• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Global Warming Deniers

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It?s odd when the media (did you watch CNN last night?) blame the California fires on Global Warming when:

1: They blame Global Warming for worse hurricanes, thus having proven it raises the sea temperature.

2: The fires are made worse by historic record shattering drought.

3: The drought is made through a WELL known weather pattern called La Nina, which is COOLER than average water temperatures.

So much for consistency eh?

Maybe you should study what the scientists have said about this?

This is cut and paste from Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Chapter 14. North America


Box 14.1. Accelerating wildfire and ecosystem disturbance dynamics
"Since 1980, an average of 22,000 km2/yr has burned in U.S. wildfires, almost twice the 1920 to 1980 average of 13,000 km2/yr (Schoennagel et al., 2004). The forested area burned in the western U.S. from 1987 to 2003 is 6.7 times the area burned from 1970 to 1986 (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, burned area has exceeded 60,000 km2/yr three times since 1990, twice the long-term average (Stocks et al., 2002). Wildfire-burned area in the North American boreal region increased from 6,500 km2/yr in the 1960s to 29,700 km2/yr in the 1990s (Kasischke and Turetsky, 2006). Human vulnerability to wildfires has also increased, with a rising population in the wildland-urban interface.

A warming climate encourages wildfires through a longer summer period that dries fuels, promoting easier ignition and faster spread (Running, 2006). Westerling et al. (2006) found that in the last three decades the wildfire season in the western U.S. has increased by 78 days, and burn durations of fires >1000 ha in area have increased from 7.5 to 37.1 days, in response to a springsummer warming of 0.87°C. Earlier spring snowmelt has led to longer growing seasons and drought, especially at higher elevations, where the increase in wildfire activity has been greatest (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, warmer May to August temperatures of 0.8°C since 1970 are highly correlated with area burned (Figure 14.1c) (Gillett et al., 2004). In the south-western U.S., fire activity is correlated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) positive phases (Kitzberger et al., 2001; McKenzie et al., 2004), and higher Palmer Drought Severity Indices."




 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the Hurricane prediction. Supposedly after 2005 we were going to see endless Katrina's. Last year didnt even see a single storm hit us. This year have we had anything more serious than a Cat 2 make landfall on our soil?

We are coming up on the last month of the season and so far it has been really quiet for the past two seasons after all of those global warming fanatics predicted doom and gloom for us.

And a check with NOAA shows "There are no tropical cyclones at this time."

You love it because you think it's an argument against man-made global warming. It's not, because while the "fanatics" were trumpeting doom and gloom, the reasonable folks who support the theory were not. Nice try.
Actually it is, indirectly. The point to take home and memorize is that the science behind this, like behind many things, is pretty damn vague and contradictory. Climatologists are constantly fugging up their predictions and their models are constantly wrong. There is simply no consistent, proven trend in any of this stuff--at least not quantifably. We know that the world is probably warming overall but beyond that we don't know to what degree, we don't know how much it is sped up/slowed down by man, and we also don't have the faintest clue whether it will even be a net positive or negative.

I remain incredulous at the people who buy this all hook line and sinker and it's being promoted by the same scientific method and study that doesn't yet know what the weather will be seven days from now with any kind of reliable accuracy.

Well I have a condescending lesson about science that maybe you should pay attention to...the fact that scientific results aren't perfect doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and declare it impossible to tell what's going on. Your silly 7-day forecast argument aside, much of climatology fits pretty well into prediction models within a margin of accuracy. Now that margin may seem unreasonably big to some people, but it's accurate enough to be able to tell quite a bit. Perfect trends are very rare in science, but it's close enough that dismissing it out of hand is foolish.

Your analogy makes it pretty clear you don't understand the issues, because they are NOT "the same scientific method and study". But even if they were, weather prediction has a pretty impressive accuracy, even if it isn't always exact. But a lot of times science doesn't have to be...the 7 day forecast may be off by a couple of degrees or wrong about exactly how long or how hard a rainstorm will be...but if the weatherman says it will be 80 degrees, I'm not going out in a parka.

