Nature accomplished what Science couldn't accomplish

Interesting. Are you one of the guys that repeated and followed the science of nutrition and swore off fat in the diet and subsequently gained 100 lbs? You really don’t understand what you are advocating for.

I live science. Almost every decision I make in my work is based on one discipline of science or another. I dabbled in research at university. What I learned was that having explicit faith in published science is nuts.

I guess they are bogey men to you but none of my beliefs have anything to do with them either.

Um no. I’m saying there have been points in time where government has had the power to do whatever they want on climate and they didn’t. I find it odd you never question why.

By your definition the scientists you are parroting are science deniers. Because parts of their predictions based on modeling (not observable, repeatable experimentation) are verifiably false based on my repeatable observable experimentation.

Furthermore, denying or circumventing corrupt or incomplete science is a good thing. One project I was asked to work on after college was a study on micro mineral supplementation of bovines in areas with soil copper deficiencies and/or excessive ground water sulfur content. The driving force behind the research was the free choice feeding mineral industry. When I saw the mineral sources intended to be included in the trials the game was up for me. I didn’t want to participate in trials intended to benefit someone financially at the expense of costing the end user efficiency. The result of this study and others like it from other universities was the scientific standard for a while. Nothing in the results could be argued against from a methods or conclusion standpoint, but is was science not beneficial to the demographic it was peddled to.

To make a long story short, a couple years later a company introduced an injectable product that is now the industry standard for correcting and avoiding micro mineral deficiencies. It is better and more economical. If the previous scientific standard had not been questioned by the new company we wouldn’t have this product today.

We must question science because by definition it is never “settled”. Especially in cases where there is no repeatable observation involved.

Has nothing to do with denialism. Hypocrisy in leadership doesn’t fly. It can only work if the leadership style is authoritarian in nature. If you really believe personal life doesn’t matter why do you care what opinion people have on the subject. It wouldn’t matter enough to you to denigrate them.

Oh sure people care. Look at all the attacks constantly on here about what politicians and others do in their personal life. This is just a way to dodge the fact you don’t care enough about the issue to actually take action. It’s cute but too transparent.

Please tell us specifically what legislation you are referencing.

I don’t have wingnut media. Nothing I believe on the subject has anything to do with any of that. My skepticism is based on science. Please tell us what bad influence you are talking about. Why are you so vague?

That’s the thing. I do understand that parts of what you are peddling are utter nonsense. That makes me skeptical of other parts. Do you understand that things that have never been observed and cannot be subjected to the scientific method can’t be referred to as facts?

Again, get out of the way of what? If you can’t be specific you have no standing in this debate.

 

You committed the classic blunder. You confused a refusal to believe bull **** with an inability to understand bull ****.

 

Studies do not mean consensus. It is just a dishonest approach because they cannot actually get the scientists to agree.

The above was in response to "Especially, the absurd claim that science has nothing to do with consensus."

 

Here's the source of your Global Warming and pollution. IT'S NOT TRUMP'S America





Mother Earth needs a Serious! reduction in the number of Humans destroying it.

 

"The science of nutrition"? That's hilarious. Don't tell me... I know.... You fell for one of those half hour commercials they ave at the morning, because it said their... "pills" or "meals" or... whatever it was they sold you... was "scientific". So that's why now you take it on all of Science.

That has to be one of the funniest things I have seen on this forum.

That's nonsense. Anybody who uses a computer at work can say the same. Nothing you say indicates that you understand science. When somebody uses a computer they work with very complex science: physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, ... My 110 year-old grandmother used a computer almost every day before she passed. That doesn't mean she understood any of those things.

And much less that she understood how science works. How it's "created" (or formed). Which is what is really relevant in this discussion.

If you know how science works, you don't need to know the details behind climate change science.

Any way... my whole point is that if you deny climate change, it's useless to start now explaining it to you.

I know why. I've known it for, at least, the last 20 years. Denialists, on the other hand, didn't even know that there was anything to do something about. Which proves that a denialist is not the type of person we want to look for to obtain insightful ideas as to how to deal with the problem.

