Finally -- Open, publicized debate on Climate.

[BULLDOG]

Not sure any credible scientist would want to be part of that circus.

It's not a circus. It's a debate. To resolve discrepancies between sides, suggest projections that can be used for Public Policy. Don't know if you noticed. But since the IPCC shut down, there haven't been weekly, monthly screaming headlines about what the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be. Since every important projection from 1980 to 2006 or so was constantly REVISED DOWNWARDS..

If ANYTHING -- it will provide a baseline for what is BELIEVED NOW.. Versus the early original BS being fed to the public in 1980 1990 that induced panic and rampant fear.... Problem with the internet is --- all those bogus "panic the herd" predictions that have been withdrawn and modified are STILL OUT THERE. Need a fresh reboot on the CURRENT thinking..

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Hell NO -- it's not "well known". Whats the ACCEPTED projected temp anomaly for 2100? To any accuracy that would guide public policy? Where are the projected ACCELERATIONS in both Temp and Sea Level that we were told 30 years ago would be happening NOW?

You're not a scientist. They LIVE for debate. Biggest primadonnas on the planet. The only time they HIDE from debate is when they KNOW the there's skeletons in their closet of theories.

Don't be silly. If the oil companies hadn't paid scientists to fight the idea of climate change the same way tobacco companies paid doctors to promote cigarettes, there wouldn't be a crazy denier problem anyway.,

You're crazy.. Oil companies LOVE GW. Helps them get subsidies for ALTERNATIVE fuels, for opening solar businesses and exploiting the never ending of pots of money there. And ESPECIALLY BECAUSE GW hysteria has throttled COAL and allowed the oil companies to become a PRIMARY SUPPLIER into the electricity marketplace with MASSIVE injections of Natural Gas.

Quit making these silly accusations. If you knew how this stuff REALLY WORKS -- you'd have no conspiracy theory..

Yes, they do now. Not so when the discussion started.

 

[BULLDOG]

So instead of dry facts, the deniers claimed victory based on Michael Chrichton's story telling ability. Sounds about right..

You seem to believe that climate science is well founded in facts. What exactly would lead you to believe such a thing?

For example, can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? That is, after all, the basis of the AGW hypothesis. One would think there would be volumes of data and yet, I don't seem to be able to find any. You see to think such data exists...lets see some...just a little will do.

Or maybe you could provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one? Again, you seem to believe such data exists in great quantity but alas, it doesn't...not the first shred..but it would be interesting to see what sort of data has you convinced...or is your position based on politics rather than science?

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension. I suspect that same thing applies to 99% of the people discussing it, and possibly 100% of the posters here. The best I can do is rely on the most credible sources. The deniers are the same ones who have also claimed there were death panels, black helicopters, Walmart tunnels, FEMA prisons, A military attack on Texas with Jade Helm, Ebola was going to wipe out 80% of our population, someone is coming to get all the guns, The Rothschild Illuminati secretly run the world, immunizations for our kids and fluoride in our water were both nefarious efforts to kill us off to limit the population, contrails and Big foot. Sorry, but I just don't consider that group credible.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not a circus. It's a debate. To resolve discrepancies between sides, suggest projections that can be used for Public Policy. Don't know if you noticed. But since the IPCC shut down, there haven't been weekly, monthly screaming headlines about what the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be. Since every important projection from 1980 to 2006 or so was constantly REVISED DOWNWARDS..

If ANYTHING -- it will provide a baseline for what is BELIEVED NOW.. Versus the early original BS being fed to the public in 1980 1990 that induced panic and rampant fear.... Problem with the internet is --- all those bogus "panic the herd" predictions that have been withdrawn and modified are STILL OUT THERE. Need a fresh reboot on the CURRENT thinking..

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Hell NO -- it's not "well known". Whats the ACCEPTED projected temp anomaly for 2100? To any accuracy that would guide public policy? Where are the projected ACCELERATIONS in both Temp and Sea Level that we were told 30 years ago would be happening NOW?

You're not a scientist. They LIVE for debate. Biggest primadonnas on the planet. The only time they HIDE from debate is when they KNOW the there's skeletons in their closet of theories.

