PDA

View Full Version : Wyoming is 1st state to reject science standards (no global warming hoax)




Pages : [1] 2

RonPaulFanInGA
05-08-2014, 04:41 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WYOMING_SCIENCE?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-08-15-11-30


CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) -- Wyoming, the nation's top coal-producing state, is the first to reject new K-12 science standards proposed by national education groups mainly because of global warming components.

The Wyoming Board of Education decided recently that the Next Generation Science Standards need more review after questions were raised about the treatment of man-made global warming.

Tywysog Cymru
05-08-2014, 05:38 PM
It's only a matter of time before people start believing the world is flat again!

Dr.3D
05-08-2014, 05:43 PM
It's only a matter of time before people start believing the world is flat again!

I suppose the government could hire some scientists to do a study that would prove the world is flat and people would believe it. I dunno if they could get some kind of global tax over it though.

PRB
05-08-2014, 05:45 PM
I suppose the government could hire some scientists to do a study that would prove the world is flat and people would believe it. I dunno if they could get some kind of global tax over it though.

the government didn't hire any scientists to prove that global warming is true. even the article admits there's a difference between saying global warming is true and saying it's caused by man.

Henry Rogue
05-08-2014, 05:48 PM
It's only a matter of time before people start believing the world is flat again!
If that's where the government directs the grant money, I'm sure the consensus of the scientific community will be that it is.

LibForestPaul
05-08-2014, 05:51 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WYOMING_SCIENCE?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-08-15-11-30
I hate asking, and I probably do not want to know, but what components regarding global warming do you speak of?

PRB
05-08-2014, 07:44 PM
If that's where the government directs the grant money, I'm sure the consensus of the scientific community will be that it is.

are all government funded research gone to the wrong conclusions?

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 07:54 PM
are all government funded research gone to the wrong conclusions?

It's pretty safe to say... yes.

PRB
05-08-2014, 07:57 PM
It's pretty safe to say... yes.

ALL? really? LOL

Carson
05-08-2014, 08:11 PM
I suppose the government could hire some scientists to do a study that would prove the world is flat and people would believe it. I dunno if they could get some kind of global tax over it though.

They have had access to the unlimited funds that keep pulling out of their somewhere. The true accounting can be calculated by some of us that have lived and witnessed the change they have bought about and the dimensions of our subjugation.

Seems others have been spoon fed and raised on it.

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 09:24 PM
ALL? really? LOL

Yes, really. It's all about what they want you to believe... and it's pretty likely that what they want you to believe is not based on reality.

HVACTech
05-08-2014, 09:28 PM
the government didn't hire any scientists to prove that global warming is true. even the article admits there's a difference between saying global warming is true and saying it's caused by man.

can I quote you on that?

PRB
05-09-2014, 01:18 AM
can I quote you on that?

Let me rephrase, the government didn't NEED to hire any scientists to prove that global warming is true, lest you believe there's a global conspiracy by all governments and all scientists spare a minority of less than 1% (and when you hear those people, ask them what data they are looking at).

As for whether there's a difference between global warming being true and being caused by man, I don't see how you'd disagree, so quote me on that.

PRB
05-09-2014, 01:19 AM
Yes, really. It's all about what they want you to believe... and it's pretty likely that what they want you to believe is not based on reality.

So where, if any, are the good scientists, good research, how much science do you rely on daily?

From your computer to medical care, do you only use and believe things you want to and only because they're products of "private funded research"?

PaulConventionWV
05-09-2014, 07:32 AM
So where, if any, are the good scientists, good research, how much science do you rely on daily?

Scarce these days. I rely on about as much science as you. I put my pants on one leg at a time just like anyone else.


From your computer to medical care, do you only use and believe things you want to and only because they're products of "private funded research"?

I don't know. Give me some examples. I use things I need. Like I said, I'm no different from you. The key thing I look at when determining whether scientific studies are legit is the presence of an agenda. That's pretty clear here, as with just about any study that gets media attention.

They've really been ramping up the propaganda lately lest people for get about what imminent danger they're in due to the mild temperatures and cold winter.

As for me, I'm going to wait this hysteria out. Come back and talk to me in 40 years and we'll see if you're still running for the hills over this obvious hysteria. How much arguing does it take before you realize nothing's going to change?

roho76
05-09-2014, 07:39 AM
Global warming = taxing via carbon credits = Al Gore profiting off the carbon credit swapping scheme. The end.

PaulConventionWV
05-09-2014, 08:04 AM
And they all lived happily ever after... oh, wait. Except for everybody who's not Al Gore.

ItsTime
05-09-2014, 08:50 AM
Just because governments use global warming as an excuse to create new laws does not mean it is a hoax. The government often uses children as an excuse to create laws, but I am pretty sure children exist.

PRB
05-09-2014, 01:43 PM
Global warming = taxing via carbon credits = Al Gore profiting off the carbon credit swapping scheme. The end.

wrong, global warming does not equal taxing carbon emissions, if you believe that, YOU are agreeing with Al Gore. That's your problem.

PRB
05-09-2014, 01:44 PM
Just because governments use global warming as an excuse to create new laws does not mean it is a hoax. The government often uses children as an excuse to create laws, but I am pretty sure children exist.

Finally somebody understands this *sigh*

9/11 must've never happened if the government is using it as an excuse to attack Iraq.

PRB
05-09-2014, 01:45 PM
Scarce these days. I rely on about as much science as you. I put my pants on one leg at a time just like anyone else.

I don't know. Give me some examples. I use things I need.

"are all government funded research gone to the wrong conclusions?It's pretty safe to say... yes."

You don't know. Surprise!

fisharmor
05-09-2014, 02:09 PM
I only needed to see one picture of a global warming research thermometer set up next to a building's HVAC exhaust vent to realize this is all bullshit.

I thought when they got snowed out of their conference a couple years ago we'd be done with this fairy tale already.

PRB
05-09-2014, 02:16 PM
I only needed to see one picture of a global warming research thermometer set up next to a building's HVAC exhaust vent to realize this is all bullshit.

I thought when they got snowed out of their conference a couple years ago we'd be done with this fairy tale already.

because one thermometer is all they rely on, forget the millions of others.

as for snowed out of a conference, your assumption is that global warming has no snow.

jllundqu
05-09-2014, 02:16 PM
It's Global Cooling!!! er wait... It's Global Warming!!! no um.... It's Climate Change!!! dang it..... no, It's Global Climate Disruption! Yeah that's what it is! Now pay your fair share!

Ignostic?
05-09-2014, 02:38 PM
because one thermometer is all they rely on, forget the millions of others.

as for snowed out of a conference, your assumption is that global warming has no snow.

Not millions, just thousands (http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html). That's a ridiculously low resolution for the accuracy required for their claims. The living room of a typical house would require dozens of thermometers placed throughout it to be able to measure the temperature to a tenth of a degree accuracy. It's simply impossible for science to currently measure the Earth's average temperature to the accuracy required for their claims, let alone the historical data they are comparing it to.

Carson
05-09-2014, 04:47 PM
Here is some food for thought on global warming.

The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

Found it here;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019671/climategate-the-video-everyone-should-see/

Keith and stuff
05-09-2014, 05:09 PM
It's Global Cooling!!! er wait... It's Global Warming!!! no um.... It's Climate Change!!! dang it..... no, It's Global Climate Disruption! Yeah that's what it is! Now pay your fair share!

People seeking power will say whatever they can to get power. Make stuff up... take advantage of sad situations... take advantage of good things... smear good people. People want stuff and they will stop at nothing to get it.

PRB
05-09-2014, 06:39 PM
Not millions, just thousands (http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html). That's a ridiculously low resolution for the accuracy required for their claims. The living room of a typical house would require dozens of thermometers placed throughout it to be able to measure the temperature to a tenth of a degree accuracy. It's simply impossible for science to currently measure the Earth's average temperature to the accuracy required for their claims, let alone the historical data they are comparing it to.

therefore you expect future temperature to be higher or lower than scientists are predicting? or is it completely coin toss for you and you're prepared for all cases?

PRB
05-09-2014, 06:42 PM
Here is some food for thought on global warming.

The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

Found it here;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019671/climategate-the-video-everyone-should-see/

Comparing it to the past from anything over 100 years is pointless, since we didn't have the fragile lifestyle back then. Hurricane Sandy and Katrina didn't destroy civilization, it didn't kill all of Americans, it didn't even destroy the people's lives forever, not even those in the city. But does that mean it was nothing and nothing worth preparing for?

Nobody is saying global warming will destroy our way of life, but is that all you're concerned about? Hypocritically, you post graphs in your signature comparing dollar value to the past, as if you'd be willing to live the lifestyle of the past.

PRB
05-09-2014, 06:43 PM
People seeking power will say whatever they can to get power. Make stuff up... take advantage of sad situations... take advantage of good things... smear good people. People want stuff and they will stop at nothing to get it.

so to think they need to make stuff up is assuming an overkill and convuluted conspiracy.

PRB
05-09-2014, 06:44 PM
It's Global Cooling!!! er wait... It's Global Warming!!! no um.... It's Climate Change!!! dang it..... no, It's Global Climate Disruption! Yeah that's what it is! Now pay your fair share!

What does IPCC stand for? that's how long the phrase has been used. So you can stop with the baseless claim that "they" first claim cooling, then warming, then climate change, it's just not true.

Antischism
05-09-2014, 06:53 PM
People here should bookmark this site and read through it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

A lot of the arguments against anthropogenic climate change are addressed and there is a comment section for each issue for further reading/clarification.

PRB
05-09-2014, 06:58 PM
People here should bookmark this site and read through it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

A lot of the arguments against anthropogenic climate change are addressed and there is a comment section for each issue for further reading/clarification.

inb4 somebody dismisses it as state funded alarmist propaganda

PaulConventionWV
05-10-2014, 06:48 AM
Just because governments use global warming as an excuse to create new laws does not mean it is a hoax. The government often uses children as an excuse to create laws, but I am pretty sure children exist.

It actually kinda does. That's a false equivocation fallacy.

PaulConventionWV
05-10-2014, 06:49 AM
Finally somebody understands this *sigh*

9/11 must've never happened if the government is using it as an excuse to attack Iraq.

False equivocation.

You can't compare a real, tangible event, something that doesn't need reports to be proven, with a complicated theory involving myriad data points that nobody can directly observe. Where there is an agenda, you can bet the government is lying to you. Just because the actual event of 9/11 actually happened, that doesn't mean the facts surrounding it are not shrouded in secrecy. Something like global warming, however, doesn't need to actually happen to elicit a fear response from the people.

PaulConventionWV
05-10-2014, 06:50 AM
"are all government funded research gone to the wrong conclusions?It's pretty safe to say... yes."

You don't know. Surprise!

Your point?

PaulConventionWV
05-10-2014, 06:57 AM
inb4 somebody dismisses it as state funded alarmist propaganda

No, just sheeple propaganda. Scientists on something called skepticalscience.com? Nah, I've seen the science whores before and their language. They love the word "skeptic" and use it profusely, not to mention the word "science." I doubt there is a single scientist on that website. Just a bunch of faux "enlightened" know-it-alls.

PRB
05-10-2014, 11:03 AM
Your point?

you make a bold claim that "it's safe to say all" but then when I ask you, you have no idea what you're talking about.

PRB
05-10-2014, 11:04 AM
No, just sheeple propaganda. Scientists on something called skepticalscience.com? Nah, I've seen the science whores before and their language. They love the word "skeptic" and use it profusely, not to mention the word "science." I doubt there is a single scientist on that website. Just a bunch of faux "enlightened" know-it-alls.

the scientists don't need to be "on the site" but several scientists are actually cited. who is this site's "faux enlightened" any different than the conspiracy theorist sites you read and trust?

Antischism
05-10-2014, 11:06 AM
No, just sheeple propaganda. Scientists on something called skepticalscience.com? Nah, I've seen the science whores before and their language. They love the word "skeptic" and use it profusely, not to mention the word "science." I doubt there is a single scientist on that website. Just a bunch of faux "enlightened" know-it-alls.

You should probably look through the site if that's your assumption. They base everything off of extensively researched, peer reviewed science papers. Whether you choose to ignore scientific consensus or not is your choice, though. The research is there and cited, then explained. There is also a section for comments where people can ask questions, which is also helpful if you want to read through it.

PRB
05-10-2014, 11:17 AM
You should probably look through the site if that's your assumption. They base everything off of extensively researched, peer reviewed science papers. Whether you choose to ignore scientific consensus or not is your choice, though. The research is there and cited, then explained. There is also a section for comments where people can ask questions, which is also helpful if you want to read through it.

why should I read a site I already decided (I mean, KNOW) is full of lies? I already know their "research" is funded by evil NWO statists who just want to tax us, who cares if some claim they don't want to tax us, they still do! there is no scientific consensus, and even if there is, that's still not truth, if you ask me what is truth, I won't tell you because I don't know, but I still know global warming is a hoax, because if it wasn't, I'd jump right in and advocate for carbon taxes just like the stupid liberals do.

this is where the crux of the problem is, people CAN'T think of actual solutions to the problem, or even willing to prepare for it, so they can only deny it every step of the way, they KNOW in their minds that if they can't think of a better alternative to carbon taxing, that'll be the only choice left IF, God forbid, it was ever proven to their satisfaction that global warming is real.

to the contrary, people who are curious enough, like say, you and me, actually read through, ask questions, demand the same standard of evidence, to both sides (or all sides)

Origanalist
05-10-2014, 11:38 AM
why should I read a site I already decided (I mean, KNOW) is full of lies? I already know their "research" is funded by evil NWO statists who just want to tax us, who cares if some claim they don't want to tax us, they still do! there is no scientific consensus, and even if there is, that's still not truth, if you ask me what is truth, I won't tell you because I don't know, but I still know global warming is a hoax, because if it wasn't, I'd jump right in and advocate for carbon taxes just like the stupid liberals do.

this is where the crux of the problem is, people CAN'T think of actual solutions to the problem, or even willing to prepare for it, so they can only deny it every step of the way, they KNOW in their minds that if they can't think of a better alternative to carbon taxing, that'll be the only choice left IF, God forbid, it was ever proven to their satisfaction that global warming is real.

to the contrary, people who are curious enough, like say, you and me, actually read through, ask questions, demand the same standard of evidence, to both sides (or all sides)

Why should I read that site indeed? This bs has been spouted for decades upon decades now. Feel free to get caught up in the hysteria, I'll pass thank you.

KCIndy
05-10-2014, 11:58 AM
There's something else to consider regarding AGW, and I've rarely heard it addressed.

Let's say - just for the sake of argument - that global warming exists and IS being caused by human activity. Even if the United States suddenly went to zero carbon emission tomorrow, it will not change the fact that China is already (arguably) emitting more carbon than the U.S. and other developing nations (India, Brazil, other parts of Asia) are overtaking us and overtaking us FAST.

Spending trillions of dollars in an attempt to cut carbon emissions in the U.S. strikes me as an extremely expensive exercise in futility.

Antischism
05-10-2014, 12:32 PM
why should I read a site I already decided (I mean, KNOW) is full of lies? I already know their "research" is funded by evil NWO statists who just want to tax us, who cares if some claim they don't want to tax us, they still do! there is no scientific consensus, and even if there is, that's still not truth, if you ask me what is truth, I won't tell you because I don't know, but I still know global warming is a hoax, because if it wasn't, I'd jump right in and advocate for carbon taxes just like the stupid liberals do.

this is where the crux of the problem is, people CAN'T think of actual solutions to the problem, or even willing to prepare for it, so they can only deny it every step of the way, they KNOW in their minds that if they can't think of a better alternative to carbon taxing, that'll be the only choice left IF, God forbid, it was ever proven to their satisfaction that global warming is real.

to the contrary, people who are curious enough, like say, you and me, actually read through, ask questions, demand the same standard of evidence, to both sides (or all sides)

I think part of the problem is people either don't like the idea of change thus they refuse to believe the countless scientific papers presented and peer reviewed, or they don't like the ideas proposed to make changes that will improve our environment. Some don't understand that you can both accept anthropogenic climate change is real and still disagree with the solutions presented. There are plenty of libertarians for example who don't deny anthropogenic climate change, but have ideas of how to make positive changes through the free market. The ideas vary, but there's nothing wrong with devising new strategies. I understand that there are people who want to use climate change as an excuse to pass laws that hardly deal with the issue as a way to expand government control, but that shouldn't be a reason to deny overwhelming scientific consensus—that just means there are people in government looking to take advantage of any possible situation, as we've seen from both sides.

PRB
05-10-2014, 02:21 PM
I think part of the problem is people either don't like the idea of change thus they refuse to believe the countless scientific papers presented and peer reviewed, or they don't like the ideas proposed to make changes that will improve our environment.


You lose even me the moment you say environment. Environment implies to conservatives and libertarians : trees, animals, air, water, trash, taxes, government.

Say something that actually matters, and in this case, it really is what it's about : stability of our fragile modern lifestyle.

Like I said earlier, Sandy and Katrina didn't destroy whole cities, it didn't even kill that many people, but it's enough to make people's lives miserable for 5-10 years (as compared to the comfortable modern life they had prior to the hurricanes). People complain about 5-10% taxes, 5-10 years of inconvenience is far greater than 5-10% of your income lost (especially when you take into account what years of your life you're losing).

