5 ms·

"If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock." Ok I will take that as a challenge to produce a link, so how

"If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock." Ok I will take that as a challenge to produce a link, so how is this. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_de... Did you pass out? My stance is that all the name calling (ie. deniers) does not help. In the field of science a healthy level of scepticism is required, and it helps further study. It is only when an issue becomes political (Global Warning) or religious (Evolution/Creationism) and leave their scientific basis that people get pilloried for saying they are not convinced and such n' such an issue is not up to scratch and needs more research to confirm or disprove it. As the the 95% of people. Yes that stat would be right. 95% of people are always out of their depth in any argument of any complexity. But it says nothing about their position. I have lots of friends that believe things, but if faced with a skilled debtor can't hold their own position. Nor should they have to. Life is too busy to be on top of every issue.

anthonyb 16y ago
Ok, so overlooking that SPPI are a notorious denier hack site, how do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase? Also, how do you explain the strong correlation between the temperature trends (ie. increase in temperature) between urban and rural areas? See http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurem... and http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-int... for details/pretty graphs. Btw, that argument is #6 in the list of common denier arguments http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php > In the field of science a healthy level of scepticism is required Scepticism is fine, but the level of scepticism needs to be in proportion to the level of data available. The bulk of the data available strongly indicates that global warming is real, and is caused by humans. Which is why people who don't believe in global warming are now called 'deniers' - they're not really skeptics.
- lzw 16y ago
  You lost the argument at "notorious denier hack", which is ironic given that you're just re-asserting the same assertions, sans evidence, that every religious adherent to global warming always asserts. By the way, props for having the balls to cite an uninformed blog that, is using exposed-to-be-fraudulent-by-the-climategate-emails data to make your "Argument". This is why actual debate is impossible-- you're not even aware of the terms of the science that are relevant to debate. The absorbtion of CO2 and proportion in the atmosphere. The fact that the planet is getting colder, and that we're overdue for an ice age, and even the historical temperature cycles of the planet seem to be beyond your ken. But you're great at calling people names and pretedning like you've got science on your side, while rejecting the scientific method itself.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Sans evidence? So, satellite data, weather station data, ice core data, coral reef data, tree ring data, ad infinitum - all independent measurements, all agreeing with each other, is not enough? Let me put it another way - what evidence would make you change your mind and accept that global warming is happening?
    - lzw 16y ago
      If the planet were actually getting warmer, as CO2 goes up, over the last decade, that would go a long way towards making your theory worth listening to. You did not provide any evidence at all. You just linked to propaganda from an advocate of your position who made assertions, sans evidence. Yet you linking to propaganda, as far as you're concerned, allows you to claim that you provided a laundry list of evidence-- yet you never even saw the evidence you claim you presented. This is how your position is fundamentally anti-science. You don't understand the science, you haven't seen any evidence. But a link to a propagandist, proves, in your mind, that you're on the side of "Science". By the way, the fact is, if you actually studied that data, it doesn't actually agree. Only be selectively choosing samples can you get tree ring data, ice core data, etc to agree, and only by distorting with arbitrary factors (also known as fraud) can you get weather station data and satellite data to agree. In fact, the claim that all this data agrees with each other is itself a bit of scientific nonsense because it presumes this data were actually measuring the same thing in the same method and were actually independant.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
anthonyb 16y ago
Right. So - plenty of downvoting, zero actual debate. And you wonder why people are writing bots to argue with climate deniers. Respond! Don't just blindly downvote.
- lzw 16y ago
  This is the problem you global warming proponents have. You demand a response or citations, yet you never povide them yourselves. You didn't provide an argument worth debating, you just claimed there was no basis for the opposing viewpoint and called them a name. Global warming is an ideology that rejects science and includes the belief that all opponents reject science and therefore are not worth arguing with. This is why you will not find arguments from global warming advocates, you will just find derisive claims and namecalling.... which you provided an example of. Note: I am not getting into the debate with you, I am merely pointing out why your namecalling produced, as you put it "zero actual debate".
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Point taken about the name calling, but it largely stems from frustration. I don't agree with you about the lack of response or citations. I've provided plenty of data and argument - skepticalscience link to plenty of papers, independent, peer-reviewed, etc. - as well as the reason why deniers are called deniers instead of skeptics. In return, what do I get? One hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted, and a whole load of scorn and downvoting. If you want me to stop calling people deniers, how about they engage with the question: "How do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase?" Simple, no?
    - lzw 16y ago
      I think that you are sincere and so I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of your response for the answer to your question. On one hand, you linked to a blog that links to "plenty of papers" and you think this is more relevant than a "one hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted". First of all, it is a "hack" paper, only because it disagrees with your conclusion. Secondly "peer-review" is not a barometer of science, it is a barometer of political correctness. (Trust me on this, as I've had papers peer-reviewed in much more esoteric and less politically and government-funding driven areas.) In fact, by controlling the peer review process via government fundeing ,the global warming movement attempts to discredit all science that disagrees with its agenda... and the need to do this is proof positive that science is not the foremost consideration. As for "Easily rebutted"-- if it is so easily rebutted, please do so. Provide a rebuttal. It doesn't have to be a proof, but an argument would be sufficient. It is NOT rebutted by linking to the opinions of others. A simple rebutted is not that difficult. I can rebut the entirety of the global warming movement with a simple statement: Temperatures have been getting lower over the past decade while CO2 has gone up. This references two easily verifiable and non-controversial facts, and rebuts the entirety of the hypothesis. so if this paper is so "easily rebutted" do so. A link to a blog post of opinion of someone you claim also links to papers is not a rebuttal. (I stopped following such links when I found that all of them referred to papers that did not make the claim that the forum poster was asserting.) As to your last question, you haven't provided any such records. IF you would like to link to them directly, then I will have a look. (sincerely.)
lutorm 16y ago
Out of all the arguments against AGW, the complaints by McIntyre against the Mann analysis are the only ones I've heard that seem to warrant being taken seriously. If you really can get rid of the entire 20th century warming by removing a small set of proxies, regardless of the statistical analysis, it's a serious problem. And the response on the "skeptical science" web site, that new data has confirmed the hockey stick shape, doesn't sound convincing either. You can't both say "ok, the Mann analysis was wrong, and the field has moved on" and then say "subsequent data confirm the hockey stick" without needing to explain the remarkable coincidence that the initial incorrect study ended up getting exactly the same shape as the new "correct" data. What I've not seen anywhere is an analysis of the extent to which projections about future warming is driven by the exact shape of the 20th century temperature record and how changing the temperature record would feed back on the GCM projections. If anyone knows of such a study, please post the reference.
- lzw 16y ago
  The projections are based completely on the temperature record, and changing the temperature record would produce different projections. The projections are essentially fudged to get the result that is desired for political reasons. I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to many arguments against AGW, or maybe not many good ones. But since you have an open mind, I'd suggest you look into the absorbtion of IR By CO2, the actual proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, the lack of tropophere warming (where it should show up) and the historical correlation of CO2 and temperasture-- CO2 has been a lagging indicator and has, in the past, been much higher than it is now from natural events without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. These are basic facts that don't take much analysis and greatly undermine the AGW theory. Also, the planet is getting colder in recent years (past decade) while CO2 has been rising.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    What is this lack of troposheric warming of which you speak? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measureme... http://www.earthsystemtrends.org/2009/03/lower-tropospheric-temperatures-1982.html http://www.earthsystemtrends.org/2009/03/lower-tropospheric-... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2006&month=ann#Gtemp http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&ye...