Don't be silly. If the oil companies hadn't paid scientists to fight the idea of climate change the same way tobacco companies paid doctors to promote cigarettes, there wouldn't be a crazy denier problem anyway.,

You're crazy.. Oil companies LOVE GW. Helps them get subsidies for ALTERNATIVE fuels, for opening solar businesses and exploiting the never ending of pots of money there. And ESPECIALLY BECAUSE GW hysteria has throttled COAL and allowed the oil companies to become a PRIMARY SUPPLIER into the electricity marketplace with MASSIVE injections of Natural Gas.

Quit making these silly accusations. If you knew how this stuff REALLY WORKS -- you'd have no conspiracy theory..

Yes, they do now. Not so when the discussion started.

Orgs like Heartland who have some nebulous ties to Big Oil are COMPLETELY ineffective compared to the 100s of QUALITY skeptical sites such as WattsUpWithThat and specialists and GW scientists like Dr. Roy Spencer and Judith Curry. I've never GONE to Heartland for anything. I doubt that technical folks like WestWall or IanC have ever gone either. Let it go...

 

[flacaltenn]

So instead of dry facts, the deniers claimed victory based on Michael Chrichton's story telling ability. Sounds about right..

You seem to believe that climate science is well founded in facts. What exactly would lead you to believe such a thing?

For example, can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? That is, after all, the basis of the AGW hypothesis. One would think there would be volumes of data and yet, I don't seem to be able to find any. You see to think such data exists...lets see some...just a little will do.

Or maybe you could provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one? Again, you seem to believe such data exists in great quantity but alas, it doesn't...not the first shred..but it would be interesting to see what sort of data has you convinced...or is your position based on politics rather than science?

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension. I suspect that same thing applies to 99% of the people discussing it, and possibly 100% of the posters here. The best I can do is rely on the most credible sources. The deniers are the same ones who have also claimed there were death panels, black helicopters, Walmart tunnels, FEMA prisons, A military attack on Texas with Jade Helm, Ebola was going to wipe out 80% of our population, someone is coming to get all the guns, The Rothschild Illuminati secretly run the world, immunizations for our kids and fluoride in our water were both nefarious efforts to kill us off to limit the population, contrails and Big foot. Sorry, but I just don't consider that group credible.

You completely UNDERSELL your abilities man. The common well-educated person CAN READ Scientific American and "GET" most of it. That's the only level TRULY required to WEIGH the claims and evidence from both sides. MOST ALL of GW stuff is not very complicated at all compared to other fields and disciplines. And Climate Science ITSELF would not exist if it wasn't for more than a DOZEN RELATED fields of study and application.

Can you READ Scientific American? Do you WANT to?

 

[BULLDOG]

So instead of dry facts, the deniers claimed victory based on Michael Chrichton's story telling ability. Sounds about right..

You seem to believe that climate science is well founded in facts. What exactly would lead you to believe such a thing?

For example, can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? That is, after all, the basis of the AGW hypothesis. One would think there would be volumes of data and yet, I don't seem to be able to find any. You see to think such data exists...lets see some...just a little will do.

Or maybe you could provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one? Again, you seem to believe such data exists in great quantity but alas, it doesn't...not the first shred..but it would be interesting to see what sort of data has you convinced...or is your position based on politics rather than science?

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension. I suspect that same thing applies to 99% of the people discussing it, and possibly 100% of the posters here. The best I can do is rely on the most credible sources. The deniers are the same ones who have also claimed there were death panels, black helicopters, Walmart tunnels, FEMA prisons, A military attack on Texas with Jade Helm, Ebola was going to wipe out 80% of our population, someone is coming to get all the guns, The Rothschild Illuminati secretly run the world, immunizations for our kids and fluoride in our water were both nefarious efforts to kill us off to limit the population, contrails and Big foot. Sorry, but I just don't consider that group credible.

You completely UNDERSELL your abilities man. The common well-educated person CAN READ Scientific American and "GET" most of it. That's the only level TRULY required to WEIGH the claims and evidence from both sides. MOST ALL of GW stuff is not very complicated at all compared to other fields and disciplines. And Climate Science ITSELF would not exist if it wasn't for more than a DOZEN RELATED fields of study and application.

Can you READ Scientific American? Do you WANT to?