Ask those in Houston and Missouri who are now seeing their houses under water if they agree that they are verifiably false.

The consequences of AGW was not "science". It was known that the consequences would be dire. But the specificity was just a notch over "highly educated guesses". There were all types of projections, each focusing on different "what if" scenarios. As it turns out, all of them were extremely accurate: floods, higher intensity in hurricanes and cyclones, wild fires, increase in insect population and corresponding diseases,....

Anyway... look. It's been 20 years trying to explain this to you guys. I think it's time to just allow denialists to live in ignorance.

I'm not convinced you understand what the scientific method is. It's true that there are things that cannot be subjected to the scientific method, but not because they have never been observed. The scientific method is deductive. Meaning (in short) that by starting with what is observed, we can reach scientific conclusions about what is not observed.

Or you might not understand what the term "observe" means in science....

I don't know.... maybe you do. Just that your whole speech casts a bit of doubt.

As to the last part about things that cannot be subjected to the scientific method not being referred to as "facts"... wrong! They can. Just not as "scientific facts". But the fact that science is a great deductive tool has not removed the power of deduction from human beings. There are still things that we can analyze "on the run" but would be inefficient to

 

I haven't heard much about what these crazy ideas the is pushing will actually accomplish in the long run. Certainly no scientific fact. Cause science can not prove that any of these often stupid ideas will "save the planet". Only put financial burdens on those living day to day to make ends meet.

The majority of the earth is covered by water and keeping the oceans water safe for the inhabitants is crucial to our survival and the climate. The shipping industry is causing havoc for Ocean Mammals. Polluting the Oceans is too.

We need to adapt to a naturally changing climate. As animals have done for millenniums.

 

Yes.

 

Don’t watch TV at all or listen to radio much so not sure what your getting at here. Are you claiming ignorance of all the false nutritional information through the years based on the same sort of science you claim now is infallible?

Did I reference commercials? Take it on all of science? Your sentences don’t even have meaning at this point.

Please be specific about what I’ve said that indicates I don’t understand science. I’m not big on vague unsubstantiated accusations. I can maybe educate you a little though. My business requires me to make daily, even hourly, decisions about biological systems.

One example is diagnosing respiratory problems in several mammalian species and choosing the correct antibiotic to treat based on past experimentation (using controls when possible) in varying environmental conditions (temperature, relative humidity, day/night temperature swings, time since last vaccination, etc. ). When treatments aren’t successful, necropsy is used to determine if correct decisions were made or not.

Another example is selecting plant genetics. I do a lot of side by side trials (using controls) of different genetics as well as trials on how different pesticides and fertilizers impact those genetics. During the growing season all these things have to be monitored and observations filed away so that they can be compared to yield data after harvest and soil sampling later in the fall.

Weather/climate is the factor that plays the largest role in my business that I can’t control. That doesn’t mean I ignore that. We keep precipitation records, often times by individual field. I track GDUs (a measure of accumulated heat needed for crop maturity), average nighttime temperature, and days of sun or overcast/clouds. All that data is used to identify cyclical trends and attempt to predict anomalies. This makes it possible to choose plant genetics to take advantage of positive weather cycles while hedging against disasters brought on by the anomalies. Everything from forecasted precipitation to wind speed/direction to relative humidity to dew point is monitored several times a day to increase the odds of making correct forage harvesting decisions that can make you or lose you thousands of dollars per decision.

Just like using a computer, right?

If you know how science works you know it’s limitations and vulnerabilities to corruption.

Now the fun part. The part where I ask you to quote where I’ve denied climate change. Or where I’ve said CO2 doesn’t cause warming. Or methane. You are fighting windmills here, sir. Your narrow minded view of the subject has never even allowed you to realize I’m not a “denier”.

If you know why, prove it. Why hasn’t the government “fixed” the problem when they have had the power and supposed knowledge of how to do so?