People who reduce the concern of climate instability blatantly ignore that you don't need to die to make your life hard enough that you'd avoid something. So the idea that climate change will wipe out civilization as we know it, is both unnecessary and useless. How would they like it if we dismissed their concerns about government increase with "Hey, look at the past! Look at a graph! The people in the past had it way worse than you!!!! your concerns are nothing compared to what the graph says!"




Some don't understand that you can both accept anthropogenic climate change is real and still disagree with the solutions presented.


Exactly.



There are plenty of libertarians for example who don't deny anthropogenic climate change, but have ideas of how to make positive changes through the free market.


Or if nothing else, prepare for it. Which you can't do if you're denying that it's happening.



The ideas vary, but there's nothing wrong with devising new strategies. I understand that there are people who want to use climate change as an excuse to pass laws that hardly deal with the issue as a way to expand government control, but that shouldn't be a reason to deny overwhelming scientific consensus—that just means there are people in government looking to take advantage of any possible situation, as we've seen from both sides.

I sure wish people understood this distinction.

PRB
05-10-2014, 02:22 PM
There's something else to consider regarding AGW, and I've rarely heard it addressed.

Let's say - just for the sake of argument - that global warming exists and IS being caused by human activity. Even if the United States suddenly went to zero carbon emission tomorrow, it will not change the fact that China is already (arguably) emitting more carbon than the U.S. and other developing nations (India, Brazil, other parts of Asia) are overtaking us and overtaking us FAST.

Spending trillions of dollars in an attempt to cut carbon emissions in the U.S. strikes me as an extremely expensive exercise in futility.

Agreed. Which is a great argument to oppose carbon emissions regulations, but no reason to deny that it's happening and preparing for it, or better yet, capitalizing on it.

PRB
05-10-2014, 02:23 PM
Why should I read that site indeed? This bs has been spouted for decades upon decades now. Feel free to get caught up in the hysteria, I'll pass thank you.

And you know it's BS because you're a scientist.

Dr.3D
05-10-2014, 02:39 PM
A scientist learns about the world around him through observation. Anybody who isn't a scientist must be in a vegetative state.

Origanalist
05-10-2014, 02:56 PM
And you know it's BS because you're a scientist.

Do you really want me to compile a list of predictions about climate made by "scientists"?


Like I said earlier, Sandy and Katrina didn't destroy whole cities, it didn't even kill that many people, but it's enough to make people's lives miserable for 5-10 years (as compared to the comfortable modern life they had prior to the hurricanes).

Are you implying that hurricanes are somehow caused by mans activities?

PRB
05-10-2014, 03:10 PM
Do you really want me to compile a list of predictions about climate made by "scientists"?


Only if they're peer reviewed and preferably recent. So posting magazine covers about predicted cooling won't count.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

And if you try to conclude that they're either all wrong or mostly wrong, I'll ask you what you predict, or who do you trust to predict. Unless you believe that all bets are off and all guesses are equally likely (why not?)



Are you implying that hurricanes are somehow caused by mans activities?

Nope, just that any climate instability that can be caused or worsened by human activity need not be much worse than hurricanes we see today for it disrupt the life we're accustomed to.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-10-2014, 04:18 PM
But does that mean it was nothing and nothing worth preparing for?




Then prepare yourself and stop demanding that everyone else be responsible for your fabulous lifestyle. I'm not responsible for some dipshit who insists on living somewhere because he thinks his city is so glorious or he likes his waterfront view.

Origanalist
05-10-2014, 04:29 PM
I'll ask you what you predict, or who do you trust to predict.

I predict climate will change, just like it always has. And I think all this clamoring about it is a total waste of time and an attempt to spread fear to gain power. Up to twenty thousand years ago most of Canada and North america was covered with ice.

PRB
05-10-2014, 05:06 PM
I predict climate will change, just like it always has.


Be a bit more specific if you dare.



And I think all this clamoring about it is a total waste of time and an attempt to spread fear to gain power.


What's to fear if you know what's coming?



Up to twenty thousand years ago most of Canada and North america was covered with ice.

And who was alive then claiming life was just dandy?

PRB
05-10-2014, 05:08 PM
Then prepare yourself and stop demanding that everyone else be responsible for your fabulous lifestyle. I'm not responsible for some dipshit who insists on living somewhere because he thinks his city is so glorious or he likes his waterfront view.

then why would you complain when they have the highest property taxes and cost of living? or greatest government inteference, since you obviously don't live there.

Origanalist
05-10-2014, 05:46 PM
Be a bit more specific if you dare.



What's to fear if you know what's coming?



And who was alive then claiming life was just dandy?

If I dare? Ewww, scary....ok, it's getting warmer. Throughout the solar system.

I'm not afraid. I'm not prone to hysteria.

I don't know, wooly mamoths?

PRB
05-10-2014, 06:39 PM
If I dare? Ewww, scary....ok, it's getting warmer. Throughout the solar system.

I'm not afraid. I'm not prone to hysteria.

I don't know, wooly mamoths?

See? Maybe THIS is why you should read the site, so you don't repeat ignorant and wrong facts.

The claim that other planets are warming throughout the solar system is just not true. (Unless you have better data to refute this)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-neptune.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm

And it's not the sun..thanks.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

There's nothing to be afraid of if you're willing to be corrected.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-10-2014, 07:43 PM
Comparing it to the past from anything over 100 years is pointless, since we didn't have the fragile lifestyle back then.

What's a fragile lifestyle?



Hurricane Sandy and Katrina didn't destroy civilization,...

You're always so concerned about such people. How much did you donate to them?




then why would you complain when they have the highest property taxes and cost of living? or greatest government inteference, since you obviously don't live there.

Since when does every house near a river have high property taxes? Since when do people in the midwest and the south have the highest cost of living?

I live in the United States. Why would you complain when I tell you the federal government and people don't owe you the living you demand?

PRB
05-11-2014, 12:04 PM
What's a fragile lifestyle?




You're always so concerned about such people. How much did you donate to them?





Since when does every house near a river have high property taxes? Since when do people in the midwest and the south have the highest cost of living?

I live in the United States. Why would you complain when I tell you the federal government and people don't owe you the living you demand?

Where did i say anybody owes me anything or that i care about hurricane victims?

PRB
05-11-2014, 12:06 PM
What's a fragile lifestyle?



For starters, hysterical hate of government

Bossobass
05-11-2014, 03:09 PM
Only if they're peer reviewed and preferably recent. So posting magazine covers about predicted cooling won't count.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

And if you try to conclude that they're either all wrong or mostly wrong, I'll ask you what you predict, or who do you trust to predict. Unless you believe that all bets are off and all guesses are equally likely (why not?)

Nope, just that any climate instability that can be caused or worsened by human activity need not be much worse than hurricanes we see today for it disrupt the life we're accustomed to.

Ya know, I would have thought that Alan Greenspan was the biggest bullshitter of all time. Thank god he had the consensus of all of the world's leading economists, financial sector CEOs, Treasury Secretary, presidential advisers, etc...

And, if they hadn't stopped me from using hair spray in the 70s, that hole in the ozone would have taken me out with 3 billion other souls with incurable cancer and I'd never have lived long enough to swallow Greenspan's (peer reviewed) bullshit.

I'm also thrilled that I survived the late 70s onset of the new Ice Age as well. It got pretty cold there for a few years... I guess that's an Ice Age 'cause we know for sure that the majority of scientists couldn't have been mistaken in that prediction.

And, of course, a decade before the ozone hole, I'm glad they drilled me to "duck and cover" when the Reds nuked my elementary school. Thank god for Ronny who 20 years later showed us all how the Reds were ahead of the US militarily by 20 to 1 so's we could whip out the US credit card and spend 2 trillion right quick to even the playing field.

After all that, and before global climate warming changing choking freezing ass-fucking gets me, those bloody terrorists will cyber-attack me with a dirty bomb after they crash a jet into my bedroom... a jet with killer bees in the engines that swarm all over me and sting me after the jet crashes.

I'm sure antibiotic resistant Ebola, e coli, MERS, SARS, H1N1, HPV-18-L1 and the rest of the biblical plague cast of thousands will get to the terrorists first because God loves me.

Climate change...? Please, wake the fuck up, will ya?

dude58677
05-11-2014, 05:44 PM
so to think they need to make stuff up is assuming an overkill and convuluted conspiracy.

There is no falsifiability with global warming. There is no single test to prove it and no way to disprove global warming.

HVACTech
05-11-2014, 06:19 PM
You lose even me the moment you say environment. Environment implies to conservatives and libertarians : trees, animals, air, water, trash, taxes, government.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

jkr
05-11-2014, 06:56 PM
how many times do i have to explain this?!

THE EARTH IS FLAT

SPACE IS RounD!

dude58677
05-11-2014, 07:16 PM
how many times do i have to explain this?!

THE EARTH IS FLAT

SPACE IS RounD!


https://webspace.utexas.edu/cokerwr/www/index.html/distinguish.htm

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Pscience/science-pseudoscience.pdf

PaulConventionWV
05-11-2014, 08:09 PM
you make a bold claim that "it's safe to say all" but then when I ask you, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Fine, it was tongue-in-cheek, but the point is that you have to look for an agenda.

PaulConventionWV
05-11-2014, 08:12 PM
therefore you expect future temperature to be higher or lower than scientists are predicting? or is it completely coin toss for you and you're prepared for all cases?

I think most people just treat it as if there is no controversy and live day-to-day like they always have. You come on here and argue about it, but what do you really do?

PaulConventionWV
05-11-2014, 08:16 PM
the scientists don't need to be "on the site" but several scientists are actually cited. who is this site's "faux enlightened" any different than the conspiracy theorist sites you read and trust?

That's what I thought. The point being that these people are just regurgitating the oft-repeated mantra of a "consensus" without actually engaging in science. I don't know which conspiracy theorist cites you're talking about. I use critical reasoning and look for agendas. You don't need to have experts to tell you what to think in order to make a reasonable judgment on most of what is said.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-11-2014, 08:17 PM
Where did i say anybody owes me anything or that i care about hurricane victims?

Right here:


Obviously Katrina & Sandy victims mean nothing to you. Hell, I'm sure people died in plane crashes before Malaysia 370 and 9/11 too, what's the point of caring?

And here:


...let's tell Sandy and Katrina people to just move. What's so hard about that?

And here:


Hurricane Sandy and Katrina didn't destroy civilization...But does that mean it was nothing and nothing worth preparing for?

And here:



How many Katrina and Sandys can you survive? How many would you do nothing in preparation for if you could know about it in advance? How many people died in both hurricanes combined?





So let me get this straight. The people themselves who live in these places don't even care to prepare, but I'm supposed to fork over my money because I'm supposed to care?

How much money did you give to these people?






For starters, hysterical hate of government

So a hysterical hate of government invalidates the hockey stick graph that was posted, or any other weather data over 100 years old?

PaulConventionWV
05-11-2014, 08:19 PM
You should probably look through the site if that's your assumption. They base everything off of extensively researched, peer reviewed science papers. Whether you choose to ignore scientific consensus or not is your choice, though. The research is there and cited, then explained. There is also a section for comments where people can ask questions, which is also helpful if you want to read through it.

That's what I thought. People like to tout the peer-reviewed process, but it all takes place within a corrupt system that revolves around government funding. They're basically just regurgitating the supposed consensus in their own words. As if I needed someone to interpret things that are corrupted to begin with. I can read and understand just fine without their biased "help."

PaulConventionWV
05-11-2014, 08:26 PM
why should I read a site I already decided (I mean, KNOW) is full of lies? I already know their "research" is funded by evil NWO statists who just want to tax us, who cares if some claim they don't want to tax us, they still do! there is no scientific consensus, and even if there is, that's still not truth, if you ask me what is truth, I won't tell you because I don't know, but I still know global warming is a hoax, because if it wasn't, I'd jump right in and advocate for carbon taxes just like the stupid liberals do.

this is where the crux of the problem is, people CAN'T think of actual solutions to the problem, or even willing to prepare for it, so they can only deny it every step of the way, they KNOW in their minds that if they can't think of a better alternative to carbon taxing, that'll be the only choice left IF, God forbid, it was ever proven to their satisfaction that global warming is real.

to the contrary, people who are curious enough, like say, you and me, actually read through, ask questions, demand the same standard of evidence, to both sides (or all sides)

Sometimes I wonder if you global warming proponents actually believe this yourself. Do you live in constant fear that "global warming" is going to kill you someday? Do you really believe that anything is going to change? What's it like to think that the world is constantly undergoing some gradual change that will eventually kill us all?

And what do you really do about it besides argue? I'm beginning to think this is really just a debate over the legitimacy of the current, government-funded scientific process in which people in white robes constantly tell you what to believe, in order to establish said legitimacy for other, more pressing debates on scientific issues. Global warming? Who cares. I, for one, am perfectly content to wait for another 40 years and then laugh in everyone's face when nothing happens. Eventually, the theory has to break down. They can't even measure the world's temperature reliably, and we're supposed to think they can compare it to records of tens or hundreds of thousands of years?

Origanalist
05-11-2014, 08:29 PM
See? Maybe THIS is why you should read the site, so you don't repeat ignorant and wrong facts.


No, that's why I don't read the site, but carry on yourself if you wish. Come back in twenty years and tell me how that worked out for you.

PaulConventionWV
05-11-2014, 08:30 PM
And you know it's BS because you're a scientist.

And you know it's not because you're a scientist...?

PaulConventionWV
05-11-2014, 08:38 PM
For starters, hysterical hate of government

Ha. I think you're on the wrong site. Trusting government, in any way, shape, or form, and to any degree, is much worse than hating it.

PRB
05-11-2014, 10:08 PM
Sometimes I wonder if you global warming proponents actually believe this yourself. Do you live in constant fear that "global warming" is going to kill you someday?
No.

Again, do I need to fear something will kill me to try to prepare or avoid something?

PRB
05-11-2014, 10:12 PM
So a hysterical hate of government invalidates the hockey stick graph that was posted, or any other weather data over 100 years old?

No, hatred doesn't invalidate scientific data.

PRB
05-11-2014, 10:15 PM
And you know it's not because you're a scientist...?

I know enough about science and the scientific method that I don't outright dismiss something just because I think somebody has an agenda, nor do I accuse scientists of having an agenda unless I have reason to believe they do. I am not a scientist for a living, if that's what you're asking.

PRB
05-11-2014, 10:16 PM
No, that's why I don't read the site, but carry on yourself if you wish. Come back in twenty years and tell me how that worked out for you.

how what worked out for me?

PRB
05-11-2014, 10:26 PM
So let me get this straight. The people themselves who live in these places don't even care to prepare, but I'm supposed to fork over my money because I'm supposed to care?


Why do they not care to prepare? Because they, like you, believe everything is fine and nothing will ever happen? Or they're stupid?

Never said you should care either. Why don't you live where they do? Because you know more than they do that where they live isn't safe?

Where are these places that "only dipshits live"? And how do you know that?

Weston White
05-12-2014, 03:10 AM
Let me rephrase, the government didn't NEED to hire any scientists to prove that global warming is true, lest you believe there's a global conspiracy by all governments and all scientists spare a minority of less than 1% (and when you hear those people, ask them what data they are looking at).

As for whether there's a difference between global warming being true and being caused by man, I don't see how you'd disagree, so quote me on that.

The issue is not simply global warming, but anthropogenic global warming, or mankind-induced climate change. Which even if that be true, does it really have any long-lasting or detrimental environmental effects, or are its effects ultimately environmentally positive?

The real issue that should be openly debated is pollution itself, using new technologies to deal with reducing smog or recycling refuse. The rest will as a result take care of itself in the process. How would imposing new taxes or implementing new regulations alone, ever functionally serve to forge a worthwhile pathway for final resolutions on the matter?

Otherwise, we might as well turn back our historical clocks by 1,700 years, so that we can just blame all of the worlds existing evils on non-Christians and have them all pillaged, plundered, and run through under the rule of a worldly Constantine, reborn. Really, to do so would vastly ease our modern social constraints by tenfold; and then I suppose next on our “things to do” list would be to run around carving crosses into the foreheads of all the remaining pagans?

Ergo, is there truly any deserving distinction in pitting the Christian, against the Muslim, against the Jew, against the Jehovah, against the atheist? Isn’t it really just a subjective simplicity turned overly complex through debate? Who really is right and wrong, after all, in the end?

Also: 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs (http://www.petitionproject.org/)


http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

Czolgosz
05-12-2014, 03:53 AM
The dinosaurs did it to themselves.

PaulConventionWV
05-12-2014, 03:55 AM
No.

Again, do I need to fear something will kill me to try to prepare or avoid something?

What are you actually doing about it?

PaulConventionWV
05-12-2014, 03:57 AM
I know enough about science and the scientific method that I don't outright dismiss something just because I think somebody has an agenda, nor do I accuse scientists of having an agenda unless I have reason to believe they do. I am not a scientist for a living, if that's what you're asking.

With government funding involved, you have a pretty good reason to believe they do. Maybe you should find out instead of assuming they don't. I know science, too. Does your knowledge invalidate my knowledge?