anthonyb 16y ago

Ok, so overlooking that SPPI are a notorious denier hack site, how do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase? Also, how do you explain the strong correlation between the temperature trends (ie. increase in temperature) between urban and rural areas? See http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurem... and http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-int... for details/pretty graphs. Btw, that argument is #6 in the list of common denier arguments http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php > In the field of science a healthy level of scepticism is required Scepticism is fine, but the level of scepticism needs to be in proportion to the level of data available. The bulk of the data available strongly indicates that global warming is real, and is caused by humans. Which is why people who don't believe in global warming are now called 'deniers' - they're not really skeptics.

lzw 16y ago
You lost the argument at "notorious denier hack", which is ironic given that you're just re-asserting the same assertions, sans evidence, that every religious adherent to global warming always asserts. By the way, props for having the balls to cite an uninformed blog that, is using exposed-to-be-fraudulent-by-the-climategate-emails data to make your "Argument". This is why actual debate is impossible-- you're not even aware of the terms of the science that are relevant to debate. The absorbtion of CO2 and proportion in the atmosphere. The fact that the planet is getting colder, and that we're overdue for an ice age, and even the historical temperature cycles of the planet seem to be beyond your ken. But you're great at calling people names and pretedning like you've got science on your side, while rejecting the scientific method itself.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Sans evidence? So, satellite data, weather station data, ice core data, coral reef data, tree ring data, ad infinitum - all independent measurements, all agreeing with each other, is not enough? Let me put it another way - what evidence would make you change your mind and accept that global warming is happening?
  - lzw 16y ago
    If the planet were actually getting warmer, as CO2 goes up, over the last decade, that would go a long way towards making your theory worth listening to. You did not provide any evidence at all. You just linked to propaganda from an advocate of your position who made assertions, sans evidence. Yet you linking to propaganda, as far as you're concerned, allows you to claim that you provided a laundry list of evidence-- yet you never even saw the evidence you claim you presented. This is how your position is fundamentally anti-science. You don't understand the science, you haven't seen any evidence. But a link to a propagandist, proves, in your mind, that you're on the side of "Science". By the way, the fact is, if you actually studied that data, it doesn't actually agree. Only be selectively choosing samples can you get tree ring data, ice core data, etc to agree, and only by distorting with arbitrary factors (also known as fraud) can you get weather station data and satellite data to agree. In fact, the claim that all this data agrees with each other is itself a bit of scientific nonsense because it presumes this data were actually measuring the same thing in the same method and were actually independant.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

anthonyb 16y ago

Right. So - plenty of downvoting, zero actual debate. And you wonder why people are writing bots to argue with climate deniers. Respond! Don't just blindly downvote.

