|
Post by thermostat on Oct 10, 2011 3:34:32 GMT
Finewino, Well, now you tread on thin ice. In particular, asserting that denialist proponents have established scientific substance. Blah, blah, blah. Are you ever going to actually say something? Talk about meaningless, mindless replies!
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 10, 2011 3:38:19 GMT
Again, as Finewino just exemplified,
Denialism and how it works:
In no particular order:
Create a strawman;
Cherry pick;
Obfuscate;
Attack the character of opponents;
The point is to promote an ideological position. Figuring out how nature works is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 10, 2011 3:52:09 GMT
Blah, blah, blah. Are you ever going to actually say something? Talk about meaningless, mindless replies! This has degraded into a pouting match! Mankind's influence on the biosphere is indisputable. Look on the Anthropocene thread to see a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 10, 2011 4:07:05 GMT
Denialism and how it works,
I still assert that this question is a legitimate subject for discussion on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by purescience2 on Oct 10, 2011 8:08:13 GMT
Todays AGW crowd is much like the Catholic Church in the days of Galileo with a touch of Enron.
Willing to fudge the numbers to get the result they want and clinging to a defective model of the universe asserted by them to be true, they called all that disagreed to be heretics that must be silenced even if that meant death.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 10, 2011 11:49:37 GMT
Again, as Finewino just exemplified, Denialism and how it works: In no particular order: Create a strawman; Cherry pick; Obfuscate; Attack the character of opponents; The point is to promote an ideological position. Figuring out how nature works is irrelevant. Sad to see you don't have a couch...
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 15, 2011 2:14:57 GMT
Again, as Finewino just exemplified, Denialism and how it works: In no particular order: Create a strawman; Cherry pick; Obfuscate; Attack the character of opponents; The point is to promote an ideological position. Figuring out how nature works is irrelevant. Sad to see you don't have a couch... throttleup as I posted before: Denialism and how it works: In no particular order: Create a strawman; Cherry pick; Obfuscate; Attack the character of opponents; The point is to promote an ideological position. Figuring out how nature works is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 15, 2011 2:28:07 GMT
Thermostat: I find it sad that you deny the lack of substance in the current AGW science. You will have to agree that most board posters are very open minded, aknowledge facts, and question theory.
I can only hope, that you as a youngun, learn these traits. It will serve you well in life.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 15, 2011 2:33:45 GMT
Thermostat: I find it sad that you deny the lack of substance in the current AGW science. You will have to agree that most board posters are very open minded, aknowledge facts, and question theory. I can only hope, that you as a youngun, learn these traits. It will serve you well in life. sigurdur, To be clear, climate science is full of substance. Your comments however are useful in understanding denialism. Thanks for being so candid.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 15, 2011 2:37:19 GMT
Thermostat: I find it sad that you deny the lack of substance in the current AGW science. You will have to agree that most board posters are very open minded, aknowledge facts, and question theory. I can only hope, that you as a youngun, learn these traits. It will serve you well in life. sigurdur, To be clear, climate science is full of substance. Your comments however are useful in understanding denialism. Thanks for being so candid. Thermostat: IF you ever read the literature dealing with climate science, you would understand that what we know is dwarfed at this time by what we DON"T know. Just as an easy example, go to the which model is correct thread and comment on which model you think is correct and why it is correct.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 15, 2011 3:01:21 GMT
Sad to see you don't have a couch... throttleup as I posted before: Denialism and how it works: In no particular order: Create a strawman; Cherry pick; Obfuscate; Attack the character of opponents; The point is to promote an ideological position. Figuring out how nature works is irrelevant. If that is the case with you Thermostat, then it is all too sad because if you truly believe that 'figuring out how nature works is irrelevant' then you will never learn anything about the natural world that you inhabit - as it is - in the real world. This 'denialism' thing you are on has no place in Science whatsoever and the fact that you continue to go on in this manner at the age you are shows immaturity of mind and thought and scientific process. Open your eyes to the laws of the natural world and get off the 'promote ideology' boat before you sink down along with it. It has no place in Science. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Forewarned is foretold tstat.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 15, 2011 5:06:34 GMT