Ignostic?
05-12-2014, 09:40 AM
therefore you expect future temperature to be higher or lower than scientists are predicting? or is it completely coin toss for you and you're prepared for all cases?

Yeah, what I said implies that nobody can currently know what direction the climate is going. I don't know what you mean by prepared for all cases, though. I'm prepared for the climate to do what it's been doing for a long time since there is no reason to believe that the climate is going to go through any major changes. The safest bet is that the next hundred years will mostly resemble the last hundred years with minor differences.

People should be prepared anyway. The east coast should absolutely expect a major hurricane at some point just because there is a history of hurricanes hitting up the east coast every few decades. People like to point to "Super Storm" Sandy as some sort of proof of climate change when the reality is that the east coast is past due on getting hit with a hurricane and Sandy didn't even make landfall as a hurricane. The 1938 New England hurricane made landfall as a category 3 and hit even farther north than Sandy. And the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 might have been even worse. So, yeah, you should be prepared for disasters, but not because the climate change people say so. Historical record is plenty good enough reason to prepare.

Antischism
05-12-2014, 09:45 AM
Also: 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs (http://www.petitionproject.org/)


http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

Wrong.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm

PRB
05-12-2014, 11:16 AM
The issue is not simply global warming, but anthropogenic global warming, or mankind-induced climate change. Which even if that be true, does it really have any long-lasting or detrimental environmental effects, or are its effects ultimately environmentally positive?



You can't ask that question if you're in denial that it's happening. This is where people start switching their arguments, from "it's not happening" to "it's not us" to "what if it's not a bad thing?"

It can't be both a hoax and a good thing, decide which one you want.

TonySutton
05-12-2014, 11:28 AM
Global warming is a hoax!

Climate Change is what you should be concerned with....

geez didn't anyone get the memo?

PaulConventionWV
05-12-2014, 11:54 AM
You can't ask that question if you're in denial that it's happening. This is where people start switching their arguments, from "it's not happening" to "it's not us" to "what if it's not a bad thing?"

It can't be both a hoax and a good thing, decide which one you want.

False. You can switch arguments without implying that you've given up on the original. They're both valid questions that you have to answer because there's really no indication that it's a disaster, whether it's happening or not. It's possible to raise both questions simultaneously.

PRB
05-12-2014, 12:03 PM
Global warming is a hoax!

Climate Change is what you should be concerned with....

geez didn't anyone get the memo?

When did you get the memo?

The phrase has been used as early as 1956, but if nothing else, at late as 1988 when the IPCC, so what does CC stand for?

The idea that "first it was global warming, then they called it climate change because they realized it wasn't always warming" is simply not true.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
You are entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.

PRB
05-12-2014, 12:05 PM
False. You can switch arguments without implying that you've given up on the original.


Except you must when they're contradictory!



They're both valid questions that you have to answer because there's really no indication that it's a disaster, whether it's happening or not. It's possible to raise both questions simultaneously.

By which you've admitted that your concern isn't either question, just avoiding carbon taxes and emissions regulations.

Danke
05-12-2014, 12:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY

TonySutton
05-12-2014, 12:31 PM
When did you get the memo?

The phrase has been used as early as 1956, but if nothing else, at late as 1988 when the IPCC, so what does CC stand for?

The idea that "first it was global warming, then they called it climate change because they realized it wasn't always warming" is simply not true.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
You are entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.

hahaha I was being sarcastic. I thought it was pretty obvious otherwise I would have added /s

PRB
05-12-2014, 12:33 PM
hahaha I was being sarcastic. I thought it was pretty obvious otherwise I would have added /s

Poe's law. I've heard that line in this forum so many times I can't tell anymore.

Dr.3D
05-12-2014, 12:35 PM
so what does CC stand for?


Ummmm....... Community College?

PRB
05-12-2014, 12:36 PM
Ummmm....... Community College?

funny, but it sure doesn't stand for global warming.

Danke
05-12-2014, 12:43 PM
Ummmm....... Community College?

Corrupt Communists.

PaulConventionWV
05-12-2014, 07:13 PM
Except you must when they're contradictory!

They're not. That's my point. Weston White was assuming your view and questioning the foundation of your concern from that basis. It's a very basic debate strategy, and there's nothing contradictory about it.


By which you've admitted that your concern isn't either question, just avoiding carbon taxes and emissions regulations.

I don't know where you're getting that. I've said nothing about carbon taxes or regulations. What are you talking about?

PRB
05-12-2014, 07:22 PM
They're not. That's my point.


Saying something is a hoax to justify taxation IS contradictory to saying it's a good thing.

As is saying it's not happening, and then saying it's a natural phenomena.



I don't know where you're getting that. I've said nothing about carbon taxes or regulations. What are you talking about?

Oh, so what then, is this "agenda" you are talking about?

PRB
05-12-2014, 07:24 PM
False. You can switch arguments without implying that you've given up on the original. They're both valid questions that you have to answer because there's really no indication that it's a disaster, whether it's happening or not. It's possible to raise both questions simultaneously.

if you don't believe it's a disaster, you can't say it's a hoax. what's the hoax if it's not at the very least, something worth avoiding and a bad thing?

Occam's Banana
05-12-2014, 07:59 PM
And they all lived happily ever after... oh, wait. Except for everybody who's not Al Gore.

Not even Al Gore.

ManBearPig is still out there somewhere ...

Origanalist
05-12-2014, 08:05 PM
http://www.seattle-tourist.com/images/fremont-troll-bridge.jpg

PaulConventionWV
05-12-2014, 08:08 PM
Saying something is a hoax to justify taxation IS contradictory to saying it's a good thing.

As is saying it's not happening, and then saying it's a natural phenomena.

I think you're probably just confusing the language. Saying, "It's not happening", doesn't mean the temperature literally is not changing. It just means it's all part of a relatively stable pattern. In the same way, saying something is a hoax is NOT contradictory to ASSUMING that it is and asking why we should be worried. I can adopt your position and then look at it from your point of view to ask questions. That's not a contradiction, it's very common and it's valid.

The line of reasoning goes something like this, "Is it happening? And if it is, why should we be worried?" They're two different questions. The first question refers to what's really happening, and the second question refers to why we should care, regardless of whether it's happening or not. If the warming of the world causes no noticeable effects, then I'm going to treat it just the same as if it weren't happening.


Oh, so what then, is this "agenda" you are talking about?

I still don't understand what that has to do with anything. Why wouldn't I be concerned about the question?

PaulConventionWV
05-12-2014, 08:12 PM
if you don't believe it's a disaster, you can't say it's a hoax. what's the hoax if it's not at the very least, something worth avoiding and a bad thing?

If I don't believe it's a disaster, I can still assume that it is and ask why I should care based on that assumption. I am not tied to any particular position. I can switch back and forth for the sake of argument because I'm addressing two different questions: What's happening, and why should I care?

Carson
05-12-2014, 09:39 PM
Someone on Fark made this one when the news came out about the emails talking about falsifying data.

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/thenewera/globalwarmingturkeyrippedofffromRockIsDead.jpg

I think if your truly seeking answers you should always be open to questioning of the data. It doesn't really make a difference who's. Maybe especially your own.


And maybe too being open to questioning your solutions.

HVACTech
05-12-2014, 10:06 PM
if you don't believe it's a disaster, you can't say it's a hoax. what's the hoax if it's not at the very least, something worth avoiding and a bad thing?

a joke?

We should talk sometime about thermodynamics.
you seem passionate.
but ill informed.

Weston White
05-12-2014, 10:35 PM
Wrong.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm


No, it is not wrong, your link is blatantly misleading. Focusing only upon the large 31,000 figure:


f we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 “scientists” turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM’s expansive definition.

Hence, that total sum is inclusive of 9,029 sponsors with PhDs.

Weston White
05-12-2014, 11:18 PM
You can't ask that question if you're in denial that it's happening. This is where people start switching their arguments, from "it's not happening" to "it's not us" to "what if it's not a bad thing?"

It can't be both a hoax and a good thing, decide which one you want.

Yet in your view it can only be a grossly negative reality?

Why cannot it be real, but an overly exaggerated misunderstanding, ultimately inconsequential, or even, to some extent, environmentally beneficial (e.g., mutual to sprawling plant life)? Various forms of life thrive in certain types of climates (heat vs. cold, moisture vs. aridness, etc.), damp or rainy weather cleans the air, sunlight terminates microorganisms, for instance.

Antischism
05-12-2014, 11:23 PM
No, it is not wrong, your link is blatantly misleading. Focusing only upon the large 31,000 figure:



Hence, that total sum is inclusive of 9,029 sponsors with PhDs.

I don't think you read the entirety of the link I posted. Don't be selective. That "petition" is a load of nonsense. Propaganda, even. If you even look into the origins or research the names on that petition, you'll quickly realize it stinks to high heaven.

Here, I'll even copy/paste the text here so you don't have to click on the link, although the link does offer some pretty graphs and better formatting:

n early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list of names from people who all claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). This was an attempt to by the OISM to claim that there were far more scientists opposing AGW theory than there are supporting it. This so-called petition took on special importance coming after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and specifically the Working Group 1 (WG1) report on the science and attribution of climate change to human civilization.

The WG1 report was authored and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists with varying expertise in climate and related fields, and so having a list of over 30,000 scientists that rejected the WG1’s conclusions was a powerful meme that AGW skeptics and deniers could use to cast doubt on the IPCC’s conclusions and, indirectly, on the entire theory of climate disruption. And in fact, this meme has become widespread in both legacy and new media today.

It is also false.

According to the Petition Project “qualifications” page, “Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.” The fields that are considered “appropriate” by the OISM are as follows:

Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment fields: atmospheric science, climatology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, earth science, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, geoscience, hydrology, environmental engineering, environmental science, forestry, oceanography
Computers and Math: computer science, mathematics, statistics
Physics and Aerospace: physics, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering
Chemistry: chemistry, chemical engineering
Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: biochemistry, biophysics, biology, ecology, entomology, zoology, animal science, agricultural science, agricultural engineering, plant science, food science
Medicine: medical science, medicine
General Engineering and General Science: engineering, electrical engineering, metallurgy, general science
oismpet-smThe OISM’s qualifications for being a “scientist” are expansive, and as such there are a number of questions that have to be answered before we can take this list seriously. What expertise does a nuclear engineer or a medical doctor or a food scientist or mechanical engineer have that makes them qualified to have an informed opinion on the cause(s) of recent climate disruption? How many of these names are working climate scientists instead of science or math teachers or stay-at-home-mom’s with engineering degrees? How many of these people has actually published a peer-reviewed paper on climate? How many people took a look at the card that served as a “signature” (click on the image to see a larger version) and realized that they could lie about having a science degree and their deception would never be discovered?

At this point it’s literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISM’s word that they’re all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility.

Unfortunately, the OISM’s list has had its credibility fabricated for it by individuals and groups as diverse as Steve Milloy of Fox News (see this link for a S&R investigation into the background and tactics of Steve Milloy), L. Brent Bozell of conservative “news” site Newsbusters and founder of the conservative Media Research Center, Benita M. Dodd of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, the libertarian/conservative site American Thinker (a site that has regularly failed to fact-check their AGW posts), conservative commentator Deroy Murdock (who works on Project 21 with the wife of one of Steve Milloy’s long-time associates), RightSideNews, Dakota Voice, Dennis T. Avery of the Hudson Institute, Lawrence Solomon of the Financial Post, Michelle Malkin, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, to name just a few of the better known. As a result, the OISM’s petition has been elevated to a level of credibility that is arguably undeserved.

While it’s not possible to test the validity of OISM list directly, it is possible to test the conclusions that have been drawn from the OISM list. Specifically, we can test what percentage the 30,000 “scientists” listed on the OISM petition represent when compared to the total number of scientists in the U.S. And we can then compare that to the percentage represented by the 2000 IPCC AR4 WG1-associated scientists as compared to the estimate number of U.S. climate-related scientists.

According to the OISM website, anyone with a Bachelor’s, Master’s, or Doctorate of Philosophy in a field related to physical sciences is qualified as a scientist. In addition, the OISM sent the petition cards pictured above only to individuals within the U.S. Based on this information, we can us the OISM’s own guidelines to determine how many scientists there are in the U.S. and what percentage of those scientists are represented by the OISM petition.

The U.S. Department of Education tracks the number of graduates from institutions of higher education every year, and has done so since either the 1950-51 or 1970-71 school years, depending on what specifically the Dept. of Ed. was interested in. This data was last updated in the Digest of Education Statistics: 2008. We’re specifically interested in the number of degrees that have been awarded in the various scientific disciplines as defined by the OISM in the list above. This information is available in the following tables within the 2008 Digest: 296, 298, 302, 304, 310, 311, and 312. Table 1 below show how many graduates there were in the various categories defined by the Dept. of Ed. since the 1970-71 school year (click on the image for a larger version). The numbers have been corrected to account for the fact that PhD’s will usually have MS degrees as well, and that both are preceded by BS degrees.

oismtable1-sm

As you can see, Table 1 shows that there were over 10.6 million science graduates as defined by the OISM since the 1970-71 school year. This is a conservative estimate as illustrated by the 242,000 graduates in biological and biomedical sciences from 1950-51 through 1969-70 alone, never mind the 166,000 engineering graduates, and so on. Many of these individuals are still alive today and would be considered scientists according to the OISM definition thereof.

The OISM website lists how many signatures they have for scientists in each of their categories. Given the number of graduates and the number of signatures claimed by the OISM, we can calculate the percentage of OISM-defined scientists who signed as referenced to the total. These results are shown in Table 2 below.

oismtable2-sm

In other words, the OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist.

However, as mentioned above, it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether a veterinarian or forestry manager or electrical engineer should qualify as a scientist. If we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 “scientists” turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM’s expansive definition. Of course, not all of them are working in science, but since some medical professionals and statisticians do work in science, it’s still a reasonable quick estimate.

However, it’s not reasonable to expect that all of those actual scientists are working in climate sciences. Certainly the 39 climatologists, but after that, it gets much murkier. Most geologists don’t work as climate scientists, although some certainly do. Most meteorologists do weather forecasting, but understanding the weather is radically different than understanding climate. So we can’t be sure beyond the 39 climatologists, although we can reasonably assume that the number is far less than the 13,245 actual scientists claimed by the OISM.

13,245 scientists is only 0.1% of the scientists graduated in the U.S. since the 1970-71 school year.

We can, however, compare the number of atmospheric scientists, climagologists, ocean scientists, and meteorologists who signed this petition to the number of members of the various professional organizations. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has over 55,000 members, of which over 7,200 claim that atmospheric sciences is their primary field. The OISM claims 152 atmospheric scientists. Compared to the atmospheric scientist membership in the AGU, the OISM signatories are only 2.1%, and this estimate is high given the fact that the AGU does not claim all atmospheric scientists as members.

The AGU hydrology group has over 6,000 members who call hydrology their primary field. The OISM list has 22 names that claim to be hydrologists, or 0.4%.

The AGU ocean sciences group claims approximately 6,800 members. The OISM has 83 names, or 1.2%. And again, given that AGU membership is not required to be a practicing ocean scientists, this number is inflated.

The American Meteorological Society claims over 14,000 members and the OISM claims 341 meteorologists as petition signatories. That’s only 2.4%.

It’s clear that the OISM names don’t represent a significant number of scientists when compared to either the total number of science graduates in the U.S. or to the number of practicing scientists who work in likely relevant fields. But that’s not all.

Over recent years, various organizations have set out to estimate just how widespread the supposed “scientific consensus” on AGW actually is. Two recent efforts were conducted by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University and by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The STATS survey found that 84% of climate scientists surveyed “personally believe human-induced warming is occurring” and that “[o]nly 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.” The STATS survey involved a random sampling of “489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union” and it has a theoretical sampling error of +/- 4%.

The Pew survey was taken in early 2009 and asked over 2000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) their opinion on various scientific issues, including climate disruption. 84% of AAAS respondents felt that “warming is due to human activity” compared to only 10% who felt that “warming is due to natural causes.” The AAAS has over 10 million members, and the results of the survey are statistically valid for the entire population with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 2.5%.

84% of 10 million scientist members of the AAAS is 8.4 million scientists who agree that climate disruption is human-caused. 84% of the climate scientists (conservatively just the members of the atmospheric science group of the AGU) is, conservatively, 6,000 scientists who have direct and expert knowledge of climate disruption. The 13,245 scientists and 152 possible climate scientists who signed the OISM petition represent a small minority of the totals.

The IPCC AR4 WG1 report was written and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists. If we assume that the 20,000 AGU members who claim to be atmospheric scientists, ocean scientists, or hydrologists represent the pool of potential experts in climate science in the U.S., then approximately 10% of all climate scientists were directly involved in creating the over 1000 page report.

That compares to less than 1% of all OISM “scientists” who mailed a pre-printed postcard.

A more recent survey of earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". 97.5% of climatologists who were actively publishing papers on climate change responded yes.(Doran 2009). What is most interesting about this study was that as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.


Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Ultimately, The OISM petition will continue to rear it’s ugly head until its fabricated credibility has been thoroughly demolished. Social conservatives and libertarians, each of which has their own ideological reasons to push the OISM petition, have been effective at keeping the “30,000 scientists reject warming chicken-littleism of IPCC” meme circulating throughout conservative media outlets, even as climate disruption-focused media have worked at limiting the damage from the OISM petition. But given the fact that the science supporting a dominantly anthropogenic cause for climate disruption is overwhelming, it’s only a matter of time before the OISM petition wilts in the heat.

