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.
My analogy only applies to aspects of the Earth's climate that are currently not understood, not the relationship between CO2 and warming-- that is well understood, and takes less than a few paragraphs to explain.
8/31/94 - How does carbon dioxide cause global warming?
The analogy is perfect-- creationist's 'you haven't found a link, evolution isn't real' = your 'the planet isn't warming as fast as before, AGW isn't real'.
That's a strawman argumement. I am not saying AGW isn't real. I've publicly said that my choice in the poll was #5
Quote:
5) The scientific community has been largely corrupted by politics, activism, greed and dogma. I think the basic science is sound but the data gathering and dissemination is subject to manipulation and cherry picking in order to paint a specific picture and to motivate action. There is an active effort to marginalize and diminish skeptics as well as an active effort to subvert the scientific process in favor of dogma and consensus over blind, impartial science.
The issues I have are with the level of alarmism about the impact, the level of man's contribution by emitting Co2 and the amount of corruption, dogma, activism and greed that has crept into the scientific community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Furthermore, from the way you write it's rather obvious that you have less than a superficial understanding of science, so it's time to stop proclaiming yourself to be some sort of authority on the subject.
Where have I proclaimed that I am scientific authority? I am expressing my opinions on a political subject in a political forum. With your strawman arguments and non sequiturs you are hardly coming across as scientifically minded yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
I mean, you're practically incoherent here.
Look in the mirror.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
This again?!
I've already responded to this and you ignored it.
No more.
No. you seem to be under the delusion that I reject AGW completely. The issues I have are with the level of alarmism about the impact and the level of man's contribution by emitting Co2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Do you seriously not understand that a single effect can have two different causes?
If not, here's an example:
Shoot yourself in the head= you die.
Eat 16 cyanide capsules = you die.
Jump off the tallest building in the world without a parachute= you die.
You will see here that all three of these things produce the same result, and yet they are not the same action.
So it is with warming.
More of the sun's energy reaches Earth = warming.
The Earth's surface becomes less reflective = warming.
Massive amounts of Co2 are spewed into the air = warming.
There is no single cause of warming. But THIS particular case of warming is being caused by fossil fuels. It might even surprise you that fossil fuels aren't the only source of CO2 on the planet, and that it existed before humans came around, and yes, its release caused warming then too.
You are contradicting yourself. First you say that AGW is the simplest and best theory to account for the recent warming (which has paused for 16 years, despite the same or more C02) and then you go off on a half-assed tangent about how a single effect can have more than one
cause which was never in contention in the first place. Which is it? Talk about incoherent!
The issues I have are with the level of alarmism about the impact, the level of man's contribution by emitting Co2 and the amount of corruption, dogma, activism and greed that has crept into the scientific community.
This is where it gets hilarious. Really - when science doesn't agree with you. . your going to cherry pick things you don't like behind the scenes . . .even though claims aren't really substantiated (corruption, dogma, activism, greed).
You say this with a very straight face even though the corruption, dogma, and greed is 100% on the other side of the argument. There is far more money to be made (and being funneled to politicians) in the anti-global-warming side. They are the ones with the money. . because they exist now.
It is like sitting there next to a senator who just got off a all expense paid tour of Hawaii (thanks to BP) and blasting the corruption and greed of guys who can't make any money on solar panels. .
and now, lets debate penguins. you know, because that isn't a fact either!
Yeah because the recognition of the existence of an aquatic, flightless bird is on par with a theory that relies on politically motivated computer models and consensus that does not match up with reality.
This is where it gets hilarious. Really - when science doesn't agree with you. . your going to cherry pick things you don't like behind the scenes . . .even though claims aren't really substantiated (corruption, dogma, activism, greed).
You say this with a very straight face even though the corruption, dogma, and greed is 100% on the other side of the argument. There is far more money to be made (and being funneled to politicians) in the anti-global-warming side. They are the ones with the money. . because they exist now.
