the Piwd Pipers of Denialism

[Old Rocks]

Reality. GHG's warm the earth, otherwise, by albedo, the oceans would be frozen to the equator. Reality, if you add more GHGs to the atmosphere, the increase will result in a warmer atmosphere. Reality, we have added more than 100 ppm CO2 and 1.1 ppm of CH4 to the atmosphere in the last 150 years. Reality. The atmosphere has warmed. The oceans have warmed. Measured by scientists from many countries arround the world.

Reality, those with a political agenda covering for those with an economic interest continue to lie about the connection between what we are seeing now and the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. And the reality of the changes are shortly going to bite their collective asses. At which time they will blame the scientists for not warning them.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

When you are prepared to leave the politics to one side and look at the science with an open mind, you'll have no problem finding it.

We both know you aren't there yet.

btw - We both know that you have usee politicians as sources.

What we both know, siagon, as does anyone who bothers to look is that you are unable to provide the unequivocal proof that man's activities are the predominant driver of the global climate. If the proof you claimed existed, you would have slapped me down with it as soon as I asked...

I'm still standing and you are waffling and backtracking and claiming that I am not interested in science when the fact is that you have no science to show.

As to finding it, I have looked. I have looked high and low for it and although your side claims that it exists, I haven't found it and when I ask you guys to share it, you can't produce it.

You lied regarding the proof of man's responsibility for altering the global climate and rather than be a grown up and admit the lie, you start this song and dance. Pathetic siagon, genuinely pathetic.

 

[SSDD]

Reality. GHG's warm the earth, otherwise, by albedo, the oceans would be frozen to the equator. Reality, if you add more GHGs to the atmosphere, the increase will result in a warmer atmosphere. Reality, we have added more than 100 ppm CO2 and 1.1 ppm of CH4 to the atmosphere in the last 150 years. Reality. The atmosphere has warmed. The oceans have warmed. Measured by scientists from many countries arround the world.

Reality, those with a political agenda covering for those with an economic interest continue to lie about the connection between what we are seeing now and the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. And the reality of the changes are shortly going to bite their collective asses. At which time they will blame the scientists for not warning them.

Dogma isn't reality rocks....proof is reality. Prove your claim.

The earth has warmed but once more, corelation does not equal causation and we both know that as far as proof of causation goes, you have none...what you do have is ineffective appeals to authority.

 

[RollingThunder]

Reality. GHG's warm the earth, otherwise, by albedo, the oceans would be frozen to the equator. Reality, if you add more GHGs to the atmosphere, the increase will result in a warmer atmosphere. Reality, we have added more than 100 ppm CO2 and 1.1 ppm of CH4 to the atmosphere in the last 150 years. Reality. The atmosphere has warmed. The oceans have warmed. Measured by scientists from many countries arround the world.

Reality, those with a political agenda covering for those with an economic interest continue to lie about the connection between what we are seeing now and the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. And the reality of the changes are shortly going to bite their collective asses. At which time they will blame the scientists for not warning them.

Dogma isn't reality rocks...

Perhaps you should abandon those moronic denier cult dogmas then, SSooooDDuuuumb. After all, they get immediately debunked by the facts every time you parrot them on this forum.

proof is reality. Prove your claim.

So says the scientifically ignorant retard. But there is no such thing in science as "proof", there is only the preponderance of evidence in favor of one explanation and the lack of any viable alternative explanations that can adequately explain the evidence and data. That's the situation with anthropogenic global warming. There is enough evidence supporting AGW (and a lack of any plausible alternative theories) to convince virtually the entire world scientific community. Intelligent sane people accept the consensus of the experts as the best explanation possible with the current data and evidence. Crazy retards claim that all the experts are wrong but some random uneducated nutjob is actually right in dismissing the conclusions of the experts even if the nutjob has no other realistic explanations for the phenomena.

The earth has warmed but once more, corelation(sic) does not equal causation

I know you're too retarded to understand this fine point but the scientific motto you're trying to quote actually reads 'correlation does not necessarily equal causation'; and what you're too brainwashed to comprehend is that correlation often offers a good clue as to causation. Causes always correlate to effects even if there are other things correlated to the effect that aren't causing it. The scientific evidence for the causal link between increased CO2 and increased warming is very clear and very convincing to actual scientists.

and we both know that as far as proof of causation goes, you have none...

Once again, there are no proofs, only a preponderance of evidence. But that is sufficient in science because that is how science works. Too bad you're too ignorant about science to comprehend that.

what you do have is ineffective appeals to authority.