Weston White
05-12-2014, 11:34 PM
Saying something is a hoax to justify taxation IS contradictory to saying it's a good thing.

As is saying it's not happening, and then saying it's a natural phenomena.

Oh, so what then, is this "agenda" you are talking about?

So, do you believe that the four-seasons is really just another crazy conspiracy theory, that it was invented as a cover in explanation of humankind's waste negatively effecting the surrounding environment?

Weston White
05-12-2014, 11:52 PM
Yea, that article works way too hard at attempting to discredit its subject. Meanwhile, this is its boil-down, calling its own creditability into question (i.e., it is a petition of free speech not a dissertation of science):


At this point it’s literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISM’s word that they’re all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility.

[T]he “30,000 scientists reject warming chicken-littleism of IPCC” meme…

Antischism
05-13-2014, 12:09 AM
Yea, that article works way too hard at attempting to discredit its subject. Meanwhile, this is its boil-down, calling its own creditability into question (i.e., it is a petition of free speech not a dissertation of science):

The problem with the petition is that it touts this large number as if to say those who signed the petition were all educated/studied in climatology. You don't go to a dentist if you have a heart condition, for example. You go to a cardiologist. Similarly, having a degree in meteorology doesn't make someone knowledgeable in the field of climatology. You wouldn't go to a meteorologist to get an informed, studied opinion on climate change. All this petition did was garner the personal opinions of people who had any sort of involvement in science, even if it had nothing to do with climatology. They cast a wide net and attempted to rope in the opinions of people they could call scientists to make it look like there was a large group of people going against consensus.

This is a good video on the issue:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMtiyHzUiP4

PRB
05-13-2014, 12:47 AM
No, it is not wrong, your link is blatantly misleading. Focusing only upon the large 31,000 figure:

Hence, that total sum is inclusive of 9,029 sponsors with PhDs.

Science is not a democracy, except when you use it, right?

How many of these 9000 PhDs actually studied the subject?

Everybody is allowed to have an opinion, how many of these people actually studied, published, and are willing to put their claims to the test?

PRB
05-13-2014, 12:50 AM
So, do you believe that the four-seasons is really just another crazy conspiracy theory, that it was invented as a cover in explanation of humankind's waste negatively effecting the surrounding environment?

Nope.

Four seasons has been established by long historical data, so have solar cycles, El Nino/La Nina, there are many patterns we can look to, scientists didn't wake up one day and think "Hey, let's cook up some fear, what's the best way to do it?" They saw something that was breaking predictable patterns, from there made predictions, and confirmed predictions are preserved, others discarded.

PRB
05-13-2014, 12:59 AM
I think you're probably just confusing the language. Saying, "It's not happening", doesn't mean the temperature literally is not changing. It just means it's all part of a relatively stable pattern.


Ok, so tell us, what's NOT part of a relatively stable pattern? My bet is you don't know. You seem to know what IS a stable pattern, you seem to know what IS natural and unsurprising, you seem to know what's NOT proof that global warming is abnormal, but when I ask you the same question back, you have no idea.



In the same way, saying something is a hoax is NOT contradictory to ASSUMING that it is and asking why we should be worried.


Yes, it's a contradiction. Because if you're so certain it's a hoax, you have to know why one would hoax and what's the worry. Like I've asked in this forum, why fake temperatures and THEN try to convince people that CO2 is worth taxing? Why not take uncontroversial data such as "CO2 is increasing" and just add "it's worth taxing" and skip the cooking? If global warming is a hoax, would global cooling absolutely put carbon taxes to death?



I can adopt your position and then look at it from your point of view to ask questions. That's not a contradiction, it's very common and it's valid.


You can adopt my position, and you can change your position, you can't hold 2 contradictory positions at the same time. You can certainly admit you don't know what your position is too.



The line of reasoning goes something like this, "Is it happening? And if it is, why should we be worried?" They're two different questions.


Asking questions is not the same as accusing somebody of having an agenda, dismissing scientific studies as BS or propaganda, calling something a hoax.



The first question refers to what's really happening, and the second question refers to why we should care, regardless of whether it's happening or not. If the warming of the world causes no noticeable effects, then I'm going to treat it just the same as if it weren't happening.


Let me guess, if you were guaranteed that there would never be any new taxes or regulations on carbon emissions, you'd treat global warming as a non-concern, since the government won't affect you, is that right?



I still don't understand what that has to do with anything. Why wouldn't I be concerned about the question?

You tell me why you are.

PRB
05-13-2014, 01:08 AM
Yet in your view it can only be a grossly negative reality?


Didn't say that.




Why cannot it be real, but an overly exaggerated misunderstanding


It can be, but you can't say that if you've decided it's a hoax, or that it's not happening.



, ultimately inconsequential, or even, to some extent, environmentally beneficial (e.g., mutual to sprawling plant life)?


It certainly can be, I am open to that as well, but I couldn't get to that conclusion (nor could you, logically), if the position was that it's a made up hoax to scare us.



Various forms of life thrive in certain types of climates (heat vs. cold, moisture vs. aridness, etc.), damp or rainy weather cleans the air, sunlight terminates microorganisms, for instance.

Tell that to Katrina and Sandy victims, and Californians going through drought.

Wine & avocados going up in price will be good the California's economy, therefore drought is a good thing...right?

PRB
05-13-2014, 01:17 AM
The problem with the petition is that it touts this large number as if to say those who signed the petition were all educated/studied in climatology. You don't go to a dentist if you have a heart condition, for example. You go to a cardiologist. Similarly, having a degree in meteorology doesn't make someone knowledgeable in the field of climatology.

Your argument would've been perfectly reasonable everywhere else in the world, but not here, not where people are convinced that medical field as a whole is a conspiracy to keep people sick and vaccines cause autism, and credentials are the opposite of credibility, because credentials only proves you've been brainwashed, while any other random guy is a "free thinker" who knows everything, because "even a 5 year old can figure this out". So, when arguing with a conspiracy theorist, asking them "which doctor do you go to" or "which drug would you take" or "which teacher do you ask this question" is a guaranteed lose. This is why I skip right to the question "So who DO you trust? and why?"

PRB
05-13-2014, 01:29 AM
Someone on Fark made this one when the news came out about the emails talking about falsifying data.

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/thenewera/globalwarmingturkeyrippedofffromRockIsDead.jpg

I think if your truly seeking answers you should always be open to questioning of the data. It doesn't really make a difference who's. Maybe especially your own.


And maybe too being open to questioning your solutions.

PLEASE tell me you're not talking about Climategate, PLEASE.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

parocks
05-13-2014, 01:44 PM
I predict climate will change, just like it always has. And I think all this clamoring about it is a total waste of time and an attempt to spread fear to gain power. Up to twenty thousand years ago most of Canada and North america was covered with ice.

This

PaulConventionWV
05-13-2014, 01:46 PM
Ok, so tell us, what's NOT part of a relatively stable pattern? My bet is you don't know. You seem to know what IS a stable pattern, you seem to know what IS natural and unsurprising, you seem to know what's NOT proof that global warming is abnormal, but when I ask you the same question back, you have no idea.

That's because I have basic reasoning skills. It's really quite easy to say whether something is unlikely to support scientific claims. It's much harder to objectively prove that something IS happening or IS the case. The burden of proof falls on the AGW proponents to provide convincing evidence that this is actually real and a disaster, not evidence that is easy to poke holes in by anybody with an elementary understanding of logic who can immediately tell you whether the arguments follow from the premises, and so on. Every argument you've made so far is logically fallacious, so I tend to reject them as evidence. Sorry, I don't make the rules.


Yes, it's a contradiction. Because if you're so certain it's a hoax, you have to know why one would hoax and what's the worry. Like I've asked in this forum, why fake temperatures and THEN try to convince people that CO2 is worth taxing? Why not take uncontroversial data such as "CO2 is increasing" and just add "it's worth taxing" and skip the cooking? If global warming is a hoax, would global cooling absolutely put carbon taxes to death?

It is not a contradiction. People use this debate strategy all the time. I bet you use it. Assume someone is right and then question them on the basis that they are. If they can't answer questions from their own point of view, how are they supposed to change yours? This is so simple it's not even funny. You are assuming that I literally have to stop believing that AGW is a hoax in order to ask why such a situation would be disastrous. Yet I am already proving that I can freely move between each argument and maintain my credibility because I am addressing two different questions. Do you understand what I mean when I say two different questions?



You can adopt my position, and you can change your position, you can't hold 2 contradictory positions at the same time. You can certainly admit you don't know what your position is too.

That's not true. I can adopt your argument for the sake of testing its validity. That doesn't mean I'm giving up my original argument, I'm simply arguing the consequences of your argument instead of its legitimacy. That doesn't mean I've admitted it's legitimate, I'm simply shifting the debate from legitimacy to consequences. Do you understand the distinction I'm making? I'm not holding two contradictory positions if I simply assume (do you know what assume means?) that you are right and then question you on that basis. In order to assume something, I don't have to adopt it as my actual belief.


Asking questions is not the same as accusing somebody of having an agenda, dismissing scientific studies as BS or propaganda, calling something a hoax.

I'm not just asking questions. I'm addressing the questions from a logical standpoint and determining how valid one side is. If you can't tell me why global warming WOULD BE (not IS) a disaster, then I will reject just as if I had determined that the theory was illegitimate on its own. You can both ask questions and make claims in a debate. That's actually kind of how debating works. I can claim that it is a hoax and then ask you a question in order to refute the answer you give. You're confusing debating tactics with objective stances on the issue.


Let me guess, if you were guaranteed that there would never be any new taxes or regulations on carbon emissions, you'd treat global warming as a non-concern, since the government won't affect you, is that right?

I already treat it as a non-concern. But I'm not talking about taxes right now. I'm talking about how you can convince me that I should care about global warming. So far, you're failing quite abysmally by getting hung up on semantics. Whether or not taxes is my primary concern is of no consequence to whether AGW is happening or not.


You tell me why you are.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Do I have to have a reason in order to argue with you? Is that some kind of club membership thing? Get out of here with that shit.

PaulConventionWV
05-13-2014, 01:56 PM
Didn't say that.

Then what, in your view, is so bad about it?


It can be, but you can't say that if you've decided it's a hoax, or that it's not happening.

Yes, you can. Go look up the definition of the word 'assume.' If you assume a different position than what you actually believe, what does that mean in its proper context?


It certainly can be, I am open to that as well, but I couldn't get to that conclusion (nor could you, logically), if the position was that it's a made up hoax to scare us.

You think we should care about global warming, right? You think it's a bad thing? Then tell us why. That's all we're asking. Nobody can simply burst into a room and yell, "The Bonobo monkey is going extinct!" and expect everyone to instantly give a shit without explaining why this affects them. If you just blurted out random things and didn't explain why people should care, then they're not going to care.


Tell that to Katrina and Sandy victims, and Californians going through drought.

Wine & avocados going up in price will be good the California's economy, therefore drought is a good thing...right?

Oh, so now you're telling me that drought and hurricanes are reasons why AGW is a bad thing. You just contradicted yourself by saying we can't ask that and then answering it anyway. Ok, I'll forgive you this time. Now all you have to do is logically connect the increasing severity or frequency (if it's actually happening) of weather phenomena with global climate patterns and show why an increase in global average temperatures leads to such problems.

PRB
05-13-2014, 01:57 PM
Do I have to have a reason in order to argue with you? Is that some kind of club membership thing? Get out of here with that shit.
you're arguing with me for no reason?

PaulConventionWV
05-13-2014, 01:59 PM
PLEASE tell me you're not talking about Climategate, PLEASE.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Right, so just puke up a link and ask us in a condescending manner why we are still stuck on that, and it automatically discredits every argument that Climategate was a problem for AGW advocates claiming the theories are based on solid science.

PaulConventionWV
05-13-2014, 02:00 PM
you're arguing with me for no reason?

Do I have to have a reason? What's your reason?

PRB
05-13-2014, 03:21 PM
Right, so just puke up a link and ask us in a condescending manner why we are still stuck on that, and it automatically discredits every argument that Climategate was a problem for AGW advocates claiming the theories are based on solid science.


That's because I have basic reasoning skills. It's really quite easy to say whether something is unlikely to support scientific claims. It's much harder to objectively prove that something IS happening or IS the case.


If you had basic reading skills, you either didn't read what Climategate is actually about, or are dishonest. No intellectually honest person can conclude that Climategate is "emails talking about falsifying data."



The burden of proof falls on the AGW proponents to provide convincing evidence that this is actually real and a disaster


One question at a time, first is it real, then is it a disaster.

So, why am I condescending? Because that's what any person who uses Climategate as an argument against global warming pretty much deserves. They are either ignorant of the facts or dishonest about them.

"and it automatically discredits every argument that Climategate was a problem for AGW advocates claiming the theories are based on solid science."

For starters, climate data does not depend on CRU. CRU is neither the primary gatherer nor the authority on publishing global climate data, so if CRU went away, all their staff were liars, climate change theory would still stand (sadly, you can't even proven CRU staff were liars based on the emails).

PaulConventionWV
05-13-2014, 06:05 PM
If you had basic reading skills, you either didn't read what Climategate is actually about, or are dishonest. No intellectually honest person can conclude that Climategate is "emails talking about falsifying data."

You just pulled that quote out of your arse. I didn't say that. Who the hell do you think you're arguing with?


One question at a time, first is it real, then is it a disaster.

You don't have to follow that progression. We can address both questions simultaneously if we damn well please and it doesn't make one bit of a difference.


So, why am I condescending? Because that's what any person who uses Climategate as an argument against global warming pretty much deserves. They are either ignorant of the facts or dishonest about them.

I don't think that justifies the snark. You don't win arguments by being a snarky bitch.


"and it automatically discredits every argument that Climategate was a problem for AGW advocates claiming the theories are based on solid science."

For starters, climate data does not depend on CRU. CRU is neither the primary gatherer nor the authority on publishing global climate data, so if CRU went away, all their staff were liars, climate change theory would still stand (sadly, you can't even proven CRU staff were liars based on the emails).

It would call into question the scope of the problem, though. You must admit that. Where there's one, there are many. The emails were pretty bad. Maybe we can't prove their exact intentions, but any intellectually honest person knows it wasn't all innocent jib jab about science-y stuff.

What's more, it fits into the theory that there's an agenda. Why were they working together? Should we just assume that they acted alone and that what motivated them to do this isn't also motivating others? That's a stretch. If you find some scientists lying, it's almost certain they're not alone. Why would a small group of scientists falsify data? If they were really objective, they would've been happy to let the data stand as it is. Instead, what they did indicates that they had an agenda because otherwise, they would not have tried to make it seem like AGW was real.

PRB
05-13-2014, 06:29 PM
You just pulled that quote out of your arse. I didn't say that. Who the hell do you think you're arguing with?



the guy I replied to, see above. I didn't make it up.

Or below, copied here


Someone on Fark made this one when the news came out about the emails talking about falsifying data.






I think if your truly seeking answers you should always be open to questioning of the data. It doesn't really make a difference who's. Maybe especially your own.




And maybe too being open to questioning your solutions.

PRB
05-13-2014, 06:37 PM
It would call into question the scope of the problem, though. You must admit that.


No, it wouldn't. You totally missed the point here when I said this.
CRU is neither the primary gatherer nor the authority on publishing global climate data, so if CRU went away, all their staff were liars, climate change theory would still stand (sadly, you can't even proven CRU staff were liars based on the emails).



Where there's one, there are many. The emails were pretty bad.


Because you didn't actually read the e-mails, or you'd know how bad they were.



Maybe we can't prove their exact intentions, but any intellectually honest person knows it wasn't all innocent jib jab about science-y stuff.


Any intellectually honest person would actually know what the e-mails said and what it proved, or admit he doesn't know. Which one are you? Where are you getting your information? Are you letting e-mails "stand as it is"? or are you adding your own conclusions, or worse yet, are you letting smear media write conclusions and you just read the headlines and make up your own without looking at the source?



What's more, it fits into the theory that there's an agenda. Why were they working together?


Who is they?



Should we just assume that they acted alone and that what motivated them to do this isn't also motivating others?


Motivated who to do what? Let's back up a bit, do you even know what you're accusing scientists of? Do you even know what the CRU e-mails said?



That's a stretch. If you find some scientists lying, it's almost certain they're not alone. Why would a small group of scientists falsify data?


Who are you accusing of falsifying data?



If they were really objective, they would've been happy to let the data stand as it is.


Who didn't let the data stand as it is? WHO?



Instead, what they did indicates that they had an agenda because otherwise, they would not have tried to make it seem like AGW was real.

LMAO, do you know what you're talking about? WHAT did THEY do? Please tell me you know what you're talking about. Please.

THIS is why I am condescending, how about you just admit you don't know what Climategate was about and I'll explain it to you?

HVACTech
05-13-2014, 07:01 PM
No, it wouldn't. You totally missed the point here when I said this.
CRU is neither the primary gatherer nor the authority on publishing global climate data, so if CRU went away, all their staff were liars, climate change theory would still stand (sadly, you can't even proven CRU staff were liars based on the emails).



