Well, don't we speak more correctly when we say climate change...and I don't mean suggest the stat from Fairbanks is necessarily included in that concept.
Well, the proper term we should be using to refer to current events is anthropogenic climate change, to separate it from the general climate change that, as you say, is constantly and continually happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danja
I honestly can't tell if this post is being sarcastic or not.
One of the biggest farces ever IMO. The poster child, green Al Gore, hates oil but loves oil money. What a joke.
How can your position be "IMO"? It's based on scientific evidence. Opinion is irrelevant.
And Al Gore may be a public poster child, but he and what he says is of no relevance to whether it's true or not. Using Al Gore in an argument about ACC is nothing but a strawman.
How can your position be "IMO"? It's based on scientific evidence. Opinion is irrelevant.
And Al Gore may be a public poster child, but he and what he says is of no relevance to whether it's true or not. Using Al Gore in an argument about ACC is nothing but a strawman.
Scientific evidence that you have cherry-picked to fit your opinion and/or agenda. There is a lot of evidence out there. Believe what you choose, but don't ram it down other's throats as being true fact. Gore is a hypocrite as are many jumping on that wagon.
Scientific evidence that you have cherry-picked to fit your opinion and/or agenda. There is a lot of evidence out there. Believe what you choose, but don't ram it down other's throats as being true fact. Gore is a hypocrite as are many jumping on that wagon.
What am I cherry picking?
The scientific consensus is as strong as that of evolution. The evidence is almost universally supportive of the view that the current warming we're seeing, which is completely unheard of in the conditions of the world today, is caused by increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere, and the increasing CO2 content is almost universally accepted as being caused mainly from us burning coal and other fossil fuels.
That said, the fact that you continually use the name Al Gore as if he somehow means something to the viability, scientifically speaking, of the theory of anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) suggests that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, or even how science works, anyway.
If you want to attack ACC, attack people like Gavin Schmidt and Richard Alley, not stawmen like Al Gore.
Last edited by Leafsdude7: 02-11-2013 at 08:20 AM.
The scientific consensus is as strong as that of evolution. The evidence is almost universally supportive of the view that the current warming we're seeing, which is completely unheard of in the conditions of the world today, is caused by increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere, and the increasing CO2 content is almost universally accepted as being caused mainly from us burning coal and other fossil fuels.
That said, the fact that you continually use the name Al Gore as if he somehow means something to the viability, scientifically speaking, of the theory of anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) suggests that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, or even how science works, anyway.
If you want to attack ACC, attack people like Gavin Schmidt and Richard Alley, not stawmen like Al Gore.
This issue has been played out on other forums I have been on and there will never be a "consensus". Your mind is made up as is mine. Fair enough. I have no desire to go through it all again here due to the fact that it will go back and forth, and in the end we will be right back where we started. It is typical however that you would suggest that I know nothing about the issue knowing squat about me. I simply stated a short opinion. Whether or not you think it so, the general public do listen to people like Gore and what the leftist MSM tosses out there without researching deeper. I guess I shouldn't have even posted in the first place because I'm not getting into a useless debate that there is no conclusion to again. Think what you choose.
This issue has been played out on other forums I have been on and there will never be a "consensus".
Do you understand what a consensus is?
97% of scientists support ACC. No accredited scientific group rejects ACC. These two facts, and they are facts, mean, by definition, there is a scientific consensus. So, unsurprisingly, you are wholly wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocky7
Your mind is made up as is mine.
My mind is not "made up". My position, as with any scientific theory, is that the theory, as evidence stands right now, is more likely to be accurate than not. If evidence appears in the future that states a different likelihood of a cause or reason, then I will change my position accordingly. It'll take scientific evidence and reasoning, however, not some appeals to false prophets like Al Gore, to make me change my position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocky7
Fair enough. I have no desire to go through it all again here due to the fact that it will go back and forth, and in the end we will be right back where we started.
That happens on this board on every topic. Why would you decide not to do so on this one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocky7
It is typical however that you would suggest that I know nothing about the issue knowing squat about me.
I know you think Al Gore is some sort of magic authority on the view of Anthropomorphic Climate Change. That alone makes me believe you cannot know anything about the real issue of ACC. If you did, you would bring up the names I did, or names like Svensmark or Douglass to defend your position. I guarantee you that, had you done that instead of pulling out Al Gore, I'd have respected your opinion and not stated that you knew nothing about the issue (and, in fact, it would have demonstrated that you knew quite a good deal).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocky7
I simply stated a short opinion. Whether or not you think it so, the general public do listen to people like Gore and what the leftist MSM tosses out there without researching deeper. I guess I shouldn't have even posted in the first place because I'm not getting into a useless debate that there is no conclusion to again. Think what you choose.
Considering you view your position to be unchangeable, it's not surprising. I'm willing to listen to actual arguments against consensuses in science, including climate change, but they have to be based on scientific reasoning, not on talking points and strawmen arguments like pointing to Al Gore as an authority.
