The Evidence Against Global Warming? READ BEFORE FLAMING!

Great Debates
101

I guess trying to tell all that what I did was to describe people that deny AGW as equivalent to holocaust deniers will give others that impression.

Your “lunatics running the asylum” line was really rude also. the reason why I put quotes in the good science was to remark that history shows that the “lunatics” in reality had to depend on research that was not really related to AGW to start the ball to roll to the current consensus of today.

Now, just do the less rude thing and check the historical cite first.

102

This is nothing but a strawman.

Nobody in this thread has made any reference whatsoever to any funding discrepancy between one side and the other. The point is that scientists who work in the field of climate change or who, like myself, work in field associated with mitigating the effects of climate change, have a vested financial interest in AGW being perceived as a current threat.

It matters not at all whether there are people on the other side who have a vested interest in AGW not* being perceived as a current threat. What matters is that all scientists on all sides have precisely the same vested interests. I highlight that because it seems that several people on your side have tried to ignore that point and spin this into some strawman about inequitable funding, which nobody on our side ever mentioned.

Someone attempted to poison the well earlier int his thread by suggesting that any research done by anyone in to employ of Exxon is inadmissable because they have a vested interest in AGW not being perceived as a current threat.

They then went on to say that scientists working in climate science have no such vested interest and will suffer no financial or career loss if AGW were falsified. And that is absolute bollocks.

Now that you accept that scientists who work in the field of climate change or who work in field associated with mitigating the effects of climate change, have a vested financial interest in AGW being perceived as a current threat we canmove on.

It doesn’t matter which side has more scientists with a vested interest in their position. All that matters is that the scientists on both are equally compromised and have equal monetary and career investments in their position and thus are equally (un)trustworthy.

Is that a rhetorical question?

103

SO GIGObuster, nothing to actually add to the debate? No inkling about whether you actually agree or disagree with my position?

Hmm, I’m starting to see why Brazil pitted you.You are certainly most at your most coherent in this thread.

What exactly are you trying to contribute here beyond ad hominems, well poisoning and strawmen?

104

That makes no sense when one ignores the big picture, there was a time when an error was reported in a climate report by an skeptic of AGW, his report was accepted. To bad that the big error (as many skeptics of AGW described it at the time) did not change the overall conclusion because it was really a small one.

But the fact was this: evidence from an “untrusted” skeptical source was validated and accepted because others confirmed it, unfortunately I can count with my fingers the times when skeptics produced confirmation of their points. AFAICR the majority of the research in climate has been checked and confirmed by physicists, computer scientists and statisticians; this is why I trust the current crop of climate scientists, not just because of their say so.

105

Well, you continue to ignore the historical cite I gave on why it is silly from you to assume that there is a “lunatics running the asylum” situation in current climate research.

You mentioned that “to get those funding dollars they [current climate scientists] need AGW to be a real threat.”

History shows that the treat of warming gases was found when researchers where actually looking for the treat of nuclear bombs from the Soviet Union, AGW was not the reason for the funding.

So I’m happy just to let others see how you only would prefer to say to others that I do not contribute anything, of course it is easier than to deal with evidence that your say so that “they haven’t been able to prove that nature isn’t causing the climate change” was baseless.

106

Once again, what is your point here? How does this in any way address the fact that pro-AGW scientists have a vested financial and career interest in AGW being perceived as threat.

Honestly vague anecdotes about “an error” in “a climate report” by “a skeptic”. Where is this going? How does it it in any way rebut my claim that all scientists are equally compromised?

Your entire position has now become hopelessly circular. Your spinning around so fast that your double standard is showing.

You cannot trust the research of any scientist who has a vested interest in AGW being falsified. But you trust the current crop of climate scientists, who all have a vested financial and career interest in AGW remaining a threat, because their work has been checked by physicists, computer scientists and statisticians, who all have a vested financial and career interest in AGW remaining a threat.

But those scientists all have a vested financial and career interest in AGW remaining a threat. So they cant be trusted, per the earlier well poisoning standard. So the untrustworthy are checking the work of the untrustworthy. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This is the point you keep skipping around. If we can’t trust scientists with a vested financial and career intrest in AGW being falsified, then why can we trust scientists who have a vested financial and career interest in AGW remaining a threat?
It’s a massive double standard that has now become totally circular. Either we don’t trust scientist with a vested interest in the issue, which effectively means all scientists. Or we trust all scientists regardless of this percieved conflict of interest. You can’t just say that the side you agree with is trustworthy despite the conflict of interest, but the other side is not trustworthy because of the conflict of interest. That’s not a valid position morally, scientifically or logically.

107

I’m not ignoring anything. I honestly can’t even understand what point you are trying to make, At a time when the all the science should have said that humans had no discernible effect on climate, all scientists said that humans had no discernible effect on climate. So what? where is this going? Can you connect it to something in this actual thread.

I can’t respond to this until you clarify what point it is that you think this illustrates.

So you are saying that all the evidence that the IPCC used to reach the conclusion of its last report was found when researchers where actually looking for the threat of nuclear bombs from the Soviet Union?

Bullshit.

And if that isn’t what you are saying then WTF is the relevance of this statement? what is your point? Is it that some of the initial evidence was found when researchers where actually looking for the treat of nuclear bombs from the Soviet Union, and therefore we have to trust everything thereafter as being equally impartial and free from the taint of AGW funding?

So what if I told you that some of some of the initial evidence for Josef Mengele’s findings that Jews and Blacks are inferior were found when Darwin where actually looking for evidence of Natural Selection (actually true). Does that mean that you then have to trust everything Mengele published thereafter as being equally impartial and free of the taint of Nazi racism?

