What would need to happen for you to come to the other side?

[ScienceRocks]

What would need to happen for you to come to the other side?

Me,
1. Decrease of global temperatures over the next 5 years. Note; clear cooling trend with at least 3 of the next 5 outside of the top 10.
2. Same for the increase of sea ice over the arctic. 5-5.5 million km being the norm by 2018.
3. Glacial melting reversing...glacial growing outwards that haven't the past 80 years.

By 2018 if this is what is occurring = me becoming very skeptical.

 

[IanC]

didnt you post something similar to this a couple of years back? it seems like you are becoming more strident in your support of AGW rather than less even though evidence is piling up that the exaggerated claims made by global warming advocates are at the very least faulty.

I realize it is difficult to find old threads but could you find your stated predictions for the last two years?

 

[skookerasbil]

A moot point s0n.


The more important question is......what would it take for the majority to come to the other side?


Obviously, these little bomb throwing stunts have had no effect.


If we start seeing reports of people water skiing on central Alaskan lakes in mid-January for 3 weeks under 70 degree skies, some will start paying attention. Not a moment sooner.

 

[skookerasbil]

Here is the reality.......

A huge majority of the population, especially in this economy, is barely making ends meet. Foreclosures are through the roof. People cant save in 2013......etc.......etc.........etc..........


This shit is simply not on peoples radar........that is, people with real responsibilities in life. Most of the AGW crusaders in here don't have real responsibilities because when you do, you don't have time to sit home and angst about global warming.


Now......approach these people and in the middle of all their worries about day to day making it work, go tell them, "Oh.......by the way........we're implementing new carbon taxes to fight global warming. Ummm........your electric bill is going to go from $250/month to $500/month!!"
















Only people who are OCD about AGW think that will fly with people. Especially when more than 2/3s of Americans think the scientists exaggerate global warming research >>>



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_global_warming_research



And......most people DONT blame humans for global warming!!!! >>>>


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/09/03/poll-most-people-dont-blame-humans-global-warming



What can I say? I cant help you.

 

[skookerasbil]

Matthew.......listen dude........gotta clue you into something.........

Your efforts in here are less effective than a social worker walking through a crack house and announcing "Hey.....c'mon guys......lets all go hit the wheatgrass juice place on the corner and get a shake for breakfast!!"

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo Matthew.......here........try a pair of these. IDK.......can only help!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

God I love this forum!!!

 

[JWBooth]

Short answer - a lobotomy.
I cannot begin to think of a scenario that turns me into an angst ridden, basement dwelling, chicken little; angry at the world for ignoring the most outlandish of dire prospects and refusing to return en masse to a neolithic lifestyle.

 

[Old Rocks]

The hardcore denialists are never going to admit that they are wrong. They will just try to shift the blame for their idiocy to the people that have been trying to warn us that things are changing.

 

[JWBooth]

The hardcore denialists are never going to admit that they are wrong. They will just try to shift the blame for their idiocy to the people that have been trying to warn us that things are changing.

Nobody denies that climate changes and creating a head in the sand strawman does not win the argument.

That nothing remains in stasis is no proof that mankind causes shit or can reverse shit.

 

[Kosh]

The AGW cultists will never believe in real science and thus will be the same as the truthers.

AGW loyal followers = 9/11 truthers.

 

[skookerasbil]

The hardcore denialists are never going to admit that they are wrong. They will just try to shift the blame for their idiocy to the people that have been trying to warn us that things are changing.

Nobody denies that climate changes and creating a head in the sand strawman does not win the argument.

That nothing remains in stasis is no proof that mankind causes shit or can reverse shit.

Indeed......and as the poll I posted above cites.....a huge majority doesn't buy the whole man-made ruse.


Why?







Couple that with dozens of bomb thrower predictions that fell flat on their face over the past dozen years and the attitude of people is "meh" with this shit.

 

[skookerasbil]

The true believer climate guys need to come up to speed on this whole "denier" stuff, which is laughable.

A distinct MINORITY think that climate change is NOT man-made.


Poll: Most People Don?t Blame Humans for Global Warming | Heartlander Magazine


C'mon people.....wake up and smell the maple nut crunch!!!

