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.
When I try to pretend a business magazine scare piece is a scientific publication, then maybe you'll have a point. Right now, you don't.
I'd also point out that a business magazine scare piece (op-ed by an non-climatologist, actually) is not a scientific article regardless of what anybody else does. Alarmists could choose to only appear in public speaking Esperanto and all dressed like Charo, it wouldn't make a business magazine's op-ed into a scientific publication. That's why tu quoque arguments like yours are of no merit. Sorry.
The amount of ignorance and misinformation on this forum when it comes to climate change is staggering. Why bother correcting mistakes and misconceptions when not only will I not be listened to I'll be labeled an Al Gore worshiper, liberal, socialist, fascist, atheist, or whatever else can be drummed up.
Because it's very important that people know the right's claims are garbage, and it's very important to show how denialists lack any intellectual integrity. Blogs and op-eds, honestly.
as opposed to the IPCC using articles from the World Wildlife Fund in the AR4 report and pretending it was peer reviewed science? you mean like that?
Your tu quoque argument is feeble garbage and it doesn't magically turn an op-ed by a nobody into a scientific publication. It's sad that you even thought you had a point. They do have schools in the United States, don't they?
Nor would I turn to you for an assessment of the IPCC. They contradict the lies told by Republicans so of course you don't believe them. That's how right-wing denialists determine scientific credibility: if it agrees with Republican garbage, it's science. If it doesn't, it's fraud.
Because it's very important that people know the right's claims are garbage, and it's very important to show how denialists lack any intellectual integrity. Blogs and op-eds, honestly.
People won't know the right's claims are garbage unless you actually show that they are garbage. So far you've made several posts in this thread, all of which have been 100% ad hominem attacks and 0% evidence. I personally don't know enough about climatology to have an opinion one way or the other about global warming. But just from reading your posts, I am inclined to agree with the other side because you come across as spiteful and whiny. Which is fine, except you say it's very important for people like me to know they're wrong. So in that sense, you aren't building a very good case.
Also, don't forget that the author of the paper in question argues that his findings don't really address the general warming trend. That is to say, the denialists are drawing the wrong conclusion. Since this would pop the denialist OP's balloon and not support what right-wingers are instructed to believe, it was left out of both the Forbes piece and the inappropriate gloating of the denialists here. This thread, like all the other denialist threads, is a right-wing fail.
People won't know the right's claims are garbage unless you actually show that they are garbage. So far you've made several posts in this thread, all of which have been 100% ad hominem attacks and 0% evidence.
The denialist who started this thread hasn't actually shown that an op-ed in a financial magazine has any scientific merit. It's his argument, he's the one who has to defend it. No one owes it to him to pretend it has scientific merit.
Evidence is wasted on denialists because denialists don't base their opinions on facts. Proving them wrong doesn't change their opinions, they just cry about Al Gore and double down on the stupid. Just ask anyone who thinks volcanoes pump out more greenhouse gases than industry. Just ask anyone who thinks climatologists were predicting ice ages. Just ask anyone who keeps posting links to a cue-card reader's blog even after it's been explained it has as much scientific merit as a denialist whining about Al Gore. Facts only matter if one's opinion is based on the facts. Right-wing denialists believe what they're told and then try to make the facts fit their claim.
Quote:
I personally don't know enough about climatology to have an opinion one way or the other about global warming. But just from reading your posts, I am inclined to agree with the other side because you come across as spiteful and whiny.
Who cares? If your opinion is based out of spite for me instead of being based on facts, it doesn't count.
Quote:
Which is fine, except you say it's very important for people like me to know they're wrong. So in that sense, you aren't building a very good case.
Have fun with your conspiracy theories and blogs, then.
You guys want a bit of insight? Sure, okay, I'll bite.
First of all, the climate science community is pretty unanimous that there has been a 17ish year pause in global warming. They're not entirely sure why this is the case, but there are some hypotheses and hundreds if not thousands of scientists around the world are trying to figure out which hypothesis (or hypotheses) is the most reasonable explanation based on the evidence uncovered. This is how science has always worked, and why certain folks believe it somehow doesn't apply to climate science is utterly baffling to me. I should note that the prevailing hypotheses that are causing the slowdown in temperature rise are increased volcanic activity (sulfur reflects radiation back into space as opposed to letting it strike the Earth), increased air pollution in China and India (same effect as the volcanoes, essentially - this was a phenomenon observed in the US as well before we adopted stricter air quality standards and cleaned up our skies), and a greater capacity for the oceans, specifically the Pacific Ocean, to absorb and disperse heat.