It is like sitting there next to a senator who just got off a all expense paid tour of Hawaii (thanks to BP) and blasting the corruption and greed of guys who can't make any money on solar panels. .
What's truly laughable here is that you honestly believe that there is corruption one side of the issue, but not the other. You honestly believe that science is corrupt and for sale but ONLY if it's skeptical science that YOU disagree with. I think that it happens on both sides.
However, the notion that their is far more money to be made by paying for skepticism is ridiculous on it's face. There a tens of BILLIONS of dollars spent yearly for more research and green initiatives that are all predicated on continued climate alarmism. There are carbon credit exchanges making billions off of the issue.
""Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall," said Redshaw, the head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/bu...4700.html?_r=1
This is where it gets hilarious. Really - when science doesn't agree with you. . your going to cherry pick things you don't like behind the scenes . . .even though claims aren't really substantiated (corruption, dogma, activism, greed).
"We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment." Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." Al Gore
"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist
“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat
“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.” Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy
"The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid." George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” Joanne Simpson, former NASA climate scientist
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-debate/
That's a strawman argumement. I am not saying AGW isn't real. I've publicly said that my choice in the poll was #5
The issues I have are with the level of alarmism about the impact, the level of man's contribution by emitting Co2 and the amount of corruption, dogma, activism and greed that has crept into the scientific community.
If you believe in AGW then why did you say that AGW needs to be re-evaluated as a theory? Why are you bringing up the 'pause' as if it somehow challenges AGW?
Look at this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by you
The AGW crowd IS SAYING they have found a concrete link between man emitting Co2 and the planet warming up. They say the "debate is over", the "science is settled" and there is this huge consensus(all things which are anti-science by the way)
Since you're apparently part of the AGW 'crowd', are you also saying all of these anti-science things? Doesn't this comment suggest that you're skeptical of the 'concrete link' between man emitting Co2 and the planet warming up? Do you even know what AGW is?
You also seem to be neglecting the fact that climatologists are NOT in agreement about what effect AGW will have on the planet, aren't ruling out the existence of possible buffers to warming, don't deny the existence of the pause, etc. But most of them would agree that there are going to be more negatives than positives involved with such rapid warming, mostly because they've already been observed.
It mostly sounds like you're just retreating from your own argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
Where have I proclaimed that I am scientific authority? I am expressing my opinions on a political subject in a political forum. With your strawman arguments and non sequiturs you are hardly coming across as scientifically minded yourself.
They're not strawmen-- you're just too intellectually dishonest to commit to what you're actually saying, and switch your position every time someone calls you out on it.
Regardless, I'm not the one accusing NASA climatologists with decades of experience and PhDs of being anti-science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
No. you seem to be under the delusion that I reject AGW completely. The issues I have are with the level of alarmism about the impact and the level of man's contribution by emitting Co2.
So now you're saying that humans are warming the planet, but it doesn't matter, because the 'level' of that warming is so insignificant that it might as well not be occurring?
If you don't think that humans are causing 'most' of the warming that is now occurring, then you must think some other cause is primarily responsible.
It's denialism-- you've just dressed it up in a fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
You are contradicting yourself. First you say that AGW is the simplest and best theory to account for the recent warming (which has paused for 16 years, despite the same or more C02) and then you go off on a half-assed tangent about how a single effect can have more than one cause which was never in contention in the first place. Which is it? Talk about incoherent!
You just keep saying '16 years' over and over, as if I haven't already responded to that.
You were asking what caused past instances of warming-- I was telling you that there were multiple causes. You didn't understand that because you can't seem to handle more than one idea at a time.
Last edited by Spatula City; 11-03-2014 at 12:42 PM..
Wrong. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. That is your flawed attempt at an ad hominem attack.
Was climategate a conspiracy theory when we have copies of the emails sent between scientists colluding to manipulate data and marginalize skeptics in order to advance the AGW dogma?
Where did you copy and paste that list from a liberal talking points website?
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.