Perhaps I wasn't clear or I worded it wrong. I have no desire to do the study required to become an expert on global climate change. In this discussion, I believe less than expert is not enough. Fortunately, I don't have to. There is no reason I can't just take the word of credible experts as the best information available. You've seen the group I don't find credible. The deniers are intertwined with that group so tightly till I can't tell the difference.

 

[flacaltenn]

So instead of dry facts, the deniers claimed victory based on Michael Chrichton's story telling ability. Sounds about right..

You seem to believe that climate science is well founded in facts. What exactly would lead you to believe such a thing?

For example, can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? That is, after all, the basis of the AGW hypothesis. One would think there would be volumes of data and yet, I don't seem to be able to find any. You see to think such data exists...lets see some...just a little will do.

Or maybe you could provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one? Again, you seem to believe such data exists in great quantity but alas, it doesn't...not the first shred..but it would be interesting to see what sort of data has you convinced...or is your position based on politics rather than science?

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension. I suspect that same thing applies to 99% of the people discussing it, and possibly 100% of the posters here. The best I can do is rely on the most credible sources. The deniers are the same ones who have also claimed there were death panels, black helicopters, Walmart tunnels, FEMA prisons, A military attack on Texas with Jade Helm, Ebola was going to wipe out 80% of our population, someone is coming to get all the guns, The Rothschild Illuminati secretly run the world, immunizations for our kids and fluoride in our water were both nefarious efforts to kill us off to limit the population, contrails and Big foot. Sorry, but I just don't consider that group credible.

You completely UNDERSELL your abilities man. The common well-educated person CAN READ Scientific American and "GET" most of it. That's the only level TRULY required to WEIGH the claims and evidence from both sides. MOST ALL of GW stuff is not very complicated at all compared to other fields and disciplines. And Climate Science ITSELF would not exist if it wasn't for more than a DOZEN RELATED fields of study and application.

Can you READ Scientific American? Do you WANT to?

Perhaps I wasn't clear or I worded it wrong. I have no desire to do the study required to become an expert on global climate change. In this discussion, I believe less than expert is not enough. Fortunately, I don't have to. There is no reason I can't just take the word of credible experts as the best information available. You've seen the group I don't find credible. The deniers are intertwined with that group so tightly till I can't tell the difference.

Well that public attitude NEEDS to change. Because INCREASINGLY public policy DEPENDS on an informed public and the issues are getting more Sciency and Techno-y than ever before. Not to mention, that MOST future careers DEPEND on it. Even if you're lawyer or trades person..

Science is NOT to be worshipped. Spectators are welcome. And actually NOW -- there aint a lot of fields of science that DON'T DRAW from the multi-disciplinary pool. I've applied my stuff in over a DOZEN fields of inquiry. Had to learn the terminology and some of the specifics. It's actually the norm for any BASIC science.

 

[BULLDOG]

So instead of dry facts, the deniers claimed victory based on Michael Chrichton's story telling ability. Sounds about right..

You seem to believe that climate science is well founded in facts. What exactly would lead you to believe such a thing?

For example, can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? That is, after all, the basis of the AGW hypothesis. One would think there would be volumes of data and yet, I don't seem to be able to find any. You see to think such data exists...lets see some...just a little will do.

Or maybe you could provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one? Again, you seem to believe such data exists in great quantity but alas, it doesn't...not the first shred..but it would be interesting to see what sort of data has you convinced...or is your position based on politics rather than science?

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension. I suspect that same thing applies to 99% of the people discussing it, and possibly 100% of the posters here. The best I can do is rely on the most credible sources. The deniers are the same ones who have also claimed there were death panels, black helicopters, Walmart tunnels, FEMA prisons, A military attack on Texas with Jade Helm, Ebola was going to wipe out 80% of our population, someone is coming to get all the guns, The Rothschild Illuminati secretly run the world, immunizations for our kids and fluoride in our water were both nefarious efforts to kill us off to limit the population, contrails and Big foot. Sorry, but I just don't consider that group credible.

You completely UNDERSELL your abilities man. The common well-educated person CAN READ Scientific American and "GET" most of it. That's the only level TRULY required to WEIGH the claims and evidence from both sides. MOST ALL of GW stuff is not very complicated at all compared to other fields and disciplines. And Climate Science ITSELF would not exist if it wasn't for more than a DOZEN RELATED fields of study and application.