Give me your insightful ideas. I dare you.

A lot of the water flooding Missouri went right through my back yard. You are making assumptions now on what I know is verifiably false. I never said anything about flooding. What’s false is the claimed impacts on agriculture. They can be verified to be false academically and from realities “on the ground”.

And you fail to remember that if “deniers” can’t use weather events to “prove” their ideas you can’t use them to prove your’s either. Can’t have it both ways.

Please just do some actual research on these things. Many of those things either are complete fabrication or caused by obvious things not related to warming or greenhouse gasses.

I’m telling you that their predictions are not extremely accurate. The ones I can speak to from personal experience are epic failures.

If you want to backpedal for the whole cabal to a position of the simple formula of greenhouse gas increases resulting in warming, fine. That would be wise. But some of the scare tactics being used to sell that idea are utter falsehoods. If they are attached to the overarching theory in any way (and they are with no disclaimer) the whole thing is suspect.

Ok. So let them be. And tell us what on earth are these things that need done but ignorant yet all powerful people are preventing. But you are going to have to step up your game with me because I can’t be dismissed as a denier.

If you would like to call me out on something specific I’m willing to further clarify. If not, I’m going to assume this is just an attempt to discredit a point of view you are unable to address intellectually and I will ignore it.

Well if you want to discuss facts outside of science be clear. Our whole discussion has been on science. Are you wanting to move on to something else or stick with science?

 

What I truly do not understand is when we get weather that does not fall in line with predictions of global warming predictions, we are told weather is not climate. Now you are saying weather is climate. To me it looks like areas along a river that sometimes flood are flooding. Color me not surprised.

 

They also have a much higher population. The US emits far more pollution per capita than china. So if our populations were equal, the China would polliute far more.

 

Where in the climate change science does per capita appear as a driver of warming or cooling whichever the flavor of the month is?

 

The higher a population, the more fuel for heating,the more cars are driven, etc....In other words, the more people a country has, the more fossil fuel it uses. If the US has the same population as China, we would be pollution far more than them. There are other factors as well, but population plays a major part.

 

I see. If I were you I wouldn't be so sure that my daughters and granddaughters will be thanking me for making less for equal work than their male counterparts. You might be opening yourself to disappointment.

 

Hell this mentally challenged lefty reach's more eyes then all the lefties on this site LMAO You know what they say about "Preaching to the choir"

 

Then maybe what you need is to watch more TV. You would learn that claims of being based on science are a typical way advertisers use to fool the gullible. I always wondered who would be dumb enough to believed those things. Reading your post I think that may be the answer. Because people who watch TV often have seen the scam so many times that they don't fall for it, like you seem to have.

Probably. But you did so unwittingly. Advertisers are very good at making bogus claims look like science. They even cite non-existent studies and things like that. And if you're not used to them, I'm sure you'd fall in a second.

In any case, this thread is about Climate Change in particular. You appear to be trying to undermine all of Science. That would be a good topic for another thread. This one is more specific.

Not sure what you're talking about. The text you quoted is about my 110 year old grandmother. I know she doesn't understand science. Despite the fact that she was surrounded by it. Which rebuts your argument that being surrounded by science makes you "absorb" an understanding through some sort of "osmosis"... or something.

What a coincidence. Mine too. But I call them "employees". I don't think they'd take it well if I called them "biological systems", no matter how accurate.

Look. Seriously. What you are describing is technology. Not Science. It's a typical confusion. Technology is based on Science. But they are different things. Science is a process to discover new universal principles that we didn't know. Technology is the application of principles that we already know to discover punctual knowledge. People confuse "experiments" with Science. though experimenting may be a process used in one stage of the Scientific Method, the fact that you call what you do "experiment" does not make it Science.

A simpler example, an airline Pilot works with physics (aerodynamics), quantum mechanics, chemistry, linguistics, .... many sciences. They are constantly doing experiments as they land an airplane, by making adjustments and observing the results until they reach the optimal outcome.

