LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Again we ask - what opposing evidence? Please post some and we will review itOriginally Posted by Hoosier8
Again we ask - what opposing evidence? Please post some and we will review it
The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” ― Terry Pratchett
Guru
And what does this have to do with my post about your10 quotes and your idiotic implication that AGW must be wrong because 10 scientists came to incorrect conclusions?
Deflection, perhaps?
1. The Scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.--Luntz Research
Guru
Wow, you guys sure don't pay much attention to detail. I never said that AGW is wrong or that we are not contributing to global warming.
Guru
So what was the point of your list?
1. The Scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.--Luntz Research
Guru
Oh yeah, I don't buy into the doomsday scenarios that most warmers do. Science is often wrong and if you look under the surface of the doomsday scenarios, you find many scientists that caution about long term predictions. You will also find that the "science" changes constantly as new things are discovered.
I swear, the warmers act like everything is already known as fact when most of this is theory based on some fact and that theory has changed over the last ten years and will change over the next.
So far only a few papers have addressed the sudden changes of climate and why it happens. Some think it will happen again as it has a multitude of times in the past. Some thing it can happen again soon (not soon as in a generation but soon as in some thousands of years). Some even think AGW will trigger the next glacial period sooner.
So I keep asking the questions. What will we do when this interglacial ends? Why is warming bad (warmers can only seem to think of bad things)? Why do warmers look at warming as a bad thing when cooling is much worse? Do warmers think they can install a thermostat and control the earth?
Last edited by Hoosier8; Feb 13 2012 at 06:27 AM.
Commentator
Apparently you don't know either, since you are unable to cite it.
Why don't we just agree that there is no such evidence?
The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
Diethelm & Mckee 2009
Honesty is not on the list.
Guru
No, science is not often wrong. If you compare the number of times science is right to the number of times science is wrong you would see that science is very rarely wrong.
Science does not constantly change. Science never changes. The conclusions derived from science occasionally, not constantly, change if, and only if, new new evidence is found. That is why the concept of "proof" is not used in science. If, and only if, new data or evidence about AGW disputes the current evidence and data, new conclusions will be accepted. Until then, science demands that the conclusions reached from current data and evidence be accepted. Deniers attempt to use unkown or uncertain speculation as a way to dispute current conclusions.
Name that theory or fact.
Incorrect.
Sudden changes of climate has happened rarely in the past and the consequences have been catastrophic for the environment.
Yes, climate change will again happen over thousands of years, just as it has happened in the past.
If the interglacial ends over a period of thousands of years, humans and the environment will adapt. If the temperature changes drastically over a period of 100 years, humans and the environment will be forced to adapt quickly with possibly catastrophic consequences.
This "Warmer" does not think of only bad things, but thinks that the bad things will outnumber the good things. Whether cooling or warming is worse is irrelevant. The sudden disruption in weather patterns is relevant; whether that disruption comes about from cooling or warming is irrelevant.
One more time! No one is attempting to install a thermostat. No one attempting to control the earth. No one is attempting to control the weather. No one is attempting to control the population. Scientists are attempting to allow the earth to do what it has naturally done for millions of years. The earth has never had to compensate for a sudden increase of CO2 by humans into the air. The earth has compensated for a sudden natural increase in CO2 in the past; and the consequences to the environment were catastrophic.
1. The Scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.--Luntz Research
Yet another person who is confusing bad journalism with science only this time there seems to be some bad Hollywood scripting in there as well
The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” ― Terry Pratchett
Guru
Spoken like a true believer.
Analyst
OK.
- You have ignored the fact that a top expert on hurricanes says that scientists lied, and thus the peer reviewed publications lied,
- You have ignored the fact that he resigned because of fascists methods of suppression of any objecting and objective voice telling that scientists lied, and thus the peer reviewed publications lied
- You have ignored the fact that everyone can see that severity and frequency of hurricanes has not increased during 40 years of “recorded” AGW and thus the and thus peer reviewed publications lied
- You have ignored the fact top expert Israel who has the most impressive record of real, tangible achievements in the world, saying that scientists lied, did bad science,
- You have ignored the fact that one can see that with his own eyes reading news and talking to people and recalling his own experience about hurricanes,
you want me to site a publication which says it lies for you to believe that it does.
The point is that all publication claiming that frequency and severity of hurricanes increased and/or it did due to GW lie according Dr. Landsea cited for you 3 times and according to everyone who lives in reality. And if there is no such publications then the top warmist has intentionally lied to the public.
I did not intend to prove to a liar that he is a liar. I had no such intention. All I do I demonstrate and expose scientific way of thinking and acting to the general public and let the public decide who has submitted facts and who has ignored them and submitted no facts, and thus who is a liar.
I am an old farmer and my son is an old seaman; we cannot read and understand peer reviewed publications. But our activity depends on weather and we can see. And we can see who is a liar and who is not.
We can see that I asked to pretend that hurricane activity has increased.
A high school drop out like myself can see that I asked you to make columns and coordinate them with observed reality, to compare apples to apples..
You did not do.
You did not attempt to do.
You did not even attempt to pour dirt on the top hurricane expert as you usually do.