Because you didn't actually read the e-mails, or you'd know how bad they were.



Any intellectually honest person would actually know what the e-mails said and what it proved, or admit he doesn't know. Which one are you? Where are you getting your information? Are you letting e-mails "stand as it is"? or are you adding your own conclusions, or worse yet, are you letting smear media write conclusions and you just read the headlines and make up your own without looking at the source?



Who is they?



Motivated who to do what? Let's back up a bit, do you even know what you're accusing scientists of? Do you even know what the CRU e-mails said?



Who are you accusing of falsifying data?



Who didn't let the data stand as it is? WHO?



LMAO, do you know what you're talking about? WHAT did THEY do? Please tell me you know what you're talking about. Please.

THIS is why I am condescending, how about you just admit you don't know what Climategate was about and I'll explain it to you?

wow... you are like really off the deep end here....

just to clear things up a bit. what do you know about instrument calibration?
if I asked you what the observed rate of change was.
what would be your answer?

have you ever done the math on spaceship earth?
clearly, we are not in an ice age. do you believe in them? have you ever observed one?
and if not, why do you believe in them?

you are aware that the earth is travelling through space.... right?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-16-2014, 04:05 PM
Why do they not care to prepare? Because they, like you, believe everything is fine and nothing will ever happen? Or they're stupid?

Never said you should care either. Why don't you live where they do? Because you know more than they do that where they live isn't safe?

Where are these places that "only dipshits live"? And how do you know that?

You post all about climate, geology, etc., but somebody has to explain to you why it's not a good idea to live near a river or a valley close to a large body of water?






Never said you should care either.
Then you would have no problem eliminating taxpayer/government relief for people who insist on living such areas?





No, hatred doesn't invalidate scientific data.
But you just said it does here:




Comparing it to the past from anything over 100 years is pointless, since we didn't have the fragile lifestyle [what you just defined as government hatred] back then.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-16-2014, 04:12 PM
What are you actually doing about it?


Then what, in your view, is so bad about it?







If you just blurted out random things and didn't explain why people should care, then they're not going to care.








One thing PRB probably doesn't do is care enough to personally contribute to people in hurricanes. He declined to answer whether or not he gives to people in hurricanes.

He does, however, care enough to suggest that everyone should care.

PRB
05-16-2014, 04:25 PM
One thing PRB probably doesn't do is care enough to personally contribute to people in hurricanes. He declined to answer whether or not he gives to people in hurricanes.

He does, however, care enough to suggest that everyone should care.

I admitted I don't care about them. Are you heartless enough to admit it?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-16-2014, 04:38 PM
I admitted I don't care about them. Are you heartless enough to admit it?

First you say you care, then you say you don't care. Which is it?

You then said I don't need to care, but now you say I'm heartless. Which is it?

Are you Laurel and Hardy reincarnated, or is this really just your way of making more posts so that the forum can pay you more quarters?

PRB
05-16-2014, 04:47 PM
First you say you care, then you say you don't care. Which is it?

You then said I don't need to care, but now you say I'm heartless. Which is it?

Are you Laurel and Hardy reincarnated, or is this really just your way of making more posts so that the forum can pay you more quarters?

I never said I cared. I never said you need to care, I was using the word heartless to describe myself, in case you wanted to come on my side.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-16-2014, 04:55 PM
I never said I cared. I never said you need to care, I was using the word heartless to describe myself, in case you wanted to come on my side.

Then why did you say this:


What's the more severe problems? Obviously Katrina & Sandy victims mean nothing to you. Hell, I'm sure people died in plane crashes before Malaysia 370 and 9/11 too, what's the point of caring?

PRB
05-16-2014, 04:57 PM
Then why did you say this:

I said that to make sure I understood you, that you care as much as I do about other people (which is not at all).

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-16-2014, 05:01 PM
I said that to make sure I understood you, that you care as much as I do about other people (which is not at all).

So if you're a prick like me, then you have no problem saying that people in hurricanes get no government money?

PRB
05-16-2014, 05:36 PM
So if you're a prick like me, then you have no problem saying that people in hurricanes get no government money?

Yes. I'm against anybody getting government money, and I'm against government getting anybody's money.

HVACTech
05-16-2014, 06:09 PM
Yes. I'm against anybody getting government money, and I'm against government getting anybody's money.

this argument has turned petty.

and without a firm grasp of thermodynamics. the original subject matter gets lost.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-16-2014, 06:22 PM
Yes. I'm against anybody getting government money, and I'm against government getting anybody's money.

Then how will people demonstrate that they care?

Liberty74
05-16-2014, 07:34 PM
the government didn't hire any scientists to prove that global warming is true. even the article admits there's a difference between saying global warming is true and saying it's caused by man.

If global warming and global cooling is a natural occurrence, why hire scientists at the government level to promote man made global warming scams? Why not the lesson be about global cooling instead, since after all, that is the point in which we are headed (no warming in last 20 years has government scientists baffled LMAO) by many scientists - mini global ice age? Is it because Gore and his elite power hungry, money stealing criminals won't be able to tax you in multiple ways?

The northeast part of America just experienced their coldest winter EVER recorded in 120 years. If you look at the warming and cooling chart cycle over the last 400,000 years, we are at the top and there is no where but DOWN (global cooling).

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pElunZThFIAXHWJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTI0aG JmOHZoBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANmNDM3MTU0NTBlNTdj ZjhlMjkzMjdiODUyNzhhODU0OQRncG9zAzE5MwRpdANiaW5n?b ack=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch% 2Fimages%3Fp%3Dglobal%2Bwarming%2Bcharts%26fr%3Daa plw%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26spos%3D36%26nost%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D 193&w=500&h=395&imgurl=www.frot.co.nz%2Fsift%2Fimages_global_warmi ng%2Fco2_temperature_chart.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frot.co.nz%2Fsift%2Fglobal_w arming.htm&size=37.0KB&name=But+a+more+detailed+chart+would+reveal+that+t he+CO2+rises+hundreds+of+...&p=global+warming+charts&oid=f43715450e57cf8e29327b85278a8549&fr2=piv-web&fr=aaplw&tt=But+a+more+detailed+chart+would+reveal+that+the +CO2+rises+hundreds+of+...&b=181&ni=21&no=193&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11dc8p7t2&sigb=13rdjvos7&sigi=123ao0bq1&sigt=1291suhql&sign=1291suhql&.crumb=PArcC1UYyTx&fr=aaplw&fr2=piv-web

The warming cycle that started about 20,000 years ago way before the industrial revolution and your vehicle being on the road, has lead to the development and growth of humans. When the earth plummets back down to an ice age area slowly over the next 100,000 years, it's going to be devastating to humans. Growing food basically becomes impossible. Only those living near the equator might survive...

HVACTech
05-16-2014, 07:55 PM
If global warming and global cooling is a natural occurrence, why hire scientists at the government level to promote man made global warming scams? Why not the lesson be about global cooling instead, since after all, that is the point in which we are headed (no warming in last 20 years has government scientists baffled LMAO) by many scientists - mini global ice age? Is it because Gore and his elite power hungry, money stealing criminals won't be able to tax you in multiple ways?

The northeast part of America just experienced their coldest winter EVER recorded in 120 years. If you look at the warming and cooling chart cycle over the last 400,000 years, we are at the top and there is no where but DOWN (global cooling).

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pElunZThFIAXHWJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTI0aG JmOHZoBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANmNDM3MTU0NTBlNTdj ZjhlMjkzMjdiODUyNzhhODU0OQRncG9zAzE5MwRpdANiaW5n?b ack=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch% 2Fimages%3Fp%3Dglobal%2Bwarming%2Bcharts%26fr%3Daa plw%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26spos%3D36%26nost%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D 193&w=500&h=395&imgurl=www.frot.co.nz%2Fsift%2Fimages_global_warmi ng%2Fco2_temperature_chart.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frot.co.nz%2Fsift%2Fglobal_w arming.htm&size=37.0KB&name=But+a+more+detailed+chart+would+reveal+that+t he+CO2+rises+hundreds+of+...&p=global+warming+charts&oid=f43715450e57cf8e29327b85278a8549&fr2=piv-web&fr=aaplw&tt=But+a+more+detailed+chart+would+reveal+that+the +CO2+rises+hundreds+of+...&b=181&ni=21&no=193&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11dc8p7t2&sigb=13rdjvos7&sigi=123ao0bq1&sigt=1291suhql&sign=1291suhql&.crumb=PArcC1UYyTx&fr=aaplw&fr2=piv-web

The warming cycle that started about 20,000 years ago way before the industrial revolution and your vehicle being on the road, has lead to the development and growth of humans. When the earth plummets back down to an ice age area slowly over the next 100,000 years, it's going to be devastating to humans. Growing food basically becomes impossible. Only those living near the equator might survive...

methinks you spoiled their party.. by injecting logic and reason.

PRB
05-18-2014, 11:45 PM
If global warming and global cooling is a natural occurrence, why hire scientists at the government level to promote man made global warming scams?


You answered your own question.

You basically said "If I'm right, why are people saying I'm wrong?"



Why not the lesson be about global cooling instead, since after all, that is the point in which we are headed (no warming in last 20 years has government scientists baffled LMAO) by many scientists - mini global ice age?


Source?



Is it because Gore and his elite power hungry, money stealing criminals won't be able to tax you in multiple ways?


No, because Gore or anybody else can easily buy stock in another company that exploits the fear of cooling, or government can still tax something else.



The northeast part of America just experienced their coldest winter EVER recorded in 120 years. If you look at the warming and cooling chart cycle over the last 400,000 years, we are at the top and there is no where but DOWN (global cooling).


Cherry picking expert. When you want to talk about cooling, you limit the discussion to America. When you want to downplay something, you look at a 400,000 year record, as if you're willing to live and die like people did 400,000 years ago (you can't even live like people did 100 years ago).



http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pElunZThFIAXHWJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTI0aG JmOHZoBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANmNDM3MTU0NTBlNTdj ZjhlMjkzMjdiODUyNzhhODU0OQRncG9zAzE5MwRpdANiaW5n?b ack=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch% 2Fimages%3Fp%3Dglobal%2Bwarming%2Bcharts%26fr%3Daa plw%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26spos%3D36%26nost%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D 193&w=500&h=395&imgurl=www.frot.co.nz%2Fsift%2Fimages_global_warmi ng%2Fco2_temperature_chart.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frot.co.nz%2Fsift%2Fglobal_w arming.htm&size=37.0KB&name=But+a+more+detailed+chart+would+reveal+that+t he+CO2+rises+hundreds+of+...&p=global+warming+charts&oid=f43715450e57cf8e29327b85278a8549&fr2=piv-web&fr=aaplw&tt=But+a+more+detailed+chart+would+reveal+that+the +CO2+rises+hundreds+of+...&b=181&ni=21&no=193&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11dc8p7t2&sigb=13rdjvos7&sigi=123ao0bq1&sigt=1291suhql&sign=1291suhql&.crumb=PArcC1UYyTx&fr=aaplw&fr2=piv-web

The warming cycle that started about 20,000 years ago way before the industrial revolution and your vehicle being on the road, has lead to the development and growth of humans.


So what do you predict next? Cooling?



When the earth plummets back down to an ice age area slowly over the next 100,000 years, it's going to be devastating to humans. Growing food basically becomes impossible. Only those living near the equator might survive...

Warming can be equally devastating, if it means droughts, even for 5-10 years.

PRB
05-18-2014, 11:46 PM
Then how will people demonstrate that they care?

By, like you, knowing where not to live. If you call people who live in NO and NJ dipshits, I guess you have one leg up from them, you know and believe something they don't, one can even say you're more of an alarmist than they are.

Lord Xar
05-19-2014, 12:43 AM
wrong, global warming does not equal taxing carbon emissions, if you believe that, YOU are agreeing with Al Gore. That's your problem.

lulz. Right-eeee-oooooo. What fairy tale are you living in? You believe the Obama admin, and its sycophantic media are slavishly frothing at the mouth pushing this hoax every single day... all friggin day cause they care about you? LULZZZ.

Nothing but more control, more taxation will ensue..... and as of this moment, correct - no taxation. But I like to think of this moment in time as the "IRAQ HAS WMD!!!!!" period.

....... and if there is global warming - tell me again how we can avoid another mini-ice age? We can't... The earth has always and will always go thru some minor, and some extreme climate changes. It is the nature of the beast. That is just the way it is. Taxing, controlling, new 'energy' commodity will not change that... oh, except line the pockets of the special interests.

If the government fucking cared about "global warming" they fucking stop all their damn wars.....



I was thinking the other day, if the dust bowl all of a sudden happened again.... the alarmists would screaming of "global warming"... lolol. Fucking travesty how easy this zombie nation swings to the symphony of government propaganda.

I found this interesting: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/17/pseudoscientists-eight-climate-claims-debunked/

PRB
05-19-2014, 02:31 AM
lulz. Right-eeee-oooooo. What fairy tale are you living in? You believe the Obama admin, and its sycophantic media are slavishly frothing at the mouth pushing this hoax every single day... all friggin day cause they care about you? LULZZZ.


never said that.



Nothing but more control, more taxation will ensue..... and as of this moment, correct - no taxation. But I like to think of this moment in time as the "IRAQ HAS WMD!!!!!" period.


the difference is that if WMD and climate change are not comparable as far as threat to quality of life.



....... and if there is global warming - tell me again how we can avoid another mini-ice age? We can't... The earth has always and will always go thru some minor, and some extreme climate changes.


Just like you'll eventually die, except some scientists have more precise predictions than your generalizations. So not only will you die, you'll die before you're 100.



It is the nature of the beast. That is just the way it is. Taxing, controlling, new 'energy' commodity will not change that... oh, except line the pockets of the special interests.


And I said I'm opposed to taxation, didn't I?



If the government fucking cared about "global warming" they fucking stop all their damn wars.....

I was thinking the other day, if the dust bowl all of a sudden happened again.... the alarmists would screaming of "global warming"... lolol. Fucking travesty how easy this zombie nation swings to the symphony of government propaganda.

I found this interesting: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/17/pseudoscientists-eight-climate-claims-debunked/

PaulConventionWV
05-19-2014, 04:57 AM
No, it wouldn't. You totally missed the point here when I said this.
CRU is neither the primary gatherer nor the authority on publishing global climate data, so if CRU went away, all their staff were liars, climate change theory would still stand (sadly, you can't even proven CRU staff were liars based on the emails).

I didn't miss that part at all. It doesn't matter how significant they are. If they are doing it, then there must be a reason for them to do it; a reason that may also motivate others to do it. Why would they falsify data if they were so insignificant that it wouldn't amount to anything?

PaulConventionWV
05-19-2014, 05:01 AM
One thing PRB probably doesn't do is care enough to personally contribute to people in hurricanes. He declined to answer whether or not he gives to people in hurricanes.

He does, however, care enough to suggest that everyone should care.

Yep. Without any meaningful solutions, this all becomes pointless sophistry.

PaulConventionWV
05-19-2014, 05:02 AM
I admitted I don't care about them. Are you heartless enough to admit it?

Then why do you care if we believe in global warming?

PaulConventionWV
05-19-2014, 05:04 AM
I never said I cared. I never said you need to care, I was using the word heartless to describe myself, in case you wanted to come on my side.

Obviously "your side" cares about SOMETHING or else you wouldn't be arguing.

Now that I think about it, you didn't respond when I asked you what your reason was for arguing after you asked me if I was arguing with you for no reason. Now I know why. Global warming is just a joke to you. Is it real? Who cares? Just argue.

PaulConventionWV
05-19-2014, 05:11 AM
Cherry picking expert. When you want to talk about cooling, you limit the discussion to America. When you want to downplay something, you look at a 400,000 year record, as if you're willing to live and die like people did 400,000 years ago (you can't even live like people did 100 years ago).

So, what you're saying is that having the same temperature as we did 400,000 years ago would eliminate all of our knowledge and technology and make us also live like they did 400,000 years ago? Is that what you're so afraid of?


Warming can be equally devastating, if it means droughts, even for 5-10 years.

Oh, so it's droughts you're worried about? Then what are you doing about it?

PRB
05-19-2014, 11:10 AM
Obviously "your side" cares about SOMETHING or else you wouldn't be arguing.


In my case, simply scientific data. What we do about it is entirely another story.



Now that I think about it, you didn't respond when I asked you what your reason was for arguing after you asked me if I was arguing with you for no reason. Now I know why. Global warming is just a joke to you. Is it real? Who cares? Just argue.

Global warming isn't just a joke for me, but it also isn't political for me.

PRB
05-19-2014, 11:11 AM
Oh, so it's droughts you're worried about? Then what are you doing about it?

Being prepared for it. So I hopefully do not end up like Katrina and Sandy victims, or anybody whose life depends on stable water supply.

PRB
05-19-2014, 11:13 AM
Then why do you care if we believe in global warming?

The same way I "care" if you believe in gravity or evolution, so I can mock you if you're wrong.

PaulConventionWV
05-19-2014, 12:23 PM
In my case, simply scientific data. What we do about it is entirely another story.



Global warming isn't just a joke for me, but it also isn't political for me.