This is not a high school debate team. In the real world, intelligent people tend to trust the conclusions of the vast majority of the experts on any subject. Pointing out that almost all of the climate scientists agree with and support the same general conclusions about the reality and dangers of AGW is not at all "ineffective"; it is actually a reasonable and valid part of the argument that supports the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Of course, in your private little denier cult bizarro-world, all the scientists are in on a big conspiracy to hoax the world and so can't be trusted. Which is just what the Flat Earth Society claims too. You poor deluded retards.

Scientific consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.


***

 

[westwall]

Reality. GHG's warm the earth, otherwise, by albedo, the oceans would be frozen to the equator. Reality, if you add more GHGs to the atmosphere, the increase will result in a warmer atmosphere. Reality, we have added more than 100 ppm CO2 and 1.1 ppm of CH4 to the atmosphere in the last 150 years. Reality. The atmosphere has warmed. The oceans have warmed. Measured by scientists from many countries arround the world.

Reality, those with a political agenda covering for those with an economic interest continue to lie about the connection between what we are seeing now and the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. And the reality of the changes are shortly going to bite their collective asses. At which time they will blame the scientists for not warning them.

Reality, GHG's increasing at rates far beyond Hansens worst nightmare, and stagnant global temps for the last 16 years.

 

[Saigon]

I'm still standing and you are waffling and backtracking and claiming that I am not interested in science when the fact is that you have no science to show.

Really?

So why are there two threads from yesterday in which you both fail to understand science when it is presented to you - and then run away from?!

As to finding it, I have looked. I have looked high and low for it and although your side claims that it exists,

Well, perhaps start by going back to the two threads you abandoned yesterday!!!

 

[SSDD]

Scientific consensus

Scientific consensus is what you have...and a wiki article at that. You are patheitic.

How about showing some of this unequivocal proof that man is responsible for global climate change that the consensus is based on.

Scientific consensus means nothing...reference quasicrystals, plate tectonics, stress caused ulcers, newly discoverd cause of diabetes, and on and on and on. A consensus means nonthing if it isnt backed up by hard proof. Lets see the proof.

 

[SSDD]

So why are there two threads from yesterday in which you both fail to understand science when it is presented to you - and then run away from?!

Thus far, you haven't presented any science. You have presented appeals to authority among other things, but science? Not yet.

Well, perhaps start by going back to the two threads you abandoned yesterday!!!

Been there, done that. No unequivocal proof there and the fact that you are waffling, and doing this song and dance claiming that it is here and there, but not simply posting it is pretty good evidence that you have painted yourself into a corner that you can't get yourself out of. Better just run away and stay away from this thread because the requests for the "unequivocal" proof aren't going away. You said it exists and I want to see it.

 

[Saigon]

Well, actually during the past few days science has been presented on rising ocean temperatures, glacial melting, rising tidal levels and increased snow mass.

By my count you ignored three of those and had absolutely no idea what the other one meant.

 

[Si modo]

Well, actually during the past few days science has been presented on rising ocean temperatures, glacial melting, rising tidal levels and increased snow mass.

By my count you ignored three of those and had absolutely no idea what the other one meant.

Yup.

Yet, the state of the science is not able to conclude the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

 

[SSDD]

Well, actually during the past few days science has been presented on rising ocean temperatures, glacial melting, rising tidal levels and increased snow mass.

By my count you ignored three of those and had absolutely no idea what the other one meant.

Those are perhaps evidence of climate change....as if evidence of a thing that has been happeing since the beginning of the planet is necessary.

None of them are any sort of evidence....much less the claimed unequivocal proof that man is responsible for global climate change that you claim exists.

I want to see that evidence or see you admit the lie. By the way, not so long ago, your guys claimed that because of global warming, snow would soon be unknown....now those same people claim it is evidence of global warming. See any irony there?

 

[Saigon]

Those are perhaps evidence of climate change..

Great - I am very pleased to hear you say this. You're exactly right, of course.

We can tell from a half dozen different phenomena that the world is experiencing unprecedented climate change, and as far as I am concerned there is complete scientific consensus about that.

What causes that change is more complex, because it necessarily involves computer models and predictions about the future, and I do understand that not everyone finds those entirely convincing.

Perhaps the best way to start this is to ask what you think causes the changes we have been talking about.

 

[IanC]

Well, actually during the past few days science has been presented on rising ocean temperatures, glacial melting, rising tidal levels and increased snow mass.

By my count you ignored three of those and had absolutely no idea what the other one meant.

Those are perhaps evidence of climate change....as if evidence of a thing that has been happeing since the beginning of the planet is necessary.

None of them are any sort of evidence....much less the claimed unequivocal proof that man is responsible for global climate change that you claim exists.