That's pretty much what you describe. Like the pilot, you are using pre-existing scientific knowledge that is universal, and applying it to a particular case to obtain a punctual conclusion. But that conclusion is only valid for that specific instance. Therefore it is not universal. It is not a new conclusion. It's just the selection of one among many possible (regardless of how big the number of possibilities might be) . Therefore it is not science.

Absolutely the same. Especially with my grandmother who always tried to figure out things on her own (well she was about 80 when she started using them). You should have seen her "experimenting" as to what pressing the Function key along with another key did. How to best adjust her "Solitary" so that she could see it better.

Other than the difference in complexity, what you did and what she did was exactly the same.

Oh? So it's "fun" for you to ask me to look at your past posts, right?

Well... I'll do it this once. But you owe me.

Let's see... there are several. This is one is pretty clear. You refer to AGW as a "belief".

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ldnt-accomplish.561802/page-3#post-1070988175

AGW denial and science denial are one and the same thing. And you clearly have done both throughout this debate.

Wait a minute. Now it's my turn. I did my part. Now let's see you do yours. Quote where I claimed you said that. Quote it or retract!

Don't ignore this!

Even now I have not "realized" it. This is the first time you have said it. And if you say it, I guess I'll accept it. But I have not seen you write anything whatsoever that would move me to "realize" that on my own.

Easy. The right has made it one of their greatest priorities to fight to protect Oil Corporations. And the Koch Brothers have made sure that they do. And by "the right" I don't mean just Republicans. But anti-science denialism in this area was created by the Oil Industry. They even paid anybody who had anything even remotely resembling a degree in Science to make up some article against AGW. And it stuck to the day. You yourself think that AGW is a "belief". So their propaganda worked!

You got it. Next time... before you "dare" me... read my sig!!!!!

This post is getting too long. It needs to be shorter. I'll respond only to the relevant or new parts.

Read the OP. Read the Title of this thread! My statement has nothing to do with "proving". It's about how these events have changed people's minds. As I said, I'm done with "proving". I have been studying, researching, learning... and discussing AGW for 20 years. 20 years of trying to teach people facts, science, statistics, .... is more than enough to understand that science denialists will never understand. What we need them to do now is just get out of the way.

I could probably write books on what I have learned in 20 years... just to have these debates. More research than you will ever do in your life... even if you get paid for it.

What nonsense! The only predictions I'm talking about is that consequences would be dire. That there would be floods, more intense hurricanes, harsher weather events. All spot on! How many floods... how intense the hurricanes.... how harsh the weather... Of course they weren't precise! Being accurate was not what those models were for. They were meant to provide an insight into what we should prepare for. And what we should prepare for is for the worst. Not for the best.

So there is yet another aspect of AGW that you never understood.

This post is getting too long. I'll take a quick look and respond if I find anything of interest, or that has not been already addressed.

Look up Paris Accord. Look up climate regulations rolled back by the Trump regime.

 

You shouldn't worry about it too much. This is the post you need to read.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ldnt-accomplish.561802/page-3#post-1070988045

 

Interesting that you would talk about landing airplanes. I have a bit of experience both forecasting the weather and landing airplanes. They are very similar in many ways. You don't just keep practicing landing airplanes until you finally just get it right and then repeat it over and over. There are many techniques used to land an airplane and the and the conditions in which you land the airplane are never quite the same. The variables are infinite. Short field, rough field, cross wind, tail wind, head wind, high temperature, high altitude. The techniques differ and and conditions vary. Fairly similar to weather forecasting. Different techniques for different objectives and of course, the possible combinations are infinite. Landing airplanes is as much art as science. I will repeat for emphasis. Landing airplanes is as much art as science.

All of this is similar to forecasting the weather. The concept is similar whether it is just a few hours or days or decades. A method is picked based on the conditions and the objective of the forecast. Aviation forecasting is not the same as general public forecasting. The procedures are similar, but the objective is different. Each forecast must have some kind of objective.

In short you have enlightened me. The forecasts might be based on pure science, but actually making that forecast is as much art as science.

