Page 109 of 161 FirstFirst ... 95999105106107108109110111112113119159 ... LastLast
Results 2,701 to 2,725 of 4001
  1. #2701
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,437
    Wait, so you think there is zero proof that human emissions are the reason for the CO2 rise? Well, pray tell, what is driving the increase?

    Does CO2 at 200 ppm have an appreciable effect on climate?
    MannyIsGod is online now

  2. #2702
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Well, first of all, I never claimed all biologists are wrong.
    No, what you said is the biological/ecological scientists focus on their specialty and that those who claim AGCC is the cause of the calamity du jour for their area of specialty, and are wrong, just don't understand climate science.

    Then, you said climate scientists don't pay particular attention to the claimed biological/ecological affects of the climate they study.

    Finally, you argued that the ecological/biological scientists who claim calamities striking their areas of expertise -- oceanography and marine biology, I presume -- and blame climate change are right when the calamities are actually occurring.

    Got it.

    Again, what is the optimal climate and temperature for Earth?
    Yonivore is offline

  3. #2703
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,437
    You're really going to try to be intellectually dishonest about a post? (I act surprised as if this is the first time).

    Who do you think you're fooling, Yoni? Yourself? What I said is right there and I find it laughable (and rather sad) for you to try to mischaracterize what I said right after I said it as if everyone who is reading this is that dumb.

    Mmmmk.
    MannyIsGod is online now

  4. #2704
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,437
    Also, I answered your question about optimal temperatures. The one our society has developed around and has put an infrastructure around. The one we have now. Not the one we're going to.
    MannyIsGod is online now

  5. #2705
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Also, I answered your question about optimal temperatures. The one our society has developed around and has put an infrastructure around. The one we have now. Not the one we're going to.
    We're unable to adapt?
    Yonivore is offline

  6. #2706
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,437
    I answered that earlier too. I said we are able to adapt. That doesn't make it either desirable or cheap. It will be costly in many aspects.

    I could cut off your arm, Yoni, and you could go on to live a life. Does that make cutting off your arm a desirable effect? The standard of whether or not we can adapt as to whether or not a controllable outcome is desirable is beyond poor.
    MannyIsGod is online now

  7. #2707
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    So you're saying that biology and ecology are the same thing as climate sciences? Ok, call bull on that all you want. Won't make it any closer to being true.

    You think that an atmospheric chemist is taking into account a single penguin or polar bear when he or she is doing their work? Its fairly impossible to discuss this with you because you have such a poor understanding of how specialized science is or even the basic fundamentals of how the collective knowledge of our species is advanced through science.

    You have a lot of atmospheric scientists of different specialties who work on little bits of research that are typically very focused. You may have a guy working on figuring out upper tropospheric humidity proxies and you may have a numerical modeler trying to develop a higher resolution climate model and you may have someone trying to figure out how clouds actually work in order to figure out feedbacks. Then you're going to have hydrologists working on the cryosphere (ie glaciers). This goes on for every discipline. But the guy working on the climate models doesn't specialize in polar bears, and the guy working on glaciers doesn't know very much about how the stratosphere impacts the entire picture. They rely on each other and then proceed based on information provided by others.

    In other words, the zoologist who is studying polar bears is going to look at climate projections and then make an analysis based upon his or her knowledge of polar bears on what will happen given a certain increase or a certain change in their habitat. If that zoologist is then incorrect, that is not some kind of verdict on the climate prediction but rather on the biological aspect of the work done. That is a fundamental you simple refuse to understand.
    I think it was a fair characterization.

    According to you, when scientists make a mistake it's because they don't understand/aren't focused enough about the alien science they were applying to their theory/projection/hypothesis -- except of course when they're right.
    Yonivore is offline

  8. #2708
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I answered that earlier too. I said we are able to adapt. That doesn't make it either desirable or cheap. It will be costly in many aspects.

    I could cut off your arm, Yoni, and you could go on to live a life. Does that make cutting off your arm a desirable effect? The standard of whether or not we can adapt as to whether or not a controllable outcome is desirable is beyond poor.
    How hot is it going to get, Manny?
    Yonivore is offline

  9. #2709
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,437
    Globally the temperature will rise somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 degrees C to 4 degrees C. Locally you'll see places that increase far more than that and places that will likely even cool.