Again, the issue I have with your "short opinion" is it's absolute lack of scientific merit and its absolute disregard for what the actual debate should be on: the scientific viewpoint.
The "leftist MSM", which includes Al Gore, is about as bad at reporting actual ACC discoveries as the right wing fundie thinktanks like Alex Jones, the Daily Mail and all of FOX News.
Lastly, I hope that when you say "researching deeper", you're talking about going to the actual scientific journals about climatology and other relevant information. Otherwise, you're not scientifically literate enough to be taken seriously.
97% of scientists support ACC. No accredited scientific group rejects ACC. These two facts, and they are facts, mean, by definition, there is a scientific consensus. So, unsurprisingly, you are wholly wrong.
My mind is not "made up". My position, as with any scientific theory, is that the theory, as evidence stands right now, is more likely to be accurate than not. If evidence appears in the future that states a different likelihood of a cause or reason, then I will change my position accordingly. It'll take scientific evidence and reasoning, however, not some appeals to false prophets like Al Gore, to make me change my position.
That happens on this board on every topic. Why would you decide not to do so on this one?
I know you think Al Gore is some sort of magic authority on the view of Anthropomorphic Climate Change. That alone makes me believe you cannot know anything about the real issue of ACC. If you did, you would bring up the names I did, or names like Svensmark or Douglass to defend your position. I guarantee you that, had you done that instead of pulling out Al Gore, I'd have respected your opinion and not stated that you knew nothing about the issue (and, in fact, it would have demonstrated that you knew quite a good deal).
Considering you view your position to be unchangeable, it's not surprising. I'm willing to listen to actual arguments against consensuses in science, including climate change, but they have to be based on scientific reasoning, not on talking points and strawmen arguments like pointing to Al Gore as an authority.
Again, the issue I have with your "short opinion" is it's absolute lack of scientific merit and its absolute disregard for what the actual debate should be on: the scientific viewpoint.
The "leftist MSM", which includes Al Gore, is about as bad at reporting actual ACC discoveries as the right wing fundie thinktanks like Alex Jones, the Daily Mail and all of FOX News.
Lastly, I hope that when you say "researching deeper", you're talking about going to the actual scientific journals about climatology and other relevant information. Otherwise, you're not scientifically literate enough to be taken seriously.
After testing the waters, it's clear that you and I would never be close to being on the same page in any discussion or debate. Hope your rant made you feel better. I gave up trying to have coherent debates with statists a long time ago. Resort to attacks and name calling now.
After testing the waters, it's clear that you and I would never be close to being on the same page in any discussion or debate.
Why not? Are you willing to debate based on scientific literature? If so, then I fail to see what you base this conclusion on.
If not, then you are absolutely right. The issue would then be that you deny climate change because you don't accept the scientific process, not because of any actual evidence and/or reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocky7
Hope your rant made you feel better. I gave up trying to have coherent debates with statists a long time ago. Resort to attacks and name calling now.
What statistics are you referring to?
In the end, it's impossible to have a coherent debate with you because you're providing no relevant information. You made a post that only mentioned Al Gore and then some obscure obfuscated claims with nothing to support them.
PS. I hope none of this is resorting to attacks and name calling.
Why not? Are you willing to debate based on scientific literature? If so, then I fail to see what you base this conclusion on.
If not, then you are absolutely right. The issue would then be that you deny climate change because you don't accept the scientific process, not because of any actual evidence and/or reasoning.
What statistics are you referring to?
In the end, it's impossible to have a coherent debate with you because you're providing no relevant information. You made a post that only mentioned Al Gore and then some obscure obfuscated claims with nothing to support them.
PS. I hope none of this is resorting to attacks and name calling.
Statist. Look it up. Not statistics! Tho. we disagree on this topic, you sound like a smart fellow. I'm sure you will figure it out. Take care.
Last edited by rocky7: 02-11-2013 at 03:29 PM.
Reason: adding sentence
Statist. Look it up. Not statistics! Tho. we disagree on this topic, you sound like a smart fellow. I'm sure you will figure it out. Take care.
So you're an anarchist?
In the end, that still has nothing to do with the accuracy of ACC. This is the science board, not the political board. If you want to talk about the politics of ACC, go there. We got many threads there about it already.
In the end, that still has nothing to do with the accuracy of ACC. This is the scientific board, not the political board. If you want to talk about the politics of ACC, go there. We got many threads there about it already.
See. Do you really want to do this? I don't. And thanks for the tip on the politics board. I'll find it.
I'm willing to discuss the scientific accuracy of ACC. I'm not interested in discussing the politics of ACC here, as that would be off-topic.
AFAIC, you've shown no inclination to talk about ACC in scientific terms in this thread, and IMO you appear lack the knowledge or ability to do properly, again based on the name you've dropped in your posts as the authority on ACC.
If you are against the governmental support of ACC legislation because you think the government shouldn't be involved in anything, then I respect that position even if I disagree. If it's because you think ACC is false, though, then I cannot respect that position.
