Why do so many people deny climate change

[bripat9643]

This is not exactly true. Harry Hess had to promulgate the modified theory in the form of a poem in 1962 to not ruffle feathers. The real serious work on it had begun in the 1930's. It was finally accepted when J. Tuzo Wilson provided the mechanism of transverse faults and described how they would be found (accurately BTW) that the theory was finally widely accepted.

Until that time the geologists of that era treated plate tectonics theorists the same was as the fraudsters treat the AGW climate sceptics.

They're quibbling about the date because they have nothing else to attack. They know the historical facts of how plate tectonics came to be accepted make the irrationality of their appeals to authority obvious.

Picking out a trivial detail of someone's argument and then viciously attacking it as if it was central to the argument is a favored tactic with left-wing demagogues.

So what you are saying is that it is okay to get one's facts wrong as long as one is a right wing fanatic, because they are somehow allowed to look stupid to everyone else. Well, sir, I can agree that you look stupid, but I don't agree that looking stupid is the right way to go.

Once again, you couldn't get my argument straight if it was painted on the broad side of a barn

 

[bripat9643]

They're quibbling about the date because they have nothing else to attack. They know the historical facts of how plate tectonics came to be accepted make the irrationality of their appeals to authority obvious.

Picking out a trivial detail of someone's argument and then viciously attacking it as if it was central to the argument is a favored tactic with left-wing demagogues.

I know, but what's funny is when they do that in this case, they open themselves up to a crushing defeat. It is VERY well known just how vociferously the entrenched geologists were AGAINST Wegener's theory.

Find any National Geographic Atlas from the mid 1960's and they are STILL promulgating the shrinking Earth theory of mountain building. It is quite comical in light of what was already known about plate tectonics.

These clowns are EXACTLY the same.

What is comical is that you think that the vast majority of geologists in the 1960s subscribed to the shrinking Earth hypothesis, or even the more widely accepted expanding Earth hypothesis championed by Paul Dirac, Pascual Jordan, and later by Samuel Warren Carey and others. The fact is that both of these ideas were easily shown to violate the laws of thermodynamics, a fact that was well understood by many in the geologic community, so was finally rejected for all time when plate tectonics was proposed and finally accepted. Yes there are still stragglers who simply won't let it go, much like there are crackpots who think that global warming is a conspiracy by government scientists in order to gain government grants.

The primary argument against Wegener's theory was that it lacked a mechanism. Plate tectonics finally gave us the requisite mechanism - mantle convection.

The fact is that in 1950 the scientific community rejected the theory that the continents moved. So the consensus was wrong. However, you claim that the theory of AGW is right because the consensus endorses it, but you're too damn stupid to see the problem with your "logic."

 

[SSDD]

A certain number of people will die from heat in any given year. If you raise the temperature that number will increase. The additional deaths would be due to the increased temperature. A 2C increase in the world's average temperature WILL kill people. It will also cause some serious consequences along the lines of rising sea level, melting ice, lost drinking water supplies, lost irrigation water supplies, increased incidence of severe weather... but you knew all this. You just wanted to say something different and I suspect that nothing we show you in the way of supporting evidence will change what you say here. That would be too embarrassing. No one wants to admit they were wrong in public. So you'll just keep saying "it won't make a difference". I guess that makes talking with you a compete waste of time. Genug.

ps: people who, in a discussion of the natural sciences, demand proof of issues under discussion have clearly indicated that they have insufficient knowledge of science to hold up their end of the discussion.

Since more people die from cold, a warming world would result in fewer climate related deaths.

 

[SSDD]

So what you are saying is that it is okay to get one's facts wrong as long as one is a right wing fanatic, because they are somehow allowed to look stupid to everyone else. Well, sir, I can agree that you look stupid, but I don't agree that looking stupid is the right way to go.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that the IPCC is a scientific organization. Really? What sort of scientific organization puts a railroad engineer / soft porn writer in charge?

 

[Politico]

Man now it is cold and raining. I am so confused!

 

[Abraham3]

So what you are saying is that it is okay to get one's facts wrong as long as one is a right wing fanatic, because they are somehow allowed to look stupid to everyone else. Well, sir, I can agree that you look stupid, but I don't agree that looking stupid is the right way to go.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that the IPCC is a scientific organization. Really? What sort of scientific organization puts a railroad engineer / soft porn writer in charge?