You "remain incredulous" because you seem to be making the same mistake most non-science types make when discussing scientific theories. You focus on deviations (which is human nature) and individual points instead of overall trends. In this particular discussion, the fact that THIS hurricane season wasn't so bad is taken as "proof" that predictions about worse hurricane seasons must be off base. But any trend is going to have outliers, and a prediction that the globe will gradually warm up is not the same as a prediction that every second will be warmer than the second before it.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the Hurricane prediction. Supposedly after 2005 we were going to see endless Katrina's. Last year didnt even see a single storm hit us. This year have we had anything more serious than a Cat 2 make landfall on our soil?

We are coming up on the last month of the season and so far it has been really quiet for the past two seasons after all of those global warming fanatics predicted doom and gloom for us.

And a check with NOAA shows "There are no tropical cyclones at this time."

You love it because you think it's an argument against man-made global warming. It's not, because while the "fanatics" were trumpeting doom and gloom, the reasonable folks who support the theory were not. Nice try.

No it is an argument against broad sweeping predictions when we as a species obviously lack the technology and knowledge to. It also throws it back into the doom and gloomers face as another one of their revelations failed to come true.

 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well I have a condescending lesson about science that maybe you should pay attention to...the fact that scientific results aren't perfect doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and declare it impossible to tell what's going on. Your silly 7-day forecast argument aside, much of climatology fits pretty well into prediction models within a margin of accuracy. Now that margin may seem unreasonably big to some people, but it's accurate enough to be able to tell quite a bit. Perfect trends are very rare in science, but it's close enough that dismissing it out of hand is foolish.

It means that we need to take scientific results for what they, which is maybe something, maybe nothing. Science by its nature requires confirmation and consistency, otherwise it's not science, it's not repeatable or proveable or scientifically meaningful. These climate models and predictions do indeed fit into a margin of accuracy, a very big one. Bigger even than the ozone hole. It is accurate enough to tell quite a bit, but not tell quite a bit, too.

Your analogy makes it pretty clear you don't understand the issues, because they are NOT "the same scientific method and study". But even if they were, weather prediction has a pretty impressive accuracy, even if it isn't always exact. But a lot of times science doesn't have to be...the 7 day forecast may be off by a couple of degrees or wrong about exactly how long or how hard a rainstorm will be...but if the weatherman says it will be 80 degrees, I'm not going out in a parka.

My analogy is quite meaningful. If the weather man doesn't know with a high level of accuracy what the weather will be like in 7 days, how can I possibly take his inaccuracy on a small scale and pretend that his accuracy will do anything but be even more glaringly off on a large scale?

You "remain incredulous" because you seem to be making the same mistake most non-science types make when discussing scientific theories. You focus on deviations (which is human nature) and individual points instead of overall trends. In this particular discussion, the fact that THIS hurricane season wasn't so bad is taken as "proof" that predictions about worse hurricane seasons must be off base. But any trend is going to have outliers, and a prediction that the globe will gradually warm up is not the same as a prediction that every second will be warmer than the second before it.

No, this hurricane season does not indicate that GW is not happening or even that it can't influence things. All I do with any examples is undermine the credibility of what people are promoting, as if it's unassailable. I like to remind them that what they put their faith into what may be a house of cards. Since A) We were told that the hurricane season would be bad and B) it wasn't, we need to C) have caution believing the rest of the story. It doesn't mean it's all wrong, but probably some of it is. When a theory has holes poked in it, it needs to be revised.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the Hurricane prediction. Supposedly after 2005 we were going to see endless Katrina's. Last year didnt even see a single storm hit us. This year have we had anything more serious than a Cat 2 make landfall on our soil?

We are coming up on the last month of the season and so far it has been really quiet for the past two seasons after all of those global warming fanatics predicted doom and gloom for us.

And a check with NOAA shows "There are no tropical cyclones at this time."

You love it because you think it's an argument against man-made global warming. It's not, because while the "fanatics" were trumpeting doom and gloom, the reasonable folks who support the theory were not. Nice try.

