Climate Change Gets Real For Americans

[Trakar]

Reall?

Really!

Then why the inquisition heaped on all who question the "consensus"?

Inquisition? ROFLOL!!

There is no problem with questioning the science or the public policies being based on the science, that is inherent to proper science. The issues come from those without any real education, training, or experience in basic science issues who mouth often internally inconsistent pseudoscience mumble jumbo and who try to assert without support or substantive evidence that their ignorances refute centuries worth of accumulated observations and evidences. It's akin to trying to discuss the biochemical physiology of chemotherapy with crystal-power new-ager.

Why are sceptics labelled "deniers"?

Denying the basic precepts, principles and understandings that underlie most of modern science simply because your political and economic preferences do not want to accept and implement any of the public policy choices that you feel would result from dealing with this issue, earns the label "Denier."

Why are sceptics deemed "insane"?

First and foremost, the mainstream science is conservatively skeptical that is how mainstream science operates. Those who do most of the arguing against AGW are not skeptics as they do not use reasoned consideration, rational arguments (which demand scientifically compelling evidences and support for their skepticism). As for the deniers/contrarians, they may be irrational, unreasoned, myopic and occassionally disingenuous, but I don't believe that many of them are actually "insane."

And worthy of being executed for merely having an opinion different from the high priests?

"high priests" exist only in your disingenuous hyperbole. Any idiot calling for the execution of such pathetic political pawns only reveals his own dementia.

No, it is arguably correct.

You can argue all you wish, it is still, quite simply (and multipley demonstrated) incorrect.

 

[westwall]

Reall?

Really!

Then why the inquisition heaped on all who question the "consensus"?

Inquisition? ROFLOL!!

There is no problem with questioning the science or the public policies being based on the science, that is inherent to proper science. The issues come from those without any real education, training, or experience in basic science issues who mouth often internally inconsistent pseudoscience mumble jumbo and who try to assert without support or substantive evidence that their ignorances refute centuries worth of accumulated observations and evidences. It's akin to trying to discuss the biochemical physiology of chemotherapy with crystal-power new-ager.



Denying the basic precepts, principles and understandings that underlie most of modern science simply because your political and economic preferences do not want to accept and implement any of the public policy choices that you feel would result from dealing with this issue, earns the label "Denier."



First and foremost, the mainstream science is conservatively skeptical that is how mainstream science operates. Those who do most of the arguing against AGW are not skeptics as they do not use reasoned consideration, rational arguments (which demand scientifically compelling evidences and support for their skepticism). As for the deniers/contrarians, they may be irrational, unreasoned, myopic and occassionally disingenuous, but I don't believe that many of them are actually "insane."

And worthy of being executed for merely having an opinion different from the high priests?

"high priests" exist only in your disingenuous hyperbole. Any idiot calling for the execution of such pathetic political pawns only reveals his own dementia.

No, it is arguably correct.

You can argue all you wish, it is still, quite simply (and multipley demonstrated) incorrect.

Denying what basic precepts (there's that religious terminology again)? The simplistic view that CO2 is the sole driver of climate in defiance of actual physical observations that show CO2 levels rising hundreds of years after warming has been initiated? That basic precept?

Who defines "proper" science? "Proper" scientists question everything. That is the nature of science and the scientific method, it is only in the world of climatology where asking basic questions is reviled. Why is that?

As far as basic scientific acumen goes there was a recent study that showed AGW sceptics actually were far better grounded in the physical sciences than the supporters were so there goes yet another AGW assumption.

Your contention that sceptics don't engage in legitimate discussion is belied by the fact that when they are actually given a voice they systematically demolish the claims of the AGW proponents so are rarely given the opportunity to do so. How many times have the AGW supporters been challenged to a scientific debate, they have agreed and then before the big day they tuck tail and hide. I can think of three major times so far. Doesn't speak well for your side.

Ahhhh, but it's YOUR high priests calling for the imprisonment of sceptics and the execution of sceptics, not the other way around. You all try and hide the outbursts when they occur but I have yet to see anyone of you condemn such speech.

