Inconvenient Number of Scientists Dissent!

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

That's the best you guys can do - smilies?

No, I had a good laugh too. I've already got a thread about this, I'm not going to repaste everything in this one too.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No, I had a good laugh too. I've already got a thread about this, I'm not going to repaste everything in this one too.

If your talking about this thread:

Global warming threatens life on earth as we know it...in 1922

Then I gotta

Your post proves nothing..I already said that climate changes naturally, no one argues with that so that "evidence" is meaningless

The debate is whether humans are affecting it also and making it worse, there is strong evidence we do, and I don't see anything that says we don't or that cast serious doubt on the methodology so my post still stands:

....this thread is an attempt to discredit peer reviewed data by attacking the word "consensus" instead of using other source data to prove humans do not affect the climate is a red herring and its not going to work. Prove that humans do not affect the climate, not just that "there are some who think not so therefore we don't".

Sure climate is affected naturally - I don't think anyone here argues against that - but there is strong evidence that we may have an affect also. Yet the best you come up with is that some don't agree or that climate can change without humans; this doesn't prove that humans don't also have and affect on climate thus it does not refute the claim of human involvement that has backed up evidence. You've proved nothing

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

But lets all run to Daily Kos for informed unbaised scientific opinion.

You linked Inhofe's press blog in your first post, then attack a kos diaries bias when it's just a collection of links to scientific websites?

[7960]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

That's the best you guys can do - smilies? Pathetic..this thread is an attempt to discredit peer reviewed data by attacking the word "consensus" instead of using other source data to prove humans do not affect the climate is a red herring and its not going to work. Prove that humans do not affect the climate, not just that "there are some who think not so therefore we don't".

Sure climate is affected naturally - I don't think anyone here argues against that - but there is strong evidence that we may have an affect also. Yet the best you come up with is that some don't agree or that climate can change without humans; this doesn't prove that humans don't also have and affect on climate thus it does not refute the claim of human involvement that has backed up evidence. You've proved nothing

So you want to have a "my scientist is bigger than your scientist" paste-off?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by 7960

So you want to have a "my scientist is bigger than your scientist" paste-off?

That's apparently what it comes down to. What else can you do when a faction is willing to stoop so low and be so much of a bottom feeder as to muddy the water for the rest of us? Our hand has been forced now to go piece by piece to expose this junk science for what it is.

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

That's apparently what it comes down to. What else can you do when a faction is willing to stoop so low and be so much of a bottom feeder as to muddy the water for the rest of us? Our hand has been forced now to go piece by piece to expose this junk science for what it is.

I agree. Gore can't be trusted so I always enjoy when scientists take his speeches and point out lies and inaccuracies line-by-line

[bheld]

Originally Posted by 7960

I agree. Gore can't be trusted so I always enjoy when scientists take his speeches and point out lies and inaccuracies line-by-line

You can laugh about it but what you're really doing is taking the public's ability to trust science away. Making people doubt and mistrust everything is what fascists do.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by bheld

You can laugh about it but what you're really doing is taking the public's ability to trust science away. Making people doubt and mistrust everything is what fascists do.

No, Gore did that, not 7960.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Prove that humans do not affect the climate, not just that "there are some who think not so therefore we don't".

That's not what the debate is about. It's about how much humans influence it. Critics believe that humans do not influence it that much, any actions we take to 'fix' it will be for nought, and it's more a political issue to gain money and control, domestically and internationally.

It's not a 'we do or we don't' scenario.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

That's the best you guys can do - smilies? Pathetic..this thread is an attempt to discredit peer reviewed data by attacking the word "consensus" instead of using other source data to prove humans do not affect the climate is a red herring and its not going to work. Prove that humans do not affect the climate, not just that "there are some who think not so therefore we don't".

ohh


By the way. If the scientific hypothesis is that humans effect natural climate the burden of proof is on those who claim that is happening. Not the other way around. We got something like 4 Billion years of evidence for natural climate and natural climate change.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 7960

I agree. Gore can't be trusted so I always enjoy when scientists take his speeches and point out lies and inaccuracies line-by-line

But that is all about the importance of "awareness!"