To be clear, climate science is full of substance. Your comments however are useful in understanding denialism. Thanks for being so candid. If it were so full of substance you would have something to talk about and it would not be necessary for you to resort to ad hominem attacks Tstat. Here is what the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University has to say about the peddlers of catastrophic warming from CO2 emissions: The Daily Princetonian quoted Happer:[9] Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. “This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”... “All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,” Happer explained. "His academic career started at Columbia University where he became a full professor and director of the Columbia Radiation Laboratory.[1] In 1980, he left to go to Princeton, where he was later the Class of 1909 Professor of Physics.[1] In 1991, he joined the United States Department of Energy, where he was the director of its research budget of $3 billion.[1] In 1993, he returned to his position at Princeton, where he became the chair of the research board in 1995." "In addition to these full-time positions, he has had numerous other assignments: chairman of the steering committee for JASON; trustee of the MITRE Corporation, the Richard Lounsbery Foundation and the Marshall Institute,[1] of which he is also Chairman, since 2006.[2] He co-founded Magnetic Imaging Technologies Inc. in 1994." Honours: "He is a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He received a Alfred P. Sloan fellowship in 1966, an Alexander von Humboldt award in 1976, the Herbert P.Broida Prize in 1997, the Davisson-Germer prize and the Thomas Alva Edison patent award in 2000.[1] In 2003 he was named the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University." Happer also has said as a teacher he understands that it is incumbent on science to provide concise explanations of how stuff works. The failure to do that covers up uncertainty and that the common man can understand basic physics when it is explained. So thats why you have to start stupid threads like this one to avoid explaining in detail, engineering blueprint style, how in your view CO2 is going to destroy the world. Tstat you are exactly what you are attacking here. It is incumbent on you to put forward a scientific explanation, supported by evidence of your claim. It isn't possible for skeptics to criticize AGW when it has never been established how it exactly works in a fully quantitative manner. Today we have zealots complaining that the world is warming when all monitoring suggests it is not. So the finger of blame is laid on the monitoring. The problem then is do we even know it really warmed in recent years if the monitoring is that bad?
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 16, 2011 23:03:38 GMT
Today we have zealots complaining that the world is warming when all monitoring suggests it is not. So the finger of blame is laid on the monitoring. The problem then is do we even know it really warmed in recent years if the monitoring is that bad? Wouldn't you think that 0-2000m OHC would be the preferable way to measure global warming? It's been rising and is currently at its highest level. Here's the data from NODC: www.realclimate.org/images/ohc2000a.jpgYou don't like OHC? How about global surface temperatures? Again, at their highest level, equalling the 1998 super-El Nino year. Remember, you MUST back out ENSO to get an apples to apples comparison, so again we see continued warming. Or are you against fair comparisons? Yes, pretty much 100% of the data says that the world is warming and yet you deny the evidence. You're a prime example of denialism at work. Thank you for proving the contention of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 17, 2011 0:49:32 GMT
Yes, pretty much 100% of the data says that the world is warming and yet you deny the evidence. You're a prime example of denialism at work. Thank you for proving the contention of this thread.
I suppose the first thing warmists who make this claim in this manner could do is redo high school English grammar.
Warming implies continuing warming. Warmed means it warmed sometime in the past.
Today as I pointed out everybody recognizes, except morons, that all our climate monitoring indicates warming has stopped.
Warmist morons continue to maintain its warming and moronically point to graphs of historic temperatures that show it "warmed" in the past and don't show that its "warming".
Warmist scientists tending to be a bit smarter than the aveage sycophant tend to offer an explanation for the lack of evidence of continued warming.
They may select that its warming and blame poor monitoring for not detecting it. However, this is a position that is destructive of the scientific basis it warmed historically, thus the underlying basis of CAGW.
Fact is evidence that it warmed was built on an inferior monitoring system and we only learned it wasn't warming when we put ARGO out there.
So Commonsense you don't strike me as a moron so maybe its just misinformation or a grammar problem.
But one thing for sure you can't intelligently claim by going: the climate arm wave arm wave is "warming" when the best science available says it is not.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 17, 2011 0:52:51 GMT
Today we have zealots complaining that the world is warming when all monitoring suggests it is not. So the finger of blame is laid on the monitoring. The problem then is do we even know it really warmed in recent years if the monitoring is that bad? Wouldn't you think that 0-2000m OHC would be the preferable way to measure global warming? It's been rising and is currently at its highest level. Here's the data from NODC: www.realclimate.org/images/ohc2000a.jpgYou don't like OHC? How about global surface temperatures? Again, at their highest level, equalling the 1998 super-El Nino year. Remember, you MUST back out ENSO to get an apples to apples comparison, so again we see continued warming. Or are you against fair comparisons? Yes, pretty much 100% of the data says that the world is warming and yet you deny the evidence. You're a prime example of denialism at work. Thank you for proving the contention of this thread. Dude ... you're kidding ... right? Since ARGO was installed you've got no discernible increase in OHC down to 700 meters depth. You're seriously maintaining that co2 in the atmosphere is raising OHC from 700 to 2,000 meters depth but not for the first 700 meters down? Seriously? Seriously? Come on. Seriously? For real? Seriously? Got any diagrams on this?
|
|