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.
Anthropogenic Global Warming simply means that man contributes to the process. It does not state any position of significance. This is why the argument gets confusing.
AGW is science, CAGW IS science, but only when it is considered as a hypothesis and treated according to proper scientific means. CAGW means man contributes to warm, it is significant and its effects are significant on our system. There is nothing wrong with having a hypothesis for such. There is however everything wrong when you take that hypothesis and then claim ti is validated when it is not. That is called politics, not science.
There is a difference between what a scientist "personally" believes and what he has established scientifically. For instance, James Hansen "believes" it to be true. He however has not established his belief scientifically, and to be honest his "bias" (ie his desire for his belief to be correct) has led to him making many mistakes in his analysis. Even so, he admits he does not have the evidence to establish validity of his "belief" (ie his guess, aka Hypothesis).
There are minor elements that are facts within this issue as we have already discussed, but correlation is not equal to causation and so no matter how many things you get to line up with your "guess", if one part doesn't line up, then your guess is wrong. It doesn't become right until it lines up all the time (or when it fails to line up, it is explained through the same process) and other people get it to line up using the same assumptions you make as well. If it does, then we "accept" that this is a fact, but only if or when it stops lining up.
You flaunting "the smartest scientist..." is an appeal to authority. It is a demand not to adhere to intellectual process, not to rely on scientific process, but rather to accept the "belief" of a scientist simply because well they are an "expert". If you can't establish your hypothesis scientifically and are demanding submission to your belief, well... put on a robe, grab your crucifix and ask for faith, because you practicing religious dogma, not science.
Wow talk about trying real hard to tip toe the line between saving face and looking silly....
Soooooo by your admission Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact and "simply means that man contributes to the process. It does not state any position of significance." You then go on to differentiate AGW from CAGW, by saying the difference is that CAGW means man contributes to warming. So despite the fact AGW has "global warming" in title, it doesn't involve warming but a process?
"Denier" isn't a gimmick propaganda word to me like it is to you, stop assuming so much. And what is your point? My opinions evolve as do I. You can happily use the search button and look up our most recent debates and my position (summed up here) regarding CAGW was that it doesn't look to be as catastrophic as originally thought.
Denier is a derogatory word, it was coined with the specific intent to compare skeptics to that of the Nazi's. This is well documented and understood. So, continuing to use it means you either condone its use as such or you are ignorant of the issues of climate science and its debates.
Denier is a derogatory word, it was coined with the specific intent to compare skeptics to that of the Nazi's. This is well documented and understood. So, continuing to use it means you either condone its use as such or you are ignorant of the issues of climate science and its debates.
Heh, it actually never occurred to me link the word holocaust denier to climate change denier as I guess my mind doesn't work like downtrodden climate change non-acceptor. I didn't see those documentations.
As to the bolded, what a silly absolute statement, is that the best you can do?
Wow talk about trying real hard to tip toe the line between saving face and looking silly....
Soooooo by your admission Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact and "simply means that man contributes to the process. It does not state any position of significance." You then go on to differentiate AGW from CAGW, by saying the difference is that CAGW means man contributes to warming. So despite the fact AGW has "global warming" in title, it doesn't involve warming but a process?
Anthropogenic Global Warming is simply the fact of man contributing to warming. That is, it is a empirical fact that man contributes to CO2 and that CO2 is a component of greenhouse gases which are responsible for warming. This does not establish CO2 as a primary driver, nor does it state mans contribution as being at any point of meaning. It is simply means man contributes CO2, CO2 is a component of warming, nothing more, nothing less.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is the position that mans contribution of CO2 is significant and that CO2 plays a major role in the warming (a primary driver), that its effects are the causation of increase and severity of climate systems.
One is simply a fact. The other is position of causation that has not been validated.
Is this so hard for you to understand?
Seriously, your "I gotcha" moment is one showing more of your ignorance.
Heh, it actually never occurred to me link the word holocaust denier to climate change denier as I guess my mind doesn't work like downtrodden climate change non-acceptor. I didn't see those documentations.
