Scientists study the scientific standing of pro and con global warmists and find:

[Moonbeam]

That analogy sucks because most already assume there is a cancer, it's what caused the cancer. We need more data to figure out what is causing or has caused the cancer in order to cure it. You can just throw caution to the wind or you might have the wrong treatment.

You do not need to know what caused a cancer to cure it. And when the best minds with the best qualifications tell you what the probable cause is and the consequences of inaction, it's time for action.

 

[bfdd]

You do not need to know what caused a cancer to cure it. And when the best minds with the best qualifications tell you what the probable cause is and the consequences of inaction, it's time for action.

Actually you do need to know what caused the cancer to cure it. Not all cancers are treated the same.

 

[Moonbeam]

That is rather amusing considering Shira clearly doesnt believe we should look at more data and come to a scientific truth. He would rather we look at a cherry picked data set that favors his own idelogy. But I am the one who doesnt want to face scientific truths?

Drugs are bad mmkay?

My sense of scientific truth tells me you don't speak for Shira. You have only your opinion of what he says. I much prefer mine.

 

[bfdd]

My sense of scientific truth tells me you don't speak for Shira. You have only your opinion of what he says. I much prefer mine.

Oh Moonbeam, lets not forget that we're not 100% sure what kind of cancer it is. No one has successfully projected with 100% accuracy the "warming trend." So how can you even tell it's malignant or benign if you can't even tell me what kind of cancer it is and what caused it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually you do need to know what caused the cancer to cure it. Not all cancers are treated the same.

Actually you do not need to know the cause. The cures are unrelated to cause and related only to effectiveness. What works gets used. It is nice if one can find a cause because one can then find a prevention or a targeted cure, but cutting out a cancer of unknown origin will work if the cancer hasn't metastasized.

 

[shira]

The projections from last decade completely failed to predict this decade. We don't need 10,000 years if you fail to get just the next 10 accurate.

You deniers are big on the "this decade" fallacy. Through a selective starting point of 1998 (which because of the strongest El Nino in recorded history, was possibly the warmest year ever - but even that's debatable; it might have been 2005), you claim we've had cooling the past 10 years.

But that's nonsense. Think about it: Suppose 2010 is a record-warm year (which it's shaping up to be). If 2011 and 2012 aren't as warm, you could draw a line from 2010 to 2012 and show "cooling." This will ALWAYS be true in the years that follow EVERY record-warm year.

A more accurate measurement of temperature trends is moving 5-year and 11-year averages. And using THOSE metrics, we've had continued warming through the 2000's.

But please, continue your self-delusional insistence that we're in a cooling period.

 

[bfdd]

You deniers are big on the "this decade" fallacy. Through a selective starting point of 1998 (which because of the strongest El Nino in recorded history, was possibly the warmest year ever - but even that's debatable; it might have been 2005), you claim we've had cooling the past 10 years.

But that's nonsense. Think about it: Suppose 2010 is a record-warm year (which it's shaping up to be). If 2011 and 2012 aren't as warm, you could draw a line from 2010 to 2012 and show "cooling." This will ALWAYS be true in the years that follow EVERY record-warm year.

A more accurate measurement of temperature trends is moving 5-year and 11-year averages. And using THOSE metrics, we've had continued warming through the 2000's.

But please, continue your self-delusional insistence that we're in a cooling period.

Really? So you don't think accuracy is at all important? All we are asking for is some accuracy and they don't have it. No one has correctly projected 2000-2010. It hasn't happened. BTW I find a chart that has 10,000 years of information quite a bit better than a 10 or 20 year chart when we're talking about a planet like I said that is 5,000,000,000+ years old and has had an ever changing climate.

 

[shira]

Oh Moonbeam, lets not forget that we're not 100% sure what kind of cancer it is. No one has successfully projected with 100% accuracy the "warming trend." So how can you even tell it's malignant or benign if you can't even tell me what kind of cancer it is and what caused it.

Ah. So your argument is that if we're not "100% sure" what disease a patient has, but we know the patient is dying, we should not treat the patient?

 

[bfdd]

Ah. So your argument is that if we're not "100% sure" what disease a patient has, but we know the patient is dying, we should not treat the patient?

Considering if the treatment is wrong it could do more damage, yeah.