And I call them high priests because that is the best analog for their behavior, only high priests claim that only they can understand the "science" and no other scientist is "qualified" to understand what they come up with. You tell me any other scientific practitioner who would make such a ridiculous claim.

 

[daveman]

It doesn't really on computer models, like one idiot said and it requires picking stations with dependable data. In order to calculate a 5 by 5 degree grid, you also have to have data from the base period.

Grow a brain!

You don't want me to think for myself. You want me to join you in blindly accepting whatever horseshit your AGW cult leaders dictate.

Meanwhile, temp stations are cherry-picked to provide warm temperatures.

This is inarguable.

inarguably incorrect

Stamping your feet and pouting isn't very compelling, but it's the best you can do, I suppose.

 

[Trakar]

Denying what basic precepts (there's that religious terminology again)?

(Only to the linguistically challenged or intransigent)
Definition of PRECEPT
1 : a command or principle intended especially as a general rule of action

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praeceptum, from neuter of praeceptus, past participle of praecipere to take beforehand, instruct, from prae- + capere to take

Precept - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The simplistic view that CO2 is the sole driver of climate in defiance of actual physical observations that show CO2 levels rising hundreds of years after warming has been initiated? That basic precept?

You can pack that strawman away or supply a link to anywhere that I have ever stated or asserted that CO2 is the sole driver of climate.

Beyond this, yes, your denial that CO2 is acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of the planet is indeed one example of a foundational scientific precept that renders your arguments pseudoscience nonsense.

Yes, when other natural factors force warming (such as the increased insolation due to the orbital shifts of our planet typified by the Milankovitch cycles) then CO2 acts as an amplifying feedback mechanism, but it can only do this because it does act as a greenhouse gas in our planet's atmosphere.

Who defines "proper" science?

The educated, trained and experienced professionals in the specific fields of study and research who have spent their lives learning the details of the findings and discoveries of their peers and predecessors in that field of study. They replicate their work and findings, confirming and adding to that base of knowledge and understanding.

"Proper" scientists question everything. That is the nature of science and the scientific method, it is only in the world of climatology where asking basic questions is reviled. Why is that?

Asking questions is never reviled. Rejecting the answers received simply because you don't like what they imply to external philosophies or beliefs is what earns the label of "denier."

As far as basic scientific acumen goes there was a recent study that showed AGW sceptics actually were far better grounded in the physical sciences than the supporters were so there goes yet another AGW assumption.

Cite or reference?

Largely irrelevent and anecdotal. I'm certain I could probably find some academic socialists who are far more grounded in sound economic theory and practice than some tea party anarchists. That should not lead any rational person to conclude that socialism was a more accurate economic policy than libertarianism.

Again, the only true AGW sceptics are educated and professional climate science researchers. Every scientist I know is a skeptic. I, myself, am skeptical of every paper I read. It is only after I have checked methods and procedures, researched references provided and found compelling support in the work of other accredited research that I begin to accept and acknowledge the research in the paper. That is the process and method of skepticism.

Your contention that sceptics don't engage in legitimate discussion is belied by the fact that when they are actually given a voice they systematically demolish the claims of the AGW proponents so are rarely given the opportunity to do so. How many times have the AGW supporters been challenged to a scientific debate, they have agreed and then before the big day they tuck tail and hide. I can think of three major times so far. Doesn't speak well for your side.

Your perceptions are simply incorrect and without merit or compelling support.

Ahhhh, but it's YOUR high priests calling for the imprisonment of sceptics and the execution of sceptics, not the other way around. You all try and hide the outbursts when they occur but I have yet to see anyone of you condemn such speech.

Anyone who invokes, or seeks to incite harm to others based solely on what those others believe is beyond contempt.

And I call them high priests because that is the best analog for their behavior, only high priests claim that only they can understand the "science" and no other scientist is "qualified" to understand what they come up with. You tell me any other scientific practitioner who would make such a ridiculous claim.

Cite or Reference?