Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

lol.  It was just a reminder that it's been the hottest, etc for 150 years.

Did 97% of old timey newspapers agree with whatever you're trying to force us to believe?

Of course they did. And that would be as factual as the "97% consensus" bullshit is that you've swallowed.

If there wasn't a textbook definition of simpleton logic yet this thread would be a great start.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:If there wasn't a textbook definition of simpleton logic yet this thread would be a great start.

Yep, all the simpletons that consider themselves great skeptics of power and governments yet swallow the global warming scam without question. I'm glad to see you seeing the light.

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:If there wasn't a textbook definition of simpleton logic yet this thread would be a great start.

Yep, all the simpletons that consider themselves great skeptics of power and governments yet swallow the global warming scam without question. I'm glad to see you seeing the light.

Oh Goose.

Scientists were seeing the effects of burning fossil fuels for energy back in the 1960's, warned LBJ and member of Congress of long term effects. Its not new.

What was new? Oil and coal companies hiring PR firms and finding a handful of scientists to promote contrarian thought that's been widely accepted by a majority of scientific community.

I don't think any of the resident climate change skeptics would take a spouse, child, grandchild or themselves to a doctor and demand a bleeding or medicine with arsenic but for whatever reasons won't accept scientific finding on climate change accelerated by fossil fuels.

Read The Sixth Extinction. Climate change isn't some political nuance or something unique. The last one occurred when an astroid(s) hit earth and we ended up with what we know. The current change is gradual and we are already seeing things like ocean currents and growing seasons change.

GRR Spartan wrote:Scientists were seeing the effects of burning fossil fuels for energy back in the 1960's, warned LBJ and member of Congress of long term effects. Its not new.

Yes, they were. Burning fossil fuels back then was going to cause global cooling and a new ice age. Of course that's because temps were cooling at that time. Once temps started warming it became global warming. Once temps stopped warming, it became climate change. But you carry on with your belief that the science has been consistent, it hasn't. But facts mean nothing to a religion.

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Scientists were seeing the effects of burning fossil fuels for energy back in the 1960's, warned LBJ and member of Congress of long term effects. Its not new.

Yes, they were. Burning fossil fuels back then was going to cause global cooling and a new ice age. Of course that's because temps were cooling at that time. Once temps started warming it became global warming. Once temps stopped warming, it became climate change. But you carry on with your belief that the science has been consistent, it hasn't. But facts mean nothing to a religion.

To be fair, the concept isn't new but modern advancements in technology have improved our ability to measure climate data.

Are you suggesting this is a conspiracy of the scientific community? What purpose would that have?

Also are you suggesting that the massive amounts of carbon dioxide we're pumping into the atmosphere has no effect on our atmosphere or climate?

AnomanderRake wrote:Are you suggesting this is a conspiracy of the scientific community? What purpose would that have?

JC in transition

At first, I thought the changes I saw at Georgia Tech were due to a change in the higher administration (President, Provost, etc). The academic nirvana under the prior Georgia Tech administration of Wayne Clough, Jean-Lou Chameau and Gary Schuster was a hard act to follow. But then I started to realize that academia and universities nationwide were undergoing substantial changes. I came across a recent article that expresses part of what is wrong: Universities are becoming like mechanical nightingales.

The reward system that is in place for university faculty members is becoming increasingly counterproductive to actually educating students to be able to think and cope in the real world, and in expanding the frontiers of knowledge in a meaningful way (at least in certain fields that are publicly relevant such as climate change). I’ve written on these topics before, I won’t belabor this here.

So why not try to change the system from the inside? Well, this is not the battle I want to fight, apart from any realistic assessment of being able to shift the ponderous beast from within.

Or maybe it’s just a case of ‘wrong trousers’ as far as I’m concerned. Simply, universities no longer feel like the ‘real deal’ to me (note: this criticism is not targeted at Georgia Tech, which is better than most). It’s time for me to leave the ivory tower.

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).

AnomanderRake wrote:Also are you suggesting that the massive amounts of carbon dioxide we're pumping into the atmosphere has no effect on our atmosphere or climate?

