What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I'm not sure why you're trying to mock the man. You're just making yourself look bad.

A 'Climate Scientist' is commonly known as a climatologist. If you don't know what that is, there are dictionaries. Climatology is a recognized and legitimate scientific field: the study of climate change, climate variability, and the effects of climate on the biosphere.

And whatever else he may be, Tom Quirk is not a climatologist. Marohasy is a biologist, and biologists aren't climatologists, either. It's a shame that pointing out such basic facts seems to upset you

I will explain it slowly for you Troy.

It appears that in the bubble of global warming alarmist world, to say that a person is "right wing" or belonging to a political lobby group, or God forbid, to have money, or doing business with traditional industries or anything to do with nuclear or coal or oil, equates to be a pedophile white supremacist, crossed with a neo Nazi holocaust denier.

I find such innuendo rather offensive and respond with a bit of sarcasm.

After all it would be like saying that all supporters of global warming "we must do something" are vegetarian male single thin and neat.
Not that there is anything wrong with it.

As for those who lobby against the "lets do something" crowd for the sake of human kind and common decency, the fact that there are many people with other degrees rather than Climatology, makes me rather happy for them. I have studied Climatology and can tell you what you learn at Uni isn't worth much when it comes to debunk a political plot of this dimensions.
I think that the best qualified people for this job are not scientist but fraud and criminal investigators, auditors and lobby groups.

HOWEVER:
If you Troy or Alan object to the content of the post, the best thing is to expose the mistakes made but this oh so utterly unqualified person. After all if they are so evident you or Alan would have arguments galore.

There is no point in telling me that I look bad. My popular standing is totally irrelevant. Just think for a moment who wins with a cap and trade tax and who loses. Furthermore think what will such massive tax and massive bans achieve in terms of (lets assume it is true) global warming?
Answer many people will get rich. Many more will slide into poverty. Climate will not change.

"I'm not sure why you're so impressed with poll numbers" - Well, it gives me hope. BTW, the near entire body of "science" AGW is based upon is a poll (wherein a consensus of selected scientists who responded is that GW is A).
Troy, I play three to ten games of chess a day (three to fifteen minute games, in the winter) with a liberal. I don't hate him but it doesn't go without notice that he takes back moves, stops the clock to take calls while looking at the board, and "forgets" to pay his tab - you know, stuff a liberal would do.
"Us vs. them"? It IS getting a little serious and conservatives can't just let it ride like we have been. You notice that Tea Party thing? (It must be a strange sensation to see the people that have families, work, and pay taxes taking on the role of protester.) Politics and science have become almost inextricably entertwined. When I was growing up, a scientist was someone held in awe. Since the rise of "grant-in-hand" "consensus science", I have to make the distinction between "science" and "pure science". Too bad.

[Marco1]

Troy said:

I'm not sure why you're so impressed with poll numbers. They don't prove or disprove science or change physical reality, any more than petition drives do. No one ever scheduled a general election so the public could vote on what the speed of light was going to be, or whether it's possible to split an atom, or how many BTU's are in a cubic foot of what gas.

Very true, but despite your many efforts to tell us that Global Warming alarmism or skepticism is a scientific issue, I am afraid you are wrong for the nth time.

There are of course a number of issues better understood by scientist, however, it is clear that a number of fact have been distorted, exaggerated and plainly created in order to drum up "consensus". Public support is paramount not for the science but for the practical side of politics. The mandate to "do something" translated into power shift and money grab.

If AGW had to do with science there would be no popular debate about it and the issue would be relegated to science magazines. Just like you will never see a debate about the link between calcium for osteoporosis treatment and heart failure. It either is or it isn't, unless the politics of selling supplements comes into play. And then it is a matter for investigation by the fraud squad and not the medical research teams.

"...many people will get rich. Many more will slide into povery. Climate will not change."

[fasteddy106]

It's pretty funny that Troy defends ad hominem attacks, and then doesn't post any evidence of wrongdoing to back up his position, complains about those who don't see argument from authority as a valid criteria and then proceeds to imply I am not entitled to an opinion. Typical.