No it is an argument against broad sweeping predictions when we as a species obviously lack the technology and knowledge to. It also throws it back into the doom and gloomers face as another one of their revelations failed to come true.
If I had said that, it woudl have saved me a lot of writing.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the Hurricane prediction. Supposedly after 2005 we were going to see endless Katrina's. Last year didnt even see a single storm hit us. This year have we had anything more serious than a Cat 2 make landfall on our soil?

We are coming up on the last month of the season and so far it has been really quiet for the past two seasons after all of those global warming fanatics predicted doom and gloom for us.

And a check with NOAA shows "There are no tropical cyclones at this time."

You love it because you think it's an argument against man-made global warming. It's not, because while the "fanatics" were trumpeting doom and gloom, the reasonable folks who support the theory were not. Nice try.

No it is an argument against broad sweeping predictions when we as a species obviously lack the technology and knowledge to. It also throws it back into the doom and gloomers face as another one of their revelations failed to come true.

Bullshit. Arguing that we're just not ready to say for sure and we need to do more work is one thing, but I have NEVER heard that argument from you...and your extreme reaction to anyone who even remotely supports the idea of man-made global warming says you aren't just looking for good science.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the Hurricane prediction. Supposedly after 2005 we were going to see endless Katrina's. Last year didnt even see a single storm hit us. This year have we had anything more serious than a Cat 2 make landfall on our soil?

We are coming up on the last month of the season and so far it has been really quiet for the past two seasons after all of those global warming fanatics predicted doom and gloom for us.

And a check with NOAA shows "There are no tropical cyclones at this time."

You love it because you think it's an argument against man-made global warming. It's not, because while the "fanatics" were trumpeting doom and gloom, the reasonable folks who support the theory were not. Nice try.

No it is an argument against broad sweeping predictions when we as a species obviously lack the technology and knowledge to. It also throws it back into the doom and gloomers face as another one of their revelations failed to come true.

Bullshit. Arguing that we're just not ready to say for sure and we need to do more work is one thing, but I have NEVER heard that argument from you...and your extreme reaction to anyone who even remotely supports the idea of man-made global warming says you aren't just looking for good science.

You havent been reading what I am writing apparently. Take the blinders off.

 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well I have a condescending lesson about science that maybe you should pay attention to...the fact that scientific results aren't perfect doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and declare it impossible to tell what's going on. Your silly 7-day forecast argument aside, much of climatology fits pretty well into prediction models within a margin of accuracy. Now that margin may seem unreasonably big to some people, but it's accurate enough to be able to tell quite a bit. Perfect trends are very rare in science, but it's close enough that dismissing it out of hand is foolish.

It means that we need to take scientific results for what they, which is maybe something, maybe nothing. Science by its nature requires confirmation and consistency, otherwise it's not science, it's not repeatable or proveable or scientifically meaningful. These climate models and predictions do indeed fit into a margin of accuracy, a very big one. Bigger even than the ozone hole. It is accurate enough to tell quite a bit, but not tell quite a bit, too.

Your analogy makes it pretty clear you don't understand the issues, because they are NOT "the same scientific method and study". But even if they were, weather prediction has a pretty impressive accuracy, even if it isn't always exact. But a lot of times science doesn't have to be...the 7 day forecast may be off by a couple of degrees or wrong about exactly how long or how hard a rainstorm will be...but if the weatherman says it will be 80 degrees, I'm not going out in a parka.

My analogy is quite meaningful. If the weather man doesn't know with a high level of accuracy what the weather will be like in 7 days, how can I possibly take his inaccuracy on a small scale and pretend that his accuracy will do anything but be even more glaringly off on a large scale?

You "remain incredulous" because you seem to be making the same mistake most non-science types make when discussing scientific theories. You focus on deviations (which is human nature) and individual points instead of overall trends. In this particular discussion, the fact that THIS hurricane season wasn't so bad is taken as "proof" that predictions about worse hurricane seasons must be off base. But any trend is going to have outliers, and a prediction that the globe will gradually warm up is not the same as a prediction that every second will be warmer than the second before it.