Did I say that? I'd like to see where you're getting that from.

I will say that it might have an effect. It might not. The effect might be bad, it might not. Do you know?

For example if weather were shown to be more volatile in the past would you be in favor of more CO2 if you thought it was "calming" the weather?

What I find amusing are all the people that are campaigning "AGAINST" climate change - what the hell is that? The climate is changing, has always changed and always will change. Exactly how do these people propose to "stop" climate change and when and how did they decide that today's climate is the optimal situation that we should freeze in place?

It's all mass stupidity.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:Also are you suggesting that the massive amounts of carbon dioxide we're pumping into the atmosphere has no effect on our atmosphere or climate?

Did I say that? I'd like to see where you're getting that from.

I will say that it might have an effect. It might not. The effect might be bad, it might not. Do you know?

For example if weather were shown to be more volatile in the past would you be in favor of more CO2 if you thought it was "calming" the weather?

What I find amusing are all the people that are campaigning "AGAINST" climate change - what the hell is that? The climate is changing, has always changed and always will change. Exactly how do these people propose to "stop" climate change and when and how did they decide that today's climate is the optimal situation that we should freeze in place?

It's all mass stupidity.

Ok so would you agree that human production of greenhouse gases has an impact on our atmosphere?

Regarding the optimal climate, nobody really knows. All we know for sure is which organisms on Earth can flourish in the current climate. Also climate scientists aren't naive enough to think we can freeze our climate in place. The earth's climate naturally fluctuates for reasons we cannot impact, but the one thing we can control is our own greenhouse gas emissions. By reducing those emissions, we mitigate the impact that humans have on climate change, thus preserving the "natural state" of climate change for as long as possible.

I think it's healthy to question science, that's part of the process. Hell, the null hypothesis in scientific experiments is designed specifically with that core concept in mind. I'm just trying to understand where on the spectrum you stand between healthy skepticism and straight up science denial. Citing Judith Curry isn't a good look if you're shooting for healthy skepticism.

Holy shit. Just work on clean energy. The fuck is wrong with us. Of course fissile fuels are bad for the atmosphere. Did it take a difinitive study to let you know smoking is probably bad for your lungs.

We've lost our minds.

DWags wrote:Holy shit.  Just work on clean energy. The fuck is wrong with us.  Of course fissile fuels are bad for the atmosphere. Did it take a difinitive study to let you know smoking is probably bad for your lungs.  

We've lost our minds.

In today's US political climate, current mindset of the us vs them voting publc along with US tobacco industry lobbyists we'd still be seeing advertising on the airwaves and no warning labels because the science wasn't definitive enough.

The US petroleum business owned scientists who successfully fought to keep lead in gasoline for over a decade after studies had proven that high lead levels in urban areas were a result lead from exhaust.  

When business interests collide with public interest, business will prevail. Especially in the current all facts are debatable era.

DWags wrote:Holy shit. Just work on clean energy. The fuck is wrong with us. Of course fissile fuels are bad for the atmosphere. Did it take a difinitive study to let you know smoking is probably bad for your lungs.

We've lost our minds.

bro his team is against therefore he has to be against it. the world we live in.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

DWags wrote:Holy shit. Just work on clean energy. The fuck is wrong with us. Of course fissile fuels are bad for the atmosphere. Did it take a difinitive study to let you know smoking is probably bad for your lungs.

We've lost our minds.

bro his team is against therefore he has to be against it. the world we live in.

I know the "team" thing is a simple meme for you to pull out now and then but perhaps you have it backward? Perhaps I have beliefs and I choose the "team" to root for based on which one is closest to what I believe? I may not agree with them on everything but I agree with them on more things than the opposition.

AnomanderRake wrote:I think it's healthy to question science, that's part of the process. Hell, the null hypothesis in scientific experiments is designed specifically with that core concept in mind. I'm just trying to understand where on the spectrum you stand between healthy skepticism and straight up science denial. Citing Judith Curry isn't a good look if you're shooting for healthy skepticism.

