Some help in battling the deniers

[Renae]

As I said, it's already been posted.

Jall... TRUE BELIEVERS of the Church of Gaia as told by the High Priest algore, follow a "Path to Faith" process when confronted with any evidence that might, maybe... just maybe steer them from the path of Greeness.

I took this picture from a stolen algore "Bible of Earth: How Man can atone for his sins against our Mother Gaia". It's actually fairly straightforward.

 

[Sir Loin]

Well when you have point to address, please let me know.

I made my point, you managed to miss it completely and posted an obtuse brain fart that dealt with nothing I posted and ignored two separate links to the subject of my point; whilst simultaneously knee jerking to the idiotic whine that the subjects of my point did not state they "deny" in your words, ACC. Which was neither my point nor that of the two links I posted.

Let me guess, you think you should get an 'atta boy' or gold star for being so obtuse a hack? Try responding to what I actually posted and stated and you will be that much further ahead of 95% of the stereotypical netizen. Which IMO your most certainly are not.

So g'head, prove me wrong.:2razz:

 

[1984]

lol!!!

We must battle the deniers! To arms, neophytes, to arms! Our sacred temple is under attack from the heretics! Brandish thy gleaming swords, and may our faith never wane in the face of scandal and controversy! The battle cry, my neophytes, the battle cry!

Al Goooooooooore!

LOL!!!

 

[jallman]

lol!!!

We must battle the deniers! To arms, neophytes, to arms! Our sacred temple is under attack from the heretics! Brandish thy gleaming swords, and may our faith never wane in the face of scandal and controversy! The battle cry, my neophytes, the battle cry!

Al Goooooooooore!

LOL!!!

I don't even think it's so much like that. They don't even battle; they stick their heads in the sand and pretend like any evidence presented to them doesn't actually exist, in Catawba's case, or says something completely different than it actually says, in Deuce's case.

 

[ricksfolly]

Originally Posted by ricksfolly [View Post]
Actually, a denier is a skeptic, and as an unapologetic life-time skeptic I accept nothing as fact until I prove it to myself, including global warning.

ricksfolly>>

Another self-assessment question: How much legitimate effort have you put into doing so?

my background in engineering, bureau of reclamation, Geology, meteorology and logistics is more than enough to question any scientific theory. Scientists just saying this is the way it is because I say it is. Isn't nearly enough to change people's lifestyles.

ricksfolly

 

[1984]

I don't even think it's so much like that. They don't even battle; they stick their heads in the sand and pretend like any evidence presented to them doesn't actually exist, in Catawba's case, or says something completely different than it actually says, in Deuce's case.

They don't need to refute facts or any such nonsense; the debate is over, or haven't you heard?

They only need declare the argument won, and by virtue of said declaration, you are automatically wrong. Sad, I know, but that's just how science works.

 

[Catawba]

So g'head, prove me wrong.:2razz:

Prove what wrong?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

That is just indicative of how their thought process works. The same people that make that argument also will say things like "If we evolved from monkey's why are their still monkeys?"

Actually they don't. I am an atheist and evolutionist. But when there is conflicting evidence, and accusations of ignoring data sets, not correcting urban heat affect or solar radiance, CO2 time lag in ice core samples, then I am pretty worried that there is claimed 'scientific consensus on the issue' on AGW.

Creationism is based on an alternate hypothesis of a supernatural force.

Theories that reject AGW are based on alternate natural or material phenomenon. Thus to equate AGW skepticism to creationism is just false.

 

[1984]

Actually they don't. I am an atheist and evolutionist. But when there is conflicting evidence, and accusations of ignoring data sets, not correcting urban heat affect or solar radiance, CO2 time lag in ice core samples, then I am pretty worried that there 'scientific consensus on the issue' on AGW.

Creationism is based on an alternate hypothesis of a supernatural force.

Theories that reject AGW are based on alternate natural or material phenomenon. Thus to equate AGW skepticism to creationism is just false.

I'm so tired of these snide people. I once had a liberal graduate student (she was a journalism major...ugh!!!) admonish me for my views on anthropogenic global warming. I asked her for a causal analysis of anthropogenic climate variation and warming and she couldn't even explain how CO2 induces warming. I gave her the basics of the theory, explained some of my objections, and asked her if journalism majors were taught to conduct research anymore.

 

[Sir Loin]

Prove what wrong?

Clearly it is all just too much for you to handle. Which was obvious the second you managed to not "get" the plainly printed English and direct comments and statements. Next time do try to keep up.

 

[Catawba]

Clearly it is all just too much for you to handle.

I can handle the scientific consensus on AGW.

 

[Deuce]

Man I really am overwhelmed at all the scientific evidence you guys have posted, complete with links to sources! I mean man how can anyone believe in AGW because Mr Vicchio is making all these very informative posts! :roll:

 

[jallman]

Man I really am overwhelmed at all the scientific evidence you guys have posted, complete with links to sources! I mean man how can anyone believe in AGW because Mr Vicchio is making all these very informative posts! :roll:

I was pretty impressed with how just a couple of sources undermined the AGW claims.

 

[Sir Loin]

I can handle the scientific consensus on AGW.