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

I agree. Gore can't be trusted so I always enjoy when scientists take his speeches and point out lies and inaccuracies line-by-line

Behold! The Al Gore bottleneck!

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Behold! The Al Gore bottleneck!

Gore created the bottleneck. He's asking me to change the way I live, but he's got a bigger "carbon footprint" than me PLUS everyone I know.

Hey, when the guy says greenhouse gases are the biggest issue facing man today it gets kind of hard to take him seriously when his house is using 4x more electricity than mine.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Behold! The Al Gore bottleneck!

Why not? He started the mess...

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I am disappointed!

Perhaps I should not have listed some of the scientists involved or where they work? I was really hoping for a post about how they are just a bunch of weather men or working for the Oil Companies. Already saw that on the news last night.

Pretty much every organization of higher learning that your scientists on your list of deniers belong to, agrees with the consensus opinion.

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

But a list of companies who have signed on to (cashing in on?) Global Warming are listed as evidence for something? I just don't know what that might be?

"Cashing in on?" Boy, you are a piece of work.

I'll tell you what it is evidence of, since it apparently didn't occur to you.

The list of academic and corporate organizations that agree with the scientific consensus proves one of two things. Either 1. Global warming is happening, human activity is contributing, the risks of inaction are real, and these organizations recognize that reality, or 2. All those academic and corporate organizations have been taken in by the socialistic hoax as if compelled by the power of a thousand Ashton Kuchners.

If global warming is a hoax designed by socialists to take away your money, you had better consider all those titans of industry completely suckered.

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Note how my list of opinions don't count, no refutation of anything, but a list of "consensus" opinions means I am owned? Even when my post makes it clear I am still quite uncertain about global warming and the cause of it.

You may be still uncertain, but a majority of scientists are not.

[/quote]But lets all run to Daily Kos for informed unbaised scientific opinion.[/quote]

Did you miss the part where we quoted over two dozen informed, unbiased scientific and academic organizations? Apparently so. Or, would you care to explain how the Royal Society UK is uninformed and biased?

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

The level of absolute braindead childishness never ceases to amaze me on this board.

You're the one who chooses to ignore the opinions of scientific organizations and international energy corporations in favor of a politicans blog. It seems to me you're the one engaging in brain dead childishness. You're ready to latch onto anything that supports your viewpoint (such as a politicians blog) and ignore anything that doesn't.

A bunch of individual handpicked scientists listed by Rush Limbaughs' former go to guy on some biased politicans blog is proof of absolutely nothing except that global warming deniers will believe anything that already lines up with their belief system.

There is no serious scientific debate on the consensus. Global warming is happening, human activity is occuring, and the risks of inaction are real.

There are no organizations of any kind whatsoever that are willing to risk their good name and endorse the viewpoint of the global warming deniers. NOT ONE. Ever wonder why that is? I would suspect the reason is because the global warming deniers are wrong.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Are you suggesting that the global warming critics are in it for the money while the global warming fanatics are in it for their pure intentions and good heart?

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I am disappointed!

blah blah blah words words words

The level of absolute braindead childishness never ceases to amaze me on this board.

edit: See, I can act like an ignoramus like you two do, too. This gets us nowhere --do you see?

One does not pursue a "smilies method" of conversation if one would like productivity from these things; like this board and this is a thread where such a "method" is demonstrated.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

edit: See, I can act like an ignoramus like you two do, too. This gets us nowhere --do you see?

Yep, I am an ignorant tool of the Oil Companies for thinking a Debate might still be doing real science. Did you even bother to read my remarks in the first post? Where did I suggest these guys were right and all the rest were wrong?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

"Cashing in on?" Boy, you are a piece of work.

You don't think there are scientists and industry people making money on global warming hype whos opinions on the subject might be something less than objective?