You have not addressed the topic and facts.
One does not have to know algebra to see that.
A Mumbo Jumbo tribe man can see that.
I do not discuss evidence. I do not care if you have tons of it. I present no evidence. I observe and present happenings of reality and state facts. They show that scientists are liars. You may have tons of evidence, but you do not address facts and observations.
Here I started summarizing ALL possible evidence and arguments of warmists. http://www.politicalforum.com/scienc...post1060843749
Let me quote myself:
http://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/ilf_petrov_12_chairs_engl.txt
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
ELLOCHKA THE CANNIBAL
William Shakespeare's vocabulary has been estimated by the experts at twelve thousand words. The vocabulary of a Negro from the Mumbo Jumbo tribe amounts to three hundred words.
Ellochka Shukin managed easily and fluently on thirty.
Here are the words, phrases and interjections which she fastidiously picked from the great, rich and expressive Russian language:
[….here I quote the 30… ] “
When Ellochka had 30 words all Bowgirl’s arguments may be brought down to less then a dozen.
1. You don’t understand science (evolution) (climate)(Marxism), don’t you?
2. You should get some education.
3. 97% of scientists are wrong and you are right?
4. 97% of scientists believe in global warming.
5. read this:
somethingImyslefcannotundersta ndbutitisfrommyside. com.NASA.gov
6. You really think it is a conspiracy?
7. scientists can be easily bough by oil companies money, scientists cannot be bought by government’s money extracted from taxpayers. Oil and government use different money.
8. …. Not too many more are there
now cassandrabra has came up with anew one:
13. You have submitted 12 equations; IF I prove (using arguments listed above) that one of them is wrong, will you accept that others are wrong?
14. I did not say that
15. You have not proven anything.
Still, a typical AWG believer cannot make up to the intellectual level of Ellochka Cannibal and the level of the MumboJumbo tribe is like a Nobel Prize for a warmer. I mean the Nobel Peace prize.
end of quote
I hope everyone sees that when facts are represented to warmists they revoke argument #15 as the last one and they always win. They all are sure they do win.
-You have not addressed Dr. Landsea
-you have not addressed the top academician Y.Izrael
-you have not addressed the observations of a basic farmer or anyone who reads world’s news and follows accounts of witnesses.
-you have not addressed the topic.
But you quickly fall in the state of denial always winning any debate. It is not difficult for any honest person to see who is denialist. I am just appealing to common sense and common decency of everyone who is not a scientist yet and has not been completely brainwashed by scientists.
How then can I understand a peer reviewed publication on hurricanes if you deny that the top hurricane expert can understand what Trenberth said about hurricanes and what his words “we cannot account for global warming” mean? All I do I appeal to common sense and decency of the general public, to high school drop outs like myself, to carpenters and nurses. I just hope I make it easy for them to see that I submitted a reference demonstrating that Trenberth made such statement, and there was no doubt that he made it and media did not lie, media brought it to general public accurately. It is easy to see that you're revoking argument #15 again.
You are contradicting yourself. Either we have seen hurricane increase as Trenberth informed us or we have not as the top hurricane expert and our own observations inform us. Which one you standing for?
If it is true that
-we have not seeing troubling and unusual events during 40 years of scare and predictions of a certain type in spite of pumping CO2 like there is no tomorrow,
-if the top warmists consent to the email stating that “we cannot account for global warming’’ and our sense and observations and world news confirm such a fact
-then those who step on the same rake again and again and expect a different result are mentally handicapped. http://www.politicalforum.com/religi...post1060795552
Shall I remind that Bowegirl posted a deceiving graph and 3 posters posted the citations from a top hurricane expert and our own observations which can be verified by any carpenter? I shall. Does not hurt me.
there are people who lived in 70th and followed science. Contrarily to the overwhelming evidence and data presented in today’s scientific publications they remember and know as a fact that cooling was prevailing over warming in the scientific community. The warming has won by political methods as a more impressive scare for the general public. But only evolutionists dismiss the cooling scare of 70th making the list of positive and negative of warming scare. Evolutionists call such dismissal of facts which do not fit their beliefs “homogenizing, smoothing data and cleaning noise” and “the scientific method”.
Even if to take another warmist lie as true then 1/3 of scientists looking at the same reality were not in an error, they were not going in the wrong direction, they were 180 opposite to the truth, they devoted their life to looking at the reality upside down. Looking at the same data (up to 1970th) as it is available today they saw cooling. Now looking at the same data the same 33% of scientists see warming. You want tell me what new laws of mature climate science has discovered since 1970th, don’t you? If not I have to point again that science is makes logical conclusions based on empirical evidence, it ignores laws and happenings observed in nature, like you have been ignoring all facts and observations submitted to you and other warmers 5 times.
I do not believe or don’t believe evidence, I completely ignore empirical evidence and I ignore logic based on empirical evidence. I discuss such things on Religion sub forum and not too often. This sub-forum is not only dedicated to religion and personal beliefs but it is also about technology.
Why are you here?
Last edited by _Inquisitor_; Feb 13 2012 at 03:17 PM.
Hypotheses non fingo
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks