While you're at it, you might also ask yourself why you're drawn to side with a particular side -- the minority, at that -- rather than remaining skeptical of all claims?
While you're at it, you might also ask yourself why you're drawn to side with a particular side -- the minority, at that -- rather than remaining skeptical of all claims?
Scientific articles have been posted that directly refute what you've been saying, Yoni. If you can't understand those articles, then that is your problem. I personally find it funny that you immediately assume they are wrong even though you don't understand them. Its very telling.
I remain skeptical because no one, in the public sector (where most of us live and learn about the science affecting our planet), is making a compelling case for anthropogenic global climate change a) existing or b) being a real problem about which we should be concerned.
Oh, I agree, there are plenty of people saying it -- just not convincingly.
And, you haven't named anyone to whom you think I should listen.
And, Manny, I don't need to understand the science to know no one is making a convincing argument in your favor. In fact, as time goes by, it appears the AGCC crowd is losing steam...while the earth continues to do just fine.
Will you name a scientist to whom I should be paying attention? To whom the world should be listening? And, why?
The case is being made just fine. The only place its not is here in the United States and thats mainly because of the political nature of the debate here and our dropping scientific literacy.
You see the exact same figures regarding evolution. The GOP's war on science has been quite effective here.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147242/wo...ls-humans.aspx
Maybe I can take another approach.
If, as a lay person, you've been fed a steady stream of "scientific" evidence that AGCC exists and, over time, the major works of evidence -- touted by the IPCC, the UN, and Al Gore (among others) -- turn out to be seriously flawed, either by error or intention; why the would you pay attention to some anonymous guy in a political forum who answers every question with a scientific paper claiming there are tens of thousand of scientists peer-reviewing millions of papers that all prove AGCC exists.
Why Manny? It's irrelevant. You're asking a lay person -- in an internet forum (not exactly an ins ution of scientific import) to digest information people have ostensibly spent years analyzing and assembling into the do ents you post. I immediately discount them because I don't know you, I don't know the author, and I don't know from where their data comes -- even if they say it comes from legitimate source a, b, or c.
Now, if one of your authors were to appear on the national or international stage and make a compelling argument, supported by his paper you posted here? I might be willing to listen.
Can you get that?
You want to persuade, produce a national or international figure that can make a compelling case that isn't later found to be lacking. So far, the AGCC crowd hasn't produced that person.
I think the world deserves to be convinced before we leap off an economic bluff.
I was referring to your logical fallacies, which you repeat, as if you do not understand they are flawed logically.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=2741
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=2742
You appear smart enough to understand that flawed logic is not a basis on which to form opinions about important things.
I am left wondering why you persist in them. I can only conclude you are ignoring them, or treating them as if they don't exist.
Besides, if you don't understand the science, how on earth would you recognize a compelling case if it bit you in the ass?
It's hard to shake people's faith. He's going to believe what ever his preachers of AGW tell him.
So it is written, so it shall be.
Anyone I would produce would be automatically shot down by you as being non-credible, simply because they believe there is evidence that we are affecting our environment.
Your definition of "credible" is someone who agrees with you to begin with.
Kind of hard to prove anything to someone who won't listen, or believe you, no matter how good your arguments are or evidence is.
How exactly do you know they're seriously flawed again? Through your understanding of the science involved?
Do you know the blog authors whom - as you put it so well - pick the proper scientists for you to follow?Why Manny? It's irrelevant. You're asking a lay person -- in an internet forum (not exactly an ins ution of scientific import) to digest information people have ostensibly spent years analyzing and assembling into the do ents you post. I immediately discount them because I don't know you, I don't know the author, and I don't know from where their data comes -- even if they say it comes from legitimate source a, b, or c.
Do you know the scientist whom you posted in the thread above talking about sea level change? You sure didn't have a problem believing his argument. I'm sure you know him though.
I just showed you that the world is buying it. I've shown you how the military is buying it. I've shown you how international health organizations are buying it. I've shown you how all the major scientific organizations are buying it. I've shown you how the free ing market you worship is buying it.Now, if one of your authors were to appear on the national or international stage and make a compelling argument, supported by his paper you posted here? I might be willing to listen.
Can you get that?
You want to persuade, produce a national or international figure that can make a compelling case that isn't later found to be lacking. So far, the AGCC crowd hasn't produced that person.
I think the world deserves to be convinced before we leap off an economic bluff.
I really don't care if science illiterate partisan hacks who rely on blogs for their info buy it.
really?
Yes, really. I don't lie in my posts, Darrin. I leave that to you and others.
I take scientists at their word.
They are experts.
I have no proof of any vast conspiracy on their part to lie.
When I look at the people criticising these experts, they almost always turn out to be dishonest, sometimes actively making things up, and hand waving, as Dr. Moerner did.
I ask for any evidence that these scientists are lying and I get... more ad hominem.
If the evidence is sooo fake, as you claim it is, then it would be very easy to prove it is faked.
You all are no different than the 9-11 truthers in any of the above regards.
That leads me to the conclusion in the OP.
The case isn't being made that well.
Most of the Kyoto protocol signatories have had abysmal progress in achieving their objectives and, yet, no doom or gloom.
And, there are other signs Europe has put responses to AGCC behind their economic woes.
Don't distract, I believe the theory of evolution is the best explanation for why species have so much in common.
You just don't answer anyone's tough questions.
I'm not distracting. I'm giving you another example of well established scientific theory that is "debated" in this country for political reasons. Its not like AGW theory is alone.
Here is, ultimately, the weakest part of your entire argument.
Reducing CO2 emissions will help the economy.
Reducing them sooner, rather than later will grow the economy more over the long run than not reducing CO2 emissions.
Showing that the policies to curb emissions have a negative economic impact is does not disprove that AGW is happening. All you are doing is parroting the energy lobby's arguments.
We shouldn't do this because its not happening.
We shouldn't do this because even though its happening because we are not sure of the impact.
We shouldn't do this because it would hurt the economy.
Its so transparent where the arguments come from its sad. Almost as sad as how our political process is beholden to them.
So... It's not a lie to say "The GOP's war on science has been quite effective here."
How can you be certain of that? You expect us to believe what you say on AGW, and turn around and post partisanship rather than science?
You have lost what little credibility you had left with me.
I will concur about that.
Politicizing of the science simply starts to fit in with a general pattern.
Demonize the scientists, then ignore what they are telling you.
How do you explain a stage full of presidential candidates, only one of which has the guts to say they believe in evolution?
That seems to be the message that right-wing politicians seem compelled to give to get primary votes.
I see the demonizing of climate scientists in the same light.
That is an untested hypothesis that not everyone shares. I will contend that elimination our CO2 output will not change anything significantly since the exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere changes with temperature. That CO2 in the atmosphere varies primarily with ocean temperature.
If you want to reduce atmospheric CO2, you have to cool the ocean. Outside of that, you probably have to remove 50 GtC for every 1 GtC that the equilibrium will settle to.
It doesn't matter. You are content with mixing politics and sciences, using that as evidence. I am not. Mixing politics and science is why people believe in the AGW scare.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