It's possible one of these hypotheses are the correct one, and it's possible none of them are. We simply don't know yet, and that's perfectly fine to admit as a seeker of truth, as the vast, VAST majority of scientists are.
As for the sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, the scientific community isn't sure why that's happening either. It's possible that melting ice over the years has lowered the salinity of the water around it and thus increased the capacity of wider areas of ocean to freeze in winter months while overall thickness and mass of the ice continues to decrease. Again the cause for this phenomenon is unknown and what I've written is simply one hypothesis of many that are currently being investigated.
Look, I don't claim to have all the answers. I studied climate change in depth while I was in college and I steered clear of material that came off as biased, both in support of anthropogenic climate change and against. I even chastised the author of a book I read in the paper I wrote about it because his opinion came through at the end and he was metaphorically bashing his head against the wall in frustration over climate change deniers. To him, the evidence was so overwhelming that it completely boggled his mind that anyone would disagree, and that is not in the spirit of scientific progress or thought. Yes, the evidence is pretty conclusive that anthropogenic climate change is real and we as a society should react to it (and when I mean society, I mean all the peoples of the world including developing countries, but the US should absolutely lead by example as we have by far the most resources at our disposal), but to say "welp, this here's a done deal!" and wash your hands over it is a mistake and absolutely the wrong message to send, because when unexplained anomolies such as what we're discussing right now pop up, all sorts of people come out of the woodwork and say "aha! See? I TOLD you it was all a scam!" and then we end up in threads like this that go on for a million pages with nothing being learned by either side and an absolutely appalling amount of name calling getting thrown around.
What does name calling accomplish? How does it advance our understanding of a very real phenomenon that will have very real consequences on future generations? We know for a fact that climate changes from ice core evidence, fossil evidence, geologic evidence, etc. and we know the physical properties of certain compounds such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, sulfur, freons, ozone, etc. so it's only reasonable that we would want to find out how all of these things interact with the greater climate system to affect change. And, based on the evidence we have, it's abundantly clear to reasonable people that human activities are having an effect on world climate, and we ignore this at our peril. Are our models perfect? Absolutely not as evidenced by the flaws in prediction relating to current events, but they continue to get better as computing power increases and more is understood about the climate system so that new knowledge can be applied to our models. It's impossible for us to conduct experiments on a global scale (unless of course you count the carbon economy as an experiment in and of itself) so models are the best we have to make sense of the evidence we find.
It's foolish to claim that a single weather event (Sandy, Katrina, an F5 tearing through the heartland, a particularly hot summer) is attributable to anthropogenic climate change, just as it's equally ridiculous to claim that an increase in polar ice one year, or a milder than expected summer one year, or a lull in hurricane or tornado activity one year, is proof that it's all wrong and a great fraud perpetrated upon the worlds' population. To suggest that the thousands of scientists around the world are all actively and knowingly engaging in fraud is, in a word, ludicrous, and personally I don't blame them for feeling frustrated. I do think that they need to get better at PR and expressing their findings in a way that is more easily digestible to the general public, and I think it's a mistake for them to throw up their hands and say "to hell with these idiots, we've got work to do" because that doesn't make the situation any better for anyone.
I hope all of this makes sense (I typed it all in a rush, as I'm sure you'd expect) but I think we're going about this whole climate change dialogue all wrong, and I think the people of the world will ultimately suffer for it if we don't figure out a better way to do it.
Maybe. But the author of the paper does not agree with the conclusions you denialists draw from these facts, so neither do I. You may whine about Al Gore now if you like.
obama hasnt figured out the weather machine well enough yet to create a cat 6 hurricane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
When I try to pretend a business magazine scare piece is a scientific publication, then maybe you'll have a point. Right now, you don't.
I'd also point out that a business magazine scare piece (op-ed by an non-climatologist, actually) is not a scientific article regardless of what anybody else does. Alarmists could choose to only appear in public speaking Esperanto and all dressed like Charo, it wouldn't make a business magazine's op-ed into a scientific publication. That's why tu quoque arguments like yours are of no merit. Sorry.
so then all the alarmists, who claim to be scientists, and wrote scientific papers on the subject, all making the claims of catastrophic global warming, and all the people that bought into their line of garbage were really right? gee thats news to me, since there hasnt been ANY catastrophic warming. and just because a business publication writes an op ed piece, or even an article, on the subject doesnt mean they are to be dismissed lightly.
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.
