3 ms·

> ...the consensus opinion... the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence... a bunch of aggressively anti-climate-change folks, like yourself.

> ...the consensus opinion... the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence... a bunch of aggressively anti-climate-change folks, like yourself... engaging in international data theft to try and dig up dirt... extreme paucity of data for some kind of climate conspiracy... I really don't see how someone can rationally arrive at the conclusion that the IPCC is corrupt... Who is paying them? ... Do you imagine them in a futuristic control center with C.H.A.O.S. uniforms, with Vega and M.Bison giving orders before they beat up married men and raise their children as assassins? Okay, see, this is it. People get completely and totally convinced and it becomes an identity issue. I excerpted you from above - you state your conclusions as premises, and preemptively ridicule and strawman the other side. You don't need people with an agenda if there's true believers with their identity at stake - their identity as scientists or good people. The boring truth is what you happen to believe, the other side primarily consists of aggressive anti-climate people who also associate with international thieves, and how could the side you believe possibly be doing corrupt, despite clear evidence of scientific misconduct and numerous errors and fallacies pointed out? Ah, forget the misconduct, the whole thing is going to get get weirder before it gets warmer. Also - I'm a conservationist, for the record. I just think the whole damn thing is shameful.

KirinDave 17y ago
> you state your conclusions as premises, and preemptively ridicule and strawman the other side. While I might have been slightly sarcastic in my reply, I don't think I was attacking a straw man with the core of my argument. If you are drawing the conclusion that there isn't evidence for AGW you are either denying evidence or ignorant of it. The amount of invalidated evidence is dwarfed by the remainder. This is the same kind of phenomenon in human cognition that leads people to believe that plane travel is less safe than car travel. We learn to fear memorable stories (SCANDAL IN THE IPCC! FOX NEWS SPECIAL TONIGHT! likened unto PLANE HIJACKED WITH FLAMING DILDOS! TSA TO BAN FEMALE ORGASM IN AIRPORTS!) more than we fear the statistically backed realities. > despite clear evidence of scientific misconduct and numerous errors and fallacies pointed out? "Numerous" being "a handful" and "scientific misconduct" being "data smoothing" and "nasty emails." This is _all you have_. After years of digging, this is the sum total. And it's unsurprising that a few cases of this exist. I mean, even particle physics has its scandals and you wouldn't think those people were likely to go there. > Also - I'm a conservationist Classic political/conversational trick. "Btw I am actually a member of group _____, so I can say with authority." It's bullshit, of course. No one cares if you are a conservationist, and it doesn't affect your correctness in any way. It's just a misleading kind of "argumentum ad populum" where centrism must be right because it appeals to the most people in a bar.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > If you are drawing the conclusion that there isn't evidence for AGW you are either denying evidence or ignorant of it. You know what I'm waiting for? "The average temperature and standard deviation of these 50 regions are X and Y. We expect them to increase by A and B over the next five years. If that didn't happen in at least 35 regions, that would cast doubt on our model." I'm looking for falsifiable claims, and not seeing any. This instills doubt. As for what I think after looking at most of the mainstream accessible things on climate? The Earth seems to be getting slowly warmer, that's been happening since before the Industrial Revolution, and probably isn't a bad thing. Pollution is a bad thing, but not because it's going to bring on catastrophic amounts of global warming. > This is _all you have_. No. The burden of proof is on the people who are making the claims of catastrophe and calls for trillions of dollars. The argument is not settled, and the burden is on them. The general culture of "global warming is a big deal, so we need to sell it any way possible" is a bad thing. > Classic political/conversational trick. "Btw I am actually a member of group _____, so I can say with authority." It's bullshit, of course. No one cares if you are a conservationist, and it doesn't affect your correctness in any way. It does matter. Three reasons: 1. I believe there's local solutions to improve Earth's ecosystem, including managing nitrogen cycles, precipitation cycles, reforesting, irrigating, and increasing soil quality, and the (relatively small) amounts of warming can be managed that way. 2. Improving local ecosystems seems to give a much better bang for your buck than some set of global regulations managed by bureaucracy. 3. I wanted to preemptively let you know that I wasn't on Big Oil's payroll, or something like that. Environment - good thing. Improving the environment - good thing. Catastrophic amounts of global warming? Unproven at best, strongly looking like false.
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    > You know what I'm waiting for? "The average temperature and standard deviation of these 50 regions are X and Y. We expect them to increase by A and B over the next five years. If that didn't happen in at least 35 regions, that would cast doubt on our model." I'm looking for falsifiable claims, and not seeing any. This instills doubt. You want precise predictions involving immediate weather features? Sorry, you will not get those. No one is claiming you should be able to get those. But lots of predictions are being made, you're just not aware of them. > As for what I think after looking at most of the mainstream accessible things on climate? The Earth seems to be getting slowly warmer, that's been happening since before the Industrial Revolution, and probably isn't a bad thing. The Earth's climate naturally varies based on a variety of things. The question we have to ask is, "How much has our practice of un-sequestering epic amounts of CO2 affected the elasticity of this cycle." No one of repute is claiming that AGW is the sole cause of global warming, they're saying it's the majority cause. For us to see such profound changes in the global environment during a Solar minima is, even without a boatload of collected evidence, very disturbing. > No. The burden of proof is on the people who are making the claims of catastrophe and calls for trillions of dollars. The burden of proof is indeed on the shoulders of the scientists. But remember that that burden is not synonymous with convincing you, personally. A mountain of data is out there, complete with multiple interpretations. If you want to join the conversation, pony up and start reading. > It does matter... No one gives a shit how you feel about this. This isn't me being mean, this is a defensive measure. The exact words you've used could easily be contrived by any one of dozens of people who have a counter agenda. Fortunately, what you say about your personal emotional state is of little import to the science going on. Stop trying to make an emotional appeal for your position. The time for that is past, we have hard data now.

