doesn't affect the atmosphere. I'm sorry but I want to protect the earth for future generations.
In other words, if you are completely ignorant, then just assume humans are responsible for everything, and jump on board the man-made global warming band wagon.
It's really easy to comprehend. Climate change occurs based on changing compositions of the atmosphere. In the past changes have occurred naturally over time. When higher amounts of heat trapping gases accumulated, temperatures increased. Humans are currently artificially adding heat trapping gases to the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.
Establish this, scientifically according to the hypothesis of CAGW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
The fossil fuel industry has invested in changing public opinion by funding their studies and contributing to public officials. They have done a good job of convincing republicans and some democrats to accepting their vision, but that still doesn't change the objective data of how adding heat trapping gases to the atmosphere does indeed trap more heat.
Really? So, I explain to you that observational data is not matching up with modeled data, that modeled data is an assumption of how the systems work, not a validation mechanism. I then go on to ask you about the scientific method and how it relates to the points you are trying to make, and all you can do is come back with some political garbage and big oil?
Let me sum up your response:
1. Its simple, correlation = causation!
2. Big oil is why there are objections to CAGW!
3. Republicans are in on it!
All of which are talking points.
One question. What is positive and negative feedback and how does it relate to the climate science debate? Answer that factually, and you will show that you at least have some understanding to claim "It is simple" as it concerns "trapping heat" in the atmosphere.
In other words, if you are completely ignorant, then just assume humans are responsible for everything, and jump on board the man-made global warming band wagon.
Not the first time in our history such... "clever" reasoning was used to explain a given incident.
Salem woman:
"I caught my husband with the neighbors wife! She is a witch I tell you, she seduced him! Why there is no reason he would ever do such a thing, he told me he was seduced! Put her to the press till she tells the truth and then burn her!"
Nice evasion, not really, but you looked like you could use some positive reinforcement.
You will note, if you read my response (likely you didn't), that I listed various scientists that contribute there as well as Watts own contribution to the field.
As for your attempt to straw man, no... I never said that the volume of his site establishes the content on his site as fact. That is determined by the content itself, though... you likely don't know that because what you know of the site appears to be a talking point.
Also, you will note that the "claim" of him "misleading" is false and I showed you exactly why.
You of course ignored that, picked out one little point to straw man (sorry, I know I didn't leave you much to work with being that I just posted facts about his site and pointed out the falsehood of your claim) and ended up again... with nothing.
Keep deflecting though, the more you fail to attend to the points of a discussion and resort to cheap attacks of name calling, the more people see that you are parroting talking points.
You wonder why people are sick of all the CAGW garbage? You are displaying exactly why.
So run along now, I am done with you.
You are dismissed.
It's hilarious that everything you accuse others of, you actually do yourself.
Establish this, scientifically according to the hypothesis of CAGW.
Really? So, I explain to you that observational data is not matching up with modeled data, that modeled data is an assumption of how the systems work, not a validation mechanism. I then go on to ask you about the scientific method and how it relates to the points you are trying to make, and all you can do is come back with some political garbage and big oil?
Let me sum up your response:
1. Its simple, correlation = causation!
2. Big oil is why there are objections to CAGW!
3. Republicans are in on it!
All of which are talking points.
One question. What is positive and negative feedback and how does it relate to the climate science debate? Answer that factually, and you will show that you at least have some understanding to claim "It is simple" as it concerns "trapping heat" in the atmosphere.
All are talking points? Everything you just said are talking points.
It's really easy to comprehend. Climate change occurs based on changing compositions of the atmosphere. In the past changes have occurred naturally over time. When higher amounts of heat trapping gases accumulated, temperatures increased. Humans are currently artificially adding heat trapping gases to the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.
The fossil fuel industry has invested in changing public opinion by funding their studies and contributing to public officials. They have done a good job of convincing republicans and some democrats to accepting their vision, but that still doesn't change the objective data of how adding heat trapping gases to the atmosphere does indeed trap more heat.
It's only a theory, and one that does not hold up. All the alarmist have is a few anecdotal cases of local warming, and a couple years of warm temps. They ignore all the years and decades of cooler global temps, and focus on the few warm years and local events. They have done a good job of misrepresenting and corrupting the data, and convincing the people that it's all caused by human activity. Add to this, we have politicians using this scam to amass power and control, and using trillions of dollars around the world to buy off greedy supporters.
This is no different then people fearing the rumbles in the earth, and believing human activity is to blame, and tossing virgins into the volcano, or the Aztecs carving out the hearts of captured slaves and offering them to the gods to end the drought.
All are talking points? Everything you just said are talking points.
The scientific method is a talking point now?
It would have been easier if you just admitted you have no clue what positive or negative feedback is
Good luck with that!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
