Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[MannyIsGod]

Why are you laughing? These guys have the same college credentials of climatologists, minus one course.

Many of them don't have degrees. They might as well be you.

[baseline bum]

Many of them don't have degrees. They might as well be you.

[DarrinS]

Many of them don't have degrees. They might as well be you.

I'd rather have a principal component analysis done properly by a non-degreed individual than one done incorrectly by a PhD.

[Parker2112]

lol, Manny hating on an entire group of professionals based on the actors who play them on TV...

[LnGrrrR]

Why are you laughing? These guys have the same college credentials of climatologists, minus one course.

Didn't you JUST say that you trusted weathermen because they haven't been indoctrinated like climatologists?

[LnGrrrR]

These are the people who see day to day weather across the world. They haven't (as a whole) been indoctrinated by the climatologist classes, which I see clearly teaching false science.

[Winehole23]

, evidently, you can have ZERO credentials and win a Nobel Prize based on scenarios that are orders of magnitude greater than IPCC's worst case scenario.

Riposte, Manny?

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't you JUST say that you trusted weathermen because they haven't been indoctrinated like climatologists?

Not quite that. I'm just saying they aren't taught the agenda.

[RandomGuy]

None of use outright deny that CO2 causes warming. We only deny that it causes as much as you fear-mongers claim, and that it's not enough to be concerned about.

If you can't get the argument right, please stop typing your propaganda.

How much warming is that exactly?

Can you please tell me how much warming has so far been attributed to CO2 increases?

[RandomGuy]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...march_2010.pdf


Excerpt:
About one-third (31%) reported that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, while almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment.

Consenus = weak science

[DarrinS]

Or, just read their emails and review their ty computer code. If you're still okay with their work,

[MannyIsGod]

lol, Manny hating on an entire group of professionals based on the actors who play them on TV...

WTF are you talking about? I'm hating on the actors. You think I'm hating on meteorologists?


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

[MannyIsGod]

Riposte, Manny?

I have to respond to Darrin's complete non sequitur? No thanks.

[DarrinS]

I have to respond to Darrin's complete non sequitur? No thanks.

You're ok with PhD's doing shoddy analyses?

[Parker2112]

WTF are you talking about? I'm hating on the actors. You think I'm hating on meteorologists?


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

you did. look at the tape. then you qualified it, somewhat.

[Parker2112]

leave it to me to make the distinction for you. Only know are you acknowledging there is a difference.

[Wild Cobra]

How much warming is that exactly?

My best guess is about 10% to 20% of the stated value by the AGW crowd.

Exactly...

You've got to be kidding.

Can you please tell me how much warming has so far been attributed to CO2 increases?

Of course not. Neither can they. They claim a range if I remember right of 0.6C to 0.85C. I say it's about 0.1C, but we really can't know as fact how much. I am absolutely certain it is no more than 1/3rd what they claim.

[RandomGuy]

My best guess is about 10% to 20% of the stated value by the AGW crowd.

Exactly...

You've got to be kidding.

Of course not. Neither can they. They claim a range if I remember right of 0.6C to 0.85C. I say it's about 0.1C, but we really can't know as fact how much. I am absolutely certain it is no more than 1/3rd what they claim.

"we really can't know as fact how much"

As I have stated before, I don't need to know how many inches are between me and the cliff to know that I need to not step over the cliff.

As I have stated repeatedly, knowing everything "for a fact" is not possible, nor is it necessary to take some prudent, conservative risk-avoiding steps.

If you are that certain, get into a scientific journal with some data and a paper. Unless, of course, you don't think your science will hold up under scrutiny.

[Wild Cobra]

"we really can't know as fact how much"

As I have stated before, I don't need to know how many inches are between me and the cliff to know that I need to not step over the cliff.

But we aren't even close to falling off with greenhouse gasses. Now black carbon, that's a different story.

As I have stated repeatedly, knowing everything "for a fact" is not possible, nor is it necessary to take some prudent, conservative risk-avoiding steps.

Agreed, so you must be one who lives in a house with barred windows, never goes out, in fear of life.

If you are that certain, get into a scientific journal with some data and a paper. Unless, of course, you don't think your science will hold up under scrutiny.

I don't need to. the information has been put out already. i have linked good articles and data in the past, that others use also.

[MannyIsGod]

leave it to me to make the distinction for you. Only know are you acknowledging there is a difference.

LOL?

Do you know what I'm studying? There is a reason I put it in quotes.

[lefty]

Aaaah climate change.........


But it's not cold in Montreal, which is rather weird this time of the year

[RandomGuy]

As I have stated repeatedly, knowing everything "for a fact" is not possible, nor is it necessary, to take some prudent and conservative risk-avoiding steps.

Agreed, so you must be one who lives in a house with barred windows, never goes out, in fear of life.

You suck at psycho-analysis. You suck even more at risk management.

[TeyshaBlue]

leave it to me to make the distinction for you. Only know are you acknowledging there is a difference.

LOL?

Do you know what I'm studying? There is a reason I put it in quotes.

:facepalm:

[Wild Cobra]

You suck at psycho-analysis. You suck even more at risk management.

You want us to spend money to fight global warming in ways that do no good. You lack of understanding the sciences in this regard are placing the risk factor far higher than it should be. Since you take that chance, which I would say in 1 in a trillion or more, that this is a true risk... If that's how you live your life, then I expect you live a very isolated life as to avoid risk. That's how silly I see you "risk analysis" on this topic. You wish that we do unexceptionably stupid measures to avoid a risk that will never happen in the first place.

[RandomGuy]

You want us to spend money to fight global warming in ways that do no good. You lack of understanding the sciences in this regard are placing the risk factor far higher than it should be. Since you take that chance, which I would say in 1 in a trillion or more, that this is a true risk... If that's how you live your life, then I expect you live a very isolated life as to avoid risk. That's how silly I see you "risk analysis" on this topic. You wish that we do unexceptionably stupid measures to avoid a risk that will never happen in the first place.

One in a trillion?

Really, you are THAT certain about it?

99.9999999% sure is more sure than *anybody* studying it is.

And you have come to this degree of certainty about one of the most complex natural systems that mankind has tried to understand so far all without ever having gathered any first-hand data, or submitted your theories/conclusions to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

To top off this highly-unscientific statement, you berate me for being risk adverse and essentially use a strawman logical fallacy to distort my previously-stated beliefs about the scale of action needed.

So let's do a well-worn riff on this, and set about chalking up a few more unsupported assertions and logical fallacies.

Would limiting CO2 emissions be harmful to our economy?