KirinDave 17y ago

> you state your conclusions as premises, and preemptively ridicule and strawman the other side. While I might have been slightly sarcastic in my reply, I don't think I was attacking a straw man with the core of my argument. If you are drawing the conclusion that there isn't evidence for AGW you are either denying evidence or ignorant of it. The amount of invalidated evidence is dwarfed by the remainder. This is the same kind of phenomenon in human cognition that leads people to believe that plane travel is less safe than car travel. We learn to fear memorable stories (SCANDAL IN THE IPCC! FOX NEWS SPECIAL TONIGHT! likened unto PLANE HIJACKED WITH FLAMING DILDOS! TSA TO BAN FEMALE ORGASM IN AIRPORTS!) more than we fear the statistically backed realities. > despite clear evidence of scientific misconduct and numerous errors and fallacies pointed out? "Numerous" being "a handful" and "scientific misconduct" being "data smoothing" and "nasty emails." This is _all you have_. After years of digging, this is the sum total. And it's unsurprising that a few cases of this exist. I mean, even particle physics has its scandals and you wouldn't think those people were likely to go there. > Also - I'm a conservationist Classic political/conversational trick. "Btw I am actually a member of group _____, so I can say with authority." It's bullshit, of course. No one cares if you are a conservationist, and it doesn't affect your correctness in any way. It's just a misleading kind of "argumentum ad populum" where centrism must be right because it appeals to the most people in a bar.

lionhearted 17y ago
> If you are drawing the conclusion that there isn't evidence for AGW you are either denying evidence or ignorant of it. You know what I'm waiting for? "The average temperature and standard deviation of these 50 regions are X and Y. We expect them to increase by A and B over the next five years. If that didn't happen in at least 35 regions, that would cast doubt on our model." I'm looking for falsifiable claims, and not seeing any. This instills doubt. As for what I think after looking at most of the mainstream accessible things on climate? The Earth seems to be getting slowly warmer, that's been happening since before the Industrial Revolution, and probably isn't a bad thing. Pollution is a bad thing, but not because it's going to bring on catastrophic amounts of global warming. > This is _all you have_. No. The burden of proof is on the people who are making the claims of catastrophe and calls for trillions of dollars. The argument is not settled, and the burden is on them. The general culture of "global warming is a big deal, so we need to sell it any way possible" is a bad thing. > Classic political/conversational trick. "Btw I am actually a member of group _____, so I can say with authority." It's bullshit, of course. No one cares if you are a conservationist, and it doesn't affect your correctness in any way. It does matter. Three reasons: 1. I believe there's local solutions to improve Earth's ecosystem, including managing nitrogen cycles, precipitation cycles, reforesting, irrigating, and increasing soil quality, and the (relatively small) amounts of warming can be managed that way. 2. Improving local ecosystems seems to give a much better bang for your buck than some set of global regulations managed by bureaucracy. 3. I wanted to preemptively let you know that I wasn't on Big Oil's payroll, or something like that. Environment - good thing. Improving the environment - good thing. Catastrophic amounts of global warming? Unproven at best, strongly looking like false.
- KirinDave 17y ago
  > You know what I'm waiting for? "The average temperature and standard deviation of these 50 regions are X and Y. We expect them to increase by A and B over the next five years. If that didn't happen in at least 35 regions, that would cast doubt on our model." I'm looking for falsifiable claims, and not seeing any. This instills doubt. You want precise predictions involving immediate weather features? Sorry, you will not get those. No one is claiming you should be able to get those. But lots of predictions are being made, you're just not aware of them. > As for what I think after looking at most of the mainstream accessible things on climate? The Earth seems to be getting slowly warmer, that's been happening since before the Industrial Revolution, and probably isn't a bad thing. The Earth's climate naturally varies based on a variety of things. The question we have to ask is, "How much has our practice of un-sequestering epic amounts of CO2 affected the elasticity of this cycle." No one of repute is claiming that AGW is the sole cause of global warming, they're saying it's the majority cause. For us to see such profound changes in the global environment during a Solar minima is, even without a boatload of collected evidence, very disturbing. > No. The burden of proof is on the people who are making the claims of catastrophe and calls for trillions of dollars. The burden of proof is indeed on the shoulders of the scientists. But remember that that burden is not synonymous with convincing you, personally. A mountain of data is out there, complete with multiple interpretations. If you want to join the conversation, pony up and start reading. > It does matter... No one gives a shit how you feel about this. This isn't me being mean, this is a defensive measure. The exact words you've used could easily be contrived by any one of dozens of people who have a counter agenda. Fortunately, what you say about your personal emotional state is of little import to the science going on. Stop trying to make an emotional appeal for your position. The time for that is past, we have hard data now.