It may not be for you, but it IS political, whether you like it or not.

PaulConventionWV
05-19-2014, 12:24 PM
Being prepared for it. So I hopefully do not end up like Katrina and Sandy victims, or anybody whose life depends on stable water supply.

Sounds like pretty much what every human being has done since the beginning of mankind. Good strategy.

PaulConventionWV
05-19-2014, 12:28 PM
The same way I "care" if you believe in gravity or evolution, so I can mock you if you're wrong.

How noble of you. It just goes to show you that those who most ardently defend science are the ones with the biggest pretense of knowledge. They just go around ridiculing people who don't believe in Theory X because they can't do actual science, but they sure as hell can jump on every perceived "consensus" and defend it like little minions by employing circular logic, studying up on the theory and referring back to it any time it's criticized in order to look smart.

PRB
05-19-2014, 01:32 PM
How noble of you. It just goes to show you that those who most ardently defend science are the ones with the biggest pretense of knowledge.


Does it? or just that when facts and evidence are on your side, you get to be laugh at people who are delusional, ignorant, and otherwise wrong?



They just go around ridiculing people who don't believe in Theory X because they can't do actual science,


Can't do science is one thing, but being knowing ignorant is another.



but they sure as hell can jump on every perceived "consensus" and defend it like little minions by employing circular logic,


Perceived consensus? As opposed to what? Actual consensus? Got a definition for that?



studying up on the theory and referring back to it any time it's criticized in order to look smart.

Not any time it's criticized, just when it's criticized by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

PRB
05-19-2014, 01:33 PM
Sounds like pretty much what every human being has done since the beginning of mankind. Good strategy.

Except people who are victims to hurricanes and earthquakes, if they were prepared they'd not be victims.

PRB
05-19-2014, 01:33 PM
It may not be for you, but it IS political, whether you like it or not.

No, it's only political for people who make it so.

PRB
05-20-2014, 12:21 AM
Just to put a nail in the coffin for the claim "UN, NWO, IPCC just made up global warming so they can tax us on carbon emissions to scam us into thinking we can reverse the climate changes"

Sorry, even the UN has given up on taxing, reducing, and mitigation now. So you can retire that old argument.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/the-uns-new-focus-surviving-not-stopping-climate-change/359929/

How about, listen to scientists, accept that global warming is true, and be prepared for it? I'm not saying pay any emissions taxes or reduce emissions, I've NEVER been in favor of government regulations, I've also never said cutting all carbon emissions tomorrow will have a noticeable effect.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 11:55 AM
By, like you, knowing where not to live.

So you demonstrate your caring for others by knowing where to live?



If you call people who live in NO and NJ dipshits, I guess you have one leg up from them, you know and believe something they don't, one can even say you're more of an alarmist than they are.

I used to live in New Jersey, so should I call myself an alarmist?

PRB
05-20-2014, 12:22 PM
So you demonstrate your caring for others by knowing where to live?

I used to live in New Jersey, so should I call myself an alarmist?

You call somebody who lives in dangerous areas a dipshit, what does that make you who knows not to live there?

I don't care for others by living where I live, I care for myself by living where I live. I can only hope people are smart enough to live in areas just as safe, or are ready for what they signed up for, which they won't be if they're in denial of climate change and disasters happening.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 12:29 PM
You call somebody who lives in dangerous areas a dipshit,

I said all of New Jersey is dangerous?

I said people who live in such areas deserve such a name? What I actually said (and you can reread it) is that there are people who insist in living in such hazardous areas and insist that government entitle them to live in such areas by compensating them when those hazards occur.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 12:33 PM
PRB,

Do you think it's a good idea to buy a home near a river or live in a valley near large bodies of water?

PRB
05-20-2014, 12:34 PM
PRB,

Do you think it's a good idea to buy a home near a river or live in a valley near large bodies of water?

if it was only for vacation, not for long term.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 12:36 PM
if it was only for vacation, not for long term.

Why not long term?

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 12:36 PM
Does it? or just that when facts and evidence are on your side, you get to be laugh at people who are delusional, ignorant, and otherwise wrong?

There you go with that pretense of knowledge. You are committing what is called the "true Scottsman fallacy". You place yourself in a position of authority by virtue of the fact that you believe in theory X, and anyone who doesn't believe in theory X must be wrong because theory X is true and those who criticize you are "delusional, ignorant, and otherwise wrong." You assume that facts and evidence are on your side when you are just as qualified to examine those facts and evidence as the people you are criticizing.


Can't do science is one thing, but being knowing ignorant is another.

Tell me about it.


Perceived consensus? As opposed to what? Actual consensus? Got a definition for that?

Perceive:
1.become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.
"his mouth fell open as he perceived the truth"
synonyms: discern, recognize, become aware of, see, distinguish, realize, grasp, understand, take in, make out, find, identify, hit on, comprehend, apprehend, appreciate, sense, divine; More
become aware of (something) by the use of one of the senses, especially that of sight.
"he perceived the faintest of flushes creeping up her neck"
synonyms: see, discern, detect, catch sight of, spot, observe, notice More
2.interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as.

Consensus:
1.general agreement.

It's simple. Why are you making it complicated?


Not any time it's criticized, just when it's criticized by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Like you?

PRB
05-20-2014, 12:41 PM
I said all of New Jersey is dangerous?

I said people who live in such areas deserve such a name? What I actually said (and you can reread it) is that there are people who insist in living in such hazardous areas and insist that government entitle them to live in such areas by compensating them when those hazards occur.

and if they either don't believe it's hazardous because global warming isn't real, or don't care about government handouts, what does that make them?

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 12:43 PM
Except people who are victims to hurricanes and earthquakes, if they were prepared they'd not be victims.

Is this your whole reason for convincing us that global warming is real... because you want to warn people about the weather?

Somehow I doubt that.

PRB
05-20-2014, 12:44 PM
Consensus:
1.general agreement.

It's simple. Why are you making it complicated?

Like you?

so how many people need to agree for there to be a consensus?

PRB
05-20-2014, 12:46 PM
You assume that facts and evidence are on your side when you are just as qualified to examine those facts and evidence as the people you are criticizing.


Yes, I do assume that, and I challenge you to actually present information to show I am wrong, or I am missing, misunderstanding something.

PRB
05-20-2014, 12:47 PM
Is this your whole reason for convincing us that global warming is real... because you want to warn people about the weather?

Somehow I doubt that.

Warn people about the climate, the same reason Alex Jones wants us to buy water filters and survival food. So less people who choose to know and choose to be prepared will die in a disaster. The difference is, I have no vested interest in carbon taxes or survival supplies, I just think it's sad when people can be prepared and are proudly ignorant of warnings.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 12:49 PM
Just to put a nail in the coffin for the claim "UN, NWO, IPCC just made up global warming so they can tax us on carbon emissions to scam us into thinking we can reverse the climate changes"

Sorry, even the UN has given up on taxing, reducing, and mitigation now. So you can retire that old argument.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/the-uns-new-focus-surviving-not-stopping-climate-change/359929/

How about, listen to scientists, accept that global warming is true, and be prepared for it? I'm not saying pay any emissions taxes or reduce emissions, I've NEVER been in favor of government regulations, I've also never said cutting all carbon emissions tomorrow will have a noticeable effect.

I'm not going to accept it as truth just because a group of "experts" told me to believe it. You have to learn to form your own worldview and question things that authorities tell you, even authorities you view as legitimate. Even you seem to concede that this is not some kind of big disaster, so why bother? It's only a disaster for people who make the stupid decision to expose themselves to that risk. Why should we care about them? We don't have time to worry about every single little unfortunate circumstance that befalls our fellow human because he didn't heed the warning and suffered the consequences.

Global warming, even if it isn't a hoax, is a joke. It doesn't affect me.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 12:50 PM
and if they either don't believe it's hazardous because global warming isn't real, or don't care about government handouts, what does that make them?

And if they ignore the hazards and believe in government handouts--what does that make them?

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 12:51 PM
so how many people need to agree for there to be a consensus?

Why don't you tell me? How many scientists agree that global warming is real? Where can I see this "consensus" on paper?

PRB
05-20-2014, 12:53 PM
Why not long term?

because unless I can predict who much water, rain I get, it can be dangerous, and it only has to happen once.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 12:53 PM
Yes, I do assume that, and I challenge you to actually present information to show I am wrong, or I am missing, misunderstanding something.

Then you are making an argument from authority, positioning yourself above those you criticize when you have just as much qualification as they do. The burden of proof is on you if you are the one making the claim. Considering that you have no more qualification than Joe Schmeaux, you don't get to argue from a position of authority.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 12:55 PM
...

RickyJ
05-20-2014, 12:56 PM
Rejecting lies is not the same thing as rejecting science. CO2 has reached saturation levels in the atmosphere well over a decade ago. Any further CO2 in the atmosphere will not have any effect whatsoever on the warming of the Earth. Many scientists are now thinking we are in danger of entering a new ice age due to the Sun's recent inactivity. If this happens will the man made global warming hoaxers apologize for their lies? I doubt it. Don't be a fool, there is no significant man made global warming and any further CO2 in the air will have no effects whatsoever on the Earth's temperature!

PRB
05-20-2014, 12:57 PM
Why don't you tell me? How many scientists agree that global warming is real? Where can I see this "consensus" on paper?

Your definition of consensus is asking how many people's opinions agree?

I got a better one, how about look at what scientists have studied, published, had their studies scrutinized, tested, repeated?

I can show you the Consensus Project website, which says that 97% of published papers agree, global warming is real, and humans are causing it.
http://theconsensusproject.com

Your response now is what?
They didn't count right?
They're lying?
Consensus doesn't mean truth?
That still doesn't count as consensus?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 12:58 PM
because unless I can predict who much water, rain I get, it can be dangerous, and it only has to happen once.

Whose responsibility is that?

PRB
05-20-2014, 12:58 PM
Rejecting lies is not the same thing as rejecting science. CO2 has reached saturation levels in the atmosphere well over a decade ago. Any further CO2 in the atmosphere will not have any effect whatsoever on the warming of the Earth.


Source and source please.




Many scientists are now thinking we are in danger of entering a new ice age due to the Sun's recent inactivity.


Who are they and what did they actually say?



If this happens will the man made global warming hoaxers apologize for their lies? I doubt it.


I would, and any honest scientist would.



Don't be a fool, there is no significant man made global warming and any further CO2 in the air will have no effects whatsoever on the Earth's temperature!
Source please.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 12:59 PM
Your definition of consensus is asking how many people's opinions agree?

I got a better one, how about look at what scientists have studied, published, had their studies scrutinized, tested, repeated?

I can show you the Consensus Project website, which says that 97% of published papers agree, global warming is real, and humans are causing it.
http://theconsensusproject.com

Your response now is what?
They didn't count right?
They're lying?
Consensus doesn't mean truth?
That still doesn't count as consensus?

I already gave you the definition.

And yes, those are all valid objections to anyone using "consensus" as evidence. It's not.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:03 PM
If this happens will the man made global warming hoaxers apologize for their lies? I doubt it.


I would, and any honest scientist would.

If they lie, then they're not exactly honest, are they?

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:04 PM
Then you are making an argument from authority, positioning yourself above those you criticize when you have just as much qualification as they do.


Unlike you?



The burden of proof is on you if you are the one making the claim.


The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim after the scientists have already presented their case.



Considering that you have no more qualification than Joe Schmeaux, you don't get to argue from a position of authority.

And I don't need to argue from a position of authority, I can use people who actually have qualifications and studies and facts. Again, what say you? Do you have actually a counter? or are you like a kid who just says "I don't believe it" without end?

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:05 PM
If they lie, then they're not exactly honest, are they?

If they lie, they are not honest scientists. So who are we talking about? PLEASE tell me you're not thinking about Al Gore (who isn't a scientist), or CRU (who did not lie).

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:06 PM
I already gave you the definition.

And yes, those are all valid objections to anyone using "consensus" as evidence. It's not.

Gives me a definition of consensus that doesn't say how many people need to agree, claims you gave a definition, then says consensus is not evidence.

So you're either not interested in consensus or not interest in evidence, more likely, you're not interested in losing an argument.

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:08 PM
And if they ignore the hazards and believe in government handouts--what does that make them?

if they ignore hazards, they're idiots, dipshits and deniers. if they believe in government handouts, they're leeches.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:12 PM
Unlike you?

Yes, unlike me. I am not the one claiming to know the truth. I am just questioning your claims.


The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim after the scientists have already presented their case.

No, that's not how burden of proof works. It's not who makes the "extraordinary" (subjective definition) claim, it's who makes the positive claim (claiming that something IS the case). You can't just shift the burden of proof away by appealing to authority. If that were true, then I would tell you that the burden of proof is on you that quantitative easing doesn't work because Ben Bernanke claims it does. Now prove he's wrong.


And I don't need to argue from a position of authority, I can use people who actually have qualifications and studies and facts. Again, what say you? Do you have actually a counter? or are you like a kid who just says "I don't believe it" without end?

You are still appealing to the authority of others. That is a logical fallacy.

When are you going to start thinking for yourself and stop depending on others to form your opinions? If we just depended on everything the "experts" say, then they could say whatever they wanted, couldn't they? How is this blind trust different from the blind trust that people put in politicians and the federal reserve chairman?

You are like the kid who unquestioningly believes everything his parents tell him.

RickyJ
05-20-2014, 01:12 PM
Source and source please.


Use a search engine and find it yourself. Anyone that cares about the truth can find out that global warming scientists have already been caught red handed falsifying data that was used to back up recent global warming.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:13 PM
Gives me a definition of consensus that doesn't say how many people need to agree, claims you gave a definition, then says consensus is not evidence.

So you're either not interested in consensus or not interest in evidence, more likely, you're not interested in losing an argument.

You're assuming again. What happens when we assume?

No definition says consensus IS evidence for anything, as it shouldn't. Consensus is not evidence for anything. There is a multitude of cases where there was a clear consensus throughout history that turned out to be wrong. How do you know we won't be laughing about your consensus 40 years from now? That's why it can't be evidence. Because "evidence" is something you can observe and test. Consensus is just taking a bunch of people's word for something.

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:14 PM
Source and source please.


Use a search engine and find it yourself. Anyone that cares about the truth can find out that global warming scientists have already been caught red handed falsifying data that was used to back up recent global warming.

no they haven't, you've been lied to by the media who made up the climategate non-scandal.

cite a source if you have something. I can accuse you of being a rapist and just say "go search yourself for evidence of my claim"? you made the claim, cite at least one good source, how's that?

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:14 PM
You're assuming again. What happens when we assume?

No definition says consensus IS evidence for anything, as it shouldn't. Consensus is not evidence for anything.

What is evidence? Do you know?

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:21 PM
no they haven't, you've been lied to by the media who made up the climategate non-scandal.

cite a source if you have something. I can accuse you of being a rapist and just say "go search yourself for evidence of my claim"? you made the claim, cite at least one good source, how's that?

And he wouldn't be able to find any, would he?

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:21 PM
Yes, unlike me. I am not the one claiming to know the truth. I am just questioning your claims.


So you admit you don't know, and can't make predictions, and just question without end. That's exactly what makes a denier rather than a skeptic.



No, that's not how burden of proof works. It's not who makes the "extraordinary" (subjective definition) claim, it's who makes the positive claim (claiming that something IS the case).


Positive or negative claim is also subjective, if not semantic. I can say you're a rapist, and you claiming you're an innocent person, could be, in those words a "positive claim". whereas me claiming you are "not innocent" is a "negative claim".



You can't just shift the burden of proof away by appealing to authority. If that were true, then I would tell you that the burden of proof is on you that quantitative easing doesn't work because Ben Bernanke claims it does. Now prove he's wrong.


And I'd gladly take on that challenge to prove Ben is wrong.



You are still appealing to the authority of others. That is a logical fallacy.


Not if the authority actually has evidence, which you don't.



When are you going to start thinking for yourself and stop depending on others to form your opinions?


I don't care for opinions, I care for facts. You are entitled to your own (opinions, not facts).



If we just depended on everything the "experts" say, then they could say whatever they wanted, couldn't they?


Only if they have evidence.



How is this blind trust different from the blind trust that people put in politicians and the federal reserve chairman?


because you demand evidence.



You are like the kid who unquestioningly believes everything his parents tell him.

Because I don't, I rely on evidence, studies, scrutiny, repeatability, predictions being vindicated or discredited...etc.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:21 PM
What is evidence? Do you know?

Yes. Do you? You're the one claiming that consensus is evidence, so why don't you tell me what evidence is? You're making the claim.

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:23 PM
And he wouldn't be able to find any, would he?

find what? evidence that he's a rapist? nor can I find support for his claims. what does that prove?

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:29 PM
Yes. Do you? You're the one claiming that consensus is evidence, so why don't you tell me what evidence is? You're making the claim.

Temperature data.
CO2 concentration.
Predictions, trends, measured results vs expectations.

Consensus is not evidence (according to you, and using your definition, I'd agree), but you're the one who started with "percieved consensus" as if actual consensus mattered. Since you admit consensus is not evidence, you won't be using Oregon Petition as your support :)

When people cite consensus, in terms of studies (in the case of climate change), they're not using it to mean poll of opinion (unlike you).