What sort of educated debater makes use of such a multiply-flawed argument?

 

[Abraham3]

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.

Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here. I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority.

What you're saying is that whether claim 'A' is valid has no bearing on whether the authority's opinion determines whether claim 'A' is valid.

It's hard to believe anyone who claims to understand logic could utter such a Rube Goldberg syllogism.

I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument.

You and PMS and all the other AGW cultists are making a deducting argument. Every time you claim claim AGW is true because of the so-called "scientific consensus," You aren't referring to the evidence. You're only invoking the so-called "authority" of the IPCC and so-called "climate scientists." If you're making a case based on the strength of the evidence, then post the evidence. Don't claim it's true because the IPCC or Michael Mann says so.

It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature". I am not claiming truths. I am claiming likelihoods. The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.

Likelihoods are just another truth about reality. The likelihood that I will die of cancer may not be known by me or my doctor, but it's still a scientific fact that there is a certain likelihood of it occurring. Insurance companies invest millions of dollars trying to determine the likelihood of various kinds of life events, but they still come up with incorrect numbers and get soaked for billions of dollars.

The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050. Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong. Based on their track record they aren't experts. They are charlatans.

The bottom line is, no matter how brilliant, no matter how educated, and no matter how dedicated an expert supposedly is, he can still be dead wrong about something he is supposed to have expert knowledge about.

All the geologists in 1950 were dead wrong about continental drift. That fact alone should make anyone pause before claiming some theory is true because authorities 'X,' 'Y' and 'Z' says it's true.

As is almost always the case, Wikipedia is completely correct. It is logically correct to use an appeal to authority under the circumstances detailed and those are the circumstances under which we reference them as support for the validity of anthropogenic global warming.

Again, from Wikipedia: Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.

and

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached from general statements, but in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached from specific examples.
***********************************************************************
This is a deductive argument.

All men are mortal.
Aristotle is a man.
Therefore Aristotle is mortal.

This is an inductive argument

Most men have facial hair
Aristotle is a man
Therefore Aristotle likely has facial hair

If you find somewhere, that someone here has made some form of the argument: "AGW is a fact because the IPCC says it is", they will have made a fallacious use of an appeal to authority. If, instead, you find that people have said "The IPCC's statements support the validity of AGW", they are logically correct.

The other point I made along these lines (and to which you were the only respondent) was that. logically, it did not matter whether or not the experts were correct in the matter under discussion. Hindsight is 20-20. Whether or not it turns out to have been correct in the long run, taking reference to the best information available at any given point in time is logically unassailable. You can hardly fault someone for failing to accept some point when, at the time, it is effectively unknown or, as is the case here, is espoused by a minority and rejected by the experts.

You said, "What you're saying is that whether claim 'A' is valid has no bearing on whether the authority's opinion determines whether claim 'A' is valid." Unfortunately, that is not a correct description of the situation. We do not know at this time whether or not AGW is valid (and will never KNOW whether it is TRUE because it is not epistemologically possible to do so) but we do know that the majority of the experts in the field believe it to be valid. The question, then, is has it been logically correct of us to believe it valid because the experts believe so - to take their word for it. As long as we do not claim that AGW is proven or to hold it as a fact simply because the IPCC accepts the validity of the theory, and as long as a consensus exists among the actual experts in the field supporting our contention, we are logically correct in so doing.

I was not attempting to refute your argument with my correction about the dates at which plate tectonics became accepted theory and my apologies that it turned into such. I saw your "just make it 1960" comment and accept it. However, the fact that professional geologists rejected plate tectonics does not make it incorrect to have relied on their opinion at the time or, in general to rely on the opinion of experts at any time. No one has always been right ('cept you and I, eh? ;-)), everyone has been wrong at some point or another. If you will reject everyone who has ever made a mistake, you will be spending the rest of your life by yourself.

You also stated, "The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050. Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong. Based on their track record they aren't experts. They are charlatans."

The scientists of the IPCC are not charlatans. You are making unjustifiable and unsupportable generalizations. They are all simply scientists doing their job. The vast majority of them are college professors and institute researchers who would be doing much the same research and publishing much the same papers whether or not the IPCC even existed. They are not employed by the UN.