    Is the military wrong in assessing climate change impacts, Yoni?

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...climate-change
    MannyIsGod is online now

  10. #2710
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Globally the temperature will rise somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 degrees C to 4 degrees C. Locally you'll see places that increase far more than that and places that will likely even cool.
    Nice hedging.

    By when?

    Is the military wrong in assessing climate change impacts, Yoni?

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...climate-change
    They could be. They've been wrong before -- about things they know a lot more about, too. Blowing up and killing people.
    Yonivore is offline

  11. #2711
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Nice hedging.

    By when?


    They could be. They've been wrong before -- about things they know a lot more about, too. Blowing up and killing people.
    This is hilarious. Everyone is wrong but the energy lobby. Everyone of the insurance industry, NASA, every national science foundation in the world, the military, and on and on and on is wrong.

    But lets go with the energy lobby....

    gmfb
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  12. #2712
    Believe. admiralsnackbar's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Post Count
    4,010
    Nice hedging.

    By when?
    Since you and others have stepped out of pure skepticism enough to support the proposition that the warming trend is caused by cosmic forces exclusively, you should be able to at least give a similar timeline corresponding to your chosen theory, right?
    admiralsnackbar is offline

  13. #2713
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I did indeed bring up the financial stake.

    You can't ask me to have an open mind if you, or Yoni can ignore the trillion dollar elephant in the room.

    Sorry it doesn't work that way.

    All any of you have to do is to answer a simple yes or no question, honestly.

    You can't.

    The only logical conclusion is that you don't want to be honest.
    This is something you seem to jump to an improper conclusion on. Because there is vested interest to deny AGW, and some funding is done by them, that all organizations associated with a single dime of their money is paying for a certain outcome.

    Sorry, I don't buy into your philosophy there. I was making the point that if you believe money pays for bad science, then you should also look at all the money being made and moved around over the idea of strengthening the AGW claim. Unless you are a hypocrite, you must claim AGW science is wrong too.

    It can work both ways, and for you to dismiss good scientific skepticism means you do not have an open mind when you don't equally dismiss the opposing viewpoint over the same reasons.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-17-2012 at 02:51 AM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  14. #2714
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Yonivore, are you discounting CO2 as a green house gas?
    Why do you keep asking the same question to us when you know what the answer will be? are you insane?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  15. #2715
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117


    It is very, very hard to be patient and polite when people are being evasive and/or dishonest.

    The backspace key is my friend. (breathes deeply and calmly) If I posted even 1/4 of the hair-pulling, frustrated, snarky things that run through my head....
    Yes it is. I have a very hard time maintaining my cool with the dishonesty you guys have.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  16. #2716
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Do you just make things up? Sea level rise is HIGHER than what was forecast by most of the models.
    Let's assume there is no question about that. Have you seen anywhere that values are stated as to how much is thermal expansion and how much is loss of land ice masses?

    How about the reasons for loss of these ice sheets? You were too chicken to answer my question some posts back. Did you know a leading cause of glacier loss... moving faster... breaking up faster... is because of changes in geothermal temperatures? Not temperatures on top of them, but below them.

    This is one more indicator that is a false proxy of global warming, natural or man caused.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  17. #2717
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Globally the temperature will rise somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 degrees C to 4 degrees C. Locally you'll see places that increase far more than that and places that will likely even cool.

    Is the military wrong in assessing climate change impacts, Yoni?

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...climate-change
    LOL...

    scientific American...

    LOL...

    I wonder who's idea in congress it is to put the AGW agenda in the military budget, making liberals scream more about military spending?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  18. #2718
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Since you and others have stepped out of pure skepticism enough to support the proposition that the warming trend is caused by cosmic forces exclusively, you should be able to at least give a similar timeline corresponding to your chosen theory, right?
    Why?

    I'm not a climate scientist.

    My whole argument in this thread is that the PRINCIPAL torchbearers that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is real have been seriously discredited over the past decade or so.