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:31 PM
So you admit you don't know, and can't make predictions, and just question without end. That's exactly what makes a denier rather than a skeptic.

I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of the claims of scientists. Now it is your job to prove that I should not be skeptical. You're making the claim that I should trust them. Why should I trust them?


Positive or negative claim is also subjective, if not semantic. I can say you're a rapist, and you claiming you're an innocent person, could be, in those words a "positive claim". whereas me claiming you are "not innocent" is a "negative claim".

You're the one using semantics. If someone says I'm a rapist, I would ask them to prove it. If I then made the claim that I'm innocent, then it's just another way of saying I'm NOT a rapist, which is a negative claim. Positive claim=you are a rapist. Negative claim=No, I'm not. The positive claim requires proof, not the negative.


And I'd gladly take on that challenge to prove Ben is wrong.

Why? He's an authority. Shouldn't you just trust what the authorities tell you? He knows what he's talking about and you don't.


Not if the authority actually has evidence, which you don't.

So now we should actually look at the evidence and not just trust what the authority says? You're flip-flopping.


I don't care for opinions, I care for facts. You are entitled to your own (opinions, not facts).

Let me rephrase that: Why do you depend on the expertise of others for the truth? When are you going to THINK FOR YOURSELF!?


Only if they have evidence.

Well, then I guess we should look at the evidence and not just trust the authorities. Is that what you're saying, because it's different from what you said before.


because you demand evidence.

Exactly. If you demand evidence, then the authority doesn't mean anything because you are actually looking at the evidence and not simply trusting someone because they're an authority figure.


Because I don't, I rely on evidence, studies, scrutiny, repeatability, predictions being vindicated or discredited...etc.

Really? Because I could've sworn you were just telling me to trust what the scientists say. Now you're telling me I should actually examine the evidence myself?

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:31 PM
find what? evidence that he's a rapist? nor can I find support for his claims. what does that prove?

It proves that there's no evidence that he's a rapist. Hence, we should assume that he's not one.

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:33 PM
You're assuming again. What happens when we assume?

No definition says consensus IS evidence for anything, as it shouldn't. Consensus is not evidence for anything.


So perceived consensus isn't any worse than actual consensus, according to you?



There is a multitude of cases where there was a clear consensus throughout history that turned out to be wrong. How do you know we won't be laughing about your consensus 40 years from now?


1. Were they right most of the time?
2. Were they acting on the best information available to them?
3. I am willing to be wrong, and I will laugh at people who did not use the best information available, not people who did.
4. Give an example, so we can actually test your claim.



That's why it can't be evidence. Because "evidence" is something you can observe and test. Consensus is just taking a bunch of people's word for something.

Consensus in the context of science, at least in this case, does not rely on people's words, they rely on evidence and studies, which CAN AND HAVE BEEN OBSERVED AND TESTED. Which is why it's not opinion.

You seem to be saying that if something can be wrong it can't be evidence, so evidence can't be wrong?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 01:33 PM
if they ignore hazards, they're idiots, dipshits and deniers. if they believe in government handouts, they're leeches.

That was not the question. It is one question, not two questions. I will repeat it:

What of the people who ignore the hazards of living near a river AND believe that government should compensate them when those hazards occur?

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:34 PM
Temperature data.
CO2 concentration.
Predictions, trends, measured results vs expectations.

Consensus is not evidence (according to you, and using your definition, I'd agree), but you're the one who started with "percieved consensus" as if actual consensus mattered. Since you admit consensus is not evidence, you won't be using Oregon Petition as your support :)

When people cite consensus, in terms of studies (in the case of climate change), they're not using it to mean poll of opinion (unlike you).

If the media tells me a consensus and I believe them, then I perceive that there is a consensus, that most scientists agree on something. However, that does not necessarily mean that most scientists actually do agree. That is what I meant by perceived consensus. And no, I have no intention of bringing up Oregon Petition. I am just questioning your grounds for arguing from authority when you have no such authority.

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:35 PM
It proves that there's no evidence that he's a rapist. Hence, we should assume that he's not one.

what happens when we assume?

So I can't find support for the claims he just made


Don't be a fool, there is no significant man made global warming and any further CO2 in the air will have no effects whatsoever on the Earth's temperature!

, therefore we should assume he's making it up?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 01:35 PM
PRB,

I will repeat the other question that you did not answer. Here is our exchange and my question to you:





because unless I can predict who much water, rain I get, it can be dangerous, and it only has to happen once.


Whose responsibility is that?

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:36 PM
So perceived consensus isn't any worse than actual consensus, according to you?



1. Were they right most of the time?
2. Were they acting on the best information available to them?
3. I am willing to be wrong, and I will laugh at people who did not use the best information available, not people who did.
4. Give an example, so we can actually test your claim.



Consensus in the context of science, at least in this case, does not rely on people's words, they rely on evidence and studies, which CAN AND HAVE BEEN OBSERVED AND TESTED. Which is why it's not opinion.

You seem to be saying that if something can be wrong it can't be evidence, so evidence can't be wrong?

Just because someone else has observed and tested something, that doesn't mean you should just forego the responsibility to determine for yourself what is true.

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:38 PM
If the media tells me a consensus and I believe them, then I perceive that there is a consensus, that most scientists agree on something.


But that isn't and shouldn't be enough. I look at WHY scientists believe what they do, and WHY they conclude what they do.

I don't just assume scientists are right or are liars. What they look at matters, how they conclude matters, they are subject to scrutinity, counter arguments, and their claims are open for testing. So, have you an actual challenge to any of these climate scientist claims? Or just don't want to look?



However, that does not necessarily mean that most scientists actually do agree.


And if they "agreed" by mere opinion, it wouldn't matter. Agreement on opinion is for politicians and voters, an honest examination of evidence and agreement based on knowing all evidence available is what makes science a better way to make conclusions than almost any other method.



That is what I meant by perceived consensus. And no, I have no intention of bringing up Oregon Petition. I am just questioning your grounds for arguing from authority when you have no such authority.

I am not arguing as an authority, just as an honest person who doesn't dismiss things based on my preconcieved agenda.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:39 PM
what happens when we assume?

So I can't find support for the claims he just made



, therefore we should assume he's making it up?

Would you rather we assume that he is one? There is such a thing as a benefit of the doubt, you know. This really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be. If we assume he's not a rapist, that simply means we're giving him the benefit of the doubt. If we can't find evidence for the positive claim that he IS a rapist, then we continue to believe that he is not one. It's the same for global warming. If we can't verify the claims of scientists that global warming is happening, then we should not believe the scientists because we have not looked at the evidence.

You claim to believe in evidence, and yet you constantly tell people to go with the flow and accept the scientific consensus. I'm telling you that you can't simply assume that evidence is on your side just because the scientists are on your side.

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:40 PM
Just because someone else has observed and tested something, that doesn't mean you should just forego the responsibility to determine for yourself what is true.

Indeed it doesn't. So again, are you actually going to put this "I know science and logic more than you" to a good use in this argument? Do you actually have a scientific beef to bring up? Or are you just blind doubting and denying whatever you like? Are you holding yourself to the same standard you hold to me and people you allegedly disagree with?

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:41 PM
But that isn't and shouldn't be enough. I look at WHY scientists believe what they do, and WHY they conclude what they do.

I don't just assume scientists are right or are liars. What they look at matters, how they conclude matters, they are subject to scrutinity, counter arguments, and their claims are open for testing. So, have you an actual challenge to any of these climate scientist claims? Or just don't want to look?



And if they "agreed" by mere opinion, it wouldn't matter. Agreement on opinion is for politicians and voters, an honest examination of evidence and agreement based on knowing all evidence available is what makes science a better way to make conclusions than almost any other method.



I am not arguing as an authority, just as an honest person who doesn't dismiss things based on my preconcieved agenda.

I'm just telling you what I meant by perceived consensus: The perception that there is a consensus. Is that, or is that not, what a perceived consensus is?

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 01:44 PM
Indeed it doesn't. So again, are you actually going to put this "I know science and logic more than you" to a good use in this argument? Do you actually have a scientific beef to bring up? Or are you just blind doubting and denying whatever you like? Are you holding yourself to the same standard you hold to me and people you allegedly disagree with?

No. I'm questioning your claims that you believe in science. It appears to me that you believe in mass hysteria. I am doubting what you say with good reason. It is logically unsound.

I am making no positive claims, so I don't need to hold myself to any standard. I'm just reminding you of the standards. If I started arguing from authority like you, then I would need to apply the standards to myself, but that's not what I'm doing.

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:45 PM
Would you rather we assume that he is one? There is such a thing as a benefit of the doubt, you know. This really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be.


He made the claim that scientists lied, and CO2 has already satured, more won't change much. Am I going to give him the benefit of doubt?



If we assume he's not a rapist, that simply means we're giving him the benefit of the doubt.


Why is the opposite not true?



If we can't find evidence for the positive claim that he IS a rapist, then we continue to believe that he is not one. It's the same for global warming. If we can't verify the claims of scientists that global warming is happening


Luckily we can. Despite many who are ignorant and in denial, clouded by political agenda.



, then we should not believe the scientists because we have not looked at the evidence.


I welcome you to look at evidence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html



You claim to believe in evidence, and yet you constantly tell people to go with the flow and accept the scientific consensus.


No, I tell people to challenge scientists if you actually have a challenge. Asking stupid questions and not knowing what you're asking isn't one way to do it.



I'm telling you that you can't simply assume that evidence is on your side just because the scientists are on your side.

Luckily I don't need to assume, I know enough to say I have evidence on my side and am happily willing to consider I am wrong, I am challenging anybody to show any contrary evidence. So contrary to your delusion, I am not close minded and decided without possibility of changing my mind. I am open as long as there's qualified evidence and honest studies.

PRB
05-20-2014, 01:52 PM
No. I'm questioning your claims that you believe in science.


The better wording is I trust evidence and the scientific method, and I trust people's conclusions if they've honestly applied the method. Not by virtue of being a scientist.



It appears to me that you believe in mass hysteria. I am doubting what you say with good reason. It is logically unsound.


Why do you say I believe in mass hysteria?



I am making no positive claims, so I don't need to hold myself to any standard.


LOL, yeah you did, here

Yes, really. It's all about what they want you to believe... and it's pretty likely that what they want you to believe is not based on reality.

Luckily you then admitted you don't know what you're talking about.



I'm just reminding you of the standards. If I started arguing from authority like you, then I would need to apply the standards to myself, but that's not what I'm doing.

I don't argue from authority. I argue using evidence, so if you want to challenge me, I ask you do the same. If you want to challenge Al Gore, use politics, if you want to challenge IPCC, bring better scientists. If you want to challenge the 97% consensus conclusion, use evidence.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 02:00 PM
He made the claim that scientists lied, and CO2 has already satured, more won't change much. Am I going to give him the benefit of doubt?

No, but you are also not going to blindly trust the scientists because you have no evidence that what they say bears any resemblance to reality.


Why is the opposite not true?

What is the opposite?


Luckily we can. Despite many who are ignorant and in denial, clouded by political agenda.

If we can, then we should, but we should NOT just trust what the scientists say because they are scientists. Are you starting to grasp what I am saying?


I welcome you to look at evidence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

I'm talking about trusting the scientists and your fallacious claim that evidence is on your side when you have yet to present any evidence. You can't argue from authority if you are not a scientist. You can't assume that the evidence is on your side (your words) if you have just as much qualification to examine it as the regular Joe Schmeaux who opposes you.


No, I tell people to challenge scientists if you actually have a challenge. Asking stupid questions and not knowing what you're asking isn't one way to do it.

And how do you determine if a question is stupid or not? By doing science? Do you refer back to the scientists again? You're going in circles.


Luckily I don't need to assume, I know enough to say I have evidence on my side and am happily willing to consider I am wrong, I am challenging anybody to show any contrary evidence. So contrary to your delusion, I am not close minded and decided without possibility of changing my mind. I am open as long as there's qualified evidence and honest studies.

You already said on the last page that you assume the evidence is on your side. You have not presented any evidence, AND you shifted the burden of proof away from yourself in the process. Lest we forget all of these little tid bits, YOU are the one making the claim and YOU have to support it with evidence. You cannot assume that the evidence is on your side.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 02:06 PM
The better wording is I trust evidence and the scientific method, and I trust people's conclusions if they've honestly applied the method. Not by virtue of being a scientist.

How do you know if they've honestly applied the method? Were you in the lab?


Why do you say I believe in mass hysteria?

Because you said we should accept what the scientists say, and what they are saying is "PANIC ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!"


LOL, yeah you did, here

I just added my opinion in there. I didn't state it as fact. I just said what I believe is likely.


Luckily you then admitted you don't know what you're talking about.

And so should you. You're not a scientist, and you don't have the upper hand in this debate until you actually use science, which you have not done yet.


I don't argue from authority. I argue using evidence, so if you want to challenge me, I ask you do the same. If you want to challenge Al Gore, use politics, if you want to challenge IPCC, bring better scientists. If you want to challenge the 97% consensus conclusion, use evidence.

Yes, you do. You already said you assume that the evidence is on your side back at the beginning of our conversation. You say we should accept what the scientists say. That's appealing to authority and using the authority of others as a basis from which to give yourself the upper hand in the debate. If you argue using evidence, then you would have used some by now, but you haven't done so in the whole thread yet.

PRB
05-20-2014, 02:10 PM
No, but you are also not going to blindly trust the scientists


Correct.



because you have no evidence that what they say bears any resemblance to reality.


Luckily I do. Because temperature data doesn't lie.



What is the opposite?


That assuming he's a rapist is giving him benefit of doubt.



If we can, then we should, but we should NOT just trust what the scientists say because they are scientists. Are you starting to grasp what I am saying?


No disagreement here. So again, are you going to put this scientific thinking to an actual argument? Or JAQing?



I'm talking about trusting the scientists and your fallacious claim that evidence is on your side when you have yet to present any evidence.


here you go.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm



You can't argue from authority if you are not a scientist. You can't assume that the evidence is on your side (your words) if you have just as much qualification to examine it as the regular Joe Schmeaux who opposes you.


Oh wait, which one is it? Can I examine evidence? Or can't I? Decide already. One says I can't use evidence, one says we must trust somebody else (and tell me who that is, thanks)



And how do you determine if a question is stupid or not? By doing science? Do you refer back to the scientists again? You're going in circles.


By looking at whether a person even bothered to scrape the surface and hear facts. There's a difference between hearing an argument and disagreeing, vs not hearing it at all.



You already said on the last page that you assume the evidence is on your side. You have not presented any evidence, AND you shifted the burden of proof away from yourself in the process.


here's some. Sorry, didn't know you asked, I thought you already knew I was wrong or something.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php



Lest we forget all of these little tid bits, YOU are the one making the claim and YOU have to support it with evidence. You cannot assume that the evidence is on your side.

I don't need to assume. I actually know, and I'm willing to look at any contrary evidence. Let me know when you have any, thanks.

PRB
05-20-2014, 02:16 PM
How do you know if they've honestly applied the method? Were you in the lab?


Because data collected is available for you to reproduce the results. Sorry, but climate trends are not done in "wet labs" but computer labs. Either there's a conspiracy for all scientists to lie and be wrong, or some will stand up to prove another wrong.



Because you said we should accept what the scientists say, and what they are saying is "PANIC ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!"


Didn't say that. And what scientist said that?



I just added my opinion in there. I didn't state it as fact. I just said what I believe is likely.

And so should you. You're not a scientist, and you don't have the upper hand in this debate until you actually use science, which you have not done yet.


But I post evidence. And welcome you to too.



If you argue using evidence, then you would have used some by now, but you haven't done so in the whole thread yet.

I apologize, I have now. And here it is again.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

So, next?

That evidence isn't good enough?
That evidence isn't sufficient or complete?
That evidence isn't honest and reliable?

Would be nice if you have something better as a counter, such as
This evidence says you're wrong
This evidence is missing, please include
This evidence is more reliable, and I can tell you why

Ball's in your court now.

PaulConventionWV
05-20-2014, 02:25 PM
Luckily I do. Because temperature data doesn't lie.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Prove that temperature data is reliable. Don't just assume that temperature data doesn't lie. Examine it and tell me why you believe the temperature data is accurate. Keep in mind we're measuring the average temperature of the entire earth with mere thousands of measurements. First of all, why should I trust those measurements as accurate?


That assuming he's a rapist is giving him benefit of doubt.

It wouldn't really be a benefit, then, would it?


No disagreement here. So again, are you going to put this scientific thinking to an actual argument? Or JAQing?

I'm waiting for you to make your argument. You haven't made a scientific argument in the whole thread.


here you go.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

That link is a bunch of people talking about what the scientists believe. I thought we established that you should use actual science and not just trust the scientists?


Oh wait, which one is it? Can I examine evidence? Or can't I? Decide already. One says I can't use evidence, one says we must trust somebody else (and tell me who that is, thanks)

You can't claim to be using evidence when you are actually referring to scientists' beliefs. You CAN use evidence when you actually carry out the scientific method of observing, testing, and repeating, YOURSELF.


By looking at whether a person even bothered to scrape the surface and hear facts. There's a difference between hearing an argument and disagreeing, vs not hearing it at all.

