|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 12/24/2009 : 05:46:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by Kil
I will not engage this time, Bill. We have been over all of this stuff before. Maybe there are others here who will once again make the attempt, but it won't be me. You are just a denier Bill. And that's that. I don't want to waste my time on this.
|
And considering Bill's initial post here he seems too preoccupied with the weather to seriously think about the climate.
|
Weather is what they think might happen next Sunday. The climate around here has been cooler then normal for the past 3 years, capped off with the coolest July since the keeping of records this last summer. Thank man for man made global warming/climate change or we might have had ice forming on the lake this past July.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/24/2009 : 07:19:44 [Permalink]
|
| You alarmists are rather amusing with your titles you like to throw around. |
Call me "green trash" and "alarmist," and I'll title y'all with anything I feel like.
Bonehead.
You didn't open a single link that I posted, did you? A pity, as the Ocean Conveyor one is very good and written in language that anyone can easily grasp (David Suzuki is among the best at explaining science to the layman). I suggest that you grasp it and then consider it for a spell. It describes the current state of the art in the science and is fascinating. And you are missing out on it due to a pre-set attitude as ridged as if you were brain-washed.
But I'll tell you what; as I am a reasonable man, most of the time, give me your best argument, with reference, against AGW and I'll consider it. Howzat?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2009 : 07:57:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
You alarmists are rather amusing with your titles you like to throw around. |
"Denialist" is not just a label, it describes a set of behaviors which you regularly display, Bill. And not only in regard to AGW, but also towards evolution. If you don't like the title, then perhaps you should stop engaging in the behaviors it describes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2009 : 12:51:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by Kil
I will not engage this time, Bill. We have been over all of this stuff before. Maybe there are others here who will once again make the attempt, but it won't be me. You are just a denier Bill. And that's that. I don't want to waste my time on this.
|
And considering Bill's initial post here he seems too preoccupied with the weather to seriously think about the climate.
|
Weather is what they think might happen next Sunday. The climate around here has been cooler then normal for the past 3 years, capped off with the coolest July since the keeping of records this last summer. Thank man for man made global warming/climate change or we might have had ice forming on the lake this past July.
|
No, Bill, even three locally cool years are not "climate."
You really should read the links that Filthy and others are kindly enough to provide you.
Do you understand the basics of how the El Niņo/La Niņa oceanic temperature cycle works? And how this cycle superimposes rather abrupt local warming and cooling on top of the generally slow (but potentially disastrous) global climatic warming? (Sort of like an AM radio signal on top of its carrier wave.)
La Niņa is presently cooling North America and Europe. That's not a frigid climate change, it's just a cycle on top of long-term, gradually rising global temperatures. Plus, American and Europe aren't the whole world.
And if La Niņa is proof to you of a cooling climate, then in a year or a few, will you then proclaim the next El Niņo as proof of global warming?
I thought not. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 12/24/2009 14:34:26 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2009 : 17:22:15 [Permalink]
|
I live (so to speak) in Saskatoon. Don't talk to me about cold. But even in such an environment, I do not assume that the conditions in my localized frozen little hellhole represents all the trends of the entire planet. Nor do I assume that just because it is cold here (-30 C, ATM) that this kind of localized cold is what the people talking about global warming are talking about.
I'm not going to pretend to speak knowledgeably about climate change. I will be happy with speaking cautiously. However, I will say that the title "Global Warming Skeptics" is a serious misnomer and an insult to skeptics. For one millionth and 23rd time: doubt is not denial. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Bob Lloyd
Skeptic Friend
Spain
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 11:41:39 [Permalink]
|
What is really interesting in the climate deniers, or climate skeptics as they wrongly call themselves, is that they use the idea of doubt to undermine acceptance of evidence itself. By that I mean that they claim that since the scientific conclusions are not 100% certain, that therefore we cannot base decisions on any of the science so far. They misunderstand the idea of skepticism to mean the same as doubt.
Not being able to understand how doubt drives science, they assume that if there is any doubt at all, none of the science has any weight. They then reduce science to a belief system, and simply choose to believe something else. They feel entitled to disagree with scientific conclusions because they themselves don't like them. They lose all understanding of the weight of evidence, of accumulated knowledge, of the objective facts in the real world.
The analogy would be the case where they went to the doctor complaining of a gut pain. The doctor conducts some tests, but admits that there is some slight doubt, so insists on conducting more and more investigations. For weeks the doctor is unwilling to make a clear diagnosis because he is not yet absolutely certain and the patient insists on certainty, and so each time he tries to collect just a little more data. At the autopsy, he is finally certain. The deniers of climate change behave like this all the time.
If the climate deniers were truly skeptical, they would doubt their conspiracy theories at least until they had some evidence to give them credibility, they would only base their views on reproducible evidence of climate change and global warming, and very quickly would adopt a scientific approach to the whole business. They misuse the word skeptical to justify denier attitudes to science which are based only on prejudice and opinion.
There are many climate change questions still needing scientific answers but we already have far more information than we need, to know about the urgency of taking action. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 13:30:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bob Lloyd
What is really interesting in the climate deniers, or climate skeptics as they wrongly call themselves, is that they use the idea of doubt to undermine acceptance of evidence itself. By that I mean that they claim that since the scientific conclusions are not 100% certain, that therefore we cannot base decisions on any of the science so far. They misunderstand the idea of skepticism to mean the same as doubt.
Not being able to understand how doubt drives science, they assume that if there is any doubt at all, none of the science has any weight. They then reduce science to a belief system, and simply choose to believe something else. They feel entitled to disagree with scientific conclusions because they themselves don't like them. They lose all understanding of the weight of evidence, of accumulated knowledge, of the objective facts in the real world.
The analogy would be the case where they went to the doctor complaining of a gut pain. The doctor conducts some tests, but admits that there is some slight doubt, so insists on conducting more and more investigations. For weeks the doctor is unwilling to make a clear diagnosis because he is not yet absolutely certain and the patient insists on certainty, and so each time he tries to collect just a little more data. At the autopsy, he is finally certain. The deniers of climate change behave like this all the time.
If the climate deniers were truly skeptical, they would doubt their conspiracy theories at least until they had some evidence to give them credibility, they would only base their views on reproducible evidence of climate change and global warming, and very quickly would adopt a scientific approach to the whole business. They misuse the word skeptical to justify denier attitudes to science which are based only on prejudice and opinion.
There are many climate change questions still needing scientific answers but we already have far more information than we need, to know about the urgency of taking action.
|
Well said! Thank you.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science?