As to the bolded, what a silly absolute statement, is that the best you can do?
It simply means you are extremely ignorant of the debate. How anyone can claim they know their head from their arse concerning the debate of this topic and then claim they were unaware of the derogatory use of the word means you don't follow the science, debate, or have a clue of the issues. There have been numerous papers on the topic and even administrations and journals have been admonished for the use of the terms because of it.
Seriously, peddle your BS to someone who doesn't know better. You are trolling now. Good luck with that.
“The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations. It has already made food and fuel more precious, thus increasing the price of everything we buy. If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000. (Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)
"At this point, the world’s climatologists are agreed….Once the freeze starts, it will be too late." (Douglas Colligan, “Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age,” Science Digest, February, 1973)
Anthropogenic Global Warming is simply the fact of man contributing to warming. That is, it is a empirical fact that man contributes to CO2 and that CO2 is a component of greenhouse gases which are responsible for warming. This does not establish CO2 as a primary driver, nor does it state mans contribution as being at any point of meaning. It is simply means man contributes CO2, CO2 is a component of warming, nothing more, nothing less.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is the position that mans contribution of CO2 is significant and that CO2 plays a major role in the warming (a primary driver), that its effects are the causation of increase and severity of climate systems.
One is simply a fact. The other is position of causation that has not been validated.
Is this so hard for you to understand?
Seriously, your "I gotcha" moment is one showing more of your ignorance.
Well then you misspoke earlier, it's alright, everyone makes mistakes.
So...let me get this straight.... So man is contributing to warming we just don't know if the warming is good or bad?
It simply means you are extremely ignorant of the debate. How anyone can claim they know their head from their arse concerning the debate of this topic and then claim they were unaware of the derogatory use of the word means you don't follow the science, debate, or have a clue of the issues. There have been numerous papers on the topic and even administrations and journals have been admonished for the use of the terms because of it.
Seriously, peddle your BS to someone who doesn't know better. You are trolling now. Good luck with that.
You've said ignorant quite a few times and are just imposing arbitrary rules about what amount knowledge constitutes being informed about this debate. It's pretty obvious you are just deflecting, as apparently you have to change the subject by further continuing on with this silly nazi business.
Well then you misspoke earlier, it's alright, everyone makes mistakes.
So...let me get this straight.... So man is contributing to warming we just don't know if the warming is good or bad?
I did not. You inferred incorrectly.
No, man produces CO2, CO2 is a small component of warming. That is, CO2 accounts for an extremely small portion of the process.
The hypothesis is that CO2 is a primary driver due to positive feed backs and even though its contribution is a very small portion of the process, it amplifies warming and is primarily responsible for the warming. Now mans contribution to the total CO2 is also extremely small, but the belief is that because CO2 is the primary driver through amplification, that even an extremely small amount from man is enough to dramatically shift climate.
None of that has been scientifically validated.
That is the first part. The second part is that the weather events over the specified "unprecedented" warming (ie the warming up to 1998) produced unprecedented storms and events which they claim is directly related to that of the above hypothesis.
Again, this has not been scientifically validated (ie the storms are not unprecedented, the warming is not unprecedented).
Now there are numerous other issues and beliefs that also are not scientifically validated, that are contested by various research that either shows flaws in the original research claiming such or has findings of its own that conflict with them.
As for warming being good or bad, that is another topic in and of itself.
Are you going to enter the discussion? So far you have failed to state a position yourself, even though you have continuously claimed I have don't know your position and am wrong in my comments concerning speculation of your position. You claim that your previous posts on the topic where your position was clear has changed, yet you have made no effort to make such clear here.
You continue to use antagonistic words and are being smug while not contributing anything to the discussion. I may be insulting at times, but I have attended to every question and made efforts beyond reasonable in explaining my position when it is becoming obvious you are playing games by improperly inferring my comments.
What is your position? Failing to state such while continuing to banter on means you are trolling.
I expect you to enter the discussion or we are finished here.
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.
