Then what is the AGW argument and what is it you think "deniers" are denying?
You were bringing up that same line then about how 'you had no one to trust' then.
I am going to belabor the point because it shows just how full of you are. Its a false dilemma and thats a fallacy.
We cannot believe them so noone is right.
Then what is the AGW argument and what is it you think "deniers" are denying?
God you are full of . Looking for someone with credibility? You choose who has credibility by what they conclude and not how they concude it is the only thing that is certain.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 04-20-2012 at 02:49 PM.
And can't speak for all AGW skeptics, but the conclusion in that article is well articulated statement of why I'm a skeptic.
So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.” As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year. They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2. What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.
That sums up my reasons as a proper scientific skeptic, but I have learned to accept the term "denier" just like I have "parts changer."
Well, RandomGuy? Is that a reasonable skeptic's position?
So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.” As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year. They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2. What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.
I don't make a gross generalization so your not going to pigeonhole me to one. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, there have been tens of thousands of papers. Trying to sum them up as one viewpoint on feedback is fun and all but oversimplification is meaningless in my eyes.
So how did you like the Obama part? Obama used models. IPCC uses models. AL GORE! he literally equates the two:
Its a mindless hack job but I am glad you go to Forbes for your take on climate science.What the Administration did was this: they took a computer model, the same one that originally said the stimulus would be effective, and plugged in the actual spending numbers to get a modeled job creation number. As political messaging, this made perfect sense. As science, the notion of checking a theoretical model’s output with additional runs of the same model, rather than observational data, certainly leaves something to be desired. But to be fair, it’s a tough problem – how does one sort out the effect of changing one variable in a complex system where hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of other variables are changing simultaneously?
This is the problem scientists face in trying to determine the causes of the 0.7C warming over the last century.
Fuzzy fails.
It's that fuzzy logic.
Ok. So what are you thoughts on the fact that the insurance industry is accounting for global warming in their cost of service?
Maybe they are using it as a good excuse to raise premiums. I'm sure their losses for property damage from hurricanes have increased over the years, but that has a lot to do with increased amount of coastal development.
Oh no you don't get to asssert
as valid. Then claim ask:
And that means that your little flowchart remains true. its not my burden to justify climate in 3 easy steps. Its your or the authors. You fail to meet the burden to prove your asertion i do not have to offer a counterplan. Sorry thats just not how argumentation works.Then what is the AGW argument and what is it you think "deniers" are denying?
You are disingenuous as a matter of course.
You have comment on the Obama jobs comparison?
All insurers in all 50 states have to present their claims and actuarial data to the state in which they want to do business. Rates are determined on a per capita basis. they cannot just raise rates without justifying it to the insurance committee.
They have also sent people before congress to plead their case about GW and human cause being attributable to their actions. I guess they are all lying.
In FL they are pulling out of the HO market and not just raising premiums.
But hey you have climate in 3 easy steps.
I was reading Darrin's post until it came up with a 15 year temp record. Same old , different day.
Companies never lie to make money. Companies never adopt a position in order to make money. They only ever base their decisions on what the science actually says.
I wouldn't insure homes in Florida either. I saw Homestead after Hurricane Andrew.
Well, they wouldn't exactly say, "Hey, we don't believe this stuff but, damn, it makes such a good excuse to raise rates and exit losing markets in Florida that it's worth buying into the theory as a way to do just that."
No, you just could just act like the buy the science and set about adjusting your industry in a way consistent with your public assertions.
And how is that unlike the stuff you provide?
Do you want to gain some of our confidence of your viewpoint on this topic? If so, then please find something that is reasonable. Something that takes into account the items a layperson like myself can discredit them for. I don't think I ask for too much. Show me something that takes proper account of solar and BC forcing, and still makes the claims that CO2 is as strong of a greenhouse gas as claimed.
Are you even going to address the oversight of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation?
Here is there mission statement:
http://www.floir.com/Office/MissionStatement.aspxMission Statement
To ensure that insurance companies licensed to do business in Florida are financially viable, operating within the laws and regulations governing the insurance industry; and offering insurance policy products at fair and adequate rates which do not unfairly discriminate against the buying public.
Its actually big deal within the industry and the rank and file of employees know this. So they are all stupid? All the scientists are liars. The insurance industry and all their regulating bodies in each of the 50 states are either co-opted. inept or lying.
Why can you not use this exact same logic about the energy lobby?
What do CONFIRMATION BIAS mean?
You need to stop talking about finding people that you can trust because you're full of .
Can't talk now, too busy proving tropospheric combustion and the great flood for publication.
Well, good luck with the troposphere. Spinning your wheels. It ain't happening.
But, if it is, that means Manny has actually put a stop to all the AGCC nonsense by finding a more immediate existential threat over which to worry and about which it may be too late to do anything about.
Go Manny!
Does that mean we should support his efforts?
I'd just be happy if someone can provide a study that has proper assessments of solar and black carbon included.
As written, no.What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.
Blanket denials on complex subjects are stupid.
That said, let's be fair, and not focus on the nitpicky details. Re-word it a bit:
That is quite reasonable.What they doubt is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is quite possibly greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. And, they are simultaneously doubting that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated.
It is fine to have some doubts and some skepticism to claims of catastrophe.
Well, Yonivore? Is that a reasonable skeptic's position?What I doubt is the catastrophe — I argue that the theory of strong negative economic feedback from limiting CO2 emissions is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of economic damage we will see from reducing our emissions of CO2.
Try this shorthand:
You're right its the exosphere! No, its the thermosphere!
I will be citing the Bible in this work. They did some great work about the great flood in there.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)