AGW: The best arguments a lay person can make!

[James972]

But I still don't grasp the logic behind a diesel

well if VW keeps making them it will mean there is some logic to it.

 

[Buzz]

Once again my ignorant friend. That is not a paper. It is a governmental activists site. It cherry picks parts out of hundreds of papers, but is not a paper.

Why do you bother responding with that tripe every time I ask for a paper?

Let me guess.... Threegoofs doesn't bother posting actual links to individual studies any more because you just ignore them when he(or someone else) does.

 

[Threegoofs]

Let me guess.... Threegoofs doesn't bother posting actual links to individual studies any more because you just ignore them when he(or someone else) does.

Note that the IPCC is a legitimate paper, a review written and reviewed by the experts in the field.

 

[Buzz]

Note that the IPCC is a legitimate paper, a review written and reviewed by the experts in the field.

Yup.... and since the IPCC reports are reviewed by literally hundreds of scientists it is probably the most peer reviewed paper published. It has to stand up to much more scrutiny than studies that are just published in a scientific journal.

And that is what drives me nuts about LoP.... he claims to be a climate expert who reads and follows the published science but he frequently gets the science wrong and sometimes pushes stuff that is actually rejected by the science. As far as I am concerned his rejection of the IPCC reports while he demands that every one provide specific studies is just a dishonest debate tactic.

 

[Lord of Planar]

why cant a lay person quote a liberal puppet scientist who said hurricanes would increase and another scientist who has demonstrated that hurricanes have decreased?

Are you quoting a paper, or what a pundit says the scientist said?

Think about it...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Let me guess.... Threegoofs doesn't bother posting actual links to individual studies any more because you just ignore them when he(or someone else) does.

If he has posted studies, and if I am the cause, it's because I make him look foolish in pointing out what the study really means.

 

[Threegoofs]

If he has posted studies, and if I am the cause, it's because I make him look foolish in pointing out what the study really means.

I think you meant to add quotes ....i.e. 'Really means".

LOL

 

[Mithrae]

It's been bothering me, and I have to say somethging about the title:


There are no arguments a layperson can make. Any opinion they have is from the pundits they listen to.

Zip... Nada...

Simply no good arguments a layperson can make.

Then why do you keep pretending that you can?

And not only that, but that you as a lay person are somehow proving the professionals and experts wrong about such thoroughly-examined, refined, confirmed and replicated results as the global temperature records? Your colossal hubris is exceeded only by your mind-boggling hypocrisy, it seems.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Then why do you keep pretending that you can?

And not only that, but that you as a lay person are somehow proving the professionals and experts wrong about such thoroughly-examined, refined, confirmed and replicated results as the global temperature records? Your colossal hubris is exceeded only by your mind-boggling hypocrisy, it seems.

I am not a layperson on the topic.

Words have meaning. Have you checked the definition?

 

[Mithrae]

I am not a layperson on the topic.

Words have meaning. Have you checked the definition?

You have no professional or specialized knowledge of climate science. You are a lay person. Reading a couple of papers (and horribly misunderstanding them with alarming frequency) does not make you some kind of expert :lol:

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have no professional or specialized knowledge of climate science. You are a lay person.

Liar.

 

[Threegoofs]

Liar.

LOL.

Let's hear what your credentials are, then.

Publications?

 

[Mithrae]

Liar.

You yourself have explicitly acknowledged that you have no formal education or professional experience in climate science, if memory serves: A fact which is borne out by your substantial misunderstandings, errors or embryonic/mutable opinions on a number of relevant topics (eg. solar influence, Arctic albedo, surface insolation and especially temperature records). Reading a handful of papers, some amateur mathematical ability and a few years' forum posting don't make you a climate expert. You can hiss and spit all you like about that but words have meaning, and while I'm sure your derision against lay people citing the views of "pundits" was motivated by nothing but the most genuine and charitable of intentions, the fact is that all you've really done is damn your own colossal hubris and half-baked speculation.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You yourself have explicitly acknowledged that you have no formal education or professional experience in climate science, if memory serves: A fact which is borne out by your substantial misunderstandings, errors or embryonic/mutable opinions on a number of relevant topics (eg. solar influence, Arctic albedo, surface insolation and especially temperature records). Reading a handful of papers, some amateur mathematical ability and a few years' forum posting don't make you a climate expert. You can hiss and spit all you like about that but words have meaning, and while I'm sure your derision against lay people citing the views of "pundits" was motivated by nothing but the most genuine and charitable of intentions, the fact is that all you've really done is damn your own colossal hubris and half-baked speculation.

LOL...

I know my opponent has lost when he/she makes the thread about me.

LOL...

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL...