 

[mamooth]

Unlike the purely politics-driven denialist liars, we here on the rational side only look at data. Hence, if the heat balance went negative or neutral for several years running, that would do it.

That's the difference between global warming science and denialist pseudoscience. Global warming is disprovable. Denialism isn't, because it's entirely political propaganda. There is nothing that can falsify denalism, being that it's a religion.

And if any of the denialist cultists disagree that they're part of a religion, they simple need to state what would disprove denialism.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What would need to happen for you to come to the other side?

Me,
1. Decrease of global temperatures over the next 5 years. Note; clear cooling trend with at least 3 of the next 5 outside of the top 10.
2. Same for the increase of sea ice over the arctic. 5-5.5 million km being the norm by 2018.
3. Glacial melting reversing...glacial growing outwards that haven't the past 80 years.

By 2018 if this is what is occurring = me becoming very skeptical.

No one on the right is going to change his position because this is solely about politics, not science or facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

What would need to happen for you to come to the other side?

Me,
1. Decrease of global temperatures over the next 5 years. Note; clear cooling trend with at least 3 of the next 5 outside of the top 10.
2. Same for the increase of sea ice over the arctic. 5-5.5 million km being the norm by 2018.
3. Glacial melting reversing...glacial growing outwards that haven't the past 80 years.

By 2018 if this is what is occurring = me becoming very skeptical.

No one on the right is going to change his position because this is solely about politics, not science or facts.

You can assert that on faith. But reading any 10 posts from folks like me or IanC or Westwall or any dozen knowledgeable skeptics would pretty much strip you of the "no facts, just politics" position.

BtW Im not playing faves with skeptic buds. I used the 3 of us BECAUSE I know that politics are not the issue there. At least not politics as you DemRep zealots underststand it.

 

[Old Rocks]

What would need to happen for you to come to the other side?

Me,
1. Decrease of global temperatures over the next 5 years. Note; clear cooling trend with at least 3 of the next 5 outside of the top 10.
2. Same for the increase of sea ice over the arctic. 5-5.5 million km being the norm by 2018.
3. Glacial melting reversing...glacial growing outwards that haven't the past 80 years.

By 2018 if this is what is occurring = me becoming very skeptical.

No one on the right is going to change his position because this is solely about politics, not science or facts.

You can assert that on faith. But reading any 10 posts from folks like me or IanC or Westwall or any dozen knowledgeable skeptics would pretty much strip you of the "no facts, just politics" position.

BtW Im not playing faves with skeptic buds. I used the 3 of us BECAUSE I know that politics are not the issue there. At least not politics as you DemRep zealots underststand it.

Such a knowledgable person you are. Our species is less than 40,000 years old, the ice ages were less than 800,000 years, and you ain't a tenth as knowledgable as you think you are.

I'll go with real scientists at the GSA and AGU over flap-yaps like you.

 

[flacaltenn]

No one on the right is going to change his position because this is solely about politics, not science or facts.

You can assert that on faith. But reading any 10 posts from folks like me or IanC or Westwall or any dozen knowledgeable skeptics would pretty much strip you of the "no facts, just politics" position.

BtW Im not playing faves with skeptic buds. I used the 3 of us BECAUSE I know that politics are not the issue there. At least not politics as you DemRep zealots underststand it.

Such a knowledgable person you are. Our species is less than 40,000 years old, the ice ages were less than 800,000 years, and you ain't a tenth as knowledgable as you think you are.

I'll go with real scientists at the GSA and AGU over flap-yaps like you.

I don't cater much to liars.. Especially ones that stalk me with accusations that don't hold water.. So --- you can try..

What I said about the Dennisovans being discovered earlier OUT of AFRICA was..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...olution-called-into-question.html#post8257511


Here's the prob Steve.. As hominid discovery dates get pushed back by 100s of millenia on these "iterations" --- it gets to be more difficult to chart ancestral linkages to primate species as these hominid discoveries begin to PRE-DATE most all of our "monkey" ancestors. You DO REALIZE that this puts hominids into time epochs PREDATING MOST OF THE ICE AGES? Don'tcha?

