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.
Yeah! Don't bother the denialist with anything like scientific fact, guys. Just stroke his conspiracy theory for him. Give him his daily Daily Mail, pat him on the head, say "yes dear, whatever you say, dear" and send him on his way.
Oh I see so by your logic when thousands of scientists in the past stated the following were facts--I should still accept it!
Impossible for any mountains to exist on the Antarctic Continent? Because that was taught in schools until 1958...until it was discovered that there were mountains.
Are you saying that the existence of rivers and lakes under the Antarctic Ice-sheet is impossible? That's what science said....right up to the discovery of rivers and lakes in the 1980s.
Are you saying that the existence of Life in the Antarctic is impossible? Because that's what science said until 20 years ago.
Are glaciers cruising down Pennsylvania Avenue knocking over the Washington Monument? Science said that, too.
Science is wrong more often than it is correct.....the only redeeming value of science is that it is self-correcting, but not when governments insert themselves into science or "Environmental Fanatics".
Anyways as you would say
"pat him on the head, say "yes dear, whatever you say, dear" and send him on his way."
Have a nice global warming day and don't stay out too long in the sun!
Last edited by gretsky99; 02-08-2014 at 07:16 AM..
Oh I see so by your logic when thousands of scientists in the past stated the following were facts--I should still accept it!
Impossible for any mountains to exist on the Antarctic Continent? Because that was taught in schools until 1958...until it was discovered that there were mountains.
Are you saying that the existence of rivers and lakes under the Antarctic Ice-sheet is impossible? That's what science said....right up to the discovery of rivers and lakes in the 1980s.
Are you saying that the existence of Life in the Antarctic is impossible? Because that's what science said until 20 years ago.
Are glaciers cruising down Pennsylvania Avenue knocking over the Washington Monument? Science said that, too.
Science is wrong more often than it is correct.....the only redeeming value of science is that it is self-correcting, but not when governments insert themselves into science or "Environmental Fanatics".
Anyways as you would say
"pat him on the head, say "yes dear, whatever you say, dear" and send him on his way."
Have a nice global warming day and don't stay out too long in the sun!
Yes dear. Whatever you say, dear. <pat pat>
Look. You've already tried to push a tabloid that was demonstrably, explicitly wrong in its claims on me. When shown the error of your ways, you declared that you would continue to have faith in said tabloid anyway. You lost all credibility then and there. You believe anything that parrots Republican talking points, be they true or not. You said so.
Uh huh. I prove you right by not pretending you're right. Got it.
See ya!
You didn't deny that his numbers were bogus. You didn't deny that he refused to release his research. That others had to work backwards to uncover his actions is not the way science is supposed to work.
Now, why did he do this? Does this not completely dismiss his work as a scientist? Of course it does. So if not a scientist what is he? A Charlatan, nothing more.
Yep. A massive scam. By thousands of scientists. None of whom are willing to come forth and say they've been asked to fake their results. It all makes sense.
Have any even bothered to mention climate variations or the past?
You know, like when deserts were tropical areas, when in the past the climate has been both warmer and colder without the input of humans?
Our modern "scientists" that you admire so much are making claims that actually they hope will empower them and gain attention to themselves.
20 years ago they were warning of a new ice age.
Yeah, just listen to the side that makes you feel smug about your beliefs, even without actual proof.
No, I'm not going to do you any favours. I'm not interested in conspiracy theory details. Poor science will out. Mistakes will out. Massive conspiracy theories do not exist. I don't even believe your claim that there is such a conspiracy, much less your claims as to who and why.
And this explains your entire stance.
Only believe what you wish, ignore any statement contrary to your beliefs.
Anyone else wonder what it feels like to know everything and always be right?
Yep. A massive scam. By thousands of scientists. None of whom are willing to come forth and say they've been asked to fake their results. It all makes sense.
Plenty of scientists question global warming. And asking global warming scientists to deny global warming is like asking a person getting paid by the government to find bigfoot to come out and say he doesn't exist.
Have any even bothered to mention climate variations or the past?
Don't you know? I don't see how you can know their research is bunk if you don't know their research.
Quote:
You know, like when deserts were tropical areas, when in the past the climate has been both warmer and colder without the input of humans?
Well, so what? People in the past have died without the input of other humans too. Doesn't mean murder doesn't happen.
Quote:
Our modern "scientists" that you admire so much are making claims that actually they hope will empower them and gain attention to themselves.
That in the 21st century, people living in a country that have benefited the most from science and technology put the word scientists in quotes. Aggravating and saddening.
Quote:
20 years ago they were warning of a new ice age.
No. Here's the deal.
Quote:
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”. The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:
Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted. One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).
The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call “imminent” (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.
“…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course...
Obviously they still don't.
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.