These scientists DO have a clue what the temperature of the Earth will be in 2050; far more of a clue than do you or I. It is what they have been trained to do. It is what they do professionally, every day, most for many years. And the projections they have made so far are NOT guesses and have NOT been abysmally wrong. They have not been perfect and neither they nor we ever claimed that they were. But, when they were made, they were the best estimates available. As we have all seen, new information, new data, new knowledge can change the landscape as we speak.

To get back to the real question with which we need to deal: the balance of energy at the top of the Earth's atmosphere (the ToA), as measured by several different satellites, is still uneven: less energy is reradiated from the Earth back to space than is falling on the planet. The Earth is still accumulating solar energy. As far as I can see, that point overwhelms all arguments about global warming having ended. Whether it is some unknown natural cycle, whether it is caused by CO2 or TSI variations or cosmic rays...No matter WHAT its cause - it has not stopped. The Earth is continuing to warm.

Now then, since the increase of the temperature of the air, the land and the sea's surface has slowed dramatically since 1998, one has to wonder where that energy IS going. The answer, per a growing body of evidence, is that it is going into the deep ocean.

Do you agree?

 

[PMZ]

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.



Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here. I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.

Just as an FYI: Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first few decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted the theory after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority.

What you're saying is that whether claim 'A' is valid has no bearing on whether the authority's opinion determines whether claim 'A' is valid.

It's hard to believe anyone who claims to understand logic could utter such a Rube Goldberg syllogism.

I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument.

You and PMS and all the other AGW cultists are making a deducting argument. Every time you claim claim AGW is true because of the so-called "scientific consensus," You aren't referring to the evidence. You're only invoking the so-called "authority" of the IPCC and so-called "climate scientists." If you're making a case based on the strength of the evidence, then post the evidence. Don't claim it's true because the IPCC or Michael Mann says so.

It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature". I am not claiming truths. I am claiming likelihoods. The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.

Likelihoods are just another truth about reality. The likelihood that I will die of cancer may not be known by me or my doctor, but it's still a scientific fact that there is a certain likelihood of it occurring. Insurance companies invest millions of dollars trying to determine the likelihood of various kinds of life events, but they still come up with incorrect numbers and get soaked for billions of dollars.

The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050. Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong. Based on their track record they aren't experts. They are charlatans.

The bottom line is, no matter how brilliant, no matter how educated, and no matter how dedicated an expert supposedly is, he can still be dead wrong about something he is supposed to have expert knowledge about.

All the geologists in 1950 were dead wrong about continental drift. That fact alone should make anyone pause before claiming some theory is true because authorities 'X,' 'Y' and 'Z' says it's true.

As the old saw says, when you find yourself in a hole, first, stop digging.

Denying statistics is not a defense for denying science. It's an explanation as to why you don't understand science. Not understanding science is an explanation as why it's meaningless to you. The fact that it's meaningless to you is only a statement about you. It has nothing to do with the validity of science.

 

[PMZ]

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.



Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here. I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.

Just as an FYI: Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first few decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted the theory after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority.

What you're saying is that whether claim 'A' is valid has no bearing on whether the authority's opinion determines whether claim 'A' is valid.

It's hard to believe anyone who claims to understand logic could utter such a Rube Goldberg syllogism.

I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument.

You and PMS and all the other AGW cultists are making a deducting argument. Every time you claim claim AGW is true because of the so-called "scientific consensus," You aren't referring to the evidence. You're only invoking the so-called "authority" of the IPCC and so-called "climate scientists." If you're making a case based on the strength of the evidence, then post the evidence. Don't claim it's true because the IPCC or Michael Mann says so.

It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature". I am not claiming truths. I am claiming likelihoods. The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.

Likelihoods are just another truth about reality. The likelihood that I will die of cancer may not be known by me or my doctor, but it's still a scientific fact that there is a certain likelihood of it occurring. Insurance companies invest millions of dollars trying to determine the likelihood of various kinds of life events, but they still come up with incorrect numbers and get soaked for billions of dollars.

The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050. Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong. Based on their track record they aren't experts. They are charlatans.

The bottom line is, no matter how brilliant, no matter how educated, and no matter how dedicated an expert supposedly is, he can still be dead wrong about something he is supposed to have expert knowledge about.

All the geologists in 1950 were dead wrong about continental drift. That fact alone should make anyone pause before claiming some theory is true because authorities 'X,' 'Y' and 'Z' says it's true.