By the way. The uninformed always talk about landing the airplane. In many ways the takeoff is more dangerous because when you land, you know how the aircraft handles. A takeoff is a new experience. Also, landing is under low power and takeoff is under high or full power. There are more ways for it to go wrong.

 

Ah more ad hom. Sweet.

Let’s recap. I claim nutrition advice in recent history has been incorrect even though based on the same type science as climate change today. I mention low fat diet specifically, advanced by the US government and many others. No irony there, right? You say I got that from commercials I didn’t see/ hear. Now you claim I’m fooled into believing the thing I didn’t see because I didn’t see it. When I asked you to step up your game that isn’t exactly what I had in mind. It’s amusing though so thanks.

No I did not. Commercials were a fabrication by you. I’ve kind of played along because I knew it would lead you into your above trap of illogical circular reasoning. You pass!

That said, yes they are pretty good at fooling people like you. The exact same methods have sold you a fear of climate change.

If you’d like to compare notes on who has purchased more goods or services based on advertising I’ll go there. But remember you stated consuming advertising makes people immune to its effects. That’s why businesses and governments waste their money on more and more ad time. Because it makes people wise to their pitch and spend less on their product. This is so good.

I would never undermine science. I use it daily and depend on others using the method as well. I’m just willing to open my eyes to the fact science can be wrong, lacking, or abused. That’s why I do my own research instead of buying crop inputs or antibiotics solely on their claims. Besides. Science is fun. Watching an insect and learning something from it is simple but rewarding.

Ok Mr. sig line.
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+science&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

That’s kind of simplistic but you’ve brought us down to that level.

Oh this is making my day. Now you have inadvertently made the claim AGW is not science because it isn’t universal. Brilliant argument.

And I am making new discoveries. I’m sorry all you know about biology is that employees fit in there somewhere. But everything I described is science and it is discovering previously unknowns. If they were known I wouldn’t have to go to all that trouble. Except for producing formal papers everything I described is exactly what the scientists you trust completely are supposed to be doing. I even included the gathering and analysis of weather and climate data. Just for you.

You are going to throw AGW under the bus twice in one post? I’m not going to repeat myself, see above.

Read it again my friend with this in mind. Again, you’ve brought us down to this level.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+belief&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

If you are going to make the accusation you are going to have to quote me. No more games. I have not denied science or AGW. You made incorrect assumptions about my “beliefs“.

I’m not trying to be cruel, but you’ve now not only thrown AGW under the bus twice, you are going to back over it and smash it again! If you claim we can’t refer to AGW as a belief you are denying it’s existence or that it is true.

I wouldn’t dare!
If you’ll scroll up to the quote of you preceding the one I’m responding to here you will see yourself claim I’ve clearly denied both science and AGW more than once in this thread. Hmmm.

Typically if someone doesn’t make a definitive claim we don’t assume they have. Of course your ways are not my ways...

So many Democrats are in the pockets of big oil so when they had the power they really didn’t because you couldn’t count on them to do the right thing and vote party line? Ok. There is probably some truth to that. Trading personal gain for destruction of the planet. Like right wingers. Hmmm.

So Mr. sig line will write paragraphs to avoid posting a bullet point summary of his brilliant ideas. Yeh, I’m convinced.

Cute.

Get out of the way of what. Be specific. How in Hades is someone supposed to know what to get out of the way of?

Sure. That’s why you ignore causes of wildfires that have nothing to do with climate or weather for one. If you learn the wrong things what does it profit you?

I don’t care what predictions you want to cherry pick. I’m talking about specific claims of impact on agriculture. Because that’s where I’ve done the research. The predictions aren’t wrong by degree. They are utter BS. And it’s being used just like your half hour commercials to sell a product. I have a problem with that.

I understand. You are the one who doesn’t understand enough to see the flaws.