    I don't argue the climate isn't changing. I am dubious -- with reason, I believe -- that humankind has any appreciable affect on climate or that climate changes are leading us to all these hyperbolic calamities being claimed or that we can do anything to alter the course nature has set for our climate.

    This planet has been warming and cooling for a few billion years. It has reach temperatures that are much colder and it has reached temperatures that are much warmer. Long before AGCC became popular, we learned our planet will probably go through these cycles of heating and cooling for as long as it exists...until one day, our Sun will swallow it.

    Just about every prominent public figure, with whom I'm familiar, pushing the AGCC Alarm Button, makes money for doing so, doesn't live like anthropogenic global climate change is real, has been seriously wrong about predictions and assertions made and, in some cases, have been caught red-handed fudging the data.

    I don't know of any AGCC standard-bearer that remains unsullied.

    Do you?
    Yonivore is offline

  19. #2719
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Sea levels are rising.

    http://academics.eckerd.edu/instruct...SLRSustain.pdf

    http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1...e.2010.29.html

    I could link more, if you'd like. Note, those aren't model figures. Those are taken from actual readings across the globe of tidal gauges and from satellite measurements.
    Sorry Manny, your post was a mess and since it's not my job to decipher poorly constructed posts, nor is this a workplace, and none of what we do in here is really important - I ignored the whole post.

    But, when Wild Cobra quoted you on the sea level thing, I decided to follow up on my point -- which you ignored.

    Rising sea levels 'the greatest lie ever told'

    You responded to that statement as if I had made it. I don't think you addressed the underlying premise, forwarded by former chairman of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner in the linked article.

    No, instead, you posted links that I didn't read...because, I no longer trust the sources AGCC alarmists keep throwing out there as proof of their models and predictions. They've just been wrong too many times. Sorry.

    So, instead of throwing hyperlinks at the problem, Manny, how about you address the points Mörner raises?

    Here's a key graf:

    But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

    Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

    The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
    Care to respond to Dr. Mörner instead of me? Arguably, he knows more about sea level changes than you or I, no?
    Yonivore is offline

  20. #2720
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Care to respond to Dr. Mörner instead of me? Arguably, he knows more about sea level changes than you or I, no?
    Indeed he does.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils...evel-rise.html


    Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    Posted on 6 December 2011 by dana1981
    The Spectator has published an article written by Nils-Axel Mörner with his usual denial about sea level rise (which has been re-published by many of the usual suspects). Figure 1 shows the mean global sea level data whose accuracy Mörner denies:



    Figure 1: University of Colorado global mean sea level time series (with seasonal signal removed)



    Mörner claims that the "true experts" think this data is wrong (emphasis added):


    "The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth’: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since."
    This is quite different from the INQUA official position on climate change, which opens by saying (emphasis added):

    Climate change is real
    There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and, indirectly, from increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in many physical and biological systems. It is very likely that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (IPCC 2007).
    As George Monbiot has do ented, INQUA has been trying to dissociate itself from Mörner's views.

    Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that Mörner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."
    Tuvalu is among the various individual locations Mörner focuses on in his attempt to distract from global sea level rise. However, it is a rather poor choice, since sea level rise around Tuvalu is faster than the global average (Figure 2).


    Figure 2: Map of the Pacific Island region interannual sea level trend (linear variation with time) from the reconstruction 1950-2009. Locations of the 27 tide gauges (black circles and stars) used in the study are superimposed. Stars relate to the 7 tide gauges used in the global reconstruction. Dark areas relate to non-significant trends. From Becker (2011) .

    So how does Mörner explain the global sea level rise record, in which both satellite altimeters and tide gauges show average global sea level rise on the order of 3 mm per year (Figure 1)? It's all a conspiracy, of course:

    "In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year...This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong"
    Obviously this conspiracy theory is utterly absurd, and is easily disproven by simply examining the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001, two years before Mörner's accusation of falsified sea level data, which shows an approximately 10 to 15 mm rise in average global sea level from 1993 to 1998 (Figure 3).



