[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]
4614
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
URL: Salon Link
| No, JTRIV, I do not intend to argue with you, I will allow Scientific American to shoot you down. |
Responses:
[4615] [4617] [4621] [4628] [4629] [4630] [4631] [4632] [4633] [4616]
4615
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
|
Hi dib, Salon? LOL I think we both know the spin they will put on it. It came from SciAm first and they have been known for global warming activism in recent years. Did you even read it? Do you understand the arguments? Lot of straw men and bad logic and things they don't even apply to the topic of ways to shut down a climate science denier. Perhaps you should try reading something less activist and more scientific? Cheers Jim comments below 1. Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can’t be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere.... This only applies to the very small group who deny that atmospheric CO2 can change climate. This is typically those who don't understand the basic physics. Claim 2: The alleged “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the past 1,600 years has been disproved. It doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of a “medieval warm period” around 1000 A.D. that was hotter than today is. Therefore, global warming is a myth. This whole thing is a logical mess. Just because a paleoclimate reconstruction is flawed doesn't mean all global warming is a myth. And as they point out the National Academy of Science only put confidence in the most recent 400 years of the 1,000 year hockey stick climate reconstruction. They specifically recommended against the use of Bristlecone pines as there are issues with it. There are many problems with that and other reconstructions, many of which have a multitude of issues. Did you see the post where Mann's southern hemisphere reconstruction used more northern hemisphere proxies than southern hemisphere proxies? And this included the Bristlecones that the NAS recommended against using. The hockey stick gained prominence when it was featured in the IPCC TAR claiming there was very little variability for the past 1,000 years until modern times. But as the article recognizes there were issues and every single temperature reconstruction done since then shows more variability including the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Claim 3: Global warming stopped a decade ago; Earth has been cooling since then. I wonder they they included the bit about cooling? Straw man? They are a bit disingenuous in not explaining that the pause has lasted almost as long as the warming period. Regardless were are in an extended period without a trend in global temperature.  Claim 4: The sun or cosmic rays are much more likely to be the real causes of global warming. After all, Mars is warming up, too. I haven't made such a claim and rarely see this claim made. But there is research ongoing at CERN regarding the cloud seeding properties of galactic cosmic rays when go up when the Sun's magnetic field is weak. Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called “consensus” on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn’t settled by popularity. This one seem to be of the opinion that anyone who doesn't believe is a conspiracy nut. And while the climategate E-mail release showed some climate scientists gatekeeping and electing not to show data that didn't support their position (activism instead of science) on the whole the conspiracy angle is a weak try. Claim 6: Climatologists have a vested interest in raising the alarm because it brings them money and prestige. LOL while somewhat true how is this shutting down anyone? Some climate scientists have raised quickly to prominence such as Michael Mann of hockey stick fame. And while his statistical methods have been shown to be flawed and his choice of proxies suspect (such as using data upside down to the original authors determination) this isn't true of climate scientists as a whole. Claim 7: Technological fixes, such as inventing energy sources that don’t produce CO2 or geoengineering the climate, would be more affordable, prudent ways to address climate change than reducing our carbon footprint. This one is more toward public policy. And since you did follow the news on the climate conference last month you know there are no proposals on the table to actually reduce CO2 emissions. It is well known that China will not limit their emissions and they are driving global emissions higher. |
Responses:
[4617] [4621] [4628] [4629] [4630] [4631] [4632] [4633] [4616]
4617
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
| No, Jim, I don't make a career out of promoting/denying climate change. As I told you a dozen times now, I will leave that issue up to the scientists. You are not a scientist either, but you should have been, and I admire your dedication to space science, but your dogmatism about GW suggests that you have a vested interest in this matter that you decline to reveal. From a scientific pov, the issue is settled that we are going to suffer consequences if we don't learn how to control our energy demands. Also, it's silly of you to claim that Scientific American is biased. Salon is liberal, but if that sticks in your craw, tough. |
4621
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
|