No, this hurricane season does not indicate that GW is not happening or even that it can't influence things. All I do with any examples is undermine the credibility of what people are promoting, as if it's unassailable. I like to remind them that what they put their faith into what may be a house of cards. Since A) We were told that the hurricane season would be bad and B) it wasn't, we need to C) have caution believing the rest of the story. It doesn't mean it's all wrong, but probably some of it is. When a theory has holes poked in it, it needs to be revised.

THAT is the problem with your argument. What you're essentially saying is that the people who think global warming is 100% certain and accurate are wrong, therefore man-made global warming can safely be completely dismissed as a delusion of wide-eyed fanatics. Except there is a huge gulf between those two ideas. Don't get me wrong, I think absolute certainty is silly and unscientific. But you're suggesting that the only clear alternative is to reject the ideas completely. I think the more obvious alternative is to say that nothing is for sure, but the science looks pretty solid at the moment. We need to improve it, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay any attention to what it's saying now.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the Hurricane prediction. Supposedly after 2005 we were going to see endless Katrina's. Last year didnt even see a single storm hit us. This year have we had anything more serious than a Cat 2 make landfall on our soil?

We are coming up on the last month of the season and so far it has been really quiet for the past two seasons after all of those global warming fanatics predicted doom and gloom for us.

And a check with NOAA shows "There are no tropical cyclones at this time."

You love it because you think it's an argument against man-made global warming. It's not, because while the "fanatics" were trumpeting doom and gloom, the reasonable folks who support the theory were not. Nice try.

No it is an argument against broad sweeping predictions when we as a species obviously lack the technology and knowledge to. It also throws it back into the doom and gloomers face as another one of their revelations failed to come true.

Bullshit. Arguing that we're just not ready to say for sure and we need to do more work is one thing, but I have NEVER heard that argument from you...and your extreme reaction to anyone who even remotely supports the idea of man-made global warming says you aren't just looking for good science.

You havent been reading what I am writing apparently. Take the blinders off.

Sure I have. And what is see is virtually every post referring to "fanatics" as if they are the only voice out there.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
No, this hurricane season does not indicate that GW is not happening or even that it can't influence things. All I do with any examples is undermine the credibility of what people are promoting, as if it's unassailable. I like to remind them that what they put their faith into what may be a house of cards. Since A) We were told that the hurricane season would be bad and B) it wasn't, we need to C) have caution believing the rest of the story. It doesn't mean it's all wrong, but probably some of it is. When a theory has holes poked in it, it needs to be revised.

This hurricane season has yet to be summed up, but as far as I know there have been several Cat 5. hurricanes in the atlantic this season. I don't have the exact number of mayor huricanes, but in the period 1970-1994 the average was only 1.5 mayor hurricanes /season. From 1994-2005 had an average of 4 mayor hurricanes / season.

However, the scientific community, contrary to popular belief, has not made any absolute predictions about hurricane frequency and strength. Heres some from the latest ipcc report:

"Changes in tropical storm and hurricane frequency and intensity are masked by large natural variability. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation greatly affects the location and activity of tropical storms around the world. Globally, estimates of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes show a substantial upward trend since the mid-1970s, with a trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity, and the activity is strongly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature. These relationships have been reinforced by findings of a large increase in numbers and proportion of strong hurricanes globally since 1970 even as total numbers of cyclones and cyclone days decreased slightly in most basins. Specifically, the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes increased by about 75% since 1970. The largest increases were in the North Pacific, Indian and Southwest Pacific Oceans. However, numbers of hurricanes in the North Atlantic have also been above normal in 9 of the last 11 years, culminating in the record-breaking 2005 season."

from Frequently Asked Questions - Ipcc report 1 2007

Edit: According to wikipedia there has been 2 mayor hurricanes this season in the atlantic, bothe beeing Cat 5.:

"When Hurricane Felix reached category 5 status, 2007 became one of four recorded Atlantic seasons that have had more than one category 5 storm; the others being 1960, 1961 and 2005, and the only time two Atlantic hurricanes have ever made landfall at Category 5 strength in the same season."
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
THAT is the problem with your argument. What you're essentially saying is that the people who think global warming is 100% certain and accurate are wrong

Yes, I am!

therefore man-made global warming can safely be completely dismissed as a delusion of wide-eyed fanatics.