lzw 16y ago
This is the problem you global warming proponents have. You demand a response or citations, yet you never povide them yourselves. You didn't provide an argument worth debating, you just claimed there was no basis for the opposing viewpoint and called them a name. Global warming is an ideology that rejects science and includes the belief that all opponents reject science and therefore are not worth arguing with. This is why you will not find arguments from global warming advocates, you will just find derisive claims and namecalling.... which you provided an example of. Note: I am not getting into the debate with you, I am merely pointing out why your namecalling produced, as you put it "zero actual debate".
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Point taken about the name calling, but it largely stems from frustration. I don't agree with you about the lack of response or citations. I've provided plenty of data and argument - skepticalscience link to plenty of papers, independent, peer-reviewed, etc. - as well as the reason why deniers are called deniers instead of skeptics. In return, what do I get? One hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted, and a whole load of scorn and downvoting. If you want me to stop calling people deniers, how about they engage with the question: "How do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase?" Simple, no?
  - lzw 16y ago
    I think that you are sincere and so I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of your response for the answer to your question. On one hand, you linked to a blog that links to "plenty of papers" and you think this is more relevant than a "one hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted". First of all, it is a "hack" paper, only because it disagrees with your conclusion. Secondly "peer-review" is not a barometer of science, it is a barometer of political correctness. (Trust me on this, as I've had papers peer-reviewed in much more esoteric and less politically and government-funding driven areas.) In fact, by controlling the peer review process via government fundeing ,the global warming movement attempts to discredit all science that disagrees with its agenda... and the need to do this is proof positive that science is not the foremost consideration. As for "Easily rebutted"-- if it is so easily rebutted, please do so. Provide a rebuttal. It doesn't have to be a proof, but an argument would be sufficient. It is NOT rebutted by linking to the opinions of others. A simple rebutted is not that difficult. I can rebut the entirety of the global warming movement with a simple statement: Temperatures have been getting lower over the past decade while CO2 has gone up. This references two easily verifiable and non-controversial facts, and rebuts the entirety of the hypothesis. so if this paper is so "easily rebutted" do so. A link to a blog post of opinion of someone you claim also links to papers is not a rebuttal. (I stopped following such links when I found that all of them referred to papers that did not make the claim that the forum poster was asserting.) As to your last question, you haven't provided any such records. IF you would like to link to them directly, then I will have a look. (sincerely.)

lutorm 16y ago

Out of all the arguments against AGW, the complaints by McIntyre against the Mann analysis are the only ones I've heard that seem to warrant being taken seriously. If you really can get rid of the entire 20th century warming by removing a small set of proxies, regardless of the statistical analysis, it's a serious problem. And the response on the "skeptical science" web site, that new data has confirmed the hockey stick shape, doesn't sound convincing either. You can't both say "ok, the Mann analysis was wrong, and the field has moved on" and then say "subsequent data confirm the hockey stick" without needing to explain the remarkable coincidence that the initial incorrect study ended up getting exactly the same shape as the new "correct" data. What I've not seen anywhere is an analysis of the extent to which projections about future warming is driven by the exact shape of the 20th century temperature record and how changing the temperature record would feed back on the GCM projections. If anyone knows of such a study, please post the reference.

lzw 16y ago
The projections are based completely on the temperature record, and changing the temperature record would produce different projections. The projections are essentially fudged to get the result that is desired for political reasons. I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to many arguments against AGW, or maybe not many good ones. But since you have an open mind, I'd suggest you look into the absorbtion of IR By CO2, the actual proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, the lack of tropophere warming (where it should show up) and the historical correlation of CO2 and temperasture-- CO2 has been a lagging indicator and has, in the past, been much higher than it is now from natural events without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. These are basic facts that don't take much analysis and greatly undermine the AGW theory. Also, the planet is getting colder in recent years (past decade) while CO2 has been rising.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  What is this lack of troposheric warming of which you speak? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measureme... http://www.earthsystemtrends.org/2009/03/lower-tropospheric-temperatures-1982.html http://www.earthsystemtrends.org/2009/03/lower-tropospheric-... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2006&month=ann#Gtemp http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&ye...