''The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050. Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong. Based on their track record they aren't experts. They are charlatans.''

I nominate this paragraph as most revealing of denialism.

BriPat apparently does know the weather coming in 2050 because he knows that the probability distribution of the IPCC will be wrong.

Interesting insight into the workings of the conservative 'mind'.

 

[PMZ]

This is not exactly true. Harry Hess had to promulgate the modified theory in the form of a poem in 1962 to not ruffle feathers. The real serious work on it had begun in the 1930's. It was finally accepted when J. Tuzo Wilson provided the mechanism of transverse faults and described how they would be found (accurately BTW) that the theory was finally widely accepted.

Until that time the geologists of that era treated plate tectonics theorists the same was as the fraudsters treat the AGW climate sceptics.

They're quibbling about the date because they have nothing else to attack. They know the historical facts of how plate tectonics came to be accepted make the irrationality of their appeals to authority obvious.

Picking out a trivial detail of someone's argument and then viciously attacking it as if it was central to the argument is a favored tactic with left-wing demagogues.

So what you are saying is that it is okay to get one's facts wrong as long as one is a right wing fanatic, because they are somehow allowed to look stupid to everyone else. Well, sir, I can agree that you look stupid, but I don't agree that looking stupid is the right way to go.

I think that one of the reasons that conservative entertainers have such an easy time manipulating the cult is that the cult members just don't possess the education for critical thinking. A fact which they believe is denied by disagreeing with educated people. By disagreeing with educated people, they think, they prove that their educational handicap is obviated.

Missing, of course, what everyone else catches. They're just plain wrong and unable to see why.

 

[PMZ]

Bullcrap. Harry Hess had to refer to plate tectonics in a poem as late as 1962. They didn't finally obliterate the old guard of the geology field till J. Tuzo Wilson described the transverse faults and their method of operation, plus how they would be found, that the old guard finally scurried off and hid.

The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong. And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine. Congratulations.

You have to be a moron to believe that's the point.

His point seems pretty clear to me.

 

[westwall]

Incorrect. Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting. What it needed was a mechanism. When Wadati–Benioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics.

Bullcrap. Harry Hess had to refer to plate tectonics in a poem as late as 1962. They didn't finally obliterate the old guard of the geology field till J. Tuzo Wilson described the transverse faults and their method of operation, plus how they would be found, that the old guard finally scurried off and hid.

The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong. And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine. Congratulations.

You claimed that the theory of Plate Tectonics was widely accepted in the 1960's and that is patently untrue. It wasn't until the 1970's that it was accepted science wide. That's how powerful the ruling class of the old geologists was. The warmers are the exact same way. They ignore evidence that refutes their theories and falsify data to support it.

They are exactly the same as those intellectually dishonest bastards that held up tectonic theory for over 30 years. Congrats you're a dinosaur headed for extinction... yet again.

 

[SSDD]

What sort of educated debater makes use of such a multiply-flawed argument?

You really think a scientific organization would put a railroad engineer/soft porn writer in charge? You just keep giving more and more about yourself away and you just keep looking smaller and smaller.

 

[PMZ]

This is not exactly true. Harry Hess had to promulgate the modified theory in the form of a poem in 1962 to not ruffle feathers. The real serious work on it had begun in the 1930's. It was finally accepted when J. Tuzo Wilson provided the mechanism of transverse faults and described how they would be found (accurately BTW) that the theory was finally widely accepted.

Until that time the geologists of that era treated plate tectonics theorists the same was as the fraudsters treat the AGW climate sceptics.

They're quibbling about the date because they have nothing else to attack. They know the historical facts of how plate tectonics came to be accepted make the irrationality of their appeals to authority obvious.

Picking out a trivial detail of someone's argument and then viciously attacking it as if it was central to the argument is a favored tactic with left-wing demagogues.

I know, but what's funny is when they do that in this case, they open themselves up to a crushing defeat. It is VERY well known just how vociferously the entrenched geologists were AGAINST Wegener's theory.

Find any National Geographic Atlas from the mid 1960's and they are STILL promulgating the shrinking Earth theory of mountain building. It is quite comical in light of what was already known about plate tectonics.

These clowns are EXACTLY the same.

Late breaking news.

Science works by continuously searching for more, reliable, information upon which to build additional knowledge.

That in no way says that all that science has known at any given point in history is unreliable. What is unreliable is ignorance. That’s why humanity developed the scientific process.

