Forum shows a perfect example of the Left's naivety - global warming etc.

I completely believe man is doing something. How much, that I don't know, nor do I trust people who need to prove we're doing a significant amount of damage to retain a job, especially when they change the terms for political or factual purposes. That's a little slimy.

Prove EXACTLY how much man has changed. Don't cite that within X number of years climate has changed while man was alive, so therefor man is the cause. And why are you referring to it as climate change instead of Global Warming? Why change to something completely generic to avoid specifics?

Show us what the temperatures would be if man didn't exist. Don't guess now. Guessing doesn't count. I can guess. Show the exact temperatures as if man never invented the combustion engine. Separate those numbers from the damage that every volcanic eruption has inflicted. And no guessing.

Now PROVE how much we will help if we do EXACTLY as some scientists want us to do. Calculate the costs. Prove its viable. If you're wrong, I want you falling on your sword out of shame, embarrassment and failure=)

You see, its all predictions, much like a Hurricane. Scientists scare us into thinking a massive Hurricane will hit FL, EVERY YEAR!!!! I live in FL. I get to hear it every Spring how it will be the BIGGEST most dangerous season yet....and then nothing....crickets, crickets. Years pass and eventually a hurricane hits and these same pompous "scientists" tell us, "SEE, SEE, we told you." Sorry, but screw you. I can literally flip a coin, blindfolded and be as accurate as any climate scientist or meteorologist, sad to say. They're allowed to be completely wrong with no consequences. If I was wrong as much as they are, I wouldn't have a job. That's why its hard to trust them and I love science. Yes, CO2 effects climate. Yes, climate has changed. Its also changed when we didn't exist. Somehow the Earth warmed and cooled without cars, planes and factories. Why is it all OUR fault now?

 

You're not a scientist are you? If you were, or if you had even the vaguest inkling of how climatologists work, then you wouldn't post such simplistic and puerile 'prove it!' drivel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

 

Argumentum ad ignorantiam its a logical fallacy for a reason. People burned witches at the stake for lack of a better explanation as to why people were getting sick.

There is a reason I call your reasoning evil. Love of theory is the root of all evil.

 

Its exists in the scientific fields but its is not part of the scientific method. The scientific method is an attempt to separate human bias from science. Consensus is by definition human bias.

 

We say global warming has stopped because global warming has stopped. It stopped many many years ago.

.

If only it were this easy to disprove the existence of God.

 

eeeeexactly. What the implications?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I do understand that universities attract students from blah blah blah, what does that have to do with the thread.

I am a college graduate, with a good degree so simmer down now

Your post is typical of you: "ignorant, disgusting, this is just ignorant, oh you're just so naive. ignorant this ignorant that." Christ change up what you say eh?

 

I have a science degree. You read an article so what?

 

yes it was once a fact that the Sun went around the earth. The scientists were wrong in that fact and had not actually proved a truth. So what?

 

So you're saying the science isn't really exact then or is it just an excuse? I do understand science and the fact that theories are still theories, correct? Theories aren't laws. And man made global warming is a THEORY, NOT a law. There is no PROOF that man is having a significant impact on our climate, only that we may be playing a part since things have changed since we've been around.

Whats wrong with saying PROVE it? Because you can't. If Climatologists can be so amazingly wrong when it comes to Hurricanes or simply when its going to rain, why believe with unwavering faith that they can be so correct when it comes to man's impact?

 

Hmmmm - so do you believe that because "the scientists" have been proven wrong once that they will be proven wrong again and find that the Sun actually DOES go around the Earth

 

Where is the rest of your graph??

Oh! That is right!!!

 

You know I have heard this claim A LOT

What I have never seen is one iota of proof - I mean actual proof. I have found lots of proof of the astroturf and misinformation campaign put out by Exxon and others but as for proof that there has been fraud for jobs. Given the broad variety of employers for the scientists involved over many different countries - well that conspiracy theory remains exactly what it is - a conspiracy theory

Prove EXACTLY how much man has changed. Don't cite that within X number of years climate has changed while man was alive, so therefor man is the cause. And why are you referring to it as climate change instead of Global Warming? Why change to something completely generic to avoid specifics?

Show us what the temperatures would be if man didn't exist. Don't guess now. Guessing doesn't count. I can guess. Show the exact temperatures as if man never invented the combustion engine. Separate those numbers from the damage that every volcanic eruption has inflicted. And no guessing.