Can you READ Scientific American? Do you WANT to?

Perhaps I wasn't clear or I worded it wrong. I have no desire to do the study required to become an expert on global climate change. In this discussion, I believe less than expert is not enough. Fortunately, I don't have to. There is no reason I can't just take the word of credible experts as the best information available. You've seen the group I don't find credible. The deniers are intertwined with that group so tightly till I can't tell the difference.

Well that public attitude NEEDS to change. Because INCREASINGLY public policy DEPENDS on an informed public and the issues are getting more Sciency and Techno-y than ever before. Not to mention, that MOST future careers DEPEND on it. Even if you're lawyer or trades person..

Science is NOT to be worshipped. Spectators are welcome. And actually NOW -- there aint a lot of fields of science that DON'T DRAW from the multi-disciplinary pool. I've applied my stuff in over a DOZEN fields of inquiry. Had to learn the terminology and some of the specifics. It's actually the norm for any BASIC science.

Sorry, but as long as I stop at a red light behind a car with a bumper sticker that says "Global Climate Change Isn't real", and another bumper sticker with a picture of MLK centered in gun sights, that says "I had a dream too" I can't give your bunch much credibility on anything.

 

[Old Rocks]

Any credible scientist would be more than willing to debate their findings, research and theologies.......it doesn't mean they would be 'talked into or out of' their beliefs......but would be open to other credible scientists work.
Anytime anyone thinks they know all the facts, without willing to consider others, is the time for them to find a new job

Any credible scientist has already had his findings published in the peer reviewed journals of his discipline. Where other scientists will debate those findings and what they mean. If you have some like Watts, no degree, no real research, trying to debate a real scientist, it is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Old Rocks]

So instead of dry facts, the deniers claimed victory based on Michael Chrichton's story telling ability. Sounds about right..

You seem to believe that climate science is well founded in facts. What exactly would lead you to believe such a thing?

For example, can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? That is, after all, the basis of the AGW hypothesis. One would think there would be volumes of data and yet, I don't seem to be able to find any. You see to think such data exists...lets see some...just a little will do.

Or maybe you could provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one? Again, you seem to believe such data exists in great quantity but alas, it doesn't...not the first shred..but it would be interesting to see what sort of data has you convinced...or is your position based on politics rather than science?

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension. I suspect that same thing applies to 99% of the people discussing it, and possibly 100% of the posters here. The best I can do is rely on the most credible sources. The deniers are the same ones who have also claimed there were death panels, black helicopters, Walmart tunnels, FEMA prisons, A military attack on Texas with Jade Helm, Ebola was going to wipe out 80% of our population, someone is coming to get all the guns, The Rothschild Illuminati secretly run the world, immunizations for our kids and fluoride in our water were both nefarious efforts to kill us off to limit the population, contrails and Big foot. Sorry, but I just don't consider that group credible.

You completely UNDERSELL your abilities man. The common well-educated person CAN READ Scientific American and "GET" most of it. That's the only level TRULY required to WEIGH the claims and evidence from both sides. MOST ALL of GW stuff is not very complicated at all compared to other fields and disciplines. And Climate Science ITSELF would not exist if it wasn't for more than a DOZEN RELATED fields of study and application.

Can you READ Scientific American? Do you WANT to?

Perhaps I wasn't clear or I worded it wrong. I have no desire to do the study required to become an expert on global climate change. In this discussion, I believe less than expert is not enough. Fortunately, I don't have to. There is no reason I can't just take the word of credible experts as the best information available. You've seen the group I don't find credible. The deniers are intertwined with that group so tightly till I can't tell the difference.

Well that public attitude NEEDS to change. Because INCREASINGLY public policy DEPENDS on an informed public and the issues are getting more Sciency and Techno-y than ever before. Not to mention, that MOST future careers DEPEND on it. Even if you're lawyer or trades person..

Science is NOT to be worshipped. Spectators are welcome. And actually NOW -- there aint a lot of fields of science that DON'T DRAW from the multi-disciplinary pool. I've applied my stuff in over a DOZEN fields of inquiry. Had to learn the terminology and some of the specifics. It's actually the norm for any BASIC science.