    Figure 3: Global mean sea level variations (light line) computed from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter data compared with the global averaged sea surface temperature variations (dark line) for 1993 to 1998. The seasonal components have been removed from both time-series. (IPCC TAR)

    In short, Mörner's conspiracy theory and accusation of falsified data is complete nonsense. It's also ironic that Mörner accuses others of falsifying data, since he has previously doctored photographs in his own presentations (i.e. see multiple photos of the Maldives 'marker tree' spliced together here and here).

    However, even if we disregard the satellite altimetry data and instead examine the tide gauge data that Mörner prefers, his assertions are still clearly false. Church and White (2011) examined sea level data from both tide gauges (TGs), satellite altimeter data (Sat-Alt), and the estimated contribution to the sea level rise from various sources (Figure 4). The net estimated mean sea level rise from tide gauges and satellites is essentially the same.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ChurchWhiteMSL.png

    Figure 4: The observed sea level using coastal and island tide gauges (solid black line with grey shading indicating the estimated uncertainty) and using TOPEX/Poseidon/Jason‐1&2 satellite altimeter data (dashed black line). The two estimates have been matched at the start of the altimeter record in 1993. Also shown are the various components contributing to sea level rise (Church and White 2011)

    Rather than being flat since 1970, as Mörner claimed in The Spectator article, mean sea level has risen more than 80mm over that period, according to tide gauges. In fact, not only is global mean sea level data rising, but the rise is accelerating.

    Highlighting the degree to which his arguments are divorced from reality, in testimony to the British House of Lords, Mörner even presented this laughable graph (which was later reproduced by Monckton and the SPPI), simply rotating Figure 1 to produce "the evidence that sea level is not rising" (Figure 5).



    Figure 5: Tilted global sea level data produced by Monckton and Mörner in the SPPI Monthly CO2 Report for January 2011

    Nils-Axel Mörner's claims regarding sea level rise are the very definition of denial, involving nothing more than conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated accusations of data falsification wich are easily proven untrue. The mainstream media needs to realize that Mörner is simply not a credible source of information about sea level rise or climate science in general. One individual's unsupported conspiracy theories do not trump empirical observational data.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils...evel-rise.html

    -----------------------------------


    Remember Yoni, you claim "no evidence" of things like this.

    None, zip, zilch, nada.

    Are these scientists lying about sea levels?

    Or is it you believe Moerner, over all the other scientists working on this? Why is that?
    RandomGuy is offline

  21. #2721
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Delving into the details... I am not impressed by Moerner's methodology.

    While I don't have time to read everything, I did take the time to review one item relating to his "no rise claims".

    One critique of the satellite data:
    The raw data show a slight fall in sea level over the period by –0.12 (±0.06) mm/year (blue dots). Inferring a global isostatic adjustment correction, which is to be questioned, Casenave et al. (2009) presented a corrected rate of 1.9 (±0.9) mm/year (pink dots). The difference is significant. The question is whether or not this “correction” is justifiable.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...2_jan_2011.pdf



    He raises the question, but never once explains WHY this correction is unjustifiable.

    He just says it is 'quesntionable'.

    When you dig into the scientific paper he questions, they explain their methodology, and that the raw data is skewed because of the differences in the way the earth is shaped:

    However, a GIA
    correction has to be applied to this raw ocean mass time series. In
    effect, GIA causes a secular change in the mean oceanic geoid that
    needs to be removed from the GRACE-based raw ocean mass time
    series to obtain the real water mass change of the oceans. This linear
    correction is quite large
    http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/down...l_GPC_2009.pdf


    This to me is exactly the same stupid that truther's pull all the tiem with scientific they don't understand.

    "it's questionable"

    "ok, can you tell me why?"

    "no, the scientists just aren't credible"




    Thanks for yet another primer in support of the OP.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-17-2012 at 12:10 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  22. #2722
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,437
    This is the #1 problem with people like Yoni and Darrin. They find an article somewhere with someone who agrees with their viewpoint - in this case the article on sea level rise - and they completely assume that what that scientist says is proper and is sound. I'm still waiting on Darrin to explain to me what cons utes - in his words - good science.

    I then provide scientific studies showing the opposite based upon actual data, and they are summarily dismissed out of hand because they do not conform with the chosen viewpoint.

    That should tell you everything you need too know about how Yonivore and Darrin form their viewpoints.
    MannyIsGod is online now

  23. #2723
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I'm glad RG has his go-to site for "climate denial debunking".