Hi dib, > No, Jim, I don't make a career out of promoting/denying climate change. As I told you a dozen times now, I will leave that issue up to the scientists. dib you spend an awful lot of time on a subject you are adamant that you will leave to scientists. Of course it's painfully obvious that this topic is a matter of public policy and while science is still working it out politicians are already enacting legislation on this topic. To me it's a good idea to become informed on this important topic. Of course if one limits themselves to just the conservative or liberal point of view they are unlikely to understand the nuances of this complex subject. > You are not a scientist either, but you should have been, and I admire your dedication to space science, > but your dogmatism about GW suggests that you have a vested interest in this matter that you decline to reveal. And your continued focus on vested interests of people who you don't agree with makes me doubt you really were a scientist. Certainly not a very good one as you don't seem capable of examining evidence of the topic without fixating on the motivation of the other side. > From a scientific pov, the issue is settled that we are going to suffer consequences if we don't learn how to control our energy demands. OK, now I really doubt that you were ever a capable scientist. That's far from a scientific point of view. The demand on energy that is driving global emissions ever higher is in the developing world where China alone is responsible for 70% of year over year increases. And this is projected to continue. You read a little about the climate conference last month. What is YOUR solution? > Also, it's silly of you to claim that Scientific American is biased. A magazine, even a scientific one can't be biased?? That's a bit naive dib. > Salon is liberal, but if that sticks in your craw, tough. Naa... there are liberal and conservative points of view out there. I just appreciate when someone let's me know which side they limit themselves to. A scientific mind would realize that sticking to such biased viewpoints is never going to enable a comprehensive view of the topic. Cheers Jim |
4628
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
|
> No, Jim, I don't make a career out of promoting/denying climate change. As I told you a dozen times now, I will leave that issue up to the scientists. >>dib you spend an awful lot of time on a subject you are adamant that you will leave to scientists. I only post articles that I think are important to the members of this board. The only extra time I spend on GW is wasted in these silly arguments with you. >>To me it's a good idea to become informed on this important topic. Of course if one limits themselves to just the conservative or liberal point of view they are unlikely to understand the nuances of this complex subject. It is unlikely the nuances will ever be completely understood by the general public, of which you are one. > ...your dogmatism about GW suggests that you have a vested interest in this matter that you decline to reveal. >>And your continued focus on vested interests of people who you don't agree with makes me doubt you really were a scientist. >>What do you expect me to think? Why are you here? Why do you continually post on several public chat forums about a scientific subject as if you know more about the subject than a majority of GW scientists? It isn't hard to figure out that a person who shows up on insignificant chat boards spouting a lot of good science about space matters would make an excellent candidate to spread innuendo about climate scientists. You have all the earmarks of a FUD, Jim. >>Certainly not a very good one as you don't seem capable of examining evidence of the topic without fixating on the motivation of the other side. And that is the type of crap you are posting now. It is your insistence that you have the answers that GW scientists don't have that creates my "fixation", which is merely intended to show that you are the emperor without any clothes. I don't have the answers. I have told you repeatedly that I will leave it up to the GW scientists to work it out. You, however, have clear motivation to pretend to have the requisite knowledge to refute the consensus of climate scientists. Kind of pompous of you, Jim, and that's all I have been trying to say. I'll put it to you one more time. Try harder to get it: I don't have the answers to the GW issue. I will leave it up to the scientists. I suggest you do the same. How many times do I have to say that to get it through your thick skull? > From a scientific pov, the issue is settled that we are going to suffer consequences if we don't learn how to control our energy demands. >>OK, now I really doubt that you were ever a capable scientist. You really should put a lid on that kind of smear, Jim. Anyone who doesn't realize that we have an insatiable energy demand is just ignorant. Why is it all you arch conservatives can think about is you pocketbook? >That's far from a scientific point of view. Lol. Going out on a limb, now, are ye? >>The demand on energy that is driving global emissions ever higher is in the developing world where China alone is responsible for 70% of year over year increases. And this is projected to continue. Seems to me you just proved my point. Is that what you were intending, or perhaps you're losing your grip due to senility? >>You read a little about the climate conference last month. What is YOUR solution? How many times do I have to