 

[TheDoc9]

The GW machine is in full press now. After being delt crippling blows last year did anyone really think the supporters would walk away from so much money on the table. Hell No! Billions more in manipulated statistics and advertising will erase any doubt!

Who could deny the genius of this plan; finally coming to fruition - to actually convince people to pay for the air they breath and exhale! The last great money grab, a tax on life itself. Ingenious!

Winners include: Al Gore, Bill Gates, BP, and of course, Al Gore.

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."

Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf

EDIT:

More from Hitler-
People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

 

[shira]

Really? So you don't think accuracy is at all important? All we are asking for is some accuracy and they don't have it. No one has correctly projected 2000-2010. It hasn't happened. BTW I find a chart that has 10,000 years of information quite a bit better than a 10 or 20 year chart when we're talking about a planet like I said that is 5,000,000,000+ years old and has had an ever changing climate.

Your demand for "accuracy" is nothing but a delaying tactic. It's exactly like Evolution-deniers demanding "intermediate forms," and then claiming that each new intermediate species found isn't sufficiently "intermediate."

How come you don't use this same standard for "accuracy" for other branches of science? Cosmology can't explain 75% of the energy that appears to inhabit the universe or the fact that the rate of expansion of the universe is ever-increasing, and has invented "dark energy" as a universal repulsive force to account for these discrepancies. Also, general relatively rejects notions of simultaneity while quantum mechanics embraces it - the two are seemingly irreconcilable. So how come modern physics isn't "nonsense?"

Could it possibly be that climate-deniers have a selective double-standard?

 

[Genx87]

Your demand for "accuracy" is nothing but a delaying tactic. It's exactly like Evolution-deniers demanding "intermediate forms," and then claiming that each new intermediate species found isn't sufficiently "intermediate."

How come you don't use this same standard for "accuracy" for other branches of science? Cosmology can't explain 75% of the energy that appears to inhabit the universe or the fact that the rate of expansion of the universe is ever-increasing, and has invented "dark energy" as a universal repulsive force to account for these discrepancies. Also, general relatively rejects notions of simultaneity while quantum mechanics embraces it - the two are seemingly irreconcilable. So how come modern physics isn't "nonsense?"

Could it possibly be that climate-deniers have a selective double-standard?

Does cosmology propose radical taxation and control plans because it cant explain itself?
This isnt rocket science(pun intended)

 

[bfdd]

Your demand for "accuracy" is nothing but a delaying tactic. It's exactly like Evolution-deniers demanding "intermediate forms," and then claiming that each new intermediate species found isn't sufficiently "intermediate."

How come you don't use this same standard for "accuracy" for other branches of science? Cosmology can't explain 75% of the energy that appears to inhabit the universe or the fact that the rate of expansion of the universe is ever-increasing, and has invented "dark energy" as a universal repulsive force to account for these discrepancies. Also, general relatively rejects notions of simultaneity while quantum mechanics embraces it - the two are seemingly irreconcilable. So how come modern physics isn't "nonsense?"

Could it possibly be that climate-deniers have a selective double-standard?

shira, I do think dark matter is bullshit and they definitely do not know everything when it comes to the universe or even just our galaxy nor do they even attempt to claim to. You don't see the big difference there?

 

[Throckmorton]

We've certainly been warmer in the past. Though it depends on where you're looking, as with all the variations you can be as selective as you'd like to come up with the outcome you need for your argument.

I said the rate of warming wasn't as fast after the last ice age. How did you interpret that into "we haven't been warmer"?

 

[bfdd]

I said the rate of warming wasn't as fast after the last ice age. How did you interpret that into "we haven't been warmer"?

but there has been, at times, a rate of warming or cooling greater than what we're seeing now. we can go further back than the last ice age i believe.

 

[shira]

Does cosmology propose radical taxation and control plans because it cant explain itself?
This isnt rocket science(pun intended)

Climatology doesn't advocate radical taxation or control plans. Climatology postulates causes and effects, and make predictions about what will occur in the coming decades. Governments take those predictions into account and decide what, if any, actions are warranted.

But of course, those ideologically opposed to the notion of governments attempting to solve big problems will automatically reject government-driven CC-mitigation efforts. Their religion forces them to insist either that there's no problem OR, even if there is a problem, that the free market will be the magic cure.

 

[bfdd]

Climatology doesn't advocate radical taxation or control plans. Climatology postulates causes and effects, and make predictions about what will occur in the coming decades. Governments take those predictions into account and decide what, if any, actions are warranted.