Sorry if I gave that impression, I don't! I like to play devil's advocate and my points about the fact we don't know much about this I still hold near and dear.

I think the more obvious alternative is to say that nothing is for sure, but the science looks pretty solid at the moment.

It's solid that something is going on and by God it was definitely caused by something, too 😉
 
However, the scientific community, contrary to popular belief, has not made any absolute predictions about hurricane frequency and strength.

Fug it, it could just be that I'm wrongly interpreting the blow hards in the media as representative of the greater scientific community, but they do often take quotes from guys who're making wild, crazy predictions based on nothing, like a penguin died somewhere so clearly he died from GW and we're all going to be drowning 6 months from now.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the Hurricane prediction. Supposedly after 2005 we were going to see endless Katrina's. Last year didnt even see a single storm hit us. This year have we had anything more serious than a Cat 2 make landfall on our soil?

We are coming up on the last month of the season and so far it has been really quiet for the past two seasons after all of those global warming fanatics predicted doom and gloom for us.

And a check with NOAA shows "There are no tropical cyclones at this time."

You love it because you think it's an argument against man-made global warming. It's not, because while the "fanatics" were trumpeting doom and gloom, the reasonable folks who support the theory were not. Nice try.

No it is an argument against broad sweeping predictions when we as a species obviously lack the technology and knowledge to. It also throws it back into the doom and gloomers face as another one of their revelations failed to come true.

Bullshit. Arguing that we're just not ready to say for sure and we need to do more work is one thing, but I have NEVER heard that argument from you...and your extreme reaction to anyone who even remotely supports the idea of man-made global warming says you aren't just looking for good science.

You havent been reading what I am writing apparently. Take the blinders off.

Sure I have. And what is see is virtually every post referring to "fanatics" as if they are the only voice out there.

In this thread or all threads? Can you really blame me in this thread which started with this line from the OP "wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant? "

The OP started a troll thread, you cant expect it to get much higher.

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Sure I have. And what is see is virtually every post referring to "fanatics" as if they are the only voice out there.

In this thread or all threads? Can you really blame me in this thread which started with this line from the OP "wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant? "

The OP started a troll thread, you cant expect it to get much higher.

Fair enough, this thread didn't start with the best of content.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Rainsford
THAT is the problem with your argument. What you're essentially saying is that the people who think global warming is 100% certain and accurate are wrong

Yes, I am!

therefore man-made global warming can safely be completely dismissed as a delusion of wide-eyed fanatics.

Sorry if I gave that impression, I don't! I like to play devil's advocate and my points about the fact we don't know much about this I still hold near and dear.

I think the more obvious alternative is to say that nothing is for sure, but the science looks pretty solid at the moment.

It's solid that something is going on and by God it was definitely caused by something, too 😉

I think it's a little more solid than THAT 😀

But even if you're right, I still would argue against the approach taken by a lot of folks arguing against man-made global warming. Perhaps you aren't making this argument, but the message from most of them seems to be that uncertainty now means complete uncertainty forever, and we should just execute all scientists and not even bother worrying about any potential problems. Some of those supporting the theory may be fanatical, but so are a lot of those who oppose it. Given the "we don't know enough" argument, neither seems very persuasive.
 
Originally posted by: CyberDuck
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It?s odd when the media (did you watch CNN last night?) blame the California fires on Global Warming when:

1: They blame Global Warming for worse hurricanes, thus having proven it raises the sea temperature.

2: The fires are made worse by historic record shattering drought.

3: The drought is made through a WELL known weather pattern called La Nina, which is COOLER than average water temperatures.

So much for consistency eh?

Maybe you should study what the scientists have said about this?