I even capitalized MOST OF THE ICE AGES -- and supplied a graph showing those dates are earlier than the last 3 or 4 glacial periods.. YOU --- cant read or think apparently..

And then I quoted NAT GEO here and discussed a 60KyA date..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...ution-called-into-question-2.html#post8259551

From NAT GEO

"Neanderthals and Denisovans arose hundreds of thousands of years before modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60,000 years ago. The small traces of their genes now found in modern humans are signs of interbreeding among ancient human groups."

My POINT was not the AFRICAN dates of early Hominids -- but when they emigrated from Africa and how long various Homo Erectus species existed and cross-bred BEFORE Homo Sapiens arrived "up north" a mere 60K years ago..

So you're a liar -- and you found ONE BONE that you thought you can beat me with repeatedly. But that bone just got taken from you .. Bad Dog...

 

[Old Rocks]

You can assert that on faith. But reading any 10 posts from folks like me or IanC or Westwall or any dozen knowledgeable skeptics would pretty much strip you of the "no facts, just politics" position.

BtW Im not playing faves with skeptic buds. I used the 3 of us BECAUSE I know that politics are not the issue there. At least not politics as you DemRep zealots underststand it.

Such a knowledgable person you are. Our species is less than 40,000 years old, the ice ages were less than 800,000 years, and you ain't a tenth as knowledgable as you think you are.

I'll go with real scientists at the GSA and AGU over flap-yaps like you.

I don't cater much to liars.. Especially ones that stalk me with accusations that don't hold water.. So --- you can try..

What I said about the Dennisovans being discovered earlier OUT of AFRICA was..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...olution-called-into-question.html#post8257511


Here's the prob Steve.. As hominid discovery dates get pushed back by 100s of millenia on these "iterations" --- it gets to be more difficult to chart ancestral linkages to primate species as these hominid discoveries begin to PRE-DATE most all of our "monkey" ancestors. You DO REALIZE that this puts hominids into time epochs PREDATING MOST OF THE ICE AGES? Don'tcha?

I even capitalized MOST OF THE ICE AGES -- and supplied a graph showing those dates are earlier than the last 3 or 4 glacial periods.. YOU --- cant read or think apparently..

And then I quoted NAT GEO here and discussed a 60KyA date..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...ution-called-into-question-2.html#post8259551

From NAT GEO

"Neanderthals and Denisovans arose hundreds of thousands of years before modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60,000 years ago. The small traces of their genes now found in modern humans are signs of interbreeding among ancient human groups."

My POINT was not the AFRICAN dates of early Hominids -- but when they emigrated from Africa and how long various Homo Erectus species existed and cross-bred BEFORE Homo Sapiens arrived "up north" a mere 60K years ago..

So you're a liar -- and you found ONE BONE that you thought you can beat me with repeatedly. But that bone just got taken from you .. Bad Dog...

Post #10, Early evolution called into question thread, Science and Technology.
Here's the prob Steve.. As hominid discovery dates get pushed back by 100s of millenia on these "iterations" --- it gets to be more difficult to chart ancestral linkages to primate species as these hominid discoveries begin to PRE-DATE most all of our "monkey" ancestors. You DO REALIZE that this puts hominids into time epochs PREDATING MOST OF THE ICE AGES? Don'tcha?

IF --- big IF ---- this is all correct and it actually IS a hominid leg bone.. The Dennisovans (the name for this species) dont even have a complete fossil record..
__________________

Now that is what you wrote. The dates in question are 400,000 years old. The ice ages began about 2.5 million years ago.

 

[Old Rocks]

Post #12, same place;

Imagine how many Nova documentaries on the origin of man are gonna have to be locked up in the "Whoops" Vault because of this.. You know -- all those reactments of our ape-looking ancestors on the African plains just discovering that they had a brain and opposable thumbs. A mere 40,000 yrs ago.

This WOULD BE HUGE.. And NOT a minor disruption to the science.. How many ape species do you know that existed way back into the Ice Ages?


Now you stated 40,000 years ago. Homo Sap goes back 200,000 years. Neanderthals back at least 400,000, Homo Erectus about 1.8. None predate the ice ages.