Good sumarisation of all the points raised by sceptics about AGW
-
Oakman wrote:
I think that comparison is untrue and insulting.
If he feels insulted, he will tell me.
Oakman wrote:
it would be those who cling desperately to their belief that man-made global warming is occurring in spite of the mounting evidence that it is not.
There is evidence that it is occurring and evidence that it is not. Personally, I don't know if it is happening or not, but I am observing that the winters are getting milder where I live. This is not data, this is something I experience myself. Is this an evidence of GW? I don't know. You can see reports that the Antarctic is melting[^] and others that it is not[^]. Which one is true?
Le Gauchiste wrote:
You can see reports that the Antarctic is melting[^] and others that it is not[^]. Which one is true?
Doesn't matter. I said man-made global warming. Long after they have come up with a method to establish that the antarctic ice is getting smaller on a climactic scale (300 years is the number I read about, and I don't believe we have accurate measurements going back that far, do we?) and so far I haven't seen any proof of that, they will still have the burden of proof to establish that it has anything to do with the amount of fossil fuel we use. And then they will have to explain why their remedies will make a difference. Saying "Oooh, oooh! Coal and oil are dirty and only China and India should be allowed to use them," strikes me as an exercise in futility and yet all of the gas-guzzling global-warming summits seem to have come up with no other answer.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
You can see reports that the Antarctic is melting[^] and others that it is not[^]. Which one is true?
Doesn't matter. I said man-made global warming. Long after they have come up with a method to establish that the antarctic ice is getting smaller on a climactic scale (300 years is the number I read about, and I don't believe we have accurate measurements going back that far, do we?) and so far I haven't seen any proof of that, they will still have the burden of proof to establish that it has anything to do with the amount of fossil fuel we use. And then they will have to explain why their remedies will make a difference. Saying "Oooh, oooh! Coal and oil are dirty and only China and India should be allowed to use them," strikes me as an exercise in futility and yet all of the gas-guzzling global-warming summits seem to have come up with no other answer.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
If you look at the NASA global warming site, they talk about man-made GW. anti-GW and pro-GW are like religion: it is all about faith, not data.
-
If you look at the NASA global warming site, they talk about man-made GW. anti-GW and pro-GW are like religion: it is all about faith, not data.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
anti-GW and pro-GW are like religion: it is all about faith, not data.
Skepticism is not faith, but science. To say, "You have have not convinced me of global warming, nor of man-made global warming, nor of the efficacy of your remedies," requires no leap of faith, but simply holds those who make such claims to a higher standard than they are able to meet. To point out why you are not convinced, is simply courtesy. (And I may be the only living human to ever accuse fat_boy of being courteous. ;) )
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
anti-GW and pro-GW are like religion: it is all about faith, not data.
Skepticism is not faith, but science. To say, "You have have not convinced me of global warming, nor of man-made global warming, nor of the efficacy of your remedies," requires no leap of faith, but simply holds those who make such claims to a higher standard than they are able to meet. To point out why you are not convinced, is simply courtesy. (And I may be the only living human to ever accuse fat_boy of being courteous. ;) )
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
It may not have been apparent, but I am not convinced of GW, or man-made GW. I am just pointing out that there is data to prove both points. So, which one is right? And, also, repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.
-
It may not have been apparent, but I am not convinced of GW, or man-made GW. I am just pointing out that there is data to prove both points. So, which one is right? And, also, repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
I am just pointing out that there is data to prove both points. So, which one is right?
A long time ago Einstein published the Theory of relativity. Other scientists then attempted to prove (i.e. test) the Theory. It is accepted science that for the Theory to be recognized as true, every test conducted by reputable scientists under controlled conditions had to show that the Theory correctly predicted actuality. It did not matter what the opinions of those scientists were, as long as they did not fudge the data or the experiments, the results would determine whether Einstein was hailed as a genius or dismissed as a wanna-be. The Theory tested true every time and so it was accepted. By pointing out that there is data that indicates that the theories of the soi-disant climate scientists does not correctly predict actuality, you have answered your own question.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
I am just pointing out that there is data to prove both points. So, which one is right?
A long time ago Einstein published the Theory of relativity. Other scientists then attempted to prove (i.e. test) the Theory. It is accepted science that for the Theory to be recognized as true, every test conducted by reputable scientists under controlled conditions had to show that the Theory correctly predicted actuality. It did not matter what the opinions of those scientists were, as long as they did not fudge the data or the experiments, the results would determine whether Einstein was hailed as a genius or dismissed as a wanna-be. The Theory tested true every time and so it was accepted. By pointing out that there is data that indicates that the theories of the soi-disant climate scientists does not correctly predict actuality, you have answered your own question.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
By pointing out that there is data that indicates that the theories of the soi-disant climate scientists does not correctly predict actuality, you have answered your own question.