I'll alert the press, let us hope they don't report it couched amidst a paragraph or two using the English language. I've no doubt you could proudly read two different linked articles about Washington apples, their cultivation and the concerns of apple growers about their industry, and quickly offer a really insightful sentence about the flavor of Nova Scotian clams. Chuckle.

I was pretty impressed with how just a couple of sources undermined the AGW claims.

Well that is because you are intellectually honest and open minded, and willing to look at all sides of a debate. The same certainly can't be said about those you are speaking to in this thread.

 

[Renae]

The part that pisses me off the most is that the AGW'ers cast anyone that doesn't support their cause lock, stock and barrel as pro-pollution.

I fully am aware of the impact large groups of humans living in a dense pack situation, on the surrounding enviornment. (That would be a City for those of you needing a more scientific term) Most of us are all for seeking ways to mitigate the impact of man's activities on nature.

However, we're guided by common sense, science and most of all by the understanding that MAN's impact on the global climate is negligible, but his impact on the local environment can be great.

Coal powered power plants SHOULD be required to remove as much of the Sulfer and other toxic emmission associated with their use. Not to "save the planet" but to keep their use from causing LOCAL damage. Build Nuke plants instead IMHO.

We understand that the climate changes. Man doesn't cause this, man doesn't effect this. Forcing everyone to pay for a non-problem isn't science, it's foolish. when the AGW crowd wants to be sensible and honest about Man and the Environment, then maybe we'll get somewhere.

 

[Deuce]

I was pretty impressed with how just a couple of sources undermined the AGW claims.

Really? Because my sources undermined your sources pretty easily.

 

[jallman]

Really? Because my sources undermined your sources pretty easily.

No they did not. They hardly even addressed anything that was being spoken about.

The bottom line is this: models only go so far in making predictions. They work very well for making predictions in a a vacuum. Not so well making predictions in a naturally chaotic system.

Nothing you posted undermined that fact at all. Period.

 

[Renae]

No they did not. They hardly even addressed anything that was being spoken about.

The bottom line is this: models only go so far in making predictions. They work very well for making predictions in a a vacuum. Not so well making predictions in a naturally chaotic system.

Nothing you posted undermined that fact at all. Period.

Jall, Duece is like.. the little old church lady in his unwavering faith. Nothing you can say or show will alter his firm belief he, and the rest of mankind are the reason the earth's climate changes (and obviously it can only get hotter cause we're so evil you see) and the ONLY way to stop this is for Government to regulate as much as our lives as impact the environment.

After all, if the Government DOESN'T do this, people might make the wrong choices... better not leave it to chance, it's the only Earth we have!

 

[Catawba]

Most of us are all for seeking ways to mitigate the impact of man's activities on nature.

That is what it is all about, and the definition of a true conservative.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Intro
Folks, I have a confession to make. A while back when these various climate-science scandals were breaking, my faith wavered a bit.

And you people keep trying to pretend you don't have religion!

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I was watchng "The Galapagos" on NatGeo last night, and they showed a most interesting island. A volcanic sea mount, it's top was perfectly flat, like something had planed it down with a lawnmower.

Well, it WAS planed down. At one time, this island peak went to a nice volcanic point, and then when it went extinct, the sea eroded it's coastline until it was below the level of the waves. There's drowned sea mounts all over the ocean floors, topped just like that. But the flat top of this sea mount was what looked like fifty to a hundred feet above sea level.

Clearly this is evidence that humanity in the past so damaged the earth's climate that the ice caps melted. Humanity is, after all, the only source of global climate change.

Right?

Isn't that what your religion says?

 

[ricksfolly]

Originally Posted by Deuce [View Post]
Intro
Folks, I have a confession to make. A while back when these various climate-science scandals were breaking, my faith wavered a bit. >>

What you really mean is you had a logical vision that counteracted your belief system and your belief system was stronger in the end.

Ricksfolly

 

[Deuce]

What you really mean is you had a logical vision that counteracted your belief system and your belief system was stronger in the end.

Ricksfolly

Now you're just getting desperate, taking single-lines out of context and attacking them. Standard conservative tactics. If you'd bothered to read the rest of the thread you'd realize that I'm talking about science and you've got nothing to go with but speculation that you read off some blog.

 

[Catawba]

I was watchng "The Galapagos" on NatGeo last night, and they showed a most interesting island. A volcanic sea mount, it's top was perfectly flat, like something had planed it down with a lawnmower.

Well, it WAS planed down. At one time, this island peak went to a nice volcanic point, and then when it went extinct, the sea eroded it's coastline until it was below the level of the waves. There's drowned sea mounts all over the ocean floors, topped just like that. But the flat top of this sea mount was what looked like fifty to a hundred feet above sea level.

Clearly this is evidence that humanity in the past so damaged the earth's climate that the ice caps melted. Humanity is, after all, the only source of global climate change.

Right?

Isn't that what your religion says?

We are well aware there are other things in the past such as volcanic release of CO2, intense solar periods , and large asteroids hitting the earth that have caused climate change in the past. Unfortunately, during this warming period we've had no large asteroids hitting the earth, we have been in a solar minimum and human's measured CO2 releases dwarf the volcanic releases during this period.

 

[American]

The warmers are screaming doomsday again unless we give our lives, property and first born into their hands to make all necessary decisions about life and death.