'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Lost complete interest in reading the rest of your post right there. There's literally mountains of evidence to support evolution, it's a fact and anyone who still denies it is being willfully ignorant. Religion relies on faith, evolution and science rely on evidence, peer review and the scientific method.

Anti-science folks are anti-thinking, and anti-learning and have no place in modern society.

 

You don't. You don't consult about an issue those who know something about it. You meaninglessly argue with them all the time.

And this is a proof of the above. You get your ideas from those who know nothing or willingfully pretend that they know nothing; and you keep on arguing such ideas. In this case instead of addressing the question and the topic you address personal beliefs or rather your intentional misrepresantation of personal beliefs which have never been refered to or mentioned. Your idea is that if my personal beliefs are wrong and YOU believe that they have no evidense or essence then I am always wrong in everything even when I drive on the right side of the road, when you are alwys right even if you drive on the left side of the road. Your side thus confirms again and again and in each and every debate that it rejects any posiibility of solving any difference in any other way rather than in a bloody fight and physical submission, this is the historical record of your side.

 

People who work in universities know about their subjects: others don't. End of story.

 

Yup. Merc backs up Panzer's observation that anti-AGW and anti-evolution people often walk the same path.

 

As mentioned, I'm not totally on board with AGW, but I'm smart enough to know when a bunch of scientist agree on anything, I at the very least shouldn't ignore it.

 

And that is good enough to gain my respect.
I do not know how comfortable you are with math and science, but if you are interested in learning about the science of climate and climate change, may I recommend Science of Doom.

I know the title makes it sound like a site with an extremist, pro-AGW agenda, but it does explain, with references to textbooks and peer-reviewed papers, the science very well.

 

I have a bachelors in science, I've taken biology courses (which is why I'm so comfortable with evolution) but my area of expertise is Computer Science. I've read a lot of evidence for it and it seems reasonable, but not being an expert on climatology I remain skeptical, but open minded.

I think a lot of people here fear science because it challenges their long held beliefs, and too often rather than listening to the contention, it's easy to sling insults and stick your fingers in your ears.

 

Finally! - I should belive, scientists have discovered why it is so cold here in Europe: because of global warming!

By the warming in the Arctic the summers will be warmer there. Colder, therefore, will be the winters in Europ like now. The whole thing is a "complex relationship", which in academic circles stands for "we have no idea why". It starts with the fact that less ice reflects back less solar energy. The warmer the summer, the more reindeer (*)(*)(*)(*) (excrement) generated. Therefore, there are more insects, which cause well-fed birds. They have more offspring, so they will later eat - most likely - those South American butterflys whose flapping wings have always caused a winter storm that blows the cold air back to Russia. As I said, it is complex. The Dow Jones index and the phase of the moon on New Year should also play a role. In any case remains the net realization that we are freezing here, because the earth is getting warmer.

Berlin's former interior minister Erhart Koerting (SPD = Social Democrat Party) is pleased to work in the new four-member expert commission to look after the six years previous “kebab murders”. It's always nice when a politician who is already on his way to the mortuary, can take part in an idle talk group. It also shows that Interior Minister Friedrich (CSU = Christian Social Union) dominated the tactics to create more new idle talk circles. "This commission of experts has a collimation, analysis and evaluation function," says the interior minister. This is obviously a complex relationship, because if a butterfly flaps its wings in South America, the two bank robbers who have killed each other will rise again and go back to life in SA (stormtroopers)-uniforms to eat Chinese food. Unless they meet the new idle talk circle before, which is so boring that they voluntarily return to their graves.

German President Wulff, made holidays on the island Sylt timely before the new ice age, due to global warming. Such a Wulf like holiday with friends it should have been. But that's such a complex context. Wulff goes on holidays, a friend puts in the money in favor for Wulff and he quickly pays back the money in cash, if this is common knowledge. And then the butterfly flaps its wings in South America and the fate does a favor to Wulff spender friend. The Prime Minister or even the president is absolutely not responsible for it, but maybe the president airplane turns a few extra rounds over the Arctic next summer, so that global warming is falling and we are freezing less in winter.

