Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#2,502
#2,502
Sandvol said:
Scientific truth. You're sociopathic.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem. Another non-refutal. The substance of your posts has plummeted.

tumscalcium said:
He's completely avoided my very simple questions for dozens of pages now. Don't expect an intelligent reply. I'm still waiting on one.
Click to expand...

You two are pathetic. I've answered all sorts of wacky questions in this thread, and have returned to any people asked me to.

The skeptics keep avoiding my questions. Tell me, specifically, how your conspiracy theory works. Tell me what other conspiracy theories you believe in. Try refuting any of the facts. Try refuting the obvious connections between climate science denial, smoking risk denial, HIV-AIDS denial, vaccine denial, evolution denial, etc.


"Denialism in most people is a defense mechanism that protects their core values from being undermined by reality. And no matter what your ideology, at some point, you will have a conflict with the facts because no ideology perfectly describes or models all of reality. You are going to come into conflict with the facts at some point in your life no matter where you are on the ideological spectrum. The question is, what will you do when that conflict arises? Will you entrench behind a barrier of rhetoric, or will you accept that all of us are flawed, and our beliefs at best can only provide an approximation of reality – a handy guide but never an infallible one?"
 
#2,503
#2,503
BartW said:
Ad hominem. Another non-refutal. The substance of your posts has plummeted.



You two are pathetic. I've answered all sorts of wacky questions in this thread, and have returned to any people asked me to.

The skeptics keep avoiding my questions. Tell me, specifically, how your conspiracy theory works. Tell me what other conspiracy theories you believe in. Try refuting any of the facts. Try refuting the obvious connections between climate science denial, smoking risk denial, HIV-AIDS denial, vaccine denial, evolution denial, etc.


"Denialism in most people is a defense mechanism that protects their core values from being undermined by reality. And no matter what your ideology, at some point, you will have a conflict with the facts because no ideology perfectly describes or models all of reality. You are going to come into conflict with the facts at some point in your life no matter where you are on the ideological spectrum. The question is, what will you do when that conflict arises? Will you entrench behind a barrier of rhetoric, or will you accept that all of us are flawed, and our beliefs at best can only provide an approximation of reality – a handy guide but never an infallible one?"
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly you are fresh out of school aren't you?

Just curious Bart.
 
#2,505
#2,505
Obsessed said:
If I remember correctly you are fresh out of school aren't you?

Just curious Bart.
Click to expand...

Yes. I assure you my belief in conspiracy theories won't increase with age. As a scientist I'm just too darn skeptical.

govols/cc said:
I bet Bart ordered some extenze pills. With all the data & testimonials it has to work.
Click to expand...

Zing! Extenze is facing lawsuits for false advertising. Because they were debunked by scientists. But I'm sure that's just a conspiracy to regulate our penis pills, right?

Boy that lame excuse for an insult sure blew up in your face, didn't it



The truth is out there :alien:
 
Last edited:
#2,506
#2,506
BartW said:
Yes. I assure you my belief in conspiracy theories won't increase with age. As a scientist I'm just too darn skeptical.



Zing! Extenze is facing lawsuits for false advertising. Because they were debunked by scientists. But I'm sure that's just a conspiracy to regulate our penis pills, right?

Boy that lame excuse for an insult sure blew up in your face, didn't it



The truth is out there :alien:
Click to expand...

Guess there nobody to sue about the global warming scam.......maybe in a million years
 
#2,507
#2,507
govols/cc said:
Guess there nobody to sue about the global warming scam.......maybe in a million years
Click to expand...

dighole.jpg


An Inconvenient Lie: Big Tobacco Was Put on Trial for Denying the Effects of Smoking; Is Climate Change Denial Off-Limits?

The parallels are undeniable

BartW said:
joecamstack2.jpg



billboard2-620x2291.png
Click to expand...
 
#2,511
#2,511
govols/cc said:
What are you even talking about?
Click to expand...

Lol. Can't keep up with the conversation? You might want to go back a page and review.

We're talking about denialism

BartW said:
Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?