Now PROVE how much we will help if we do EXACTLY as some scientists want us to do. Calculate the costs. Prove its viable. If you're wrong, I want you falling on your sword out of shame, embarrassment and failure=)

You see, its all predictions, much like a Hurricane. Scientists scare us into thinking a massive Hurricane will hit FL, EVERY YEAR!!!! I live in FL. I get to hear it every Spring how it will be the BIGGEST most dangerous season yet....and then nothing....crickets, crickets. Years pass and eventually a hurricane hits and these same pompous "scientists" tell us, "SEE, SEE, we told you." Sorry, but screw you. I can literally flip a coin, blindfolded and be as accurate as any climate scientist or meteorologist, sad to say. They're allowed to be completely wrong with no consequences. If I was wrong as much as they are, I wouldn't have a job. That's why its hard to trust them and I love science. Yes, CO2 effects climate. Yes, climate has changed. Its also changed when we didn't exist. Somehow the Earth warmed and cooled without cars, planes and factories. Why is it all OUR fault now?[/QUOTE]

 

How could there be proof of something when nothing needs to be documented for it to be true. Why would a scientist write an email implicating himself? Job security doesn't need documentation. Its just what people naturally do. I'm not saying its absolutely true, by the way, but I don't hold scientists in any higher regard as any other working person. They just have a different degree, but people are still people and they will do whats best for them. Think about how many would lose their jobs if tomorrow its proved that man has an insignificant impact? That sort of information could never get out considering how much is invested. Its not as preposterous is it sounds, logically.

Is there any real proof that pharmaceutical companies purposely overcharge for insane profits or that they aren't developing cures because there's more profit in prevention? It makes sense though, right? Or how about Oil companies squashing technologies that may effect profit or buying and burying tech that competes with them, only to reveal it later when the time is right? How about govt agencies purposely overspending because when it comes to budgets if you go under, you get less the next year, and we can't have that. You give the impression that you need MORE, in order to get more. That's actually something many department within corporations do, by the way, but you would need corporate experience to understand something like that. Why is it OK to accuse oil companies or pharmaceutical companies of corruption but scientists are squeaky clean? Sorry, but the theory of global warming from the 70s and 80s has blossomed into the industry called "Climate Change". A scientist studying temperature, is no more moral then a scientists studying the cure for the common cold. Neither is doing anything for the greater good if it meant they would never work again, or worse.

Again, man is certainly effecting our climate. Its obvious. But how much is still a mystery and the effect we may have if certain steps aren't taken is still a lot of guesswork, especially when the whole world isn't on board. The US working alone isn't enough. Getting off of fossil fuels is necessary, but not if it means putting our country at a disadvantage by rushing and making rash decisions. Sorry. Its especially not worth it when people mention the abomination of carbon credits.

 

Skeptical science??? Quoting from the Himmler wannabe again I see.

As to the graph yes it is quite clear that the temperature rise since the late 19th century is a step function. I dont see why you see the need to add a linear trend to a step function when a step is a far better representation.

You are arguing from ignorance on that one. I suggest you take a systems class before you try and tangle with the big boys.

 

Uh yes they do include the polar regions. Who the hell told you they didn't.

Flaming reported enjoy your infraction.

 

From www.remss.com


And why is your last image from UAH (http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/october/OCTOBER 2013 map.png) and your original graph of RSS/MSU data?
Here's the woodfortrees graph for UAH, which includes the polar regions.

 

Easy to prove - they "outed" the disinformation campaign that Exxon ran

They have identified the role the Koch brothers have played

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/us-news-media-help-koch-0382.html

http://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/funders

And old mate - the proportion of climate change that man is making is not a mystery but I will not waste time trying to convince you - the evidence is out there and if you find it yourself you just might find you were wrong

 

Ad Hom - the old fall back when arguments dry up

 

Yes ad hom because you are appealing to authority with no supporting reasoning. Ad hom is a perfectly valid refutation of an appeal to authority argument. You are expecting me to take the word of your source that a linear trend is a superior model of the data than a step function. Your source is a cartoonist who likes to have himself photoshopped as Himmler.

Now would you care to justify why a linear trend is a superior model to a step function, or will you continue to appeal to the authority of a cartoonist who likes to see himself as Himmler..

 

Okay since I am so deficient - explain it in greater detail

And we ALL know how much you like to attack the source when it comes to Sceptical Science - personally I would love to see a rebuttal of ONE of his arguments that does not boil down to "nee ner nee Ner"

 

That is a six degrees of separation argument. They fund free market think tanks, free market think tanks fund some climate skepticism. But there is no quid pro quo. When your insane warmmonger Peter Gleick tried to find a quid pro quo and comitted wire fraud to steal the Heartland funding documents he found that none of the Koch industry money was earmarked for climate skepticism. So Gleick forged a memo saying it was.

You six degrees of seperation argument is the same kind of argument used by 911 truthers to associate anyone the want with al qaeda. Its insane when they do it and equally insane here.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd first like to see the argument of why a linear trend is a superior model to a step function despite a step function being a far better fit to the data. Until then you are doing nothing but appealing to an authority that isn't' even an authority. Just a cartoonist who likes to have pictures of himself dressed as Himmler.

Apparently the forum needs to be reminded of just who you are claiming as an authority.

 

Gosh, an opinionated baseless rant against the left.

How surprising to see such a thing here at PF.

 

See post 8 bro, it's not baseless

 

Come on. We all know that Liberal Lefties are smart. They all stay at the Holiday Inn. ROTFLMAO...

 

The right doesn't seem to have any problem playing shell-games with Statism while not actually solving any social problems.