It's really nice of Angela Merkel, to help her good friend Nicolas during the election campaign. They simply flew to France and ZDF has brought, not only France 2 transmits the advertising messages. Thy work together really well, the two little ones. Merkel brings the money and Sarkozy says for what it is to be spent. Greece should not perish, at least until, as it could entrain French banks. You have to really like Angela & Nicolas. Maybe Carla Bruni should seize the opportunity with Merkel´s husband Joachim Sauer for some nice spouse program with the motto 'Berlin at night. "

 

I started with skepticism but my knowledge of physics helped me to understand the science behind the rise in temps and helped me to recognize the lies and misinformation some blogs were spouting. I am now convinced that humans are having, through burning FFs and environmental changes, a significant effect on climate. Important questions still left unanswered are how significant and is there a tipping point and if so at what CO2 levels.

 

Belief in numbers is not necessarily a truth.

Facts do not lie, only people lie and dismiss the facts.

 

Yer the reason I type in blue, (n' closed minded super religious posters such as you), the religion of evolution n' Darwinism, (which is cracked, jus' like the close minded followers are).

When ya see blue that is yer clue to pass me posts right on by.

Who cares what you think anyhooo?

I surely do not.

 

Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Commie/Statist/Godless anti American hate n' blame termites are very religious with both mankind caused global warmin' n' Darwinism matters, which are upside down ta people with the use of one functional brain cell.

The Commie kool aid they drink in large quantities seems ta cause snarkiness, intolerance n' closed mindedness fer some strange unknown reason.

 

Dah yup...... ol' Albert hissef would be proud I'm tellin ya......

 

I asked if he would dismiss the allegations that he had posted if I could prove that even one part was fabricated = he said nope

Somehow that gets twisted around to us dismissing facts

Gotcha!

 

Whereas I am a nurse - but a self admitted science nerd with the ability to read and critique science papers and , because of the changes challenging medicine, medicine and nursing have moved to evidence based practice, which is based on systematic reviews of science and met analysis. So, I got used to reading those as well.

When I first looked into what was being written about global warming it kept hitting me that the denialists were dismissing the BASIC science (i.e. Co2 interaction with radiation) and often believing anything that fit the cognitive construct of denialism no matter how outrageous. They were also failing to see or acknowledge the plethora of lies swamping the internet. IT was more than obvious that most of the more ardent denialists not only did not have a grade school understanding of science but could not differentiate between a research article and an anonymous opinion posted on a blog

 

Then you should understand the error of tacking on real temperature data to proxy data which gave us the hockey stick graph.

Some do dismiss the basic science, but to extrapolate based on little real data for an extended period of time using theories about things not all scientists agree on is not any kind of consensus as some like to claim.

 

Mate - if you think you understand science and can read research papers then go for it

You will soon find out for yourself that the denialist blogosphere is very much like the herd of dancing elephants with diarrhoea mentioned in my signature

As for the hockey stick graph - it is not the only tool, just one graph and it has been researched multiple times and found to be robust

While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Now again I ask - since you posted a link to a palaeontology site in the other thread

"Why are you prepared to accept the science of paleoclimatology but dismiss modern climatology?"

 

There is a difference between real measured data, climatology, and long term predictions based solely on theory. Which ones do you trust the most?

 

Really - show us that difference then

 

And here we go. You don't understand science. Thank you for showing how bad your thread is.

 

"Gotcha" me arse.

The only thing "twisted" is someone's undies, (in a real big bunch).

I posted an article from the news media, (nothing more: nothing less). burp...

I am NOT the author.

You can post anything you wish and I will read it and comment, (if I so chose), butt: yer not my momma.

I never make the type of open-ended commitments you asked me to make, (I only have one functional brain cell, butt: it does werk jus' fine).

Respectfully, JR

 

I may be jus' a hill billy from God's country with only one functional brain cell, n' all........ That said: you can't read me simple mind and you don't know me at all.

You don't know what I "understand" about yer religion or don't understand, do ya?

Can you even breathe on yer own?

 

When the OP decides to troll their own thread you can bet it is because it has been shown to be a fail

 

Maybe to a true believer, there is no difference.

 

Ah! Gotcha! You cannot show where the difference is because you are relying on radio shock jocks to obtain your discussion points and really do not or have not looked at the arguments yourself - at least that is the only conclusion I can come to at the moment

I may be wrong - if I am you can still prove me wrong by showing me the difference