Spectators like Limbaugh and Monkton? Like Watts and the mining engineer that fucks up his statistics? Well yes, and many of the scientists today have expertise in several fields. However, there are some that prostitute their degrees for money. Like testifying that tobacco is harmless, or at least, there is no evidence that it is harmful. Yes, a couple of prominent 'skeptics' testified in front of Congress to exactly that.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Hell NO -- it's not "well known". Whats the ACCEPTED projected temp anomaly for 2100? To any accuracy that would guide public policy? Where are the projected ACCELERATIONS in both Temp and Sea Level that we were told 30 years ago would be happening NOW?

You're not a scientist. They LIVE for debate. Biggest primadonnas on the planet. The only time they HIDE from debate is when they KNOW the there's skeletons in their closet of theories.

Don't be silly. If the oil companies hadn't paid scientists to fight the idea of climate change the same way tobacco companies paid doctors to promote cigarettes, there wouldn't be a crazy denier problem anyway.,

You're crazy.. Oil companies LOVE GW. Helps them get subsidies for ALTERNATIVE fuels, for opening solar businesses and exploiting the never ending of pots of money there. And ESPECIALLY BECAUSE GW hysteria has throttled COAL and allowed the oil companies to become a PRIMARY SUPPLIER into the electricity marketplace with MASSIVE injections of Natural Gas.

Quit making these silly accusations. If you knew how this stuff REALLY WORKS -- you'd have no conspiracy theory..

Yes, they do now. Not so when the discussion started.

Orgs like Heartland who have some nebulous ties to Big Oil are COMPLETELY ineffective compared to the 100s of QUALITY skeptical sites such as WattsUpWithThat and specialists and GW scientists like Dr. Roy Spencer and Judith Curry. I've never GONE to Heartland for anything. I doubt that technical folks like WestWall or IanC have ever gone either. Let it go...

LOL Watts quality site? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Any credible scientist would be more than willing to debate their findings, research and theologies.......it doesn't mean they would be 'talked into or out of' their beliefs......but would be open to other credible scientists work.
Anytime anyone thinks they know all the facts, without willing to consider others, is the time for them to find a new job

Any credible scientist has already had his findings published in the peer reviewed journals of his discipline. Where other scientists will debate those findings and what they mean. If you have some like Watts, no degree, no real research, trying to debate a real scientist, it is a waste of everyone's time.

Just admit. Dodging debate for 25 years has been a pattern here. Politicos screaming their ass off that "the science is settled". You also.. It's NEVER SETTLED. Still arguing over how to lay your baby in a crib at night.

It's a POLITICAL decision not to PUBLICLY defend the intentional exaggerations and outright MISREPRESENTATIONS that have been made. Same calculation an incumbent with a 30 point lead uses to duck a candidate debate. That shit don't fly in science.

Except NOW -- your "lead" has pretty much vanished. And your solutions are being exposed as ineffective and not fitting the ACTUAL magnitude of the problem.

 

[BULLDOG]

Any credible scientist would be more than willing to debate their findings, research and theologies.......it doesn't mean they would be 'talked into or out of' their beliefs......but would be open to other credible scientists work.
Anytime anyone thinks they know all the facts, without willing to consider others, is the time for them to find a new job

Any credible scientist has already had his findings published in the peer reviewed journals of his discipline. Where other scientists will debate those findings and what they mean. If you have some like Watts, no degree, no real research, trying to debate a real scientist, it is a waste of everyone's time.

Just admit. Dodging debate for 25 years has been a pattern here. Politico screaming their ass off that "the science is settled". You also.. It's NEVER SETTLED. Still arguing over how to lay your baby in a crib at night.

It's a POLITICAL decision not to PUBLICLY defend the intentional exaggerations and outright MISREPRESENTATIONS that have been made. Same calculation an incumbent with a 30 point lead uses to duck a candidate debate. That shit don't fly in science.

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

 

[flacaltenn]

Any credible scientist would be more than willing to debate their findings, research and theologies.......it doesn't mean they would be 'talked into or out of' their beliefs......but would be open to other credible scientists work.
Anytime anyone thinks they know all the facts, without willing to consider others, is the time for them to find a new job

Any credible scientist has already had his findings published in the peer reviewed journals of his discipline. Where other scientists will debate those findings and what they mean. If you have some like Watts, no degree, no real research, trying to debate a real scientist, it is a waste of everyone's time.

