Gigo, why are you so personally invested in the truth of AGW? I mean, any time someone mentions the topic you come swooping in with links to your little incestuous “political screed under the guise of science” websites. Why, man? Maybe take a walk or get laid or something.
Your belief in AGW borders on religious fervor–it’s not falsifiable. There is absolutely no evidence that would make you think “well shit, I was wrong about that AGW thing, I’ve changed my mind.”
I’m sorry, GIGO, but Rand’s science is clearly superior.
Mostly, there’s not nearly so much of it. You have stacks and stacks of references, links, papers, studies. This could be an expression of your insecurity on the issue. Rand is more restrained, he doesn’t feel such a need to belabor you with facts ands scholarly papers, he is more secure in his knowledge, and his knowledge is bliss.
If you were truly secure in your opinions, you wouldn’t need all those abstruse scholarly cites, choked and constipated with the maths. “In the late paleolimbo era, the carbon-lithium albedo was no greater than 2.75 microcecils (plus or minus .002)…” Except it would have those fancy-ass maths thingys, like that plus symbol dancing on a minus, which is a sure sign of scientifical snobbery. Rand prefers scholarly work of a more accessible kind, a common-sense approach. “Long time ago, really long, the ocean levels were a tad higher, but not a whole lot.”
Nope, this a demonstrated lie, I was famous first for turning guys like **Seethruart **into clowns because they denied the Moon landings. Whenever a subject has scientific support and we get crackpots claiming otherwise I’m there.
And no, the “political screed under the guise of science” websites accusation is also demonstrated to be a stinky lie, all the points are based on science papers. You are just stopping at your preconceptions before consulting the science itself.
Any of the direct observations could be demonstrated to be false and it would be a blow to an aspect to the theory, but this shows how you are not even on the “wrong” territory, you are really clueless.
The people who are using religious fervor to deny the science are really on the Republican leadership, so stop projecting.
But be my guest, just continue to demonstrate to others how you are willing to twist science to fit your ideology. Even the reasonable conservative dopers have dropped this denialism.
It may be just business, but when it steps into buying a pass for polluting, a lack of regulation and exploiting indigenous populations, it spills into ethics and morality. If you accept the premise that corporations will do everything they can to make money, then you have to understand it is the job of our government to keep them legal.
Gigo, thanks for illustrating my point. I said that AGW is like religion to you, and instead of responding, you quote a piece of your catechism (which you are undoubtedly clutching and rocking as we speak, repeating “my precious”).
Nah, once again everyone can see that you are telling all to ignore the cite and check the science behind the debunked say so’s of the deniers. “Skeptical Science” is the place to go to easily go to check for the science, and it is a place that I go just like I would go to “Talk Origins” when discussions about evolution or Intelligent Design (Another subject that many Republicans do not get) pop up.
You are the one that continues to demonstrate for all who is a perfect example of a willful ignorant.
For this subject, there are other sources too anyhow.
My position on AGW is derived from personal conversations with one of NOAA’s Ph.D.'s in atmospheric science. I don’t want to identify this person and so I expect you won’t find this satisfactory. But if you seriously want to debunk AGW, please show the error in the following:
Carbon absorbs heat
Atmospheric carbon levels are rising
Humans are among the causes of the rise in atmospheric carbon levels.
Good luck.
Yes, that is not the whole story. The details of the effects are debatable/unpredictable, aside from things like disruptive weather and melting icecaps. The misinformation comes in when eliding the 3 points above.
I am in the middle of something and can’t return until tomorrow, please forgive me. You all are doing a great job so far without me, thanks.
Yes, they’re suppressing the use of solar technology via abusing the patent system. Didn’t you read OP? Of course AGW deniers aren’t generally intelligent enough to read.
Keep in mind that I actually started a pit thread that doesn’t have anything to do with BP. BP can disappear tomorrow for all I care, but they aren’t the focus of this thread.
Way to really stretch for a put-down. Let’s say the issue is whether x causes cancer–I think it’s reasonable to say there are two “sides” there (which of course obscures lots of nuance–maybe x causes cancer in some people but not others, maybe it increases the risk of certain cancers and decreases the risk of others, etc.). I don’t think the fact that I used the word “sides” there necessarily shows that I don’t understand science or have an agenda, but whatever.
And your characterization of my position on AGW as agenda-driven is laughable–it’s gigo’s side (there’s that word again) with the clear agenda.