Your use of the "soi-disant" expression tells what you think about those scientists. What about the "soi-disant" scientists who "prove" there is no GW or that GW is not man-made? They don't fudge data? To me, dishonesty is present on both sides.
-
Oakman wrote:
By pointing out that there is data that indicates that the theories of the soi-disant climate scientists does not correctly predict actuality, you have answered your own question.
Your use of the "soi-disant" expression tells what you think about those scientists. What about the "soi-disant" scientists who "prove" there is no GW or that GW is not man-made? They don't fudge data? To me, dishonesty is present on both sides.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
our use of the "soi-disant" expression tells what you think about those scientists
of course. these people call themselves scientists, yet they lie, cheat, and destroy data that conflicts with their agenda. Only someone who had contempt for science and the scientific method would call them scientists.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
What about the "soi-disant" scientists who "prove" there is no GW or that GW is not man-made? They don't fudge data?
I haven't read any of those. I have read many who show that the data presented by the climate alarmists is not correct, but to claim that debunking myths is the equivalent of believing in them makes no sense at all. I suppose that somewhere, somehow, there may be someone who thinks that God has personally whispered in his ear and that there is no global warming and is eager to share his revelation, but that is NOT the level on which the debate is taking place. On one side we have True Believers who have, they say, identified a problem, discovered its causes, and proposed the only solution (which just happens to cripple the individualist west, while diverting resources to the collectivist east.) On the other we have people who don't accept their specious arguments, their fudged data, and their outright lies - and because they do not genuflect at the altar of global warming, they are excoriated, dismissed as "skeptics" (as if that is a bad word rather than the very foundation of science), and attacked personally. If you see no difference between the two side, you should, methinks, look again.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
our use of the "soi-disant" expression tells what you think about those scientists
of course. these people call themselves scientists, yet they lie, cheat, and destroy data that conflicts with their agenda. Only someone who had contempt for science and the scientific method would call them scientists.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
What about the "soi-disant" scientists who "prove" there is no GW or that GW is not man-made? They don't fudge data?
I haven't read any of those. I have read many who show that the data presented by the climate alarmists is not correct, but to claim that debunking myths is the equivalent of believing in them makes no sense at all. I suppose that somewhere, somehow, there may be someone who thinks that God has personally whispered in his ear and that there is no global warming and is eager to share his revelation, but that is NOT the level on which the debate is taking place. On one side we have True Believers who have, they say, identified a problem, discovered its causes, and proposed the only solution (which just happens to cripple the individualist west, while diverting resources to the collectivist east.) On the other we have people who don't accept their specious arguments, their fudged data, and their outright lies - and because they do not genuflect at the altar of global warming, they are excoriated, dismissed as "skeptics" (as if that is a bad word rather than the very foundation of science), and attacked personally. If you see no difference between the two side, you should, methinks, look again.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Conclusion: pro-GW scientists are crooks, anti-GW scientists hold the truth. You should tell the NASA, they don't know.
Oakman wrote:
If you see no difference between the two side, you should, methinks, look again.
No need, you just enlightened me.
-
Conclusion: pro-GW scientists are crooks, anti-GW scientists hold the truth. You should tell the NASA, they don't know.
Oakman wrote:
If you see no difference between the two side, you should, methinks, look again.
No need, you just enlightened me.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Conclusion: pro-GW scientists are crooks, anti-GW scientists hold the truth.
That isn't was I said. Is it easier for you to argue with me, if I stop writing and you provide both sides of the discussion? You seem to want/need there to be "anti-GW Scientists." Of course religionists often label those who do not accept their faith as "un-believers," or "anti-God." But you should not assume that someone who does not accept the flawed arguments that are advanced is anything but unconvinced whether we are talking about Global Warming, Allah, or the possibility that someday France will have a real army. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Conclusion: pro-GW scientists are crooks, anti-GW scientists hold the truth.
That isn't was I said. Is it easier for you to argue with me, if I stop writing and you provide both sides of the discussion? You seem to want/need there to be "anti-GW Scientists." Of course religionists often label those who do not accept their faith as "un-believers," or "anti-God." But you should not assume that someone who does not accept the flawed arguments that are advanced is anything but unconvinced whether we are talking about Global Warming, Allah, or the possibility that someday France will have a real army. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
or the possibility that someday France will have a real army.
When the hell freezes over (which would also prove the anti-GW are right). ;)