What is wrong with you? Don’t you know that anyone who is skeptical in any way of the claims of how horrible things will be, must be wrong?
And that anyone who even wants to discuss the science must be up to something. Something bad. Because the consensus has agreed and there will be no more questions, much less any skepticism tolerated.
The point is that we don’t KNOW it all. It’s a massively complex system. The vast majority of us can agree on the big stuff, but the alarmists want the world to accept a level of confidence that is unwarranted. One of the most valuable things to take into account—in any scientific endeavor, is to know what you don’t KNOW. It doesn’t matter if you’re working on climate, a new lightbulb, trying to send a man to Venus or understand the behavior of whales. Koonin’s observations do not rest on climate science, but the general science it is a subset of. And he is correct about the rush to judgement by the alarmists. Mind you, this does not mean they are wrong. It also doesn’t mean that we probably can’t agree on 80%+ of the actions the alarmists might want to take. But this intense, desperate desire to shut down skeptics is not only anathema to good science, it has the opposite effect of making people question whether it’s their science or their politics that are directing them.
Yeah, lost my head there.
Well, it’s not like there is anything in there to weigh it down.
Oh my, how surprising, an insult by Lobohan. I must say though, that this one is at least somewhat entertaining. Rather than slap the shit out of your dumb ass as I usually do, I’ll instead take this opportunity to congratulate you. Well done. For you, anyway.
I want to thank you for making the same argument that creationists use. It makes it so much easier to dismiss it out of hand when the same exact argument has already failed with another group of dogmatic pseudo scientists.
I was going to respond to this, but JSLE knocked it out of the park.
Also, there is no “intense, desperate desire to shut down skeptics”. The fact is that there are very few real “skeptics” in the public arena. There’s a whole shitload of denialists, and they have a lot of influence in Washington. But real skeptics? Not very many. Rather, what you have is a whole lot of Heritage Foundation and not very much Richard Müller. And of course we don’t know it all - the problem is that people are denying the fairly strong evidence for what we do know, and refusing to acknowledge it. We have damn good reasons for believing that climate change is going to suck. A lot. But apparently this evidence is either not registering, or doesn’t exist for these people. The 5 stages of climate denial are on full display here. This guy writing for the WSJ has already reached stage 3. Which is kind of pathetic, all things considered, but it beats stages 1 and 2.
HA! Rather than respond with substance, you demonstrate exactly what the alarmist of accused of. You’re response is merely an ad hominem wearing a Minkman Schnoz. So, thanks for proving my point.
You miss the mark totally, sir, at least in my case.
I am very interested in intelligent skeptics, and look forward to see how “alarmists” rebut them, if at all.
But that’s not what we get here. Magellan’s argument boils down to “I have a Bachelor’s degree in something and I’ve read that some systems are complex.” I don’t know if you’ve improved since I set you to Ignore, but you displayed complete ignorance about the notion of cherry-picking and had little to offer beyond “It snowed somewhere yesterday so blah blah blah.”
(If you need to respond to this, make your response poignant enough to be quoted – on my machine your posts just show as a seven-word error message.)
Don’t sell yourself short! You didn’t need me to prove any points of yours. Just posting it, you proved your point is the exact same that creationists like to think is something of substance… So don’t thank me!, Thank those creationists who already put forth that horrible and easily refuted argument before.
His posts are error messages.
Oh, your little game is so cute. Trying to put non-alarmists in the same group with creationists. And when you say creationists, of course you mean Young Earth Creationists. Like I said, it’s an ad hominem wearing a Milkman Schnoz.
And to add to your cuteness, you point to…religion? HA! The Alarmists are less tolerant of opposing views than Muslim extremists, minus the beheadings. You scoff at religionists as you begin your own little religion. Thou Shalt Not Question Climate Change. Funny stuff.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the boreal winters are still trending down. For you unscientific flamers, this means … wait. Die in ignorance you fools!
Real scientists doing real science.
Fascinating. They have confirmed exactly what I showed in the now locked topic about climate.
I didn’t read that thread. You claimed that there are several mechanisms whereby Arctic amplification can lead to more extreme mid-latitude weather events, including more severe Northern Hemisphere winters? Or did you claim that even though Arctic warming and increased weather volatility are occurring, there is as yet no certainty about how (or if) they are linked?
.
Yeah, and it’s definitely not 7 words.
" This message is hidden because FXMastermind is on your ignore list. "
I count 11.
Yeah, but, but, but, but…LEANARDO DICAPRIO!!!
Doesn’t matter, I quoted and linked to the same paper (Cohen et al 2012) in this thread, multiple times. As well as explained the same thing here.
Pay attention.
Three thousand posts…golly, I’m sorry I haven’t memorized them.
Indulge me. Which of the two were you arguing in that thread, and apparently in this one? Are you arguing that there are several mechanisms whereby Arctic amplification can lead to more extreme mid-latitude weather events, including more severe Northern Hemisphere winters? Or that even though Arctic warming and increased weather volatility are occurring, there is as yet no certainty about how (or if) they are linked? Or both, as Cohen et al. suggest?
.
Pop culture reference right over my head. You just know the latest group of insulting dickbags haven’t kept up, much less know much about the very thing that I have been discussing, IN THIS TOPIC, for over a year now.
This latest Cohen et al 2014 is a real jewel. Remember when Gigodickinhismouth tried everything he could to avoid discussing the global warming theory? And how I pointed out that the entire skepticalpseudoscience blog never define or explained it? Making it a joke of a blog?
You have to laugh, imagining him reading this post right now. Still telling himself there is no theory, it’s just a fact.