Some help in battling the deniers

[Areopagitican]

I would believe the OP, but I don't have the time or patience to convert to his religion.

 

[Deuce]

I like how conservatives equate scientific research to religion. No wonder so many people think the earth is 6000 years old, they think science and religion are somehow equivalent.

 

[Catawba]

I like how conservatives equate scientific research to religion. No wonder so many people think the earth is 6000 years old, they think science and religion are somehow equivalent.

LOL! Reminds me of a story a friend of mine told me about a religious group visiting the Berlin–Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada, where he was a park ranger. He was going through his spiel about how the park represented the single largest number of complete Ichthyosaur fossils at one place the world (40), and mentioned the fossils were millions of years old.

One girl from the group interrupted and defiantly stated that his math must be wrong, because the earth was only 6,000 years old. He very quietly but clearly said, well someones math must be wrong, and continued with his tour.

There is no convincing people that deny a scientific consensus.

 

[Renae]

I like how conservatives equate scientific research to religion. No wonder so many people think the earth is 6000 years old, they think science and religion are somehow equivalent.

LOL way to look silly again!

We don't equate science and religion, we equate your behavior in regards (and not just you, but so many warmers) to Global Warming as very religious/cult like. More cult then anything.

If you don't realize this, and I think you do thus the lame attempt to cast "so many" people as believing the earth is only a few thousand years old, then you merely prove us MORE correct in our assessment.

I've never met someone that believed the earth was only X thousands of years old.

 

[Deuce]

LOL way to look silly again!

We don't equate science and religion, we equate your behavior in regards (and not just you, but so many warmers) to Global Warming as very religious/cult like. More cult then anything.

If you don't realize this, and I think you do thus the lame attempt to cast "so many" people as believing the earth is only a few thousand years old, then you merely prove us MORE correct in our assessment.

I've never met someone that believed the earth was only X thousands of years old.

Cults/religions get their ideas from some sort of faith-based/spiritual basis. (or brainwashing in the case of some cults!) Science comes from facts and research. My conclusions are all based on research and fact. But by all means, attack the messenger and ignore the source. What's next, are you going to resort to calling me a BIG DOODIEHEAD like a 6 year old would?

Many Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old because the bible tells them that. There's an entire movement to get Creationism taught next to evolution in a science class. When that failed, they switched to "intelligent design" which is exactly the same thing packaged in pseudo-scientific terminology and completely lacking in any scientific basis. (in fact, intelligent design "theory" seems to revolve entirely around attacking evolution rather than trying to support its own arguments)

 

[Renae]

Cults/religions get their ideas from some sort of faith-based/spiritual basis. (or brainwashing in the case of some cults!)

You have FAITH in the science of Global Warming. I say FAITH because you dismiss any and all SCIENCE that is contrary to your FAITH.

Science comes from facts and research. My conclusions are all based on research and fact.

Yet you have no professional training in climatology or meteorology. You take the words of others at face value even in the face of science that refutes them. I've GOT the training, the experience. I've read both sides of the issue and I find the AGW stance to be both corrupted by politics and scientifically flawed. This is backed by tenured scientist in the field, not just my own opinion. What makes your science "Right" and all others wrong?

But by all means, attack the messenger and ignore the source. What's next, are you going to resort to calling me a BIG DOODIEHEAD like a 6 year old would?

No, I wouldn't stoop to your level of debate tactics.

Many Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old because the bible tells them that.

Many, like how many? 10? 10,000, 10,000,000? You have no earthly idea. YES, some sects do without question believe the Earth is 6k or so years old. Your point? 1 in 4 Brits think Haggis is an animal.

There's an entire movement to get Creationism taught next to evolution in a science class. When that failed, they switched to "intelligent design" which is exactly the same thing packaged in pseudo-scientific terminology and completely lacking in any scientific basis.

Actually, there are scientist that believe there is very good evidence to support "Intelligent Design".

(in fact, intelligent design "theory" seems to revolve entirely around attacking evolution rather than trying to support its own arguments)

Seem's to because you've only looked at the arguments of ID through the eyes of Darwinist Ideology.

Personally, I think it takes far more faith to believe everything from the matter of the Universe, to life here on Earth is merely an accident of nature then it does to believe that there is a Purpose to it all.

 

[Deuce]

Every science-base skeptic claim I read, I go research. I'm interested in the truth, in science. If it turns out human-emitted CO2 has no effect on anything, that's great, it relieves some of the pressure to move quickly to alternate energy sources. (obviously we have to do it eventually... the stuff will run out!)

Thing is, each of these claims I read tend to be easily proven false.

In any case, I'm done with your derail. If you have some more scientific evidence to interject into the discussion I'm happy to talk about it, but otherwise I'm going to ignore any further personal attacks.