I know my opponent has lost when he/she makes the thread about me.

LOL...

Hilarious.

Hey. I read a medical textbook and some articles. I'm an expert! Mind if I do some exploratory neurosurgery on you? I'm pretty sure I can fix whats wrong.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hilarious.

Hey. I read a medical textbook and some articles. I'm an expert! Mind if I do some exploratory neurosurgery on you? I'm pretty sure I can fix whats wrong.

That alone doesn't make you an expert.

You don't know me, how do you think you can rate me?

That is one arrogant mind you have!

 

[Mithrae]

LOL...

I know my opponent has lost when he/she makes the thread about me.

LOL...

You asserted that the author of this thread has zero credibility: Rather than actually addressing their comments, you asserted that "There are no arguments a layperson can make. Any opinion they have is from the pundits they listen to. Zip... Nada... Simply no good arguments a layperson can make."

That's not just personally insulting to that person - and all lay persons - but it is also the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy, rejecting the argument based on the source rather than its content or coherency. However if you were to take your own words seriously, that would obviously mean that your posts have zero credibility also.

And now rather than actually addressing the observation that you are a lay person yourself, you're going to assert that merely making that observation means I have 'lost'? I don't agree with your original ad hominem generalization, but you certainly are going a long way to prove yourself as one example of a lay person with zero credibility, I'll give you that :lol:

 

[Threegoofs]

That alone doesn't make you an expert.

You don't know me, how do you think you can rate me?

That is one arrogant mind you have!

As I stated... give us your credentials, Mr. Non-layperson.

As for mine... well, you dont know me, so how do you think you can rate me? I may be the best neurosurgical paper reader in the world.

 

[Lord of Planar]

As I stated... give us your credentials, Mr. Non-layperson.

Sorry.

You wouldn't believe me anyway. Why waste the time?

 

[Mithrae]

As I stated... give us your credentials, Mr. Non-layperson.

Come to think of it, maybe it's Reverend Non-layperson? The original and most official non-lay role there is!

 

[Threegoofs]

Come to think of it, maybe it's Reverend Non-layperson? The original and most official non-lay role there is!

"DOCTOR REVEREND" Lay-person to you, sir!

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think you two should get a room...

Take it outside this thread at least.

 

[Threegoofs]

I think you two should get a room...

Take it outside this thread at least.

But I'm an expert in climate sciences! I belong in these threads because I read the science! And I can back up my story with my stellar internationally recognized credentials in the field, but I just dont want to because you wont believe it anyway.

 

[James972]

But I'm an expert in climate sciences! I belong in these threads because I read the science! And I can back up my story with my stellar internationally recognized credentials in the field, but I just dont want to because you wont believe it anyway.

Odd, that lay people must buy into scientist's conclusions, if we are to combat climate change, when they cant begin to understand the science themselves. Thus scientists must present a sometimes false cartoon version for lay people to understand, but doing so makes smart lay people assume they are being conned.

Scientists goofed big time with the cartoon version because they lost our trust! And of course it does not help that they fire or drive out scientists who disagree with them perhaps because they are bad scientists or perhaps to make it easier to perpetuate the hoax.

 

[Poor Debater]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,

The hockey stick was a retrospective of the past, not a prediction of the future. Somebody was paid to lie to you about that, and you swallowed their lies hook, line, and sinker, just like the rube they took you for.

2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted

Big Lie #2: nobody has ever said AGW stared in 1900. And you failed to cite a source for that falsehood. Why? Because you don't have a source. It's just made-up crapola, but I guess any made-up crapola that advances your political argument is fine with you, whether it's true or not.

Big Lie #3: No correlation between atmospheric carbon and global temperatures? Then why are these data linear?

3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.

Hmmm. First, you give us a number. Then you tell us that the number you just gave us is too small to measure. Well how was it measured then??

Sheesh. Try thinking before you write.

4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies.

Here's the actual data from Munich RE, the world's largest re-insurance company. (A re-insurance company is an insurance company that insures other insurance companies against large disasters.)

Oops. Looks like you were lied to again. And looks like you fell for it again.

This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it

Climate isn't weather. Try to stay on topic.

5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.

There has been no statistically significant change in the rate of global temperature increase since the 1970's. The hiatus was scientifically interesting, but statistically meaningless. You can even see just how meaningless it was by close examination of the graph above. The hiatus is in there, do you see it? Didn't think so.

6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW

Truth can never be driven out of a debate, but falsehood can. That's what science does. And that's why your side has lost the scientific debate.

7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

And here we are, decades later, still waiting, waiting, waiting, for the crack that you so desperately need to validate your political views. Kinda like waiting for the Second Coming, dontcha think?

But what if you're wrong, and the science is right?