Simpler Question About AGW

[TrueSceptic]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513
How utterly stupid do you want to look? How many examples do you want? 50? 100?

Of course we could go back and gather up all the ludicrous statements made right in this forum by the warmers. Shall we resurrect Schneibster? Go back and look at which side has continually used ad hom attacks and which side has been warned the most regarding violating forum rules.

Your dishonesty and hypocrisy are truly breathtaking.

 

[David Rodale]

Your dishonesty and hypocrisy are truly breathtaking.

We've been through this before TrueSceptic. Honestly, you don't know what you're asking for

 

[mhaze]

We've been through this before TrueSceptic. Honestly, you don't know what you're asking for

I must comment that is one h*** of an understatement.

Things started to slip when I really, seriously asked for "contrarian" to be given a definition that would enable clarification of the small sinkhole considered to be peer reviewed "contrarian" articles. 500, then 407 more came up lickety-split and confronted with gaping chasm between assetion and fact now Trueskeptic wants an apology from me.

Weird. And I'm the guy that is more often than not, just arguing that the Warmologists are trying to hijack the middle ground of science, as embodied in the IPCC literature. Unfair. I deserve an apology.

Of course I'm joking. That long hard road of ad homs and personality attacks leads absolutely, 100% nowhere. Simpler and easier to just discuss the scientific understanding although perhaps not if intellectually challenged.

Hypothesis:

1. There exists an AGW pseudoscience as opposed to valid but controversial and not perfectly understood, actual AGW science.
2. AGW pseudoscience is a group of beliefs and concepts held by non-scientists almost exclusively. I think we all know of some scientists who hold these beliefs but they are the exception rather than the rule.
3. The fuzzy and ill defined enemy, the "contrarians", exists only in the minds of those believing in (or promoting for ulterior motives) AGW pseudoscience.

Prove me wrong.

 

[BenBurch]

The climate is, and has always been, constantly changing. Has anyone said different?

Absolutely. The only constant is change. The QUESTION is; have we given the usual random walk the climate takes a push in one direction or another?

 

[mhaze]

Absolutely. The only constant is change. The QUESTION is; have we given the usual random walk the climate takes a push in one direction or another?

Or could various paths of world wide development, including the third world, be shown to have a statistically significant likelihood of pushing the trend?

 

[zeusbheld]

Bolded creates a question phrased so as to rebut Tokie's assertion.

by pointing out its irrelevance.

in other words, if NO scientist has claimed such a thing.... is it worth pointing out that no anti-AGW scientist has claimed such a thing?

wait, wait. i'll answer that myself. no. it's irrelevant.

 

[fsol]

Weird. And I'm the guy that is more often than not, just arguing that the Warmologists are trying to hijack the middle ground of science, as embodied in the IPCC literature. Unfair. I deserve an apology.

Of course your posting history shows otherwise. But why let that get in the way eh?

 

[zeusbheld]

Hypothesis:

1. There exists an AGW pseudoscience as opposed to valid but controversial and not perfectly understood, actual AGW science.
2. AGW pseudoscience is a group of beliefs and concepts held by non-scientists almost exclusively. I think we all know of some scientists who hold these beliefs but they are the exception rather than the rule.
3. The fuzzy and ill defined enemy, the "contrarians", exists only in the minds of those believing in (or promoting for ulterior motives) AGW pseudoscience.

Prove me wrong.

agree somewhat with the first 2 except the part about scientists working in the service of psuedoscience who you "think we all know." name names, please. we don't all know, at least i don't.

there are ill-informed "evangelists" on both sides of the divide. including "CONTRARIANS." personally i've certainly encountered some outstanding examples of #3, they most definitely exist.

my frustration as someone who is on the fence as to what is actually happening, is that it is hard to wade through all the sleight of hand, dubious citations and claims of a global conspiracy on the "AGW skeptic" side to find credible, science-based skeptics. really effing annoying. you lot would be more likely to win over those in the middle without all the smoke and mirrors.