This is cut and paste from Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Chapter 14. North America

Is that supposed to refute the effects drought, La Nina, and cooler ocean temperatures in the eastern pacific? It does not.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: teclis1023
When has that stopped people before?

Didn't you know that the Jews are behind 9/11?

i just find it ironic, because they're typically the ones who are quick to call people conspiracy theorists if they disagree with the official story on something.

i was just wondering if the global warming deniers are liking their tin foil hats.

Yes, because looking at it rationally there are no other explanations for the temp. variation. Man made events cause 100% of the changes involved in the Co2 levels, temp differences, and global weather pattern changes.

If "deniers" are conspiracy theorists, or "stupid" for not believing that, then does that make you an ego-centric moronic lemming?

Stick to economics and finance. Have you ever had a *single* science course? Its claims like yours that just scream "i know nothing about science" to me.


Yes, I had several. Instead of attacking me, then dispute it.

People sit around thinking that GW was caused by man or that we somehow have some massive affect. We cannot definitively say that we are having that much of an effect, we simply try to tie two things together. Sure, you can sit around claiming we know, but in truth, we don't.

There are so many variables in this universe, many of them have had documented effects.

I'm not saying that MMGW isn't the truth, I just want more facts. I take the same tact with most other things in life.

Simply put, the fact that you think science can provide 100% causal relationships means you know nothing about science. There is no such thing, but you seem to think that there is. Worse yet, you seem to think that someone of scientific credence has made such claims. Maybe this is covered in "advanced" science classes (i cant remember when i learned it), but nothing is 100% in science. You want facts and they are there--mountains of them! Mountains across various disciplines. You *choose* to ignore them and you *choose* to be scientifically illiterate. Given these facts, its best for your opinion to be muted. That is the reason i, and others, challenge scientific knowledge here.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: homercles337
Im really dumbfounded at the (nearly?) complete lack of scientific knowledge of the deniers. Not knowledge of the climate, but just basic, pedestrian, everyday knowledge of how science works. It is really a sad thing that something scientific has been politicized and thus allowed the average idiot the "right" to interject opinion. "Lack of conclusions" and "the science is still out" are nothing more than duhversions. Those two statements have nothing to do with science. Not a god damn thing. The MMGW support == religion is even more idiotic and shows a complete lack of scientific understanding.

When you start predicting doom and gloom and pro-actively try to shout people down or convert them. Science has been tossed for faith. Really the MMGW fanatics have only themselves to blame for the label.

No, its a totally nonsensical comparison conjured up by the deniers. "Faith" has nothing to do with this argument (save for the fact that your ilk likes to belittle others with it). Follow the evidence is all one needs to do. Claiming that there is "lack of conclusions" or that "the science is still out" or that "one 'scientist' X argues against the evidence" shows a complete lack of basic scientific knowledge. That is not how science works. If only 100% certainty, a conclusion, is going to convince the deniers then you guys have no clue how science works, or why we try to convince you that we know better than you. We understand science. You have made it *very* clear that you do not.

You have to be a pretty blinded to not see the similarities between religion and the MMGW crowd.

You have made a claim, now the onus probandi is on you. I know youre just going to hum and haw, but thats your style.
 
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: homercles337
Im really dumbfounded at the (nearly?) complete lack of scientific knowledge of the deniers. Not knowledge of the climate, but just basic, pedestrian, everyday knowledge of how science works. It is really a sad thing that something scientific has been politicized and thus allowed the average idiot the "right" to interject opinion. "Lack of conclusions" and "the science is still out" are nothing more than duhversions. Those two statements have nothing to do with science. Not a god damn thing. The MMGW support == religion is even more idiotic and shows a complete lack of scientific understanding.

When you start predicting doom and gloom and pro-actively try to shout people down or convert them. Science has been tossed for faith. Really the MMGW fanatics have only themselves to blame for the label.