Why not? Be specific on why Judith Curry is a "bad look"? I'm interested in hearing your opinion on that.

Have you questioned the science?
Have you examined the ACTUAL temperature record?
Have you compared the land readings vs the satellite readings?
Have you verified for yourself how many readings being used are actual temperature readings vs extrapolated guesses?
Have you looked at how actual temperature readings from the past are being adjusted?
If so, do you agree with the methodology being used?

See I get all these people coming in here talking to me about how they believe in the science and my bet is that none of them have actually looked at the science. I'd guess they're simply swallowing what's being fed to them and mocking me based on that.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:I think it's healthy to question science, that's part of the process. Hell, the null hypothesis in scientific experiments is designed specifically with that core concept in mind. I'm just trying to understand where on the spectrum you stand between healthy skepticism and straight up science denial. Citing Judith Curry isn't a good look if you're shooting for healthy skepticism.

Why not? Be specific on why Judith Curry is a "bad look"? I'm interested in hearing your opinion on that.

Have you questioned the science?
Have you examined the ACTUAL temperature record?
Have you compared the land readings vs the satellite readings?
Have you verified for yourself how many readings being used are actual temperature readings vs extrapolated guesses?
Have you looked at how actual temperature readings from the past are being adjusted?
If so, do you agree with the methodology being used?

See I get all these people coming in here talking to me about how they believe in the science and my bet is that none of them have actually looked at the science. I'd guess they're simply swallowing what's being fed to them and mocking me based on that.

Judith Curry was not ostracized by the scientific community for her skepticism as she leads her blog readers to believe. She was ostracized for using flawed arguments to support her skepticism. She was called out for one of her bullshit blog posts and eventually admitted she had not even read the research she was attempting to discredit.

Have I questioned the science? Yes I question the immediacy or urgency of the problem, but not the legitimacy of it. If you question the legitimacy you flat out don't understand the underlying science. Greenhouse gases have a known effect on the rate at which infrared energy leaves the earth's atmosphere. This is fact, not theory.

Have you examined the ACTUAL temperature record? The first question kind of leads into this. The temperature record is used to support the hypothesis that human influence could result in rapid climate changes relative to the Earth's natural state of climate change. Rapid changes to the environment could have devastating impact to ecosystems around the planet.

Using the temperature record to argue that humans are not influencing the climate is just silly. We could have the coldest year in observable history next year and that wouldn't discredit human influence on climate change. The Earth's climate naturally fluctuates and we cannot change that, scientists simply want to reduce the impact that humans have on the Earth's natural state of climate change. Oh and Pollution is really bad for the environment in general besides just temperatures.

The rest of your post more or less amounts to do I have a PhD in climate related science and the answer is no. However I do understand the basic science of Thermodynamics, and that increases in greenhouse gases will increase temperatures on Earth over time.

Maybe temperatures won't be a problem this year, or in the next 100 or 1000 years. I don't know. However, given what we do know, and that there are more environmental benefits to renewable energy than just limiting our impact to temperatures, it makes sense to me that we as inhabitants of this planet would invest in such technologies and preserve the environment to the best of our abilities for ourselves and future generations.

AnomanderRake wrote:. Oh and Pollution is really bad for the environment in general besides just temperatures.
The rest of your post more or less amounts to do I have a PhD in climate related science and the answer is no. However I do understand the basic science of Thermodynamics, and that increases in greenhouse gases will increase temperatures on Earth over time.

Do you believe CO2 is a pollutant?

And no you don't need a PhD in climate science to look at the temperature record.

Let me ask you a couple of "common sense" questions:

If you were forced to rely on a single temperature record which would you choose - the satellite record or the land records?

If you were comparing 2 temperature readings from the same weather station 90 years apart which would you guess would tend to be warmer - the temperature taken when it was in the middle of a field or the temperature taken now when that field is a parking lot?

AnomanderRake wrote:Judith Curry was not ostracized by the scientific community for her skepticism as she leads her blog readers to believe. She was ostracized for using flawed arguments to support her skepticism. She was called out for one of her bullshit blog posts and eventually admitted she had not even read the research she was attempting to discredit.

