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.
Gave you every chance. You lack any understanding of the topic, you rely on logical fallacies and arrogance to bully your way through the discussion. There is nothing intelligent to be gained from any discussion with you. You might want to read all your responses and then look in the mirror. You are not describing those who disagree with you, but yourself. Good luck with that, ignore is a good place to put people like you. Welcome to it.
I'm honored to be put on ignore by someone that uses a blog as a cheatsheet for all of his responses. I actually respect what McInytre is doing and applaud anyone that is willing to take up his own free time and take a critical look at published studies. However, like I said earlier, he is one player out of many in this complex debate. You can't just rely on one guy to form your opinion.
You took my lighthearted comments about McIntyre the wrong way and went off on a bunch of rants attacking me personally. What's up with that?
NAS “climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.”
So, I post the NAS report, I post the NAS Panel's own words concerning the objections that Mcintyre and Mckitrick had, I even comment on how their own summary seems to contridict the evidence they use to claim their conclusion. That doesn't matter to you though, you have the simple claim of:
"climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.”
And you claim I am in denial?
You are clinging to words of a claim that are not supported. NAS can't even explain their conclusion, they simply take a bunch of inconclusive evidence and come to a conclusion. They use slippery words like "plausible" to suggest their inconclusive evidence is conclusive, yet do not provide actual verifiable methods that support that claim.
What is wrong with you? Can you not think on your own? Can you not question or is "appeal to authority" the only thing you can do? Seriously, did you even read what I provided? It seems that you didn't as if you had, you would at least have been able to comment to some extent on the information and would realize how silly you look merely cutting and pasting an unfounded conclusion.
I wish they wouldn't beat around the bush like that. It just shows the level of confusion within the scientific community about whether or not AGW is happening. O when, O when, will the debate be over?
If you can not explain the deviations, then you can not come to a conclusion. NAS does not explain the deviations in the data, they acknowledge it and then continue on like nothing happened.
This is ridiculous, you people aren't arguing science, you are playing political games and using social might as a means to bully people to your side. The educational system is failing and this discussion is evidence of it.
Global temperature has been conclusively shown to have a positive correlation with Carbon Dioxide concentration in the Atmosphere. As the planet has not provided a significant amount of CO2 and people have been burning a huge amount of stored carbon over the last 400 years, I conclude that anthropogenic sources are the principle cause of global climate change and warming that has been measured over the last century.
If you can not explain the deviations, then you can not come to a conclusion. NAS does not explain the deviations in the data, they acknowledge it and then continue on like nothing happened.
This is ridiculous, you people aren't arguing science, you are playing political games and using social might as a means to bully people to your side. The educational system is failing and this discussion is evidence of it.
In science what one doesn't know always exceeds what one does know. This does not by cause and effect result in one always knowing nothing, as the deniers would assert.
In science what one doesn't know always exceeds what one does know. This does not by cause and effect result in one always knowing nothing, as the deniers would assert.
That's the frustrating part. Basically they want us to sit around and do nothing until we have 100% confidence. Hell, science still can't even agree if moderate drinking of beer is safe but we all know being a drunk might eventually kill you.
Last edited by Rumblebelly; 02-17-2009 at 09:07 AM..
That's the frustrating part. Basically they want us to sit around and do nothing until we have 100% confidence. Hell, science still can even agree if moderate drinking of beer is safe but we all know being a drunk might eventually kill you.
That's just the dillitante talking. It was established early in the 20th Century that there is a fundamental limit to the "knowability" of anything, and no such thing as certainity.
It's like the "Aha! It's just a theory!", as if the rest of science were not a theory. That's actually a darned good reference in modern science, but they interpret as meaning "unproven" or "controversial".
For those overly concerned about global warming, can you explain to me why in the last 5 years Ocean temperatures haven't risen at all and, in fact, have slightly declined????
Not trying to stir the pot, I've yet to hear a decent answer about it. Personally, I'm on the fence about the issue since it seems each new data that comes out contradicts the last one.
In science what one doesn't know always exceeds what one does know. This does not by cause and effect result in one always knowing nothing, as the deniers would assert.
Deviations must be explained or the hypothesis must be reconstructed. This is a principal component of the scientific process. You can't say "well, my hypothesis is mostly right, so therefore it is correct", that isn't science, that is politics and bias creeping in. The scientific methods exists to reduce these issues.
You attempt to straw man my position by claiming I am using the philosophy of "Since we can not know everything, we know nothing", but then I am not discussing philosophy, but rather science.
The fact remains that much of the issues I am speaking of are issues where proper due diligence has not been applied. That is, loose applications of the scientific method is being applied. Hypothesis are being fast forwarded to theories when they don't meet the basic criteria of one. Deviations in data are not being explained, but rather the data is being cherry picked out to support bias.
It is mind boggling to see scientists do this. Science has always been about breaking things, finding out why something goes wrong. When a real scientist would be excited about a deviation (as it might lead them to learning more about their study), many of these climate scientists who are pushing a bias get upset and defensive when they are found or pointed out.
Now you can go off about stupid denial claims, you can evade the issues, build straw mans and ignore the evidence, but then all that is being done there is EXACTLY what you claim of others. It is pathetic, it is unethical, and it is devious.
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.