Oh, unenforceable generalities. And things like addressing automobiles that you said are irrelevant. And profiteering off of offset and credit trading. And all those other things that you say we can’t and shouldn’t implement personally voluntarily because it would be a type of virtue signaling. Very good. But how will I get out of the way if I’m doing reduction and mitigation now?

 

WTF? Do you even know what an ad hominem is?

All science is based on the same "type" of science as climate change. Because there is only one "type" of science.

So your recap means that you are denying, not just climate change, but all science. And you base that on ... who knows what that you read about a diet that, if I'm understanding what you're saying, doesn't work. That is utter nonsense.

One more time: A diet is not "science". It may be based on science, but it's not science. Just like building airplanes is based on science. Attacking science by using the fact that a diet doesn't work is as dumb as attacking the laws of gravity because some airplanes crash.

Anyway... again this post is extremely large. I will look for anything new or interesting to respond to. If there is anything of relevance that I skip, let me know.

And yet, that's exactly what you've been doing.

Science provides certainty. There is no such thing as 100% certainty. So there is a principle in epistemology that says that science has a "tentative" nature. But that fact is a strength of science. Only those who don't understand science and try to undermine it try to push it as a weakness. And here we have you doing exactly that.

Look. You don't have to "open" my eyes to anything. My minor in College was on epistemology (the equivalent to a "minor," though it was a different system where I studied). Right after I graduated I taught epistemology at the same university I studied for a short time. I only tell you this so you don't waste your time trying to explain epistemology to me.

Before you use that as your sig, I suggest you read this article.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium

You only brought yourself to that level. Not me.

Of course it's universal. The conditions described in AGW science would produce Global Warming anywhere in the Universe.

Your statement is weird.

I don't know what you do. I only comment on what you describe. You described punctual (not universal) results.

Those "formal papers" you mention are and indispensable part of the Scientific Method.

Read it again. I could read it a hundred times, and it doesn't change. You referred to Global Warming as a "belief".

My statement has been proven. What's more, you have been doubling down in this post with your insinuation before that AGW is some particular "type" of science that you have found to be false. All through this post and this thread you have been attacking AGW.

So I don't know what you're trying to do, but the denialism you have expressed is obvious.

You can refer to it as whatever the hell you want. But referring to it as a "belief" is what science denialists do. It's scientific fact. but you don't accept that. And you have that prerogative. But then you don't have the prerogative to come out whining when somebody points out that you are a science denialist.

No! Your statement was "Or where I’ve said CO2 doesn’t cause warming. Or methane." Show where I claimed you said that or retract! You were specific in your claim, now you need to be specific in your quote... or retraction.

Stop the evasive nonsense!

I don't have any "brilliant ideas". Experts do. Look for Paris Accord webpage, and Working Group III of the IPCC

Of the Paris Accord and Working Group III of the IPCC

And yet, an increase was predicted decades ago.... and they were right!

Look This is ridiculous. I have been saying this again and again:The time to explain to you why climate change increases the number of wildfires is over. We have been trying to do that for 20 years. Enough is enough.... Just let the folk who are fixing this fix it. You don't need to do anything. All we ask is that you get out of the way.

I said your automobile is irrelevant. Automobiles (in general) are very relevant.

Let me put it this way: if you go out and buy a gas guzzler and install 100 W incandescent light bulbs all over your hous but don't give your vote to idiots who stand in the way of climate legislation you would be doing much more for the environment than by buying a plug-in and LED light bulbs. That's one example of what I mean by "getting out of the way".

 

So you believe floods are a recent phenomena?

 

What I think I wrote a few pages back on this thread.

Here

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ldnt-accomplish.561802/page-3#post-1070988045

 

Yes. Being clever in its use doesn’t really fool anyone. Sorry.

Well you aren’t far off here...

I never claimed a diet was science. I claimed dietary advice has been atrocious in the past and it was supported by the very “type” of science you advocate for. Why is this hard to respond to? Apparently because you can’t admit it. You have made up so much that I haven’t said you have no credibility at this point.