What is denialism?

"The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none"

What are the characteristics of denialism?

1. Conspiracy Theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy.

2. Fake Experts
These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. They have been used extensively by the tobacco industry since 1974, when a senior executive with R J Reynolds devised a system to score scientists working on tobacco in relation to the extent to which they were supportive of the industry’s position.

The use of fake experts is often complemented by denigration of established experts and researchers, with accusations and innuendo that seek to discredit their work and cast doubt on their motivations. Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and who has made a great contribution to exposing tobacco industry tactics, is a frequent target for tobacco denialists. He is described on the Forces website as infamous for being the boldest of liars in ‘‘tobacco control’’ that most ethically challenged gang of con artists.

3. Cherrypicking
The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.

Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness, often comparing themselves to Galileo.

4. Impossible Expectations
The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon.

5. Logical fallacies
The fifth is the use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies. Logical fallacies include the use of red herrings, or deliberate attempts to change the argument and straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented to makeit easier to refute.

Other fallacies used by denialists are false analogy, exemplified by the argument against evolution that, as the universe and a watch are both extremely complex, the universe must have been created by the equivalent of a watchmaker and the excluded middle fallacy (either passive smoking causes a wide range of specified diseases or causes none at all, so doubt about an association with one disease, such as breast cancer, is regarded as sufficient to reject an association with any disease).

How should one respond to denialism?

Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs. Finally there is eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status conferred on the maverick by the media.

Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists from having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#2,512
#2,512
BartW said:
Lol. Can't keep up with the conversation? You might want to go back a page and review.

We're talking about denialism
Click to expand...

I don't try & keep up I just drop in to laugh at you & your theories from time to time. Keep fighting the fight lil Al.
 
#2,514
#2,514
BartW said:
Ad hominem. Another non-refutal. The substance of your posts has plummeted.



You two are pathetic. I've answered all sorts of wacky questions in this thread, and have returned to any people asked me to.

The skeptics keep avoiding my questions. Tell me, specifically, how your conspiracy theory works. Tell me what other conspiracy theories you believe in. Try refuting any of the facts. Try refuting the obvious connections between climate science denial, smoking risk denial, HIV-AIDS denial, vaccine denial, evolution denial, etc.


"Denialism in most people is a defense mechanism that protects their core values from being undermined by reality. And no matter what your ideology, at some point, you will have a conflict with the facts because no ideology perfectly describes or models all of reality. You are going to come into conflict with the facts at some point in your life no matter where you are on the ideological spectrum. The question is, what will you do when that conflict arises? Will you entrench behind a barrier of rhetoric, or will you accept that all of us are flawed, and our beliefs at best can only provide an approximation of reality – a handy guide but never an infallible one?"
Click to expand...

Then answer mine.

I've already stated that I don't care if AGW is real. It might be, might not, don't care. My problem lies with the supposed "Solutions".
 
#2,515
#2,515
tumscalcium said:
Then answer mine.

I've already stated that I don't care if AGW is real. It might be, might not, don't care. My problem lies with the supposed "Solutions".
Click to expand...

The US will throw/waste billions at supposed "green energy" solutions while increasing bs regulations costing Americans more jobs & while the rest of the world don't give a shiz. Go USA!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,520
#2,520
BartW said:
Please tell me how my libertarian beliefs blind me to the obvious global conspiracy known as science.

The fact that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming is a scientific truth, not a political stance. Pushing the carbon tax is a political stance. I'm open to other ideas but people don't seem as interested in discussing the politics as they are in denying the science.
Click to expand...

if you were a libertarian then you would be cool with me/you burning anything because libertarians believe a government does not have the power to limit our activities
 
#2,521
#2,521
Yippee the tin foil hat club came out to play

tumscalcium said:
Then answer mine.

I've already stated that I don't care if AGW is real. It might be, might not, don't care. My problem lies with the supposed "Solutions".
Click to expand...

If you want me to answer something I’ve skipped point me to it. If you’re just going to repost the same question I’ve already answered multiple times don’t bother, I'll just repost my replies.

