Weather Patterns / Climate Change

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The usual tactic of the warmist is to insult the skeptic. I think if you read closer you will see some skeptics in the crowd.

"Skeptic" in a scientific definition of the word is someone who has a substantial body of evidence to support their contrarian view.

In the case of climate change deniers, as in the case of evolution denier, their "evidence" is simply to cherry pick what they perceive to be holes in the other side's arguments. In science, your theory needs to explain the body of evidence more completely than another theory.

There is no competing theory of climate change that explains the data collected as well as a the theory that there is an anthropogenic cause to most or all of the recent warming.

The current level of solar activity does not support the current temperature rise. The current level of carbon in the atmosphere, however, does.

[meyermm]

As Goebels the Nazi propaganda chief once said the bigger the lie the more people will believe it. If you look closely at most of the people pushing the man made climate line the making of vast amounts of money are at the heart. Third world countries with very dodgy politicians looking to take their slice of the cake. The Al Gores making movies and speeches for large amounts of $$. Here in Aussie a tax is going to fix it but in reality will just send more business to China, which will be the US scenario as well. But don't worry that warm fuzzy feeling will keep you warm in winter and cool in summer. Remember the scientists who predicted another ice age on the way during late 70's I am still waiting but maybe the global heating has melted the ice?
Just go sailing and what will happen will happen with or without a tax. Gordon please do not keep repeating that the vast majority of scientists agree as they do not which you would discover if you did a little research. It's just that funding, jobs etc go else where if you even suggest your a sceptic like I said money is at the heart of this story not the planets health.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by anjou

I think its obvious to all rational and intelligent people that climate change is a reality.

Another insult, but this one is more cleverly packaged. By extension of the statement above, if you don't accept the global warming (climate change) hysteria, you are irrational and unintelligent.

Let me qualify my comments before the sabres start rattling. It is entirely possible that the climate is changing - it has changed repeatedly throughout the history of the planet, so there is no reason it shouldn't change now. The magnitude and direction of this change has not been conclusively proven - if it had, there would be no compelling arguments from the skeptics, nor would there be any reason for the GW/CC proponents to skew the data. There is also no definitive link between CO2 and climate change - even the IPCC does not make that claim.

Proper scientific investigation demands a healthy skepticism. So how about we allow for a rational, intelligent discussion where all opinions, including those we don't agree with can be made without disparaging the commentators.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Another insult, but this one is more cleverly packaged. By extension of the statement above, if you don't accept the global warming (climate change) hysteria, you are irrational and unintelligent.

Let me qualify my comments before the sabres start rattling. It is entirely possible that the climate is changing - it has changed repeatedly throughout the history of the planet, so there is no reason it shouldn't change now. The magnitude and direction of this change has not been conclusively proven - if it had, there would be no compelling arguments from the skeptics, nor would there be any reason for the GW/CC proponents to skew the data. There is also no definitive link between CO2 and climate change - even the IPCC does not make that claim.

Proper scientific investigation demands a healthy skepticism. So how about we allow for a rational, intelligent discussion where all opinions, including those we don't agree with can be made without disparaging the commentators.

As a climate scientist yourself, we'd all be interested in your competing theory to explain the extraordinarily close correlation between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and average global temperatures.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by meyermm

As Goebels the Nazi propaganda chief once said the bigger the lie the more people will believe it. If you look closely at most of the people pushing the man made climate line the making of vast amounts of money are at the heart. Third world countries with very dodgy politicians looking to take their slice of the cake. The Al Gores making movies and speeches for large amounts of $$. Here in Aussie a tax is going to fix it but in reality will just send more business to China, which will be the US scenario as well. But don't worry that warm fuzzy feeling will keep you warm in winter and cool in summer. Remember the scientists who predicted another ice age on the way during late 70's I am still waiting but maybe the global heating has melted the ice?
Just go sailing and what will happen will happen with or without a tax. Gordon please do not keep repeating that the vast majority of scientists agree as they do not which you would discover if you did a little research. It's just that funding, jobs etc go else where if you even suggest your a sceptic like I said money is at the heart of this story not the planets health.

Wow! That's quite a conspiracy. Are you sure the grassy knoll and the faked moon landings can't be worked in to this? It would save us all so much trouble!

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

As a climate scientist yourself, we'd all be interested in your competing theory to explain the extraordinarily close correlation between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and average global temperatures.

Another insult! You're better than this Scott.

When you're ready to play nice, I'll discuss it.

[anjou]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Another insult, but this one is more cleverly packaged. By extension of the statement above, if you don't accept the global warming (climate change) hysteria, you are irrational and unintelligent.

Let me qualify my comments before the sabres start rattling. It is entirely possible that the climate is changing - it has changed repeatedly throughout the history of the planet, so there is no reason it shouldn't change now. The magnitude and direction of this change has not been conclusively proven - if it had, there would be no compelling arguments from the skeptics, nor would there be any reason for the GW/CC proponents to skew the data. There is also no definitive link between CO2 and climate change - even the IPCC does not make that claim.

Proper scientific investigation demands a healthy skepticism. So how about we allow for a rational, intelligent discussion where all opinions, including those we don't agree with can be made without disparaging the commentators.

Talk in plain English. Just enough words for one sentance please.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Another insult! You're better than this Scott.

When you're ready to play nice, I'll discuss it.

it's not an insult to ask for evidence to back up your claims.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

it's not an insult to ask for evidence to back up your claims.

It is an insult to sarcastically call someone a climate scientist. It is also an insult to compare GW-skeptics with conspiracy theorists. As a writer, you would obviously be familiar with the term "ad hominem" - would you not?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by anjou

Talk in plain English. Just enough words for one sentance please.

When you can manage plain English in just one sentence, I'll do the same.

[anjou]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

When you can manage plain English in just one sentence, I'll do the same.

Your not helping to clarify this situation. Are you always argumentative?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It is an insult to sarcastically call someone a climate scientist. It is also an insult to compare GW-skeptics with conspiracy theorists. As a writer, you would obviously be familiar with the term "ad hominem" - would you not?

Science isn't like politics or art, where everyone's opinion is arguably equal. If you seek to refute a theory, you need a scientific theory of your own that better explains the data. We don't see that, either from the few scientists deniers or from the much larger lay audience of deniers.

It's basically the same mindset as conspiracy theory, i.e., lacking real evidence, turn to snipe at the accepted theory.

As a non-archietect or engineer, it isn't unreasonable for me to have the foundation of my house built to the prevailing specs. If someone wants to advise me to do differently, I have every right to question their credentials.

That's not argumentum ad hominem.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

When you can manage plain English in just one sentence, I'll do the same.

THIS is much closer to the definition of an ad hominem attack.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

THIS is much closer to the definition of an ad hominem attack.

Not even close.

Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

source: Merriam-Webster

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by anjou

Your not helping to clarify this situation. Are you always argumentative?

You're not clarifying your question. And you apparently want to confine me to one-sentence answers. This is not possibly with a complex issue such as the climate change debate; nor is it possible with a complex language such as English. You've proven this - your last two posts both contained more than one sentence, yet you have not been clear. And yes, I am argumentative.