Just want to give a big thanks to GIGObuster for backing me up. It seems clear from his cites that Exxon has been funding AGW-denier groups, the specifics of which weren’t included in the vague article I cited. Considering the science behind AGW, to fund groups that deny it seems to me the equivalent of spreading disinformation. Remember Citizens United? Spending money is now speech; Exxon’s speech is lies. I pit them for being suckmeisters.
Rand Rover: Do you have a specific complaint about the concept of AGW? You have described it as a “political screed” and a “religion” but are completely lacking in specifics. Me, I have spoken with some extremely persuasive expert-level people on the subject. It isn’t a religious belief with me. I’m not an “environmentalist” or a “greenie” or what have you. The evidence seems to point unmistakably toward AGW, that’s all. Tell us where the theory fails so we can hash it out.
So what agenda or goal do the proud to be ignorant of science do have?
Notice the source? It was Talk Origins, what has happened is that creationists have so many tactics in common and same faces as the climate change deniers, that even supporters of biology science have noticed!
I’m not going to get into a very long drawn-out debate about AGW. I will just simply state some of my reasons for not drinking the AGW kool-aid, and you can take it or leave it (I fully expect you to leave it) and then you can read the cites Gigo will inevitably post in response if you feel your kool-aid level getting low.
The measurements AGW is based on require subjective adjustments to be useful.
The theory is based largely on feeding these subjectively adjusted measurements into models, which were created using subjective criteria. Forecasting anything is extremely difficult (read The Black Swan if you haven’t–it’s very good on this point at least); forecasting the climate for as far as AGW proponents think they can is near impossible (mainly because of the number of variables that would need to be taken into account).
Everyone knows the right answer on AGW, so if you don’t reach the right answer, you must be wrong and your research no longer gets funded. It was a running joke for a while among scientists that the way to get your project funded was to add " . . . and to study [whatever]'s effect on global warming" to their proposal.
The consensus was manufactured by politicians for political purposes. There is lots of debate over various scientific topics–ever ask yourself why there’s no “official consensus” on those? Because politicians didn’t convene their pet scientists to manufacture one.
5, The prevailing theory fits too neatly into liberals’ policy goals. Ever ask yourself why it’s not more accepted that it’s too late to do anything about AGW? Some climate scientists believe that, but it’s not part of the consensus. Ever wonder why many climate scientists poo-poo quick fix ideas?
There’s a quick take on my views. Like I said, take it or leave it. I’m not going to discuss this ad nauseum–I get very tired of reading posts like Gigo’s, where he misunderstands what I say and responds to something different. It’s mentally tiring to say again what I already said and show how what he responded to is not what I said, and it looks like waffling and/or hand-waving to outside observers who aren’t smart enough to follow, so they pile on. So, for me on this topic, it’s a one-and-done. If you want to take that as admitting that I’m not smart or knowledgeable enough to debate the topic, then fine, you are correct, you win, please claim your prize.
You obviously aren’t stupid. Do you treat everyone who takes a different view from you as kool-aid drinkers??
I am personally acquainted with someone who personally gathers these measurements. It isn’t subjective AFAICT- an example would be appreciated.
I agree about the difficulty of forecasting. However, the models from a big-picture view are pretty straightforward. A mass of air with composition x overall will react in a certain way- who can prove otherwise? There are variables, yes, but I don’t see any way of reaching a conclusion opposite of AGW. Especially with the already-documented global temperature rises, the melting glaciers, etc. Anyway, I’ll look into the Black Swan if I get the time.
Meh. There isn’t actually a liberal conspiracy you know. Everyone knows the Earth is round; people who say otherwise don’t get funded to research that either.
There is debate about the outcomes of AGW, sure. The consensus is in the basic facts, namely carbon absorbs heat, atmospheric carbon levels are rising and humans are largely to blame. I was hoping you’d undermine those, because I don’t really enjoy AGW either.
Anyway, my source of info is by no means some political tool, I assure you.
Define ‘liberal’. As for your questions, no and no. But- I’m not getting any gestalt about liberals considering these questions…
Well if you are done, more’s the pity. But don’t take it personally- I don’t.
Also, the item of “official consensus” is a straw man. There is a consensus or there is none.
Because they do not work as many of the quick fix proponents mention, and to be effective they need to also include control of carbon emissions.
Nah, what you are attempting to do is a sorry attempt at not dealing with the cites.
Meh, the only price I like to get is being recognized by people that have curiosity for the evidence and facts, so this is a cherished price:
And for other dopers out there, even the recent conservatives that have come around to the light and rejected denialism (I guess Rand Rover would even deny that this took place in this message board already), you’re welcome.