Here is as close to a debate as we are going to get from Quandrant Online, and the alarmists lose on points,facts, and style...........

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doo...andrew-glikson

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

winning an argument with the deniers is a lot like winning in the special Olympics. You might have made a few good points but none of them got it and your still just as retarded for bothering.

someone pointed out that no self respecting scientist would waste there time and I am compelled to agree

every argument has been answered countless times and the tactic of the deniers seems to be one bordering on cognitive dissonance, selective memory and mass conspiracy theories

fortunately the deniers camp is ever shrinking and eventually something positive is bound to happen
if nothing else the law of averages will prevail
only question is if the oceans ecosystems will survive until then

Awe u mekin funna wetawded pippl? Dat notzonice.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mark775

"I'm not sure why you're so impressed with poll numbers" - Well, it gives me hope. BTW, the near entire body of "science" AGW is based upon is a poll (wherein a consensus of selected scientists who responded is that GW is A).
Troy, I play three to ten games of chess a day (three to fifteen minute games, in the winter) with a liberal. I don't hate him but it doesn't go without notice that he takes back moves, stops the clock to take calls while looking at the board, and "forgets" to pay his tab - you know, stuff a liberal would do.
"Us vs. them"? It IS getting a little serious and conservatives can't just let it ride like we have been. You notice that Tea Party thing? (It must be a strange sensation to see the people that have families, work, and pay taxes taking on the role of protester.) Politics and science have become almost inextricably entertwined. When I was growing up, a scientist was someone held in awe. Since the rise of "grant-in-hand" "consensus science", I have to make the distinction between "science" and "pure science". Too bad.

Frankly, that's complete BS. I get called a liberal by people online like you all the time. I also play a decent game of chess, and I guarantee I don't "take back moves, stop the clock to take calls while looking at the board, or 'forget' to pay my tab."

How you can blame your chess weenie's political leanings for his behavior, then extend the blame to millions of people nationwide, is beyond me. As a matter of fact, I don't even understand why you play him, unless it's because hanging around him gives you some sort of smug superiority complex....

Yes, I've noticed the Tea Party thing. You're talking about the country's most visible group of suckers right now, being taken for a ride by everyone from Sarah Palin to ticket-selling convention organizers, from cynical politicians to sign vendors. Protest, middle-America consumerism style. I'm not impressed.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Frankly, that's complete BS. I get called a liberal by people online like you all the time. I also play a decent game of chess, and I guarantee I don't "take back moves, stop the clock to take calls while looking at the board, or forget to pay my tab."

How you can blame your chess weenie's political leanings for his behavior, then extend the blame to millions of people nationwide, is beyond me. As a matter of fact, I don't even understand why you play him, unless it's because hanging around him gives you some sort of smug superiority complex....

Yes, I've noticed the Tea Party thing. You're talking about the country's most visible group of suckers right now, being taken for a ride by everyone from Sarah Palin to ticket-selling convention organizers, from cynical politicians to sign vendors. Protest, middle-America consumerism style. I'm not impressed.

Can't blame the chess. Pawn to king's rook 7.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Troy said:


Very true, but despite your many efforts to tell us that Global Warming alarmism or skepticism is a scientific issue, I am afraid you are wrong for the nth time.

There are of course a number of issues better understood by scientist, however, it is clear that a number of fact have been distorted, exaggerated and plainly created in order to drum up "consensus". Public support is paramount not for the science but for the practical side of politics. The mandate to "do something" translated into power shift and money grab.

If AGW had to do with science there would be no popular debate about it and the issue would be relegated to science magazines. Just like you will never see a debate about the link between calcium for osteoporosis treatment and heart failure. It either is or it isn't, unless the politics of selling supplements comes into play. And then it is a matter for investigation by the fraud squad and not the medical research teams.

No, what you fail to understand is that there is no real debate, scientifically speaking. The so-called scientific debate over AGW is a spurious one -- mostly financed by corporations with a financial stake in the matter, abetted by a media that can't sell news programs or papers and magazines by saying, "and in today's news, AGW is still real. Yawn...." Reporters and news outlets always play up dissension, because it sells. Add the fact that some people are just naturally born contrary and/or paranoid, and bingo: phony debate.