If you have a different solution to offer, let’s hear it. Sticking our heads in the sand is not a solution.

govols/cc said:
The US will throw/waste billions at supposed "green energy" solutions while increasing bs regulations costing Americans more jobs & while the rest of the world don't give a shiz. Go USA!
Click to expand...
tumscalcium said:
^ Gets it.
Click to expand...

That would be the democratic solution – increase regulation, subsidize green energy. The carbon tax is a fiscally conservative solution – decrease regulation, let the free market decide winners and losers in the alternative energy industries.

Most of the world gives way more shizzes than the US. They didn’t wait on China or America to impose carbon legislation.

MG1968 said:
the Farmers' Almanac is still a better predictor than Bart's billion dollar misinformation campaign
Click to expand...
hog88 said:
Truth!
Click to expand...
508mikey said:
agreed -- go away Bart
Click to expand...


Lol. Y'all would think "Caleb Weatherbee" is an expert. Them astrologists is purty dern smart two!

@ the bolded:
not-sure-if-trolling-or-oblivious-to-irony.jpg


Describe my billion dollar misinformation campaign. Where is the money coming from? Where is it going? How? Why? The 'skeptics' still refuse to give me their detailed conspiracy theory.

I don’t even have to point to conspiracy theories. I can point to historical facts like Philip Morris being sued for his billion dollar tobacco denial campaign. Likewise there’s proof that the hydrocarbon industry funds denialist think-tanks like the Heartland Institute (also used by Philip Morris - see pictures above). Exxon and Koch, two of the largest publicly traceable funders, both recently promised they’d stop funding climate denial. Whether they’re telling the truth, I have my doubts.

VolsNSkinsFan said:
if you were a libertarian then you would be cool with me/you burning anything because libertarians believe a government does not have the power to limit our activities
Click to expand...

That’s dumb. Libertarian =/= Anarchist. Am I supposed to believe the government shouldn't have the power to keep me from murdering people?

BartW said:
And no matter what your ideology, at some point, you will have a conflict with the facts because no ideology perfectly describes or models all of reality.[/B] You are going to come into conflict with the facts at some point in your life no matter where you are on the ideological spectrum. The question is, what will you do when that conflict arises? Will you entrench behind a barrier of rhetoric, or will you accept that all of us are flawed, and our beliefs at best can only provide an approximation of reality – a handy guide but never an infallible one?"
Click to expand...

I’m libertarian, but I realize government does have a purpose. Just because you’re libertarian doesn’t mean you have to deny science. Science took us from caves to skyscrapers, you can’t turn your back on it now. If you people had your way we’d devolve into an idiocracy (well, more than we have already).
 
#2,522
#2,522
Bart, what predictions of doom and gloom have the alarmist like yourself been correct on?

in 2003, it was predicted that the Himalayas would be snow free within a decade, they are not

every year we're treated to predictions of frequent strong and damaging hurricanes due to global warming, hasn't happened

even this year's train of strong winter storms is nothing unprecedented, yet there are those on your side who want to claim that any extreme weather event is a result of AGW

maybe you would be taken more seriously if you weren't so obviously FOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,523
#2,523
BartW said:
Yippee the tin foil hat club came out to play



If you want me to answer something I’ve skipped point me to it. If you’re just going to repost the same question I’ve already answered multiple times don’t bother, I'll just repost my replies.

If you have a different solution to offer, let’s hear it. Sticking our heads in the sand is not a solution.




That would be the democratic solution – increase regulation, subsidize green energy. The carbon tax is a fiscally conservative solution – decrease regulation, let the free market decide winners and losers in the alternative energy industries.

Most of the world gives way more shizzes than the US. They didn’t wait on China or America to impose carbon legislation.






Lol. Y'all would think "Caleb Weatherbee" is an expert. Them astrologists is purty dern smart two!

