Proof that AGW skeptics are stupid

[OohPooPahDoo]

From the end of the Little Ice Age for the next 200 years temperatures warmed too. Yet there was no more CO2 than when the Earth was colder.
Proponents of global warming--oops, climate change, adhere to a religion. Nothing more.

You presume the cause of all warming cycles is the same.

 

[The Rabbi]

From the end of the Little Ice Age for the next 200 years temperatures warmed too. Yet there was no more CO2 than when the Earth was colder.
Proponents of global warming--oops, climate change, adhere to a religion. Nothing more.

You presume the cause of all warming cycles is the same.

And you presume to know the cause of some o fthem.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

From the end of the Little Ice Age for the next 200 years temperatures warmed too. Yet there was no more CO2 than when the Earth was colder.
Proponents of global warming--oops, climate change, adhere to a religion. Nothing more.

You presume the cause of all warming cycles is the same.

And you presume to know the cause of some o fthem.

I don't presume it. we DO know the cause of some of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

You presume the cause of all warming cycles is the same.

And you presume to know the cause of some o fthem.

I don't presume it. we DO know the cause of some of them.

No, actually we don't.

 

[bripat9643]

For a visual

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps

So? The Earth is roughly 45,000,000,000 years old... the ice sheets aren't. They freeze, they melt. Did you miss this in 3rd grade science? But hey, go soil yourself...

You missed the age of the earth by about 40.5 billion years.

You're both wrong. The earth is 4.5 billions years old

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, here's the deal:

You can say there is a probability that the cause of global warming is man-made.

But you cannot deny people the freedom to doubt it, because you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a causal relationship.

I personally believe the chances favor a casual relationship. And I believe the current available data supports my opinion.

But if someone has a different opinion, I cannot call them "stupid" for having it.



However, in the same vein, people who claim that they know that there is no causal relationship, and thus there is some sort of global conspiracy, are clearly insane.

Because not only are they claiming to know something that they cannot possibly know, but are then claiming that anyone who believes differently are part of some sort of malicious con.

They claim some vague motivation, usually having to do with "socialism", and then dismiss the whole thing as some sort of giant global plot aimed at stopping them from making a profit.

 

[BlindBoo]

So? The Earth is roughly 45,000,000,000 years old... the ice sheets aren't. They freeze, they melt. Did you miss this in 3rd grade science? But hey, go soil yourself...

You missed the age of the earth by about 40.5 billion years.

You're both wrong. The earth is 4.5 billions years old

LOL. Better check your math.

 

[Vast LWC]

You're both wrong. The earth is 4.5 billions years old

Err, actually, he was right.

45 - 40.5 = 4.5

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And you presume to know the cause of some o fthem.

I don't presume it. we DO know the cause of some of them.

No, actually we don't.

Maybe you don't. But you haven't bothered to look. You can start with Milankovitch cycles.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

OK, here's the deal:

You can say there is a probability that the cause of global warming is man-made.

But you cannot deny people the freedom to doubt it, because you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a causal relationship.

I personally believe the chances favor a casual relationship. And I believe the current available data supports my opinion.

But if someone has a different opinion, I cannot call them "stupid" for having it.



However, in the same vein, people who claim that they know that there is no causal relationship, and thus there is some sort of global conspiracy, are clearly insane.

Because not only are they claiming to know something that they cannot possibly know, but are then claiming that anyone who believes differently are part of some sort of malicious con.

They claim some vague motivation, usually having to do with "socialism", and then dismiss the whole thing as some sort of giant global plot aimed at stopping them from making a profit.

We can't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Vast LWC]

We can't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Yes, but I'm not speaking philosophically.

There has not been a conclusive proving of the theory. It is possible that there is another explanation.

I am in agreement that there is a very good probability that the phenomenon is man-made, but there is room for doubt.

When you say 2 +2 = 4, you know that to be true, because it can be proved logically.

This situation is not that cut and dry.

 

[Chris]

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to warm.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

Now the boys at MIT say that this added CO2 will cause the earth to warm 4-7 degrees in the next century.

It was 65 degrees here this week. In January!

 

[Vast LWC]

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to warm.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

Now the boys at MIT say that this added CO2 will cause the earth to warm 4-7 degrees in the next century.

It was 65 degrees here this week. In January!

I'm not going to present the arguments against, because it leaves a slightly bad taste in my mouth to do so. But there is a valid argument there.

Again, I feel that there is a strong probability that you are correct in the assessment, and I feel that a strong probability is a justifiable motivation to want to do something to prevent what you think is going to happen from happening.

I'm just saying that you can't call people stupid because they disagree with you.

You can however, call them insane for making a definitive statement that what you are saying is not only false, but is part of some vast global conspiracy to destroy the world economy.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to warm.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

Now the boys at MIT say that this added CO2 will cause the earth to warm 4-7 degrees in the next century.

It was 65 degrees here this week. In January!

Historic data casts a pretty damn big shadow of doubt on that theory of yours. Emphasis on theory.

 

[Chris]

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to warm.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

Now the boys at MIT say that this added CO2 will cause the earth to warm 4-7 degrees in the next century.

It was 65 degrees here this week. In January!

Historic data casts a pretty damn big shadow of doubt on that theory of yours. Emphasis on theory.

It's not a theory.

It is a fact.

CO2 causes the atmosphere to retain heat.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]Global Warming in a Jar - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vast LWC]

It's not a theory.

It is a fact.

CO2 causes the atmosphere to retain heat.

That boy is obviously an evil socialist bent on destroying the world economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to warm.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

Now the boys at MIT say that this added CO2 will cause the earth to warm 4-7 degrees in the next century.

It was 65 degrees here this week. In January!

Historic data casts a pretty damn big shadow of doubt on that theory of yours. Emphasis on theory.

It's not a theory.

It is a fact.

CO2 causes the atmosphere to retain heat.

It's not a fact. It's not a theory. It is a supposition based on faulty premises.

You need to learn something about science before posting again.

 

[Chris]

It's not a theory.

It is a fact.

CO2 causes the atmosphere to retain heat.

That boy is obviously an evil socialist bent on destroying the world economy.

Either that or he is smarter than the average Republican.

The Republican Party is the only political party in the world that doesn't believe in global warming.

That's a level of stupidity that is hard to achieve.