I want to see that evidence or see you admit the lie. By the way, not so long ago, your guys claimed that because of global warming, snow would soon be unknown....now those same people claim it is evidence of global warming. See any irony there?

yup, they keep trying to play the game of 'heads we win, tails you lose' but it is becoming more and more obvious that their understanding of climate systems is wrong. their predictions are wrong more often than if they were just guessing.

 

[IanC]

Those are perhaps evidence of climate change..

Great - I am very pleased to hear you say this. You're exactly right, of course.

We can tell from a half dozen different phenomena that the world is experiencing unprecedented climate change, and as far as I am concerned there is complete scientific consensus about that.

What causes that change is more complex, because it necessarily involves computer models and predictions about the future, and I do understand that not everyone finds those entirely convincing.

Perhaps the best way to start this is to ask what you think causes the changes we have been talking about.

skeptics dont have to come up with alternative theories, we arent getting paid to do research. we are just volunteering to point out how you guys have grossly exaggerated your position and how your unsubstantiated conclusions are wrong at every turn.

 

[Saigon]

skeptics dont have to come up with alternative theories

Right.

But you are really interested in science, of course. It's not just a political thing.

It's just that you couldn't give a crap about figuring out why the climate is changing. That's how real scientists think.

 

[IanC]

skeptics dont have to come up with alternative theories

Right.

But you are really interested in science, of course. It's not just a political thing.

It's just that you couldn't give a crap about figuring out why the climate is changing. That's how real scientists think.

real scientists, especially statisticians have been coming over to climate science and saying that climate science methods are full of crap. they dont get big research grants to do it, and it is often at great peril to their careers and reputations.

 

[Saigon]

they dont get big research grants to do it, and it is often at great peril to their careers and reputations.

Oh, the horror, the horror.

Because it is not like oil companies, the GOP or coal companies would pay big money to get their hands of proof that there is no such thing as climate change.

Jesus wept....

 

[SSDD]

Great - I am very pleased to hear you say this. You're exactly right, of course.

Providing evidence of climate change is like providing evidence of day and night. It is completely unnecessary as a constantly changing climate is business as usual on planet earth. The dispute arises when you claim that man is responsible. It is easy to provide evidence of change as it is changing all the time.....you can provide exactly zero hard evidence that man is the cause...or even a primary cause.

We can tell from a half dozen different phenomena that the world is experiencing unprecedented climate change, and as far as I am concerned there is complete scientific consensus about that.

You and yours keep claiming unprecedented change...You can't provide a single hard piece of evidence of any sort of unprecedented change.

What is happening in the present climate that is unprecedented?....and be prepared to show conclusive proof that whatever you name is in fact, unprecdented.

What causes that change is more complex, because it necessarily involves computer models and predictions about the future, and I do understand that not everyone finds those entirely convincing.

Considering their failure rate, what is amazing is that anyone is dumb enough to find them convincing.

Perhaps the best way to start this is to ask what you think causes the changes we have been talking about.

What caused the changes in the past...before the invention of the internal combustion engine. What turned around the climate and started the earth on the path out of an ice age? For that matter what turned the previous warm period which by the way was so warm that there was no ice at either pole, into an ice age that the earth is still trying to climb out of?

When we know the answers to those questions, we wil probably have the answer to the ones you are asking. The fact is that the changes we are seeing now are not unusual...they are not unprecedented....and they are not unexpected considering that the earth is in the long and unpredictable process of coming out of an ice age.

 

[SSDD]

skeptics dont have to come up with alternative theories

Right.

But you are really interested in science, of course. It's not just a political thing.

It's just that you couldn't give a crap about figuring out why the climate is changing. That's how real scientists think.

Of course we are interested in science...good science. The present state of climate science is not good science. If it were, you would have no problem providing the unequivocal proof that man is the primary driver of global climate change in the 20th century that you, and the consensus claims exists.

Doesn't the fact that no such evidence exists bother you? Surely you have been burning up the internet looking for it since you got called on your claim.

 

[RollingThunder]

skeptics dont have to come up with alternative theories

Right.

But you are really interested in science, of course. It's not just a political thing.

It's just that you couldn't give a crap about figuring out why the climate is changing. That's how real scientists think.

Of course we are interested in science...good science. The present state of climate science is not good science. If it were, you would have no problem providing the unequivocal proof that man is the primary driver of global climate change in the 20th century that you, and the consensus claims exists.

Doesn't the fact that no such evidence exists bother you? Surely you have been burning up the internet looking for it since you got called on your claim.

Well, the fact is that you are an ignorant brainwashed retard so even though the evidence supporting AGW has been shown to you countless times, you are incapable of comprehending it. Too bad you're soooooo stupid.