Climate Change denial vs History

Of course a government created organization with only one goal, hyping CO2, would have absolutely no bias.

 

right..so you prefer t rely on fossil fuel industry sponsored garbage.

 

Predictable response - attack anything but the content of McIntyre & McKittrick's work in defense of the dishonest science of the hockey team. The two books contain ~ 700 pages between them and are fully referenced and footnoted. Have you read them ??

 

Again the predictable 'attack the source' response.

And that's ^^ exactly correct. Before committing to policies that regressively affect low income citizens of their nation and the world politicians should understand the natural history and cost/benefit of limiting the use of fossil fuels. It is immoral not to understand this issue. The book Climate Change Revisited II - Physical Science and it's companion Climate Change Revisited II - Biological Effects contain ~ 2100 pages and are fully referenced and footnoted. Have you read them ??

 

You understand that the "works" you are relying on were NOT produced by scientists...and don't care.

Why am I not surprised

 

I'll e-mail the Heartland Institute for a copy. They probably have them stacked on top of their tobacco industry defense garbage

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2]:233–34[3] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[4][5] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[6] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[7]

 

Inconvenient science? Go figure you wouldn't accept that.

 

Fossil fuel industry tripe is hardly science

 

​

Climate Change Protesters Canceled March in Colorado After Snowstorm Dumps Over 1 Foot of Snow
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...d-march-colorado-snowstorm-dumps-1-foot-snow/

 

You mean any inconvenient science you don't want to pay attention to you label without a shred of evidence so you can stay ignorant of it.

 

Have you re

The analysis is that of a mat

McIntyre is a statistician and McKittrick is an economist. Their work showed that the Mann Hockey Stick papers are dishonest garbage which is the reason why the IPCC has nothing to do with the hockey stick today after incorporating it as part of their logo.

 

Again all you have is to attack the source to avoid challenging your beliefs.

The second hand smoke controversy concerned the lowering of statistical proof requirement from the 3 sigma standard to the 2 sigma standard to prove that second hand smoke is a health risk. Heartland does not deny AGW but acknowledges (along with the vast majority of scientists) that AGW results in some of the warming.

 

The "source" is an "Institute that also defended the tobacco industry..

They're paid shills.

Thanks but I don't really care what they say as paid mouthpieces for the corporate carbon creeps.

 

I've been discussing AGW since the 90s (as well as many attacks on scientific fact like smoking, asbestos, creationism, ... even ETs -can't believe the time I wasted on this-). In the past, I would read a statement attacking some scientific fact from somebody on the right, and I would research for hours. Typically, I would submit many references, charts, links to scientific research.... and I would write some very long detailed explanations to debunk false statements. Only to see my counterpart disappear, not even read the detailed clarification I had brought and, after a while, the same person would resurface with a different attack on science. And often I even had the patience to do it all over again.

Back then, I would read every book, article or webpage I could get a hold of about the themes that were most debated (AGW being one of them) .And that did give me the opportunity to learn quite a bit about some very diverse scientific topics, it became obvious to me that it was a waste of time doing all that unless the person you are debating understands the most basic principle: Science and the Scientific Method. It's just not worth it to have a discussion about Science with anybody until they understand how science works.

In most cases, that can be the start of the debate. If the person is open-minded, they can learn how science works. Because it's not that difficult. However, it's amazing the number of people who get stuck on this part. Usually because they are there just for political reasons, or religious reasons, or... any reason other than to learn and come to a well-reasoned conclusion.

And there are many ways to spot these. One of them is that they send this long laundry-list of books, that they have "supposedly" read and which they expect me to read to. If you have read a lot of books about any particular subject, you should be able to explain that subject. So sending a list and saying "you don't know as much as I do, so you need to read these books". For example, I have read many many book on Scientific Epistemology. So many that I feel that I can explain how science works to a 10 year old. If they're willing to listen, of course.

That's where you failed. And you did it at a point where you haven't even shown that you understand the epistemological aspects of science:

 

Yeah. 350 million is such a random number that I was just having some fun.

 

Not necessarily. Over 90% of CO2 is from natural sources. If you don't have enough plants to consume the naturally occurring CO2, the concentration keeps going up.

 

The scientific community disagrees

 

Oh. So it's now 3 to 3.3 million. And then something else.

Discover Magazine is not a peer-reviewed publication. So that doesn't help much.

Here are the bad news: No. They weren't similar....But I can tell you some good news: it doesn't matter.

A million things could cause Global Warming. It just so happens that, this time, it was human activity.

And that's not a statement that requires much brain-power to make, or to understand. It can be applied to absolutely anything. For example:
-A million things could cause a jetliner to slam into a tall skyscraper. It just so happens that on 9/11 it was terrorists.
-A million things could cause a guy who got killed not far from where I live to slam his car into a tree. It just so happens that this time it was that he fell asleep
... You try it. It's easy

It doesn't matter what brought changes in the past. Only thing that matters here is what is bringing them now. And there is not much uncertainty about that.

Look, I'll make it easy for you. Either you believe that Science (the scientific method) works, or you don't believe that it works.

If it's the latter, I can't do much for you. Otherwise, I can tell you why it's irrelevant.

I can tell you now, you're probably not going to get a real answer to your "questions" unless you obtain a PhD in climatology. I'm sure you realize that, right?

But it doesn't matter. If you really wanted an answer, the only thing I would need to convince you of, is not if the temperature was this or that 6 billion, 300 billion or 350 billion years ago. The only thing I would need to convice you of is that the Scientific Method Works!!!

Because Global Warming (AGW) has passed all the requirements demanded by the Scientific Method to be considered a proven Theory. I can explain to you what those requirements are. I can point you to where you can verify for yourself that those requirements have been met.

But, again, I wouldn't waste time doing any of that if you actually don't want an answer.

 

And now we have Heartland Derangement Syndrome. Nice.

 

That is incredibly funny and incredibly ironic. Apparently your curiosity and initiative on global warming began and ended in the 90's ?? The sentence in bold above gives you away. Heard of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn ?? Familiar with "Science as Falsification" ??

 

But AGW has not passed all the requirements demanded by the Scientific Method to conclude that it is solely responsible for all the global warming we have seen since ~ 1950.

 

Very familiar!

I did make one mistake, though: I took the time to give a long answer to somebody who I should have known wouldn't read it or understand it.

Won't happen again.

 

Only the "Anthropogenic" part. Thereby the A.

I think I responded to this before. So only explanation I can think of why you didn't understand it the first time is that you don't know what "Anthropogenic" means. I have a feeling this time you'll look it up.

 

If very familiar then apply those principles.