tell you that I will leave it up to the scientists? Jeeze, Jim, are you that dense? After the scientists settle on the answer, then it will be up to the politicians to decide what to do. I really don't think my opinion will matter very much. > Also, it's silly of you to claim that Scientific American is biased. >>A magazine, even a scientific one can't be biased?? That's a bit naive dib. Now you are just making up stuff. Tsk, tsk, I think even the slower readers here will be able to figure out that you are a propagandist. I never said a magazine can't be biased. I said Scientific American was a reputable magazine, and whether you believe that or not, I don't really give a hoot. > Salon is liberal, but if that sticks in your craw, tough. >>Naa... there are liberal and conservative points of view out there. I just appreciate when someone let's me know which side they limit themselves to. If you mean that you want to know whether I read the conservative press, the answer is occasionally, just for the laughs. In my opinion, the NYTimes gets it right most of the time, and the conservative press gets it wrong most of the time, and that knowledge is good enough for me. You are from one of the most conservative states country. For you to accuse me of being biased is, frankly, hysterically funny. >>Cheers Stick it in your ears >>Jim dib |
4629
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
|
Hi dib, Hope you are feeling better. I'm assuming it's not a good day as your are crankier than usual and even your insults were just big hay-makers that missed their target. I did find this interesting: > After the scientists settle on the answer, then it will be up to the politicians to decide what to do. I'm glad to see you are coming around. The 'we must act now' mentality is a dangerous thing and I'm happy to see you want science to resolve the issue first. That's what I've been saying all along. While the liberal activists you tend to read want dramatic action now, even if it's not the right action a scientific point of view should be to let science work it out first. And as we both know the proposals on the table at climate conferences aren't even about reducing CO2 emissions but about massive transfers of wealth. There is simply no solution at this time so science should work things out first. Cheers Jim |
4630
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
| Lol. Getting to ya, huh? I haven't changed my position, which is, let the scientists work it out. Strange I have had to repeat that so many times, but somehow, you just never seem to get it. Maybe instead of contaminating this board with more insults, we should have a vote on who won the argument. Isn't that one of your grand ideas in posting a link to a conference where laymen and laywomen vote on whether we have a global threat to the future of civilization? What a joker you are, Jim. |
4631
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
|
At December 22, 2013 at 12:53:58, dib wrote: Hi dib, > I haven't changed my position, which is, let the scientists work it out. Yes, but according to your last message you want the scientists to work it out and then let politicians work out solutions. This seems to differ from your previous position of 'we must act now' even it didn't make a difference. > Isn't that one of your grand ideas in posting a link to a conference where laymen and laywomen vote on whether we have a global threat to the future of civilization? The Intelligence Squared debate format is something that has been done on a number of important issues. And it was a good example that while political activists promote the idea that we must act now even if that action is wrong this showed that when scientists lay out their case for an intelligent audience the idea they could not make the case that global warming is a crisis. This illustrates the vast difference between the activist and scientific position. Cheers Jim |
4632
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
|
Damn, JTRIV, do you get paid for weekends too, or is it by the message? >>Hi dib, Beginning rule for FUD behavior on the web: Be uber polite. The pretense of civility will allow you to get away with a lot of junk science and arrogant insults. > I haven't changed my position, which is, let the scientists work it out. >>Yes, but according to your last message you want the scientists to work it out and then let politicians work out solutions. This seems to differ from your previous position of 'we must act now' even it didn't make a difference. Lol. You remind me of a pen of chickens scratching in the dirt for anything that looks like it might be a worm. I have never mentioned "politicians" before. I have never used or implied that "we must act now", and the problem is that you are still trying to put me in a box I have repeatedly corrected you on. Frankly, Jim, what you are doing amounts to a lie, and I'm getting really, really tired of saying the same thing over and over. Are your handlers aware that you are making the same stupid mistakes/lies in every message now? > Isn't that one of your grand ideas in posting a link to a conference where laymen and laywomen vote on whether we have a global threat to the future of civilization? >>The Intelligence Squared debate format is something that has been done on a number of important issues. And it was a good example that while political activists promote the idea that we must act now even if that action is