 

[varwoche]

Hypothesis:

1. There exists an AGW pseudoscience as opposed to valid but controversial and not perfectly understood, actual AGW science.
2. AGW pseudoscience is a group of beliefs and concepts held by non-scientists almost exclusively. I think we all know of some scientists who hold these beliefs but they are the exception rather than the rule.
3. The fuzzy and ill defined enemy, the "contrarians", exists only in the minds of those believing in (or promoting for ulterior motives) AGW pseudoscience.

Prove me wrong.

Fuzzy and ill defined aptly (and generously) describes this remarkably vague and goofy challenge. I particularly enjoy the "I think we all know" bit.

 

[mhaze]

agree with the first 2, but there are ill-informed "evangelists" on both sides of the divide. including "CONTRARIANS." personally i've certainly encountered some outstanding examples of #3, they most definitely exist.

in fact, my frustration as someone who is on the fence as to what is actually happening, is that it is hard to wade through all the sleight of hand, dubious citations and claims of a global conspiracy on the "AGW skeptic" side to find credible, science-based skeptics. really effing annoying. you lot would be more likely to win over those in the middle without all the smoke and mirrors.

Well, regarding #3, then, do they exist in the neigborhood bar? In the media? Where? That's all I'm trying to get at in analyzing the use of the phrase "contrarian". Or to put it another way, if a bunch of (ulterior motive, dumb a** new agers, radical evironmental wackos) hard line push the likes of An Incovenient Truth into all the school systems, is "contrarian" just a natural response that ought to be expected? People see garbage, they instantly go "anti-garbage".

It's too much to expect the politics, emotion and science to be separated, so you'll have to ignore the whole subject or get used to the big mess, because there are trillions of dollars mixed up that are moving one way or the other based on outcomes.

Unfortunate, but true. Then of course you've got the extremists, but of those, the radical environmentalists are basically unchanged for 40 some years, this is just a new bandwagon for them.

 

[zeusbheld]

Well, regarding #3, then, do they exist in the neigborhood bar? In the media? Where? That's all I'm trying to get at in analyzing the use of the phrase "contrarian". Or to put it another way, if a bunch of (ulterior motive, dumb a** new agers, radical evironmental wackos) hard line push the likes of An Incovenient Truth into all the school systems, is "contrarian" just a natural response that ought to be expected? People see garbage, they instantly go "anti-garbage"

It's too much to expect the politics, emotion and science to be separated, so you'll have to ignore the whole subject or get used to the big mess, because there are trillions of dollars mixed up that are moving one way or the other based on outcomes.

Unfortunate, but true. Then of course you've got the extremists, but of those, the radical environmentalists are basically unchanged for 40 some years, this is just a new bandwagon for them.

well seems to me the best place to find #3 is net fora.

 

[mhaze]

well seems to me the best place to find #3 is net fora.

Hmm...But if we join Greenpeace, we get a membership card. No "card carrying contrarians" huh?

A shadow enemy to those immersed in pseudoscience.

 

[zeusbheld]

Hmm...But if we join Greenpeace, we get a membership card. No "card carrying contrarians" huh?

A shadow enemy to those immersed in pseudoscience.

who said anything about carrying cards? oh wait, that was you.

so let me see if i got this: you can't be a wing nut without a membership card?

no membership card = nonexistent?

interesting claim.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I must comment that is one h*** of an understatement.

Things started to slip when I really, seriously asked for "contrarian" to be given a definition that would enable clarification of the small sinkhole considered to be peer reviewed "contrarian" articles. 500, then 407 more came up lickety-split and confronted with gaping chasm between assetion and fact now Trueskeptic wants an apology from me.

I want an apology for something else. You know this.

Weird. And I'm the guy that is more often than not, just arguing that the Warmologists are trying to hijack the middle ground of science, as embodied in the IPCC literature. Unfair. I deserve an apology.

What for? You kept moving the goal posts. We can go back there any time.

Of course I'm joking. That long hard road of ad homs and personality attacks leads absolutely, 100% nowhere. Simpler and easier to just discuss the scientific understanding although perhaps not if intellectually challenged.

Note personal attack. Note also that mhaze knows nothing about the scientific knowledge or intellect of others here.