Absolute bollocks. And if you can’t see why this is logically invalid then I don’t think we have much to discuss.

But it would help if you would at least try to outline what point you are trying to make with these seemingly tangential anecdotes. As it is they are non sequiturs, and I have to second guess you to decipher your meaning. An argument should run along the lines of "My position is X, and that is supported by evidence Y, and because Y is true we can infer Z, which contradicts your position which is <>Z. It is not “Scientists in the 1970s said that a new ice age was developing, therefore major league baseball shows that you are wrong”. See the difference? One states the position clearly, then provides evidence and then draws inference and relates that inference to your stated position. The other simply states a fact without reference to anything and says that because the fact exists you must be wrong, but never actually shows why the fact is incompatible with your position.

Your example above is like the latter? How does the date of the first data conflict with my position? How does it relate to the issue at hand in any way at all? I can only guess that you were attempting the fallacy of the undistributed middle that I outlines above, but the trouble is that if my guess is wrong you’ll accuse me of constructing a strawman.

:confused:

Seriously? what does that mean. I know English isn’t your first language and I know that has to be hard. But I honestly can’t decipher this at all? Can you try using more than one sentence per paragraph. That will probably help.

What others? If these others can decipher your posts for me that would be appreciated.

And your contributions are at best bewildering. At worst disrputive. I’ll retract “Don’t contribute anything” and substitute “don’t contribute anything of worth”. Strawmen, ad hominems and non sequiturs are not of worth IMO.

Do you dispute that the IPCC says that “they haven’t been able to prove that nature isn’t causing the climate change”? because thatis easy enough to establish, it’s so wellknwon that I didn’t think it would need referencing for anyone in this thread.

108

:confused: Only if you assume all those experts on unrelated disciplines are the same.

I think you are the one making the circles here.

Well, also academics that are not climate scientists are checking the results and they also come in favor of the ones saying that AGW is an issue.

The issue is that indeed one should not trust their say so’s, so it is then by the publication of their findings that others can check and confirm the results. Then even skeptics can check and reply with criticism, the problem is that currently skeptics are concentrating in fighting in the public arena and not by publishing their research. IMHO that is evidence that they know that their arguments have little weight.

If one bases skepticism from blogs that only rely on snark and not published research then that side is only supporting circular ignorance (My post is my cite!). Current climate research evidence is not circular when others are checking the research.

109

So you just demonstrated here that you have no idea what a time line is. And I was worry that I had found someone that was a fearsome opponent, what a disappointment :slight_smile:

Once again you show little regard for evidence when you ignore a cite.

It was the funding for the cold war allowed researchers to find evidence that the CO2 that was accumulating in the atmosphere was not natural. The point was not about the IPCC.

110

Well what was your point? Tell me,please, Because I can’t make head nor tail of it, and your cryptic response wnet no way at all

What timeline? What about the cold war? Where does any of this fit in?

I’m sorry buddy but your posts have become total gibberish with no obvious link at all to the discussion. Until you can come up with some sort of coherent argument we are done. So far all you got are non sequiturs and nonsensical posts and that isn’t worth my effort.

111

You still did not notice that I quoted you? Of course it will sound like non sequiturs,

Your point of circularity makes no sense in any context.

You also responded “bullshit” to a point that in reality you did not care to check for even if the cite was provided. And this was after you claimed that “I’m not ignoring anything.”

An overall point remains: You are only supporting circular ignorance.

112

Too much noise. No signal at all. Bye Bye.

113

Meh, the same thing I thought when I noticed this gem from you: “What matters is that all scientists on all sides have precisely the same vested interests.” and that all pro and con scientists are then untrustworthy.

Just noise then when you ignored on purpose that the history and current reviews show what is the side that deserves our trust.

114

Again chronos, I will address my own question.

(1) the rate of warming in roughly the first half of the 20th century is approximately the same as the rate of warming in roughly the second half of the 20th century.

(2) According to the IPCC, the warming in roughly the first half of the 20th century is natural in origin.

Thus, your claim (that the rate of recent warming is far greater than any known natural variation) is false. Either that or the IPCC is wrong.

So again my question: Who is wrong – chronos or the IPCC?

ETA: I of course am skeptical (in general) of the IPCC.

115

cite?

116

To put it in another way, one can accelerate a car from 20MPH to 60MPH, and then later from 60MPH to 100MH. The affirmation that rate of acceleration is the same and that therefore there is nothing to worry about is meaningless to the police looking at the aftermath of a crash at 100MPH than from one at 60.

And it is even worse when the last unusual acceleration was caused under the influence of an unnatural substance.

But it is always cute to see deniers just happy to continue with their Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) points.

117

So…is it equally cute to see the True Believers (as opposed to the scientists and those who are using more than belief) continue to use FUZ…Fear, :Uncertainty and Zeal?

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

118

I know that you are jesting, but you are confusing me with someone else. IMHO there is a sea of difference between CAGW and AGW, one can in fact have lots of doubts on the catastrophic part of it, but there is no logic on the tactic of denying the evidence for AGW when there is plenty for it.

The only thing I agree is that there are doubts on what we should do and if there is going to be a catastrophe, I do think that some regions of the earth will be affected.

So I’m not scared that there is unnatural warming now, even though I know it is happening. There is no fear from me. (So far)

The experience over in the SDMB is that deniers are coming mostly from the illogical angle of not concentrating on CAGW but assuming that they can confuse all by using underhanded tactics and to deny the evidence of the obvious warming.

119

I know…it was supposed to be a joke.

-XT

120

:slight_smile:

I know too, that was not really directed at you.

Seeing how misleading the climate-skeptic site is, one can also now say to Babale (The OP) to skip it as it does not have good evidence against AGW