But of course, those ideologically opposed to the notion of governments attempting to solve big problems will automatically reject government-driven CC-mitigation efforts. Their religion forces them to insist either that there's no problem OR, even if there is a problem, that the free market will be the magic cure.

shira do we know and take into account every possible variable when projecting climate?

 

[daishi5]

The difference between an ice age and the period we are in now is only a couple degrees.

This has always bothered me, if we were somehow able to remove all the CO2 from the environment, we might very well tip ourselves back into a snowball earth spiral, which would kill billions. If we lived on this earth and somehow had no effect on its climate, its natural fluctuations would make us extinct. I understand we don't want the earth to get a lot warmer, because we don't know what to expect, but it just seems too many people assume that going back to the natural climate before human impact is a good thing.

I also wonder why we don't just start dumping everyone's yard waste down old coal mines.

 

[Genx87]

Climatology doesn't advocate radical taxation or control plans. Climatology postulates causes and effects, and make predictions about what will occur in the coming decades. Governments take those predictions into account and decide what, if any, actions are warranted.

But of course, those ideologically opposed to the notion of governments attempting to solve big problems will automatically reject government-driven CC-mitigation efforts. Their religion forces them to insist either that there's no problem OR, even if there is a problem, that the free market will be the magic cure.

Really? Cap N Tax just showed up out of the blue? The green movement which will cost taxpayers and consumers trillions just showed up out of no where?

Now please tell us where cosmology is pushing similar policies while not being able to explain its position and then we will question it a bit more as well.

 

[sandorski]

The GW machine is in full press now. After being delt crippling blows last year did anyone really think the supporters would walk away from so much money on the table. Hell No! Billions more in manipulated statistics and advertising will erase any doubt!

Who could deny the genius of this plan; finally coming to fruition - to actually convince people to pay for the air they breath and exhale! The last great money grab, a tax on life itself. Ingenious!

Winners include: Al Gore, Bill Gates, BP, and of course, Al Gore.

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."

Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf

EDIT:

More from Hitler-
People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

So many words typed, only to simply Fail.

 

[sandorski]

Does cosmology propose radical taxation and control plans because it cant explain itself?
This isnt rocket science(pun intended)

Radical Taxation not found.

 

[sandorski]

This has always bothered me, if we were somehow able to remove all the CO2 from the environment, we might very well tip ourselves back into a snowball earth spiral, which would kill billions. If we lived on this earth and somehow had no effect on its climate, its natural fluctuations would make us extinct. I understand we don't want the earth to get a lot warmer, because we don't know what to expect, but it just seems too many people assume that going back to the natural climate before human impact is a good thing.

I also wonder why we don't just start dumping everyone's yard waste down old coal mines.

Yes, but so far we haven't even succeeded on stopping the Increase in CO2. So there's little to fear from that happening. Then there's the fact that there is a certain rate of CO2 that occurs Naturally and that we are only addressing the CO2 that we put into the atmosphere. So on the whole, that fear is completely unwarranted(unless someone builds a Global CO2 scrubber).

 

[sandorski]

Really? Cap N Tax just showed up out of the blue? The green movement which will cost taxpayers and consumers trillions just showed up out of no where?

Now please tell us where cosmology is pushing similar policies while not being able to explain its position and then we will question it a bit more as well.

Strawmen Fail. Seriously.

 

[Genx87]

Radical Taxation not found.

I wouldnt expect you to see anything like that. Your response is not surprising.

 

[Jaskalas]

I said the rate of warming wasn't as fast after the last ice age. How did you interpret that into "we haven't been warmer"?

Right... you wish to refer to the rate of warming. I'm not sure how you backup that claim, I'm curious, but I imagine that could have been true...until the year 2000. Since then the rate has certainly declined, are you still saying we're currently at the fastest rate, or is that an older claim?

Now, we are talking tenths of a degree Celsius here, over a century. A small number where the slightest adjustment will radically change the results. In this argument, precision is important.

For example, this page, details adjustments made to older temperatures to make the rate of warming appear much worse. Interesting that people keep adjusting the older data and the rate keeps increasing when they do this.

Makes me wonder if we are to believe the adjusted data, or the raw data. As the rate of warming varies dramatically between the two. The claims of warmest RATE of warming, may very well be manufactured after adjusting the data.

(Victoria Temps)