No, its a totally nonsensical comparison conjured up by the deniers. "Faith" has nothing to do with this argument (save for the fact that your ilk likes to belittle others with it). Follow the evidence is all one needs to do. Claiming that there is "lack of conclusions" or that "the science is still out" or that "one 'scientist' X argues against the evidence" shows a complete lack of basic scientific knowledge. That is not how science works. If only 100% certainty, a conclusion, is going to convince the deniers then you guys have no clue how science works, or why we try to convince you that we know better than you. We understand science. You have made it *very* clear that you do not.

You have to be a pretty blinded to not see the similarities between religion and the MMGW crowd.

You have made a claim, now the onus probandi is on you. I know youre just going to hum and haw, but thats your style.

If you just read this thread, or any other MMGW thread for that matter, and you will easily see the way that most people attack anyone that does not subscribe to the MMGW theory.

 
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: K1052
Often the distinction isn't made between people who deny global warming is happening and those who question the event being heavily tied to human activity.

It looks like from the available evidence that the earth is indeed warming somewhat. If this is a natural cycle, a man made one, or some combination thereof isn't nearly as clear. We still have relatively little understanding of the Earth's climate processes and even less data to back up our theories. Due to media attention and a good sales pitch a cult (for lack of a better term) has sprung up around the totally man made warming camp despite the deficiencies in our knowledge of our planet's climatology and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it gets branded a denier.


Why are some of the best replies never quoted in here? This post sums it up. There is a lack evidence on both sides to produce a concrete conclusion. Hence, all the controversy.

Negative.

Then prove it. I took a meteorology course in college 4 years ago where this subject was brought up and this is what my professor of over 20 years told the class. Sorry, but I am inclined to believe the guy who has dedicated his life to studying this subject rather than any AT scientists. There is evidence out there that supports many theories, but no proof.

You choose to "believe" what one Professor told you 4 years ago, I choose to accept the conclusions of an army of scientists dedicated to the issue. I'll stick to the Consensus.
 
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: homercles337
Im really dumbfounded at the (nearly?) complete lack of scientific knowledge of the deniers. Not knowledge of the climate, but just basic, pedestrian, everyday knowledge of how science works. It is really a sad thing that something scientific has been politicized and thus allowed the average idiot the "right" to interject opinion. "Lack of conclusions" and "the science is still out" are nothing more than duhversions. Those two statements have nothing to do with science. Not a god damn thing. The MMGW support == religion is even more idiotic and shows a complete lack of scientific understanding.

When you start predicting doom and gloom and pro-actively try to shout people down or convert them. Science has been tossed for faith. Really the MMGW fanatics have only themselves to blame for the label.

No, its a totally nonsensical comparison conjured up by the deniers. "Faith" has nothing to do with this argument (save for the fact that your ilk likes to belittle others with it). Follow the evidence is all one needs to do. Claiming that there is "lack of conclusions" or that "the science is still out" or that "one 'scientist' X argues against the evidence" shows a complete lack of basic scientific knowledge. That is not how science works. If only 100% certainty, a conclusion, is going to convince the deniers then you guys have no clue how science works, or why we try to convince you that we know better than you. We understand science. You have made it *very* clear that you do not.

You have to be a pretty blinded to not see the similarities between religion and the MMGW crowd.

You have made a claim, now the onus probandi is on you. I know youre just going to hum and haw, but thats your style.

This is easy. Armageddon, end of the world, humanity to be punished for its sins, blah blah blah. Insisting that end of the world is coming soon is an American religious tradition, dating back at least until the Bible Belt Revival of the 1820's (and probably earlier). MMGW is just its latest incarnation. During my childhood, it was nuclear war.
Now, before you go off you rocker and invoke the holy deity of science 10 or 12 more times, you should keep in mind that while global warming is a scientific theory, the public debate surrounding it has absolutely nothing to do with science. And it's the public debate that we (and you) are talking about in this thread, not the theory. That's where the unscientific (and decidedly religious) word "denier" comes in. And the fact that you keep using that word "denier" proves that you too know jack sh!t about science.

