Meh, as I always point out that I post not to convince people like you that already have the answers, I post to inform others of that the experts do say on the matter.
bye-bye
…or can I somehow further assist you(?)
Well, you are useful as a warning to others, that is helpful alright. 
Awww, since I ‘already have the answers’ I must warn people like me that already have the answers:
GIGObuster, do you know what’s the difference between ‘Great Debates’ and ‘Posting To Inform Others’?
The difference is: you are now in ‘Great Debates’ zone.
Ta Dam!
You said that you were leaving, so “Ta Dam!” back at you, and if you are not, then please deal with the cites. Saying just “Bye Bye” demonstrates to others that your intention is not to debate at all.
Nah, I’m not not debating, but I suspect we might be flaming. And that is something I wish not to do!
About the cites which I haven’t read: is your property at risk to be flooded?
Solution: insure your property as fast as you can, it might not be possible in the future.
hello, Ta Dam was 2u only!
Well, at least he is more fun than others that avoid the evidence…
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/publications/abstracts/weiss_et_al&implications&2011.htm
As I’m in Arizona I do not need to worry, but several descendants of my close relatives will be.
oh wellllll (!)
first of all not he;
second first of all I don’t tend to discuss with people who can’t discuss;
third first of all you are rather unpleasant, that’s why I don’t pursue discussion as you know better.
You seem to be sorta obsessed with the topic, you don’t like arguments which won’t support your ideas - it closes any debates.
Apparently you gave enough evidence to yourself to convince yourself you are right and you know better. I’m not here to keep convincing you you do not know better, as a matter of fact I don’t care if you do or don’t.
Btw, I allow myself to have fun on this topic with you solely because you offer it to me
‘Great Debates’ means exchanging opinions, you’re not good at it. Now we keep exchanging opinions about one another (you seem to like it a lot) and that’s fine. You mentioned you are not here to debate (about climate etc.) just to inform and convince, I can’t debate with someone whose intention is exactly opposite: not to debate.
What do you expect of me? Start exchanging insults with you? Or pursue anything as pointless as debating with you (as pointless as exchanging insults)?
Topic is pretty much dead, you want ressurection, go on, keep flaming, I’ll get bored very soon, people will stop reading it very soon, because the’ll get bored.
Come on, go on!
Brighter, I’m not sure what your goal is in participating in this thread; it’s clearly not debating.
Since you’re new here, let me explain: if you show up in a thread, offer one semi-substantive post, and then start posting nonsense, people will remember the nonsense and forget the rest.
The “bye bye” smiley face thing is also particularly irritating.
Brighter, do you think that very religious people associate scientists with atheists, and perhaps this influences their thoughts about a topic like global climate change?
Or perhaps do you agree with our friend FXMastermind, who thinks that climate change science is a “grand conspiracy” (which is pure evil), and that scientists are busy destroying the world, for money, with no regard for morals or any concept of decency?
now?: see post 108
It’s an ad hominem debate - and I didn’t start it in this style.
All fora are similar, I may be new here, but I’m not new to fora in general. With ther rest of your statement I disagree.
Besides, people think for themselves.
Nice nick of yours, brand new?
awwwww, can’t help it! enjoy!
ps. your multi pseudo-substantial posts make you unforgettable?
Care to answer the topic(s) of the debate, rather than engaging in snark against other posters?
No, my charm and good looks make me unforgettable. My pseudo-substantial posts make me an indispensable link between the leading lights of academia and the average Joe.
I happen to agree with you that climate change is questioned because ordinary people can’t necessarily observe the results for themselves. I don’t think high energy physics is a very good example of a field where they can, however. In fact, it’s probably the best counterexample.
Life is too short, the overall point you have to get from this subject is that the debate you want to have was done decades if not a century ago, those who claim there is a controversy going among the experts are very late to the party, and the chutzpa is to act like if that is not the case or that there is no overwhelming evidence.
The discussion that is needed to happen now is to deal with the reasons of the discrepancy on what experts say and what a good number of the public think, and dealing with the efforts that some powerful forces are doing, telling the American people to do nothing, that tell us to ignore what has been found so far.
Yes.
Which is pretty much exactly why I posted the OP in the first place. What is it, exactly, that make people buy into the doubt that is being sown by groups funded by oil companies?
Is it a distrust of scientists because they are perceived to be atheists?
Is it a belief in a “grand conspiracy” of evil, amoral scientists?
As pointed out before, there is a small number of people that do see it that way, but it does not explain the larger numbers, what it is hopeful is that many polls do show that even with all those efforts there is still a majority of people that do think we need to do something to deal with this problem,
More from the poll:
I will have to include most of the Republicans and Tea partiers into this column, just a part of what one writer calls “the Republican war on science”
Again, for my part, the other side would’ve never had a chance to sow doubt had the prediction been announced so we could all watch it come true or prove false.
Imagine a world where, fourteen years ago, folks sounding the warning about global warming had simply added the following: We need to Do Something, or else it may well cool off for years before returning to present levels before cooling for years before returning to present levels before cooling for years, and so on, possibly for decades – only ever matching, or falling below, the current temperature – but if we don’t observe the specified tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade rise by, say, 2017, then of course this will all be revealed as a silly mistake on our part." I’d have been immediately convinced that (a) it was a serious prediction and (b) we indeed need to Do Something.
But I didn’t see that message back then – or any time since – on television or in the newspapers; it wasn’t brought to my attention until I asked for clarification hereabouts; absent that, I naturally treated the whole thing as unfalsifiable; thanks to the SDMB, I now know it’s entirely falsifiable and agree we should Do Something.
My answers were what the religious nutjobs think, not my opinion.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
My answers were what the religious nutjobs think, not my opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Why don’t you let them speak for themselves then, and limit your answers to what YOU think?
-XT
Awwww, no again, climate change is not being questioned - it changes all the time. Effects of long term predictions are being questioned.
Course it was a good example. People know pretty much awful lot about nuclear power plants, about risks and advantages.
/no more fighting? I’m disappointed! argh/