Just admit. Dodging debate for 25 years has been a pattern here. Politico screaming their ass off that "the science is settled". You also.. It's NEVER SETTLED. Still arguing over how to lay your baby in a crib at night.

It's a POLITICAL decision not to PUBLICLY defend the intentional exaggerations and outright MISREPRESENTATIONS that have been made. Same calculation an incumbent with a 30 point lead uses to duck a candidate debate. That shit don't fly in science.

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Ain't never listened to Alex Jones.. The UN IPCC is a POLITICAL org. Not a scientific org. They have a biased mission statement and only rent scientists that will tell the same story.

Not impressed that 100 countries agree that the industrialized world need to write HUGE checks to them. It is a form of global redistribution rather than an effort to "save the planet". In fact, EVERY IPCC meeting has ended in a brawl about how much money was gonna go to the "victim countries".

Doesn't take a majority vote on issues of science. It takes OPEN DEBATE and DEFENSE of theories and positions. NONE of that has happened. Its WAY past time for the GW circus to run by the RULES of scientific inquiry and NOT political organizations and agendas.

 

[Old Rocks]

A credible source. American Geophysical Society, Geological Society of America, Nature, Science.

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

 

[flacaltenn]

A credible source. American Geophysical Society, Geological Society of America, Nature, Science.

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

Oh sure.. What was the membership vote on everything in that position statement? Where is the debate with the MEMBERS?

Don't make me the post the brawl that happened down in Australia when they became the 1st political org to ASK THEIR MEMBERSHIP how they felt about the public perception of GW vs reality. It was the AUSSIE equivalent to the AGU IIRC. Ended hung up permanently. With NO statement renewal. Because the MEMBERSHIP could not agree to one..

 

[BULLDOG]

Any credible scientist would be more than willing to debate their findings, research and theologies.......it doesn't mean they would be 'talked into or out of' their beliefs......but would be open to other credible scientists work.
Anytime anyone thinks they know all the facts, without willing to consider others, is the time for them to find a new job

Any credible scientist has already had his findings published in the peer reviewed journals of his discipline. Where other scientists will debate those findings and what they mean. If you have some like Watts, no degree, no real research, trying to debate a real scientist, it is a waste of everyone's time.

Just admit. Dodging debate for 25 years has been a pattern here. Politico screaming their ass off that "the science is settled". You also.. It's NEVER SETTLED. Still arguing over how to lay your baby in a crib at night.

It's a POLITICAL decision not to PUBLICLY defend the intentional exaggerations and outright MISREPRESENTATIONS that have been made. Same calculation an incumbent with a 30 point lead uses to duck a candidate debate. That shit don't fly in science.

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Ain't never listened to Alex Jones.. The UN IPCC is a POLITICAL org. Not a scientific org. They have a biased mission statement and only rent scientists that will tell the same story.

Not impressed that 100 countries agree that the industrialized world need to write HUGE checks to them. It is a form of global redistribution rather than an effort to "save the planet". In fact, EVERY IPCC meeting has ended in a brawl about how much money was gonna go to the "victim countries".

Doesn't take a majority vote on issues of science. It takes OPEN DEBATE and DEFENSE of theories and positions. NONE of that has happened. Its WAY past time for the GW circus to run by the RULES of scientific inquiry and NOT political organizations and agendas.

No silly. Every industrialized country in the world accepts man effected Global climate change to be a fact. You still believe the same as Alex Jones. Not much to say after that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Any credible scientist would be more than willing to debate their findings, research and theologies.......it doesn't mean they would be 'talked into or out of' their beliefs......but would be open to other credible scientists work.
Anytime anyone thinks they know all the facts, without willing to consider others, is the time for them to find a new job

Any credible scientist has already had his findings published in the peer reviewed journals of his discipline. Where other scientists will debate those findings and what they mean. If you have some like Watts, no degree, no real research, trying to debate a real scientist, it is a waste of everyone's time.

Just admit. Dodging debate for 25 years has been a pattern here. Politico screaming their ass off that "the science is settled". You also.. It's NEVER SETTLED. Still arguing over how to lay your baby in a crib at night.

