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.
Deniers are those who claim that despite a plethora of data, and a virtual scientific consensus, the earths climate is in no way affected by human action.
If you want to make it about semantics, then we are talking about climate change due to the actions of man. I would have hoped that would have been clear considering this topic is about AGW. As for as who, that should also be pretty clear based on responses.
Quote:
As for if we can, I guess it depends to what level of effect. Obviously we do contribute CO2 and CO2 does contribute to warming. This is a fact, the problem is that the hypothesis that our contribution is significant and that CO2 is a primary driver. That has not been established. To not accept that fact, is what I would call a "denier".
Why would our contribution need to be significant and the primary driver to be CO2?
Deniers are those who claim that despite a plethora of data, and a virtual scientific consensus, the earths climate is in no way affected by human action.
Who are they?
You argue a position of absolutes in order to appear valid.
Few argue what you claim.
The argument is significance and primary role. Maybe you would understand that if you weren't too busy designing straw men to easily knock down.
By the way, I see you avoided my previous comment to you. If you desire a sounding board to make yourself feel intelligent, why don't you drone off to the collective you hail from.
If you want to make it about semantics, then we are talking about climate change due to the actions of man. I would have hoped that would have been clear considering this topic is about AGW. As for as who, that should also be pretty clear based on responses.
You have not been clear. Someone who is clear states their premise, builds support and establishes a conclusion. You imply vaguely and fail to deal with the details of such. It is understandable, most who argue topics of other peoples opinions tend to avoid clarification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Why would our contribution need to be significant and the primary driver to be CO2?
So you are saying you are unaware of the the CAGW hypothesis? Why bother arguing a side if you are ignorant of the topic?
You argue a position of absolutes in order to appear valid.
Few argue what you claim.
The argument is significance and primary role. Maybe you would understand that if you weren't too busy designing straw men to easily knock down.
By the way, I see you avoided my previous comment to you. If you desire a sounding board to make yourself feel intelligent, why don't you drone off to the collective you hail from.
Few argue what I claim because its nonsense.
I find it interesting you bring up a logical fallacy then proceed directly to personal attacks. You just cant seem to get through a few sentences without being hypocritical. But such is the vitriol of those who persistently deny reality.
I find it interesting you bring up a logical fallacy then proceed directly to personal attacks. You just cant seem to get through a few sentences without being hypocritical. But such is the vitriol of those who persistently deny reality.
If you recall, you were the one that started the insults, now you are whining about being called on your ignorance.
You have three options.
1. Actually attend to a position honestly and defend it.
2. Grow some thicker skin.
3. Go away.
As for the position, few argue it because it is a straw man designed to avoid dealing with the details of CAGW. You simply accuse, dismiss, and claim yourself validated. /shrug
Its like telling someone that saltwater will oxidize and cause metal to rust, and that person responding with "Nuh uh! Metal is so much stronger than water!"
Let's try to make this simple enough for you to understand.
Rust can be observed and the process duplicated over and over again.
Climate change is a guess and has proven to be impossible to forecast over and over again.
My point is mosy denyers have an oversimplified, undereducated understanding of climatr science.
Just like people who deny evolution have a shoddy understanding of biology.
If you want to make a claim that directly contradicts expery consensus, you better have an argument better than "prove it better."
Odd, considering that you have made several claims that show ignorance in the concepts.
As for how it works...
You make a claim, you must provide the support. If I point out a flaw, you must explain properly with support or your claim is invalid.
That is very basically how science works. Science isn't "well, it works most of the time" or "some of the time", it is "it works every time".
"It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes a single fact" Albert Einstein
See how that works? If you can not validate your claim, it is simply a guess and if it fails, it is a failed guess.
Though I guess using Einstein is wrong, you know... because you think he is wrong... you know... because you are like into science and stuff and not like those silly deniers! /boggle
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.