wrong... Jim, for all your wild distortions, that has to be the prize winner. >>...this showed that when scientists lay out their case for an intelligent audience the idea they could not make the case that global warming is a crisis. Lol. That even outdoes your prior gaffes. The results of that vote are no more valid or interesting than a beauty contest. >It did no such thing. It was a bunch of scientific fact and fiction that nobody in that audience understood, and that's why it's ridiculous to think a popular vote is going to prove anything. >>This illustrates the vast difference between the activist and scientific position. Lol again, and please tell me, which is the activist and the scientific positions? It's the same group of scientists. IT"S THE CONSENSUS, STUPID! My last comment to you on this subject, or any other subject: why are you right-wing conservatives always automatically against any program with costs even if they might help improve society or save the world from GW? Bet you have a lot of good ol' boyz in Tennessee who think the same way you do, don't you? And I'll be willing to bet that they don't spend all their time on websites like this, either. |
Responses:
[4633]
4633
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
|
Hi dib, > Lol again, and please tell me, which is the activist and the scientific positions? It's the same group of > scientists. IT"S THE CONSENSUS, STUPID! Actually the debate was between scientists who differed on the statement "GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A CRISIS". And while the activists will try to tell the public that the science is settled, it's a crisis and we must act now three climate scientists could not make that case against two climate scientists and an MD/author. There is no consensus on if global warming is a crisis, just that temperature has increased and humans are contributing. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4616
From: BJ, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: 7 Ways to Shut Down a Climate Science Denier
|
Hold your champagne glasses high this holiday season, because the end of 2013 marks the 17th year without global warming. This year has been trying for climate scientists and environmentalists who have been trying hard to explain away the 17-year hiatus in global warming and link “extreme weather” to rising greenhouse gas emissions — despite strong evidence to the contrary. There has been a breakdown in the manmade global warming consensus, and some even argue we are headed for an ice age. In honor of the 17th year without global warming, The Daily Caller News Foundation has put together seven setbacks for global warming alarmism. 1) Studies show that the world was warmer than it is today during the Roman Empire and when the Vikings were plundering Europe and North America. In fact, even in the 19th Century, there were discussions surrounding the fact that the Vikings could settle the northernmost reaches of Greenland and North America because there was less ice coverage. 2) During the second week in December, the U.S. saw more than 2000 record low temperatures and record snowfalls, according to the National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. There were 606 record low temperatures, 1,234 low maximum temperatures and 285 record snowfalls across the country. In the meantime there were only 98 high temperature records and 141 high minimum temperature records. 3) Satellite data shows that the polar bears have at least one reason to be happy this year – Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent over last year’s record low coverage. Contrary to Al Gore’s prediction that there would be no polar ice cap by this year, sea ice coverage spanned nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic last year. 4) Global cooling is on the way, according to an increasing number of scientists. German scientists have predicted that based on declining sunspot activity and natural climate oscillation the world will cool over the next century. Temperatures will eventually drop to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870. 5) Other scientists have also been coming around to the global cooling side of things. The BBC reported that Professor Mike Lockwood of the Reading University predicts that at the current rate of decline in solar activity, another “Little Ice Age” could envelope Northern Europe. 6) The United Nations climate bureaucracy’s latest global warming report was called “hilarious” by a leading scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Richard Lindzen said the UN’s report “has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence” because they continue to proclaim with ever greater certainty that mankind is causing global warming, despite their models continually being wrong. “Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen said. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.” 7) The Senate testimony of Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado completely undercut environmentalists and Democrats trying to claim that global warming was causing “extreme weather.” “It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Pielke said. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” The other witnesses on the panel did not refute Pielke’s data. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/#ixzz2o5ujp4va |
Responses:
None
[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]