@ the bolded:
not-sure-if-trolling-or-oblivious-to-irony.jpg


Describe my billion dollar misinformation campaign. Where is the money coming from? Where is it going? How? Why? The 'skeptics' still refuse to give me their detailed conspiracy theory.

I don’t even have to point to conspiracy theories. I can point to historical facts like Philip Morris being sued for his billion dollar tobacco denial campaign. Likewise there’s proof that the hydrocarbon industry funds denialist think-tanks like the Heartland Institute (also used by Philip Morris - see pictures above). Exxon and Koch, two of the largest publicly traceable funders, both recently promised they’d stop funding climate denial. Whether they’re telling the truth, I have my doubts.



That’s dumb. Libertarian =/= Anarchist. Am I supposed to believe the government shouldn't have the power to keep me from murdering people?



I’m libertarian, but I realize government does have a purpose. Just because you’re libertarian doesn’t mean you have to deny science. Science took us from caves to skyscrapers, you can’t turn your back on it now. If you people had your way we’d devolve into an idiocracy (well, more than we have already).
Click to expand...


Tin foil hat club? Wouldn't that be you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,524
#2,524
BartW said:
Yippee the tin foil hat club came out to play



If you want me to answer something I’ve skipped point me to it. If you’re just going to repost the same question I’ve already answered multiple times don’t bother, I'll just repost my replies.

If you have a different solution to offer, let’s hear it. Sticking our heads in the sand is not a solution.




That would be the democratic solution – increase regulation, subsidize green energy. The carbon tax is a fiscally conservative solution – decrease regulation, let the free market decide winners and losers in the alternative energy industries.

Most of the world gives way more shizzes than the US. They didn’t wait on China or America to impose carbon legislation.






Lol. Y'all would think "Caleb Weatherbee" is an expert. Them astrologists is purty dern smart two!

@ the bolded:
not-sure-if-trolling-or-oblivious-to-irony.jpg


Describe my billion dollar misinformation campaign. Where is the money coming from? Where is it going? How? Why? The 'skeptics' still refuse to give me their detailed conspiracy theory.

I don’t even have to point to conspiracy theories. I can point to historical facts like Philip Morris being sued for his billion dollar tobacco denial campaign. Likewise there’s proof that the hydrocarbon industry funds denialist think-tanks like the Heartland Institute (also used by Philip Morris - see pictures above). Exxon and Koch, two of the largest publicly traceable funders, both recently promised they’d stop funding climate denial. Whether they’re telling the truth, I have my doubts.



That’s dumb. Libertarian =/= Anarchist. Am I supposed to believe the government shouldn't have the power to keep me from murdering people?



I’m libertarian, but I realize government does have a purpose. Just because you’re libertarian doesn’t mean you have to deny science. Science took us from caves to skyscrapers, you can’t turn your back on it now. If you people had your way we’d devolve into an idiocracy (well, more than we have already).
Click to expand...

Whole lot of words to say " I really don't know shizz"!
 
#2,525
#2,525
MG1968 said:
Bart, what predictions of doom and gloom have the alarmist like yourself been correct on?

in 2003, it was predicted that the Himalayas would be snow free within a decade, they are not

every year we're treated to predictions of frequent strong and damaging hurricanes due to global warming, hasn't happened

even this year's train of strong winter storms is nothing unprecedented, yet there are those on your side who want to claim that any extreme weather event is a result of AGW

maybe you would be taken more seriously if you weren't so obviously FOS.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed where Australia broke every temperature record in the books last year? And the massive flooding in the UK? Crazy drought in Asia? Heck we're experiencing pretty severe drought here in the western US (predicted by climatoligists 10 years ago, btw). Of course you can't tie any single weather event to global warming.

Cite your claims. The only measurements that have been outside the IPCC's range of projections are sea level rise and arctic ice decline.

SLR_models_obs.gif


Arctic_models_obs.gif


If anything the IPCC's predictions have been on the conservative side.

govols/cc said:
Tin foil hat club? Wouldn't that be you?
Click to expand...

Um, no? I'm not the one espousing (MULTIPLE) conspiracy theories.

:spank:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top