How do you look at that? By determining if what they say is legitimate? Do you ask them?


here's some. Sorry, didn't know you asked, I thought you already knew I was wrong or something.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

That's not evidence. That's a link to people talking about what scientists have published.


I don't need to assume. I actually know, and I'm willing to look at any contrary evidence. Let me know when you have any, thanks.

You just said you already know. How can you know without assuming? Have you gone out there and collected the data and did the calculations from the temperature measurements yourself? How do you know? Are you wearing a lab coat as we speak and doing arduous calculations based on real, tangible measuring devices and evidence from ice cores, satellites, the atmospheric gas, etc. You don't know unless you've done it. Otherwise, you're just taking the word of the scientists.

PRB
05-20-2014, 02:34 PM
I'm waiting for you to make your argument. You haven't made a scientific argument in the whole thread.


I haven't made an argument or I just repeat the scientist's allegedly alarmist argument?

PRB
05-20-2014, 02:34 PM
Are you wearing a lab coat as we speak and doing arduous calculations based on real, tangible measuring devices and evidence from ice cores, satellites, the atmospheric gas, etc. You don't know unless you've done it. Otherwise, you're just taking the word of the scientists.

Not that if I did, you'd believe me, since you obviously don't trust anybody if you didn't do it yourself.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 02:49 PM
PRB,

Let's just say--for the sake of argument--that global warming is true. Should governments do anything about it? If so, what should they do?

PRB
05-20-2014, 02:56 PM
PRB,

Let's just say--for the sake of argument--that global warming is true. Should governments do anything about it? If so, what should they do?

No, the government shouldn't do anything about it but convey the facts and let people solve their own problems.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-20-2014, 03:01 PM
No, the government shouldn't do anything about it but convey the facts and let people solve their own problems.

If the government is not doing anything about it, then why are they conveying the facts?

RickyJ
05-20-2014, 03:03 PM
Just because governments use global warming as an excuse to create new laws does not mean it is a hoax. The government often uses children as an excuse to create laws, but I am pretty sure children exist.

Global warming is not a hoax, man made global warming is a hoax though.

Danke
05-20-2014, 03:13 PM
No, the government shouldn't do anything about it but convey the facts and let people solve their own problems.

Brilliant!

PRB
05-20-2014, 03:48 PM
If the government is not doing anything about it, then why are they conveying the facts?

so they have less work to do later? is it not in the government's interest to reduce crimes and disaster victims?

RickyJ
05-20-2014, 04:24 PM
so they have less work to do later? is it not in the government's interest to reduce crimes and disaster victims?

No, it isn't. The only thing in our government's interest is short-term profit for the current office holders. They have no problem wiping out close to 3000 mostly US citizens in a single day to start wars for more personal profit to themselves. Even Obama, the supposed man of "change" and "peace" now says that he is "really good at killing people", as if he is proud of it. Modern day governments don't exist for the people they supposedly represent, they exist to control the people they supposedly represent and to profit off of them.

PRB
05-20-2014, 04:43 PM
No, it isn't. The only thing in our government's interest is short-term profit for the current office holders. They have no problem wiping out close to 3000 mostly US citizens in a single day to start wars for more personal profit to themselves. Even Obama, the supposed man of "change" and "peace" now says that he is "really good at killing people", as if he is proud of it. Modern day governments don't exist for the people they supposedly represent, they exist to control the people they supposedly represent and to profit off of them.

Ahhh, so in that case, the government is foolish to not have used drones on us already, who cares about legality?

the government would be foolish to scare us about global warming ,or cooling, and best to leave us deaf, dumb and blind, so every city can be like New Orleans and Brigantine.

Danke
05-21-2014, 08:54 AM
http://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/al_gore_climate_change.jpg?w=640&h=473

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-23-2014, 04:10 PM
is it not in the government's interest to reduce crimes and disaster victims?

I don't follow you. What does buying a house near a river have to do with crime? I also don't see how government interest would eclipse an individual's interest to not get caught up in a disaster.

Wouldn't the people living in such predictably hazardous areas have an even larger than government interest in not locating in these places to begin with? Hazards will, after all, directly affect that resident. If the residents themselves are not even interested in their own well-being, then why should the government/taxpayer be interested in their well-being?

PRB
05-23-2014, 05:14 PM
I don't follow you. What does buying a house near a river have to do with crime?


Nothing. Other than if disasters make crimes easier to commit and harder to control.



I also don't see how government interest would eclipse an individual's interest to not get caught up in a disaster.


Oh, because as of now, the government, for better or worse, has no intention of shrinking or leaving people to help themselves, so disasters will almost always be on the government's hands when it comes to assistance and disaster relief, regardless of what a crappy job or wasteful spending it is. So it's not that they eclipse, it's that the government has an independent interest in avoiding disaster and disaster relief.



Wouldn't the people living in such predictably hazardous areas have an even larger than government interest in not locating in these places to begin with?


Predictably dangerous according to who? Scientists? People who say "it's always happened, what's the big deal"? But regardless of whether they have an interest, the question asked to me was why the government would want to convey a warning.



Hazards will, after all, directly affect that resident. If the residents themselves are not even interested in their own well-being, then why should the government/taxpayer be interested in their well-being?

They shouldn't, but they're not going away anytime soon, is warning people to either avoid or prevent disasters not in the usually overreaching government's interest? Or do you believe the govenrment would either create or take advantage of them to exercise tyranny? (could and would are not the same)

dude58677
05-23-2014, 07:02 PM
Not that if I did, you'd believe me, since you obviously don't trust anybody if you didn't do it yourself.

Laws of gravity tells me that whatever goes up must come down. I threw a pencil up in the air and it came down. There are exceptions I flew a paraglider and that was based on thrust, weight, lift, and drag. I saw this for myself. That is why physics is a real science. Being called a scientist is not a badge you wear it is what you do. Until you come up with a test that can show if climate change is real and how to do the testing so we can do it ourselves then we'll talk otherwise your just making talking points.

I won't reply till you do because I'm not going to waste my time and no one else should until you do come up with the test and the methodology to do it.

PRB
05-24-2014, 12:40 AM
Laws of gravity tells me that whatever goes up must come down. I threw a pencil up in the air and it came down. There are exceptions I flew a paraglider and that was based on thrust, weight, lift, and drag. I saw this for myself. That is why physics is a real science. Being called a scientist is not a badge you wear it is what you do. Until you come up with a test that can show if climate change is real and how to do the testing so we can do it ourselves then we'll talk otherwise your just making talking points.

I won't reply till you do because I'm not going to waste my time and no one else should until you do come up with the test and the methodology to do it.

I wasn't alive Lincoln allegedly lived, so why should I believe he existed?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-24-2014, 02:29 AM
... government, for better or worse, has no intention of shrinking
This is the whole point. It's better for the people who insist in living in disaster prone areas, and then those same people get bailed out by the taxpayer when disaster hits. It's worse for the taxpayer who pays for the irresponsible people.



...government has an independent interest in avoiding disaster and disaster relief.
Independent of what? The government IS made of the irresponsible people and their advocates like you.




Predictably dangerous according to who? Scientists?
Who?! YOU just agreed that it's not a good idea to live near a river. Do you actually need a scientist or the government to tell you this?


People who say "it's always happened, what's the big deal"?
Yes, of course, they say it's not a big deal, especially when you have taxpayers to bail you out for your irresponsibility.

PRB
05-24-2014, 03:01 AM
This is the whole point. It's better for the people who insist in living in disaster prone areas, and then those same people get bailed out by the taxpayer when disaster hits. It's worse for the taxpayer who pays for the irresponsible people.


The government doesn't benefit from moving on guy's money into another guy's hand, not while it's running up debt left and right, so if for nothing else, the government prefers to avoid having to help anybody.



Independent of what? The government IS made of the irresponsible people and their advocates like you.


Independent of whether the interests overlap.



Who?! YOU just agreed that it's not a good idea to live near a river. Do you actually need a scientist or the government to tell you this?


How near is near? How often should one be worried? Are there safe seasons? Is it better to live in the middle of no water at all?




Yes, of course, they say it's not a big deal, especially when you have taxpayers to bail you out for your irresponsibility.

Are Sandy and Katrina victims deserving of what they got prior to getting any bailout or assistance from government? Were they dipshits who should've known not to live there? Or innocent and ignorant and they could've been anybody?

Back to global warming being a hoax. What's the government's agenda? To scare people into paying carbon taxes so they'll feel safe? Or scare people into not living in dangerous areas so government would have less people to bail out, worry about rescuing? Or to tell people everything will be fine, so more people live near beaches, rivers and shores?

You sound like Sandy and Katrina victims don't suffer at all, as if you'd happily become one since being bailout is so easy and harmless. Or that you want them to suffer more (I do, can you say the same?).

dude58677
05-24-2014, 08:56 AM
I wasn't alive Lincoln allegedly lived, so why should I believe he existed?

I was only going to reply until you showed me a test for global warming and I all ready to try it but it is clear you have no intention of doing so. The analogy is another pseudoscience characteristic of abuse of analogy. You have no test and use an analogy as an excuse. The analogy isn't even a good one because you have seen artifacts of Lincoln and the other thing is that history is not a science as it is not based on testing and hypothesis. You demonstrate there is no test and use a false analogy as an excuse.

I have you on ignore as you cannot prove your case because if you did you would not be here still debating and so are wasting my time.

PRB
05-24-2014, 11:18 AM
I was only going to reply until you showed me a test for global warming and I all ready to try it but it is clear you have no intention of doing so. The analogy is another pseudoscience characteristic of abuse of analogy. You have no test and use an analogy as an excuse.


Tell me the difference. Tell me how and why you can know Lincoln existed. So I know how I can provide you with a test that comes close to your satisfaction, otherwise I can expect you'll just yell "That's not good enough, I didn't see it" for everything I tell you.



The analogy isn't even a good one because you have seen artifacts of Lincoln and the other thing is that history is not a science as it is not based on testing and hypothesis. You demonstrate there is no test and use a false analogy as an excuse.


Ah! So you mean to tell me that scientifically speaking, there's no good evidence Lincoln existed? Artifacts are not proof!



I have you on ignore as you cannot prove your case because if you did you would not be here still debating and so are wasting my time.

I won't ignore you, but feel free to if you can't debate the facts.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-31-2014, 02:21 AM
... so if for nothing else, the government prefers to avoid having to help anybody.

The glorious leaders you love so much disagree with you:


"I’m also convinced we can help Americans return to the workforce faster by reforming unemployment insurance so that it’s more effective in today’s economy."

"...I want to work with Congress to see how we can help even more Americans who feel trapped by student loan debt."

--Barack Obama, State of the Union Address
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address


Together, we can help make sure that every family that walks into a restaurant can make an easy, healthy choice.”

--Michelle Obama, Comments to the National Restaurant Association
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/13/remarks-first-lady-address-national-restaurant-association-meeting







How near is near?
How high the moon?


How often should one be worried?
As often as the women on the afternoon talk shows tell you.


Are there safe seasons?
Yes, you should lift your new house to high ground every March, and return it later in the summer.


Is it better to live in the middle of no water at all?

Of course! You can always depend on city dwellers and government to pump the water from farmers!







Are Sandy and Katrina victims deserving of what they got prior to getting any bailout or assistance from government? Were they dipshits who should've known not to live there?

I have repeatedly addressed the point about people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs. If you don't want to address this point, then talk with countless home buyers who insist on having a riverfront view from their house.




Back to global warming being a hoax. What's the government's agenda?

I never said it was a hoax, so I don't know what you're talking about.





You sound like Sandy and Katrina victims don't suffer at all, as if you'd happily become one since being bailout is so easy and harmless.

I have repeatedly addressed the point about people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs. It is the dysfunctional enabling relationship between government and residents.



Or that you want them to suffer more (I do, can you say the same?).

I would hope that people don't suffer at all. I actually care about people in these situations. The difference between you and me is that I don't express my caring by demanding that others care and then implementing a care tax.

PRB
05-31-2014, 02:55 AM
// repeat deleted

PRB
05-31-2014, 02:55 AM
The glorious leaders you love so much disagree with you:


"I’m also convinced we can help Americans return to the workforce faster by reforming unemployment insurance so that it’s more effective in today’s economy."

"...I want to work with Congress to see how we can help even more Americans who feel trapped by student loan debt."

--Barack Obama, State of the Union Address
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address


Together, we can help make sure that every family that walks into a restaurant can make an easy, healthy choice.”

--Michelle Obama, Comments to the National Restaurant Association
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/13/remarks-first-lady-address-national-restaurant-association-meeting



And did you notice these are all addressing problems that already exist? Does any of this point to government wanted to create problems so they can come out and save people?

Do you think governments, whether Fascist, liberal, or communist, would prefer to subsidize jobs, destroy jobs, or create jobs, or let people create jobs? Which one would be the least work for the most benefit to government?

Answer : let people create jobs and tax them for it. Destroying jobs would not do that, creating jobs would be wasteful spending without benefit to government.

The government, of any ideology, has zero interest in helping people or saving people beyond what benefits them back.

PRB
05-31-2014, 03:00 AM
I would hope that people don't suffer at all. I actually care about people in these situations. The difference between you and me is that I don't express my caring by demanding that others care and then implementing a care tax.

I don't demand anybody care other than getting facts and protecting themselves. I don't demand ANY tax, care tax or otherwise, so I don't know what you're talking about.

If you admit global warming isn't a hoax, then we can stop arguing.

PRB
05-31-2014, 03:03 AM
I have repeatedly addressed the point about people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs. If you don't want to address this point, then talk with countless home buyers who insist on having a riverfront view from their house.

I have repeatedly addressed the point about people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs. It is the dysfunctional enabling relationship between government and residents.


Ok, are Katrina and Sandy victims "people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs."? Yes or no or maybe?

Did they know they lived in hazardous areas? Or was where they lived safe because hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy hasn't happened often enough, or "who cares, it's all natural"? Or "you can't stop it anyway, so why act like it's going to happen"?

PRB
05-31-2014, 03:10 AM
I would hope that people don't suffer at all. I actually care about people in these situations. The difference between you and me is that I don't express my caring by demanding that others care and then implementing a care tax.

How do you express you care? Prayer?

How do you not hope people suffer by not bailing them out or not donating money to them?

I hope Rand Paul wins, but I won't vote for him, is that what you're saying?

I hope Obama doesn't win, but I won't stop voting for him or telling people to vote against him, like that?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-31-2014, 03:40 AM
How do you not hope people suffer by not bailing them out or not donating money to them?



You demand that government/taxpayers care about people and then decline to answer my question about whether or not you have donated to people in hurricanes? You not only decline to answer the question, but you have the gall to ask me the same question?!

OK fine; let's put it on the table. I have no problem answering the question if you will also answer.

PRB
05-31-2014, 05:34 PM
You demand that government/taxpayers care about people


I don't. I just care that people don't lie or suppress facts. I believe like free press, people should hear reasonable warnings based on scientific predictions. But if they knew of warnings and denied them, ignored them, I can say they deserve to suffer and fuck them, if they relied on false information, I'd hope the liars responsible.

My "care" of how people suffer is just that, did they act on the right information or not.



and then decline to answer my question about whether or not you have donated to people in hurricanes?


I answered you, I donated zero. I don't care about them beyond wishing they were living where they did based on all available information to them.



You not only decline to answer the question, but you have the gall to ask me the same question?!


I answered you, I donated zero. And I don't care if you have, unless you think it's relevant.



OK fine; let's put it on the table. I have no problem answering the question if you will also answer.

Done. Your turn. What were you afraid of? that I'd ridicule you if you answered first?

PRB
05-31-2014, 05:40 PM
One thing PRB probably doesn't do is care enough to personally contribute to people in hurricanes. He declined to answer whether or not he gives to people in hurricanes.

He does, however, care enough to suggest that everyone should care.

So you see here, you saw my answer, or inferred it correctly.

That's correct, I don't care enough to contribute in form of monetary donations.

I also didn't say anybody should care, just that anybody who claims to, prove they do, and anybody who doesn't, admit they're as heartless as I am. Fair?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-31-2014, 07:33 PM
I believe like free press, people should hear reasonable warnings based on scientific predictions.

From who?

PRB
05-31-2014, 08:33 PM
From who?

Scientists, meteorologists, people who have experience, history in general.

Somebody other than naysayers and deniers.

Now, for my questions please:

"Ok, are Katrina and Sandy victims "people who insist in living in hazardous areas, and then expecting the government to bail them out when the hazard occurs."? Yes or no or maybe?

Did they know they lived in hazardous areas? Or was where they lived safe because hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy hasn't happened often enough, or "who cares, it's all natural"? Or "you can't stop it anyway, so why act like it's going to happen"?"

Thanks.

Then you can tell me if you "care" more than I do as far as donating, or not, or how you express you care.

HVACTech
05-31-2014, 08:55 PM
meanwhile,
back at the farm..

http://www.sott.net/article/279874-The-End-Holocene

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-31-2014, 08:56 PM
Scientists, meteorologists, people who have experience, history in general.



Funded by who?

PRB
06-02-2014, 12:08 AM
Funded by who?

Frankly it doesn't matter, as long as their data can be verified by other people, using the scientific method. Find me scientists who are funded by oil interests, and we can see if their studies can be reproduced. That's what it comes down to, can facts and claims be verified.