Do you have a link to the blog post? Or perhaps to one of the "call outs"? I've not seen that and would like to.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:. Oh and Pollution is really bad for the environment in general besides just temperatures.
The rest of your post more or less amounts to do I have a PhD in climate related science and the answer is no. However I do understand the basic science of Thermodynamics, and that increases in greenhouse gases will increase temperatures on Earth over time.

Do you believe CO2 is a pollutant?

And no you don't need a PhD in climate science to look at the temperature record.

Let me ask you a couple of "common sense" questions:

If you were forced to rely on a single temperature record which would you choose - the satellite record or the land records?

If you were comparing 2 temperature readings from the same weather station 90 years apart which would you guess would tend to be warmer - the temperature taken when it was in the middle of a field or the temperature taken now when that field is a parking lot?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, not a pollutant. It's just one of the many byproducts of the fossil fuel industry's methods of energy conversion.

You ignored the part of my post that states I don't really care about the temperature record and why. Trying to rank individual years is similar to forecasting demand of a single product, you have a significantly higher margin of error and lower confidence in the result. I think the controversy around the temperature records is a result of lack of understanding of statistics/probability, by news organizations and the public.

The temp record research only says there is X% chance that Y year is the hottest in Earth's history. You may argue with how the temperatures are recorded and measured but it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the debate.

I'm sure you hate Motherjones but this article summarizes my thoughts on the temperature record pretty well.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/02/was-2014-really-warmest-year-nasa-noaa

Basically, the trend over time is more important and statistically significant than the temperature in any given year.

Here's SourceWatch's page on Judith Curry that has some info on why she's not the most credible source. I was incorrect in my previous post, she actually was defending The Wegmen Report without having read it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry

I think Mother Jones does some good work, I read quite a bit of their stuff. It's always good to know what others are thinking and why.

There's nothing wrong with that article at all except it doesn't say why you're implying it does. It says not to focus on individual years but on the overall trend. OK, I'm fine with that. But even that trend relies on the temperature record. My questions about the temperature record would affect the years and the trend.

I see you missed my last question - want to take a crack at it?

AnomanderRake wrote:Here's SourceWatch's page on Judith Curry that has some info on why she's not the most credible source. I was incorrect in my previous post, she actually was defending The Wegmen Report without having read it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry

lol, yeah that's pretty unbiased, deep and damning stuff. Who made that determination?

Willingness to criticize based on second-hand info from contrarian, inexpert sources
"In a 2010 comment[20] she called blogger Deep Climate's detailed and well-documented investigation into the Wegman Report "one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen" even as she revealed in her incorrect synopsis of the charges that she had not even read it for herself. ....[i.e.] she shows herself ready to publicly criticise someone else in the strongest terms based entirely on second hand information gleaned from places like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That."[10]

LooseGoose wrote:I think Mother Jones does some good work, I read quite a bit of their stuff. It's always good to know what others are thinking and why.

There's nothing wrong with that article at all except it doesn't say why you're implying it does. It says not to focus on individual years but on the overall trend. OK, I'm fine with that. But even that trend relies on the temperature record. My questions about the temperature record would affect the years and the trend.

I see you missed my last question - want to take a crack at it?

Wait what did I imply that wasn't reflected in the article?

Regarding your last question, I think the temperature readings may be misleading when comparing a single data point that many years apart. That's why it's important to gather aggregate data over time. I believe the climate researchers also have a methodology for accounting for these variations but I don't fully understand how that works and can't really comment on it without reading further.

I want to reiterate that temperature change/global warming is not the primary driver of my support for environmentally friendly, renewable energy technologies. Though I know increases in greenhouse gases will raise temperatures over time, I don't know enough to determine the urgency of the problem. Pollution on the other hand is an immediate public health risk and can be addressed through advancements in clean energy technology. It's logical to me to kill 2 wolverines with one stone, even if the 2nd wolvie may not bite you for 10-1000 years.

New York Times: Our Readers Are Too Dumb To Understand Global Warming Numbers

When I challenged him about the 'hottest year on record,' a New York Times reporter explained that his readers are too dumb to understand numbers.

So let me take a moment to do Gillis’s job for him and present and explain a little of the data to you.

In my previous article, I already pointed to the one set of data that was actually reported more or less properly, with straightforward numbers and a margin of error. The numbers from the British Met Office (Meteorological Office) were reported on the same day as Gillis’s article and showed a difference in average temperature between 2015 and 2016 of 0.01C and margin of error of 0.10C, ten times larger. So the accurate headline is not “2016 Breaks Record for Hottest Year Ever,” but “Last Year’s Temperatures Indistinguishable from Previous Year.” It is crushingly boring, but truthful.

Gillis’s report was supposedly about two different sets of numbers produced by NASA and NOAA. If you hack through this lovely table, you find that the difference between the two years in NASA’s GISS Surface Temperature Analysis is 0.12C. It’s slightly more (0.18C) if you use the “meterological year” that follows the seasons and goes from December to November. But that’s not what most articles were reporting, so let’s stick with the regular calendar year. If you dig through this FAQ—isn’t this fun?—you find that NASA claims a margin of error for recent measurements of plus or minus 0.05C and for older measurements plus or minus 0.10C. That’s a bit dubious, as I’ll explain in a bit, but NASA admits, in nicely passive bureaucratese, that “accurate error estimates are hard to obtain.” So there’s some margin of error in their margin of error.

The data from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is less dramatic. Last year surpassed 2015 by only 0.04C. I couldn’t find a clear labeling of the margin of error for this number, but a description from 2014 gives it as plus or minus 0.09C. It’s certainly hard to imagine that any of these numbers are remotely accurate enough to make 0.04C a significant difference.

Roy Spencer reports that the difference in satellite measurements between 2016 and 1998—the year of the last big El Nino warm cycle—is only 0.02C, within a 0.10C margin of error. Another satellite data set, RSS, confirms this result.

The comparison to 1998 is particularly important, because if the headline is that this year is not significantly hotter than temps 19 years ago, that take a lot of wind out of the “climate change” hysteria. It means we’re not seeing the runaway takeoff in global temperatures that the global warming theory predicted. As Judith Curry has been pointing out, recent temperatures are actually at or below the bottom range for all of the global warming predictions. That is the relevant context for this story, the failure of the data to match the theory, not some infinitesimal difference between this year and last.

Moreover, there is good reason to think that the margin of error in this temperature data is much larger than claimed. NASA and NOAA frequently “adjust” the temperature data to make up for changes in the way it is gathered. Somehow, when this happens, the data always adjusts to fit the theory, but the theory never adjusts to fit the data. The size of these adjustments is often larger that one tenth of one degree. But as Richard Lindzen puts it, “If you can adjust temperatures to two tenths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to two tenths of a degree.” So the margins of error are probably a good deal larger than advertised.

Gillis is right. There are a lot of different sets of data, and the issue is complex. So why didn’t he explain any of that complexity to readers of the New York Times? Because complexity leaves room for doubt, and on this issue, doubt cannot be permitted.

Wow. This is so shocking that Goose appears to be on this side of this argument. Without reading this thread I bet he must have links to a lot of obscure propaganda to support his independent thinking scientific mind.

Herbie Green wrote:Wow. This is so shocking that Goose appears to be on this side of this argument. Without reading this thread I bet he must have links to a lot of obscure propaganda to support his independent thinking scientific mind.

Hey Herbie - if you were picking a method to record accurate temperatures which would you choose:

a) thermometers based on land with changing neighborhoods around them from development, read by humans.

b) thermometers based in satellites reading and recording temperatures electronically.

Which method would you speculate would have a lower margin of error?

Do you think humans reading a thermometer would have a margin of error lower than .01 degree?

LooseGoose wrote:

Herbie Green wrote:Wow. This is so shocking that Goose appears to be on this side of this argument. Without reading this thread I bet he must have links to a lot of obscure propaganda to support his independent thinking scientific mind.

Hey Herbie - if you were picking a method to record accurate temperatures which would you choose:

a) thermometers based on land with changing neighborhoods around them from development, read by humans.

b) thermometers based in satellites reading and recording temperatures electronically.

Which method would you speculate would have a lower margin of error?

Do you think humans reading a thermometer would have a margin of error lower than .01 degree?

I don't know. What is your background in this scientific area?

Herbie Green wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Hey Herbie - if you were picking a method to record accurate temperatures which would you choose:

a) thermometers based on land with changing neighborhoods around them from development, read by humans.

b) thermometers based in satellites reading and recording temperatures electronically.

Which method would you speculate would have a lower margin of error?

Do you think humans reading a thermometer would have a margin of error lower than .01 degree?

I don't know.  What is your background in this scientific area?

lol, nice dodge.   You can't use your wisdom to answer?   Seems like you can use it to pre-judge me.

Anyone else want to take a crack at those simple questions?

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Hey Herbie - if you were picking a method to record accurate temperatures which would you choose:

a) thermometers based on land with changing neighborhoods around them from development, read by humans.

b) thermometers based in satellites reading and recording temperatures electronically.

Which method would you speculate would have a lower margin of error?

Do you think humans reading a thermometer would have a margin of error lower than .01 degree?

I would choose b.

I want to clarify what you mean by margin of error. Do you mean which is more likely to produce inaccurate readings? I'm assuming that's what you mean, in which case I would expect b to have a smaller margin of error.

I think the margin of error in human readings in largely dependent upon their equipment. If they are just looking at mercury and hash marks, then I would expect the margin of error to be greater than 0.01 degree (no matter which scale). If they are using digital thermometers that display several decimal places, then I would expect the margin of error of the human reading it to be identical to the margin of error of the thermometer itself.

I'm not playing "gotcha", your answers are the rational ones. I'm too tired for it tonight but tomorrow will lay out the argument for you that what we've heard on temperatures is at best overplayed, at worst a deliberate misleading of the public.

And beyond that have nothing to do with Rs, Ds, Trump or tribes. Just simple science and common sense. And I'll add on this subject I've been corrected a few times so I'm not claiming to be an infallible expert. And those corrections were not "people say" but actual facts on the ground.

Goose, what exactly is your motivation on this issue? You didn't answer my question about your scientific background so I assume you don't have one. And I don't think you are an oil executive or someone whose livelihood could be heavily impacted by regulations.

Herbie Green wrote:Goose, what exactly is your motivation on this issue? You didn't answer my question about your scientific background so I assume you don't have one. And I don't think you are an oil executive or someone whose livelihood could be heavily impacted by regulations.

Have you read my posts much here? I despise hypocrisy. Most people think of that in a religious context but that's not all. Gore, De Caprio and all the others telling me the world is ending while they have more carbon footprint in a day than I do in 3 years. I drive 100 miles at most a week, I burn 400 gallons of LP a year, my electric bill including hot water is under $100 a month. I walk the walk they don't.

Worse than that I think they're all lying. Why? Because I've spent a LOT of time reading articles, papers, blogs on both sides of the issue. I think the facts on the ground and on the Earth really only support one side.

Now if the celebs, politicians, etc doing all the preaching were avoiding private jets, yachts, selling their waterfront property, etc, etc then they might have a bit more credibility for me. Secondarily all of these carbon schemes remove money from the poor, the working and middle classes. Who gets that $$? Want to guess? Al Gore already got rich as hell off his carbon related investments, strange how that happens, eh?

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
Worse than that I think they're all lying.

Are they all lying, or are they just wrong? Certainly some have a motive to lie, but if I grant that your position on the climate is the correct one, surely there are at least some who disagree with you who are just as sincere as you are on the matter, yes?

Absolutely. They're sincere and here's my caveat to that......when you start to question them as I did here earlier MOST of them dodge away quickly. The yell denier and run. Why? Because most of them no matter how sincere their feelings have simply believed all those people must be right without checking it for themselves. They don't know the arguments and counter arguments and know if you're going to talk about the actual science of it they're in trouble so they run away.