It's a POLITICAL decision not to PUBLICLY defend the intentional exaggerations and outright MISREPRESENTATIONS that have been made. Same calculation an incumbent with a 30 point lead uses to duck a candidate debate. That shit don't fly in science.

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Ain't never listened to Alex Jones.. The UN IPCC is a POLITICAL org. Not a scientific org. They have a biased mission statement and only rent scientists that will tell the same story.

Not impressed that 100 countries agree that the industrialized world need to write HUGE checks to them. It is a form of global redistribution rather than an effort to "save the planet". In fact, EVERY IPCC meeting has ended in a brawl about how much money was gonna go to the "victim countries".

Doesn't take a majority vote on issues of science. It takes OPEN DEBATE and DEFENSE of theories and positions. NONE of that has happened. Its WAY past time for the GW circus to run by the RULES of scientific inquiry and NOT political organizations and agendas.

No silly. Every industrialized country in the world accepts man effected Global climate change to be a fact. You still believe the same as Alex Jones. Not much to say after that.

No I don't. Have no fucking idea what Alex Jones thinks. But at the same time -- you have no idea "what the WORLD thinks". What does "the world" think the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be? You got an answer to that? Or you just want to try to attack me with Alex Jones shit?

Need an answer to that question in bold. Might focus your attention on how little we actually have to go on here in terms of ACCURATE and realistic climate projections.

According to "climate science" --- "our children will not know what snow is" in a decade or so.. But in reality, somewhere around 2005, 160 published climate scientists were ACTUALLY POLLED by Bray and von Storch. And they were asked if they considered their field to be a MATURE science. Over 40% of them said it was NOT. And when asked about the accuracy and maturity of the MODELING driving the exaggerated projections -- Only about 50% rated them good or excellent.

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't even know where I stand on the issue. DO YOU BULLDOG? THere's more than ONE question to GW. And you can't have ONE CONSENSUS on every different question.

 

[BULLDOG]

Any credible scientist has already had his findings published in the peer reviewed journals of his discipline. Where other scientists will debate those findings and what they mean. If you have some like Watts, no degree, no real research, trying to debate a real scientist, it is a waste of everyone's time.

Just admit. Dodging debate for 25 years has been a pattern here. Politico screaming their ass off that "the science is settled". You also.. It's NEVER SETTLED. Still arguing over how to lay your baby in a crib at night.

It's a POLITICAL decision not to PUBLICLY defend the intentional exaggerations and outright MISREPRESENTATIONS that have been made. Same calculation an incumbent with a 30 point lead uses to duck a candidate debate. That shit don't fly in science.

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Ain't never listened to Alex Jones.. The UN IPCC is a POLITICAL org. Not a scientific org. They have a biased mission statement and only rent scientists that will tell the same story.

Not impressed that 100 countries agree that the industrialized world need to write HUGE checks to them. It is a form of global redistribution rather than an effort to "save the planet". In fact, EVERY IPCC meeting has ended in a brawl about how much money was gonna go to the "victim countries".

Doesn't take a majority vote on issues of science. It takes OPEN DEBATE and DEFENSE of theories and positions. NONE of that has happened. Its WAY past time for the GW circus to run by the RULES of scientific inquiry and NOT political organizations and agendas.

No silly. Every industrialized country in the world accepts man effected Global climate change to be a fact. You still believe the same as Alex Jones. Not much to say after that.

No I don't. Have no fucking idea what Alex Jones thinks. But at the same time -- you have no idea "what the WORLD thinks". What does "the world" think the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be? You got an answer to that? Or you just want to try to attack me with Alex Jones shit?

Need an answer to that question in bold. Might focus your attention on how little we actually have to go on here in terms of ACCURATE and realistic climate projections.

According to "climate science" --- "our children will not know what snow is" in a decade or so.. But in reality, somewhere around 2005, 160 published climate scientists were ACTUALLY POLLED by Bray and von Storch. And they were asked if they considered their field to be a MATURE science. Over 40% of them said it was NOT. And when asked about the accuracy and maturity of the MODELING driving the exaggerated projections -- Only about 50% rated them good or excellent.

I've read your posts. Don't sound much different to me.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don't even know where I stand on the issue. DO YOU BULLDOG? THere's more than ONE question to GW. And you can't have ONE CONSENSUS on every different question.

Believe what you want. Lots of tin foil hatters will agree with your every word.