Hypothesis:

1. There exists an AGW pseudoscience as opposed to valid but controversial and not perfectly understood, actual AGW science.
2. AGW pseudoscience is a group of beliefs and concepts held by non-scientists almost exclusively. I think we all know of some scientists who hold these beliefs but they are the exception rather than the rule.
3. The fuzzy and ill defined enemy, the "contrarians", exists only in the minds of those believing in (or promoting for ulterior motives) AGW pseudoscience.

Prove me wrong.

That's the joke bit, yes?

 

[Tokenconservative]

You didn't give your particular definition of AGWist until after I had posted. How was anyone to know you had defined it to exclude climate scientists when others, who use it in the same pejorative way, are not so particular.

How about a full definition of AGWist_TC so we can all agree.

Sure: Anyone who believes that absent the eeeehhhhvvviiillllll of modern, industrial humans, climate would be static.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

sheeeoooooooot Forrest even *I* can see that you've grossly oversimplified.

seems to me, the claim isn't that "nothing else is driving climate change but human activity" but rather that "there is an anomalous change happening recently that doesn't fit what we know of past climate change and its causes, that appears to be caused by human activity" or something to that effect. that's what *i* got out of it anyway.

and i'm not sure how exactly you expect to debunk the science without even attempting to read any of it, but tilt on, Senor Quixote, you're bound to take out a windmill or two. or just look "dishonest or ignorant" by oversimplifying things to an absurd degree.

That's a dandy definition...I like it. It's sciency!

But that's not what rabid, zealous true believers in the One True Faith believe.

They believe that ONLY human activity is causing "climate change" (nifty switch to a better phrase since Algore got snowed out of a Global Warming conference a few years ago...).

So, if you hold to something less dogmatic (all those "anamolous" and "may be" things you put in there are not very doctrinaire...do you need a refresher course?) good for you!

Meanwhile, who cares? Your kind are not driving the thing, the other kind IS. You and I will soon be paying higher taxes of all sorts because Humans Cause Global Warming!!!!

You, as a lib, may think we all should pay higher taxes to Stop Global Warming, Now!!! But I don't see any True Believers marching in Beijing and demanding that China stop polluting so much...or in India and Pakistan...or even in Canada (the biggest polluter on a per capita basis on the planet).

Tokie

 

[JoeEllison]

You didn't give your particular definition of AGWist until after I had posted. How was anyone to know you had defined it to exclude climate scientists when others, who use it in the same pejorative way, are not so particular.

How about a full definition of AGWist_TC so we can all agree.

How much do you want to bet the tokie's definition is so much of a strawman that it applies to exactly zero people?

 

[Tokenconservative]

Joe, I've noticed the exact same thing. What's funny, of course, is that they like to accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being True Believers, cultists, etc. Notice also that, like Creationists/IDers, they tend to be right-wing, often extremely so.

You might enjoy my HTBAGWS

Notice as well (not that you will) that it's the LEFT which has so conveniently identified Creationists and IDers as "rightwing" or "conservative."

Works out well, doncha think!?

Tokie

 

[Acleron]

Sure: Anyone who believes that absent the eeeehhhhvvviiillllll of modern, industrial humans, climate would be static.

Tokie

How much do you want to bet the tokie's definition is so much of a strawman that it applies to exactly zero people?

For my money, you are right on the button.

However, I suspect he has left a lot of wriggle room. Notice the lack of definition of evil, modern, industrial, human, climate and static.

Taking then an AGWist_TC at face value (talk about living dangerously) I don't know of anybody, does anyone?

 

[Tokenconservative]

okie fine, but.... so? in forming *my* opinion of whether AGW is 'real', why should i give a heap of fecal matter what your hypothetical 'man on the street' thinks about it? is this thread nothing more than a windup, then?

Um...I guess you need to reframe the question...is there something here or elsewhere that suggests to you I give a flying naked mole rat's ass what you do or do not think?

If so, I apologize for having led you down that particular primrose path for I assure you, what you do or do not think of this or any issue is of no concern to me whatsoever.

I hope we've cleared up that misconception.

Tokie