    Lol skepticalscience.com

    "Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming."


    As far as I can tell, the dude who runs skepticalscience doesn't see any "healthy skepticism" in any of the non-alarmist viewpoints.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
    DarrinS is offline

  24. #2724
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    This is the #1 problem with people like Yoni and Darrin. They find an article somewhere with someone who agrees with their viewpoint - in this case the article on sea level rise - and they completely assume that what that scientist says is proper and is sound. I'm still waiting on Darrin to explain to me what cons utes - in his words - good science.

    I then provide scientific studies showing the opposite based upon actual data, and they are summarily dismissed out of hand because they do not conform with the chosen viewpoint.

    That should tell you everything you need too know about how Yonivore and Darrin form their viewpoints.
    This is the #1 problem with people like Manny and Random. They flood this site with articles they claim disprove our points and ignore the central theme of the skepticism.

    First of all, none of us has the time to investigate the efficacy, accuracy, or credibility of the data or claims made by either side. You say they discredit my article, I say my article discredits yours...we've done this for over a decade now.

    So, I'll say it one more time. All the PRINCIPAL proponents of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change that dominate the places we typically consume our information -- Al Gore, the UN, its IPCC, prominent political appointees of the alphabet soup of federal agencies, prominent academics -- have all been busted in either significant errors, mischaracterizations of data, or out-and-out fabrications. Almost to a one, they've refused any open debate on the topic and have insisted the "science is settled."

    Models, from years ago, that predicted events that were supposed to have already come to pass --- have been wrong.

    And, to add insult to injury, damn near every one of the enviro-celebrities and high-minded organizations produce individual sasquatch-sized carbon footprints while they tell me to squeeze my ass into a Prius and quit exhaling so much.

    My God, have you seen the spectacles of excess they create in places like Copenhagen and South Africa when they get together to proclaim the imminent doom of our planet if we don't enact draconian measures to reverse our CO2 emissions? Individual jets. Individual limos. It's a farce. Have they never heard of "Go to Meeting" for God's sake?

    They're you're problem Manny, not the skeptics. We're just taking our cues from those who get to pick which scientists are on message and which ones are heretics.

    I'll start believing there is an anthropogenic global climate change problem when those telling me there is an anthropogenic global climate change problem start acting like there's an anthropogenic global climate change problem.

    If your tens of thousands of scientists cannot convince those in our leadership, that deliver the message to the laymen among us, AGCC is a real problem, why should I believe it? Particularly when it is clear those people only carry the bucket because it enriches them.

    It's really that simply. You're not going to get me with graphs and the odd scientific paper that you've cherry picked to prove your case. We know those can be manipulated -- by anyone. It's been done and they've been caught doing it and I don't have the expertise to know if the one you post and link here is real or fabricated or just simply wrong.

    Give it up and explain to me, instead, why Al Gore -- arguably the Grand Poohbah of AGCC -- doesn't practice what he preaches. Why were the IPCC scientists "hiding the decline?"

    And, another thing, what about China? How much good are we doing if we significantly re our economy through enacting the measures being suggested if China and a few other mega-emitters do nothing?

    Seriously, quit with the papers -- they prove nothing in a forum about politics occupied by a bunch of non-scientists that are witnessing the hypocrisy of the celebrities that push your side of the argument. Explain that instead.
    Yonivore is offline

  25. #2725
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I'm glad RG has his go-to site for "climate denial debunking".

    Lol skepticalscience.com

    "Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming."


    As far as I can tell, the dude who runs skepticalscience doesn't see any "healthy skepticism" in any of the non-alarmist viewpoints.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
    He seems to share my opinion of most self-professed skeptics. The OP and its carefully logged list of your logically flawed arguments says all I need to about that.

    Remember this
    If there is NO evidence, then ALL climate scientists who claim AGW are lying.

    Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.
    Are they all lying Darrin?

    Does this seem like a dogmatic statement to you?

    If you want to claim there is NO evidence, you have a HUGE burden of proof, given the number of scientists who stake their reputations on the evidence that they feel does support AGW.
    RandomGuy is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •