And you have to elaborate into meaningful explanations before rebuttal can take place So tell me What is "Alarmist AGW" and who exactly is spreading it?? And I ask this in all seriousness because the only alarmism I see is from journalists/bloggers who want to sensationalise everything to sell papers or it is from denialists sonfabulating information
Oh, fiddle faddle. I give plenty of compelling arguments, & facts to support them. History, scientific facts, quotes.. i do not hold back with pertinent evidence or rational discourse. This is just another dismissal.. another logical fallacy to dodge the reality of NOTHING empirical or scientific to back the hysterical, fanciful claims of the anti-American left. This is a very general thread.. not one of specific evidence, but a premise for discussion. All you would have to do is provide actual evidence & Real Science to refute my claim. How about it? Want to provide Real, empirical evidence for AGW or the ToE? Not just some 'expert' opinion, but compelling scientific evidence. Many of us can understand the tech talk, so don't be shy. But i doubt you will. Mostly, it is because the evidence is contrived at best, & Faked at worst. And, most leftist 'debaters' would rather use ad hominem or other logical fallacies than logic any day of the week. And, since this is a 'day of the week' i suspect we shall get more of the same.
"Consensus is not the same as proof." Just stop. Scientific consensus is pretty important. Who put it into your mind that the scientific community is wrong?
So climate scientists don't understand the climate as well as you do. Biologists don't understand evolution as well as you do. Astronomers don't understand the heliocentric theory as well as you do. Okay.
You're correct. Asking for peer-reviewed evidence is a very "leftist" thing. We on the left demand evidence for claims. Guess what? Your extraordinary claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I'll take the scientific consensus over the right-wing Big Oil peanut gallery any time.
Beavers don't deposit massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. You know how people drive cars? Where do you think all that CO2 goes? (And, for the love of Zeus, don't tell me that it's "more food for trees.")
What "facts" I did not see one link, reference or even "Bob down da pub agrees" statement It was all unsupported personal opinion Ergo worthless
You seem to think all scientists agree on everything. The fact that you are either unaware of the debates in the science or you simply dismiss them just shows a lack of curiosity and a belief in authority over science. - - - Updated - - - Just as your's is.
And who put YOU in charge of deciding what all biologists, astronomers, & radical greenies think or understand? You have some kind of secret communicator, that links up to every human being with knowledge, & they all tell you their opinions? This is just another logical fallacy, that illustrates the OP. There is no evidence given, just appeals to authority & bandwagon. I've seen the 'debates' on AGW & the ToE in this forum. There is hardly ever any discussion of facts or science, just dismissals & dogmatic assertions of belief, for those making the claims of either 'theory'. That is not your Father's Science. That is the New, Improved, Fake Science! Eat it up, like candy! It doesn't have any nutrition, but it will twist your mind & turn you into an irrational, unthinking dupe! What a great idea! A new Drug for problem citizens! We don't want no stinking thinking people, but submissive, compliant, fit tools for subservience! Fake Science is just the ticket to mold us into an orwellian control system.
Oh, there are plenty of facts, links, quotes & arguments in my posts, if you had a mind to look. But this thread isn't about specific points, but the general practice of propaganda driven pseudo science being pitched like it had a scientific basis. all you have to do is go to any of the scientific threads to see this in action. But i have no desire to bicker with irrational, hate filled ideologues, who cannot carry a bucket of logic to the next room. Oh, & btw, here's a good article on AGW, & the 'Fake Science' it carries: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
What was your original motive for denying AGW? I can never get a straight answer from you guys. I know that the reason for attacking evolution is religious, but AGW doesn't contradict Christianity. In other words, what was it that made you randomly get out of bed and decide to attack AGW? What made you suspect the scientific community was lying? In my opinion, it's always best to follow motives. Recall how Big Tobacco destroyed the careers of medical researchers for publishing research that hurt their profits. When Big Oil decided it liked making money and that its source of money was under threat, it invested millions in anti-science propaganda tactics not unlike what Big Tobacco did. Careees have been destroyed and honest people slandered. Millions of low-information voters are being cattled by the GOP's bought-and-paid-for congressmen. You guys refuse to wake up and it's going to cost us all dearly. Now you'll probably post another round of useless insults about how I'm "a leftist commie" or whatever.
DAILY FAIL Englands "fake news" But let us look at this objectively - it is one scientist in one country talking of one paper. There were over 3,000 scientists contributing to the IPCC and tens of thousands of papers. Are they all wrong?
You may very well be a 'leftist commie', but that is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm a seeker of truth, & a BIG fan of the scientific method. I don't believe in mandated science. Evidence speaks for itself, i don't need some talking head to 'interpret' it for me, when it is obvious they have an ulterior motive. So i have never woken up & decided to be for or against anything, whimsically. I live an evidentiary based existence, & am by nature a skeptic, unlike leftist commies, who force conformity & mandate belief. Following motives is a goose chase. Too much is left to subjective belief & hysteria about the 'real intent!' of someone, rather than dealing with the facts. And you are WAY OFF in your assessment of low information voters. That is the left's specialty, & the Dims cater to them with fear mongering, hysteria, & phony narratives ALL THE TIME. (Racist!! Homophobe!! Science denier!!) Most conservatives, & certainly American constitutionalists prefer due process, freedom of belief, expression, & individual thinking. The collectivist mandates from marxism, with their violent, forced conformity illustrates their tactics & agenda. Facts & evidence are unimportant, to the Fake Science crowd.. they only want spin, propaganda, & hysteria.
As I've stated many times, I have a MS in an area of cosmology. True, it doesn't make me an expert on climate, but I do know how science works. Your suggestion that a theory can be discarded because a few scientisrs reject it is absurd; we would have to reject every theory by such a standard. You'll find archaeologists on that Ancient Aliens TV show who believe that ETs visited our ancestors. Does it mean we should utterly reject the 99% of archaeologists who deny this assertion? Sure, a few religious biologists deny evolution. But so what? Unless they publish in peer-reviewed journals and the consensus sways towards their ideas, their ideas are not really much. You seem to believe that scientists are a bunch of sobs who live in a bubble. Nothing could be further from true. We dread the prospects of AGW. We don't want it to be true, and if someone could provide compelling reasons and numbers for it not to be true, we would love to know. But we most certainly will not bury our brains in the sand and pretend everthing is hunky-dorey.
Your assertion that being liberal and "constitutionalist" are mutually exclusive is laughable, considering who's currently in the White House. Anyway, you're refusing to stay on topic. You're obviously paranoid about everything that isn't right-wing delusion.
We are as natural as they are and theres is no proof that global warming is even bad for us. So far its been great. We have never had it so good.
Yeah, we're as natural as they are. But that doesn't mean that our atmosphere is invincible. Plutonium is natural, but if you roll around in it you're gonna die. Oil is natural, but if your burn sh*tloads of it freely into the atmosphere, you're going to create a greenhouse effect.
Then you should do some investigation to understand how murky and immature climate science really is. You should also understand how very few peer review papers stand the test of time. You should also understand why AGW is an hypothesis and not a theory. Do you understand all the alarmism is based on the worst case scenario that has no chance of coming true? All observed science points to the lowest estimate or lower.
Please give us the percentage of peer reviewed papers that stand the test of time. You are speaking from factual knowledge one assumes!
I am surprised you have no curiosity. Here is a fair place to start. http://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-why-a-lot-of-peer-reviewed-research-is-actually-wrong Do you realize what the many perverse incentives are for producing peer review papers? Probably not.
Yes indeed. Such as putting the blame for warming of Earth onto human beings. My first thought is my gosh, a lot of humans were busy little fellers melting the glaciers of the North American continent and creating those great lakes. Great work guys. I wish I saw you do it.
You've been provided with peer reviewed scientific papers. You hand waive them away, and provide no evidence of any kind to support your assertions. Your argument is literally "nuh uh" - - - Updated - - - You have provided nothing of the sort, of course. You hand waive away the peer reviewed scientific papers we provide, and simply state "nuh uh".
Oh my god! Children are being indoctrinated into believing the fake horrors of AGW! Here are some facts you obviously don't know: (my emphases) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161462 That's 1 to 2 hours in the entire school year. When did the real science of the past stop and when did the phony science of today start? Was it around the time of Watson and Crick? Was it around the time of Plate Techtonics? Let's examine "NO questioning is allowed". Michael Behe is a Creationist. He has gotten a lot of publicity because of his claims of "irreducible complexity". He has been allowed, over and over, to express his views. He has written a book. He gave a Ted Talk. He is published in the Quarterly Review of Biology. He even testified about his views in a public trial. Perhaps you are referring to the writings of Kent Hovind. His papers probably have not been published in peer reviewed journals. Better yet, give us some examples of scientists who have been shut up.