But trying to give the same weight to the deniers as to the legitimate scientists actually working in the field is ridiculous.

[TollyWally]

Troy,
I hesitate to ask but regardless if they're being taken for a ride What do you think is the motivation of these middle America protesters. A smaller government constrained by the Constitution seems like a good thing to me.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Troy said:


Very true, but despite your many efforts to tell us that Global Warming alarmism or skepticism is a scientific issue, I am afraid you are wrong for the nth time.

No, I'm not wrong. AGW is a scientific issue. It's a scientific issue with many political, economic and social ramifications, but it's a scientific issue nonetheless.

There are of course a number of issues better understood by scientist, however, it is clear that a number of fact have been distorted, exaggerated and plainly created in order to drum up "consensus". Public support is paramount not for the science but for the practical side of politics. The mandate to "do something" translated into power shift and money grab.

Your paranoia is showing again. The fact that if true, AGW will have political and economic consequences that must be dealt with, hardly means that it was invented for the purpose of creating power and money.

If AGW had to do with science there would be no popular debate about it and the issue would be relegated to science magazines. Just like you will never see a debate about the link between calcium for osteoporosis treatment and heart failure. It either is or it isn't, unless the politics of selling supplements comes into play. And then it is a matter for investigation by the fraud squad and not the medical research teams.

That whole paragraph makes very little sense. Anything that may affect the entire world and everyone in it could hardly be "relegated to science magazines," even if scientists wanted to. That's like saying that if short-term weather forecasting were a real science, forecasters would be keeping scientific journals about the weather--instead of warning us to take an umbrella on Monday, or issuing small craft warnings and tornado watches.

Real science has real consequences, Marco. We're talking about something that may affect every country in the world, and you think the only people who should even be interested are a handful of scientists?

The possible link between calcium treatment for osteoporosis and heart failure is a pretty poor example of something that 'either is or isn't'. I did a quick google search, and came up with 445,000 hits.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

No, what you fail to understand is that there is no real debate, scientifically speaking.

Professor Phil Jones said:

"The debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, is far from settled."

I keep hoping that one day the you will grasp the full significance of this point, and you will understand that without this basic premise being true, the premise that 20th century climate was somehow anomalous, then the null hypothesis is natural variation. In that case the debate really is over; AGW is falsified. That was the state of the science of paleoclimatology before "the Team" came along. The Team's works now have been thoroughly, irrevocable debunked, about 6 years ago. I keep hoping that one day you will grasp the full significance of that point as well.

Still hoping...

Jimbo

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Can't blame the chess. Pawn to king's rook 3.

1. ... e5 (pawn to king 4)

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Professor Phil Jones said:

"The debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, is far from settled."

I keep hoping that one day the you will grasp the full significance of this point, and you will understand that without this basic premise being true, the premise that 20th century climate was somehow anomalous, then the null hypothesis is natural variation. In that case the debate really is over; AGW is falsified. That was the state of the science of paleoclimatology before "the Team" came along. The Team's works now have been thoroughly, irrevocable debunked, about 6 years ago. I keep hoping that one day you will grasp the full significance of that point as well.

Still hoping...

Jimbo

I keep hoping that some day you will get over it. The idea that AGW was invented and promulgated by "the Team," and that they somehow crammed it down the entire scientific world's throat in spite of voluminous evidence to the contrary, is ludicrous on the face of it.

[tugboat]

global warming is real--ive seen the effects...to me its logical- you 1. cannot detonate 100's of nukes into atmosphere and expect nothing to happen
2. you cannot burn up trillions of tons of fuels and think that the atmosphere will remain constant. two years ago an un precedented thing happened here--there was a t-storm in dead winter...ive never seen anything like that...it now rains in here in january when it should be minus 20 celsius, there have been 7 out of ten green christmas's in the last ten years..i can go on--
and thats just personal experience...not once as a child did i ever see a green c-mas. please dont insult my intelligence and say there is no global warmiong regardless of what the cause...even though it is almost certain its man made...

(laughing) Troy2000- hmm opening with the
Ruey Lopez! best defense is horse attacks pawn.