 

[PMZ]

A certain number of people will die from heat in any given year. If you raise the temperature that number will increase. The additional deaths would be due to the increased temperature. A 2C increase in the world's average temperature WILL kill people. It will also cause some serious consequences along the lines of rising sea level, melting ice, lost drinking water supplies, lost irrigation water supplies, increased incidence of severe weather... but you knew all this. You just wanted to say something different and I suspect that nothing we show you in the way of supporting evidence will change what you say here. That would be too embarrassing. No one wants to admit they were wrong in public. So you'll just keep saying "it won't make a difference". I guess that makes talking with you a compete waste of time. Genug.

ps: people who, in a discussion of the natural sciences, demand proof of issues under discussion have clearly indicated that they have insufficient knowledge of science to hold up their end of the discussion.

Since more people die from cold, a warming world would result in fewer climate related deaths.

'Warm' causes many effects. Which ones are you referring to?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They're quibbling about the date because they have nothing else to attack. They know the historical facts of how plate tectonics came to be accepted make the irrationality of their appeals to authority obvious.

Picking out a trivial detail of someone's argument and then viciously attacking it as if it was central to the argument is a favored tactic with left-wing demagogues.

So what you are saying is that it is okay to get one's facts wrong as long as one is a right wing fanatic, because they are somehow allowed to look stupid to everyone else. Well, sir, I can agree that you look stupid, but I don't agree that looking stupid is the right way to go.

I think that one of the reasons that conservative entertainers have such an easy time manipulating the cult is that the cult members just don't possess the education for critical thinking. A fact which they believe is denied by disagreeing with educated people. By disagreeing with educated people, they think, they prove that their educational handicap is obviated.

Missing, of course, what everyone else catches. They're just plain wrong and unable to see why.

You are the expert on "plain wrong and unable to see why".

There is zero money being invested in fossil fuel energy production. It's all going to sustainable, permanent solutions.

Large oil firms hit record U.S. spending in 2012, as profits drop

The largest oil and gas companies increased their investment in onshore U.S. exploration, with a record $185.6 billion in capital expenditures in 2012, according to a study released Tuesday.

The Ernst & Young analysis found that independent energy companies, those that explore for and produce oil and natural gas but do not have refining operations, are driving the pursuit of domestic oil and are investing larger and larger shares of their profits in future projects.

Fuel Fix » Large oil firms hit record U.S. spending in 2012, as profits drop

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-skeptics-are-winning-30.html#post7980608

I think your failure is because you just don't possess the education for critical thinking and that you believe that your opinion determines reality. That is the most bizarre delusion that I've ever heard of.

 

[PMZ]

Bullcrap. Harry Hess had to refer to plate tectonics in a poem as late as 1962. They didn't finally obliterate the old guard of the geology field till J. Tuzo Wilson described the transverse faults and their method of operation, plus how they would be found, that the old guard finally scurried off and hid.

The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong. And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine. Congratulations.

You claimed that the theory of Plate Tectonics was widely accepted in the 1960's and that is patently untrue. It wasn't until the 1970's that it was accepted science wide. That's how powerful the ruling class of the old geologists was. The warmers are the exact same way. They ignore evidence that refutes their theories and falsify data to support it.

They are exactly the same as those intellectually dishonest bastards that held up tectonic theory for over 30 years. Congrats you're a dinosaur headed for extinction... yet again.

Nice black and white logic.

Because some science in the past was incomplete, all science is unreliable.

 

[PMZ]

What sort of educated debater makes use of such a multiply-flawed argument?

You really think a scientific organization would put a railroad engineer/soft porn writer in charge? You just keep giving more and more about yourself away and you just keep looking smaller and smaller.

Well, consider the Republican Party. They put an uneducated, ignorant sportscaster in charge of developing their worldview.

 

[SSDD]

[

'Warm' causes many effects. Which ones are you referring to?

I said that cold weather kills more people than warm weather so a warming world will result in fewer temperature related deaths. Which part of that didn't you understand or were you just ignorant of the fact that cold is more deadly than warm?....or were you just bloviating on the effects you simply assume will result from your, as yet unproven, agw claims?

Show me one study that has found a definitive CO2 fingerprint in the global climate.

 

[Abraham3]

And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.

Possible, yes. Easily possible, no.