The "denier" thing is lazy because no sane person states the climate isn't changing, it is and always has been. The debate is really not whether it's changing, the debate is whether human activity is driving the changes in one direction or another and into territory that's dangerous for our future.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Are they all lying, or are they just wrong? Certainly some have a motive to lie, but if I grant that your position on the climate is the correct one, surely there are at least some who disagree with you who are just as sincere as you are on the matter, yes?

Absolutely. They're sincere and here's my caveat to that......when you start to question them as I did here earlier MOST of them dodge away quickly. The yell denier and run. Why? Because most of them no matter how sincere their feelings have simply believed all those people must be right without checking it for themselves. They don't know the arguments and counter arguments and know if you're going to talk about the actual science of it they're in trouble so they run away.

The "denier" thing is lazy because no sane person states the climate isn't changing, it is and always has been. The debate is really not whether it's changing, the debate is whether human activity is driving the changes in one direction or another and into territory that's dangerous for our future.

So you basically believe that you have more accurate scientific information than the scientists despite no background. And/or they further don't have honest opinions but you do as you have obviously demonsstrated your unbiased views here on t Swill.

Goose even if we assume that global warming is fake, are you denying the negative environmental impact of fossil fuel emissions as well?

There's more than one reason to abandon fossil fuels, even if we accept the absolutely ridiculous claim that massive greenhouse gas emissions will have no long term effect on temperatures.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Are they all lying, or are they just wrong? Certainly some have a motive to lie, but if I grant that your position on the climate is the correct one, surely there are at least some who disagree with you who are just as sincere as you are on the matter, yes?

Absolutely. They're sincere and here's my caveat to that......when you start to question them as I did here earlier MOST of them dodge away quickly. The yell denier and run. Why? Because most of them no matter how sincere their feelings have simply believed all those people must be right without checking it for themselves. They don't know the arguments and counter arguments and know if you're going to talk about the actual science of it they're in trouble so they run away.

The "denier" thing is lazy because no sane person states the climate isn't changing, it is and always has been. The debate is really not whether it's changing, the debate is whether human activity is driving the changes in one direction or another and into territory that's dangerous for our future.

Goose, most of us "dodge away" because your arguments are based in flawed science and old weather reports from the 1800's. You simply cannot be reasoned with. This is why most people "dodge away" from discussing anything with you on this board. It's an exercise in futility.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Absolutely. They're sincere and here's my caveat to that......when you start to question them as I did here earlier MOST of them dodge away quickly. The yell denier and run. Why? Because most of them no matter how sincere their feelings have simply believed all those people must be right without checking it for themselves. They don't know the arguments and counter arguments and know if you're going to talk about the actual science of it they're in trouble so they run away.

The "denier" thing is lazy because no sane person states the climate isn't changing, it is and always has been. The debate is really not whether it's changing, the debate is whether human activity is driving the changes in one direction or another and into territory that's dangerous for our future.

Goose, most of us "dodge away" because your arguments are based in flawed science and old weather reports from the 1800's. You simply cannot be reasoned with. This is why most people "dodge away" from discussing anything with you on this board. It's an exercise in futility.

I tried to engage him in a logical discussion in this thread. He kept hammering away at temperature records without taking the time to understand the basic science around climate change.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Absolutely. They're sincere and here's my caveat to that......when you start to question them as I did here earlier MOST of them dodge away quickly. The yell denier and run. Why? Because most of them no matter how sincere their feelings have simply believed all those people must be right without checking it for themselves. They don't know the arguments and counter arguments and know if you're going to talk about the actual science of it they're in trouble so they run away.

The "denier" thing is lazy because no sane person states the climate isn't changing, it is and always has been. The debate is really not whether it's changing, the debate is whether human activity is driving the changes in one direction or another and into territory that's dangerous for our future.

Goose, most of us "dodge away" because your arguments are based in flawed science and old weather reports from the 1800's. You simply cannot be reasoned with. This is why most people "dodge away" from discussing anything with you on this board. It's an exercise in futility.

That's not what's coming later today - care to answer the questions Cameron did?