On the scientific subject though, there's nothing to deny about global warming. It's a fact. Too freaking bad for you then that nothing about that science shows that that it's gonna be the end of the world, even catastrophic, or even unusual in history of the earth. So who's denying science, I ask you?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Given the "we don't know enough" argument, neither seems very persuasive.

Very reminiscient of evolution vs intelligent design, no?

And likely to remain that way.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well I have a condescending lesson about science that maybe you should pay attention to...the fact that scientific results aren't perfect doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and declare it impossible to tell what's going on. Your silly 7-day forecast argument aside, much of climatology fits pretty well into prediction models within a margin of accuracy. Now that margin may seem unreasonably big to some people, but it's accurate enough to be able to tell quite a bit. Perfect trends are very rare in science, but it's close enough that dismissing it out of hand is foolish.

It means that we need to take scientific results for what they, which is maybe something, maybe nothing. Science by its nature requires confirmation and consistency, otherwise it's not science, it's not repeatable or proveable or scientifically meaningful. These climate models and predictions do indeed fit into a margin of accuracy, a very big one. Bigger even than the ozone hole. It is accurate enough to tell quite a bit, but not tell quite a bit, too.

Your analogy makes it pretty clear you don't understand the issues, because they are NOT "the same scientific method and study". But even if they were, weather prediction has a pretty impressive accuracy, even if it isn't always exact. But a lot of times science doesn't have to be...the 7 day forecast may be off by a couple of degrees or wrong about exactly how long or how hard a rainstorm will be...but if the weatherman says it will be 80 degrees, I'm not going out in a parka.

My analogy is quite meaningful. If the weather man doesn't know with a high level of accuracy what the weather will be like in 7 days, how can I possibly take his inaccuracy on a small scale and pretend that his accuracy will do anything but be even more glaringly off on a large scale?

You "remain incredulous" because you seem to be making the same mistake most non-science types make when discussing scientific theories. You focus on deviations (which is human nature) and individual points instead of overall trends. In this particular discussion, the fact that THIS hurricane season wasn't so bad is taken as "proof" that predictions about worse hurricane seasons must be off base. But any trend is going to have outliers, and a prediction that the globe will gradually warm up is not the same as a prediction that every second will be warmer than the second before it.

No, this hurricane season does not indicate that GW is not happening or even that it can't influence things. All I do with any examples is undermine the credibility of what people are promoting, as if it's unassailable. I like to remind them that what they put their faith into what may be a house of cards. Since A) We were told that the hurricane season would be bad and B) it wasn't, we need to C) have caution believing the rest of the story. It doesn't mean it's all wrong, but probably some of it is. When a theory has holes poked in it, it needs to be revised.

Speaking of hurricanes, it is worth noting that the hurricane expert that the IPPC hired quit when he was given a conclusion(gw causes more huricanes) to prove. As much as the GW crowd does not want to admit, this is very political and money driven operation.
 
Why does "GW Deniers" remind me of the tobacco company heads reciting before a Congressional investigation "I do not believe cigarette smoking causes lung cancer"? AW! Lying bastards does come to mind.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Genx87
How much Co2 is spewed from forest fires, volcano's, or other natural causes?

And how much Co2 do plants take out of the atmosphere?

when you take down plants and trees at an increasing rate, the ability for the plants to purify the air decreases, which contributes more to global warming, which allows for more instances of forest fires.

So you ARE arguing about and in favor of MMGW.

Are you a 1,500 year cycle denier? To use your own words, do you believe it is some vast right wing conspiracy, are YOU a conspiracy theorist, or are you just dumb? haha :laugh:

Originally posted by: eits
nevermind, then. i guess you're not conspiracy theorists... you're just dumb. global warming isn't a religion haha :laugh:

wait, what? that's called common sense, jackass. if p, then q. if you cut down too many trees, the amount of air purification decreases. if you pollute the air at a faster rate than can be purified with the decreased number of trees, then ozone breaks apart.

did you go to a special ed school or something?

i'm honestly sitting here in my chair cracking up from your post :laugh: how can you NOT understand something this fucking simple? hahaha
 
Back
Top