 

[Renae]

Every science-base skeptic claim I read, I go research. I'm interested in the truth, in science. If it turns out human-emitted CO2 has no effect on anything, that's great, it relieves some of the pressure to move quickly to alternate energy sources. (obviously we have to do it eventually... the stuff will run out!)

Your posts here belie your claims.

Thing is, each of these claims I read tend to be easily proven false.

Only to true believers is there nothing but easily dismissed claims of "skeptics". I don't easily dismiss the claims Man's actions are at the heart of Climate Change, the evidence after careful consideration and taking all the science into account says it's just... Climatic Change.

In any case, I'm done with your derail. If you have some more scientific evidence to interject into the discussion I'm happy to talk about it, but otherwise I'm going to ignore any further personal attacks.

I'm not attacking you personally, if you feel that way, by all means hit that little report button. What your saying is that you cannot debate the heart of your faith because you lack science to back you up. We've plenty of science to beat down on your claims with.

Take this little factoid, please "easily dismiss it", I'd love to see it.

In the early 1990's the USSR collapsed. At the same time hundreds of cold climate remote reporting stations went off the grid suddenly the "global average" went up.

Care to discuss this?

 

[hazlnut]

ANSWERING THE OP (and ignoring the far-right partisan hackery vomited upon this thread)

Partisans on the right and far-right believe they have a stake in this -- they actually believe all that matters is winning by slowing or stopping any type of meaningful legislation. Even though they don't work for or get paid by the industries that benefit with every delay, they mindlessly copy/paste every piece of misinformation, spin, and propaganda they come across -- as if the act of posting things they don't even comprehend has meaning.

It gives them purpose, I suppose. In their twisted world view, Al Gore is a villain and every cold day is proof the world is not getting hotter... It's willful ignorance beyond comprehension...

My point is, if you define "deniers" as the partisan far-righties on DP, they are a lost cause, not worth the effort.

Your time and effort would be better spent on educating those around you who are on the fence because they've heard conflicting information.

Show them the facts about:
**Overwhelming majority...
**decades of scientific inquiry...
**thousands of peer-reviewed articles...
**NASA
**IPCC

Explain the difference between climate and weather.

Explain that Cap and Trade, market-driven self-regulation, is really a conservative policy, already used successfully to deal with acid rain.

Explain that "Cap and Tax" is a far-right talking point.

Email them links to comprehensive fact checks.

Let the deniers wallow in the mire of industry-funded propaganda.

 

[Deuce]

\
In the early 1990's the USSR collapsed. At the same time hundreds of cold climate remote reporting stations went off the grid suddenly the "global average" went up.

Care to discuss this?

Do you have any source for this so I can investigate?

edit: Because temperature actually leveled off from about 1990-1994.

 

[Renae]

Do you have any source for this so I can investigate?

edit: Because temperature actually leveled off from about 1990-1994.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...AciZdCeCTFV29IYRg&sig2=OW70lz_OqDee7WiPeBWsiA

Page 4, do a view for Soviet and it goes right to what I am talking about. Other links caused my EMac to crash. Sorry...

 

[Erod]

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

"Faith" is a great way to put it, because this is nothing but a cast-off religion.

I betcha 20 years from now you'll never admit you believed this hoax in the first place.

 

[Deuce]

"Faith" is a great way to put it, because this is nothing but a cast-off religion.

I betcha 20 years from now you'll never admit you believed this hoax in the first place.

Ad hominem continues. Either add something scientific or start your own thread. Mine is about science.

 

[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.

This may come as a shock to you but 80 -90 percent of science is speculation, or as the intellectuals call it, theory. Why, because there are no unshakable, credible facts, only educated guesses on incomplete data perceptions.

I don't blame scientists for exploiting theories that keep them employed, black holes, expanding universe, etc. are harmless and entertaining, but I draw the line on doomsday theories that could frighten enough gullible
people to make us change our lifestyles.

Scientists are human, just like you and I, and as humans they can and do make human mistakes... Just like you and I.

If drama is your bent, direct it to the world wide drinking water plight. That is a real problem with real people, not speculative educated guesses.

ricksfolly
.

 

[Deuce]

This may come as a shock to you but 80 -90 percent of science is speculation, or as the intellectuals call it, theory. Why, because there are no unshakable, credible facts, only educated guesses on incomplete data perceptions.

I don't blame scientists for exploiting theories that keep them employed, black holes, expanding universe, etc. are harmless and entertaining, but I draw the line on doomsday theories that could frighten enough gullible
people to make us change our lifestyles.

Scientists are human, just like you and I, and as humans they can and do make human mistakes... Just like you and I.

If drama is your bent, direct it to the world wide drinking water plight. That is a real problem with real people, not speculative educated guesses.

ricksfolly
.

Well in that case I don't need to bother with you do I? If science doesn't agree with your personal opinion, you have a convenient method for dismissing it. We'll agree to disagree then.