Well, you still haven’t addressed the issue above. At all. You have changed the subject and put words on my mouth but never addressed the original point. Oh well. I know why you can’t.

No. That is what you pretend I’m doing even though I’ve stated and demonstrated the opposite.

If you really understood what you say, you would be willing to question science. And improve upon it. You would be able to see the problem with using demonstrably false information to sell a theory. You would be as skeptical of government involvement as you are of corporate involvement.

You are right there isn’t 100% certainty. Act like you adhere to that principle.

You do not get to define terms. If terms are completely subjective then AGW has only the meaning I attribute to it. Rational wiki is the place where I read that it is a miracle that a photon can hit such a small target as my eye so that I can “see” stars millions of light years away. Sending me to such a place while criticizing the use of a definition is very odd. Again, you are unable to argue against my point.

You are making arguments with words you don’t understand the meaning of.

Perhaps there’s hope. The conditions described in my work would be universal as well. So you are contradicting your assertion that my work isn’t science. Cool.

Nope. Just smaller scale. Definitely universal in the exact same way you portray “AGW science”.

No.

No. I said believing it it doesn’t change anything. Scientists, journalists, politicians, and philosophers all use the same language.

Your statement has not been proven. Except to be false. I’ve categorically stated I don’t deny AGW or any real science. You keep saying I am denying both without any proof. I pointed out to you where you did what you claimed not to have done in the previous paragraph. I’ve never attacked AGW. You are again making assumptions on emotion. I’ve only spoken to the parts used to market it that are BS and advocated for skepticism based on those parts. Just like you assume I watch commercials and fall for them because I don’t watch them. Bizarre.

Address me. Not what you are comfortable arguing against. It makes AGW look bad even when it shouldn’t.

Everyone uses the word “believing” in these discussions. I never used the word “belief” but I showed you even if I had I would be correct. To not use the word belief in this context is stating it (AGW)doesn’t exist. That is denialism. I don’t deny AGW.

Actually AGW is more of a theory. There are aspects of the theory that could be referred to as facts though. The main problem I have with referring to it as a scientific fact is that to do so we would have to have repeated observation which we don’t have comprehensively. Never will. But the same can be said for the theory of evolution.

I gave you options of examples you could quote to prove I denied AGW. I’m sorry you are upset that you can’t. I gave you options to prove me wrong. You can’t. Sorry, no retraction because it is you who has been called out to justify your false allegations.

You are the one evading. You cannot produce any evidence I deny AGW.

Yep. No workable solutions.

Dude, any fool could predict wildfires by looking at increasing (mis)management of forests. Good grief. I could come up with some story about how AGW causes me heartburn after eating a dozen spicy tacos and laying down for a nap. You’d believe it.

I’m not in the way. I’m one of the few who have the tools to fix it. I’m actively involved in reduction and mitigation on a scale you can only dream about. I’m involved in testing cropping systems and grazing systems that are resilient and that sequester huge amounts of carbon. I could go on but you wouldn’t understand it anyway.

This is absurd. I live in a state where my vote is completely irrelevant anyway. But even if it was relevant that is a coward and a fools way to approach this issue. You are saying we should vote for people who will force us to do things we could have done on our own but are too hypocritical or lazy or entitled to do. Sorry, not my style. I would have respect for blind faith climate change evangelists if they weren’t hypocrites. As it is... nope. If you clowns had stuck to pictures of sea turtles and lived what you preach you would have everything you want now on a silver platter. Perhaps you are a false flag, but you are not having a positive effect on the public opinion of your crusade.

Now, for those critical thinkers out there, I’ve not gone round the bend. Yeh, I believe there are observable effects of increasing CO2 levels. And I am dang glad. Because if things were going the other way, it’s a cold, hard fact that humanity would suffer mightily. The things I do to sequester carbon and advance resilience in agriculture are done because they profit you and I in tangible ways unrelated to AGW. I’m ready and able to exploit this bounty to produce more food and consumer goods than you’ve ever imagined. Screw lemonade when handed what some call lemons. I’ll make you a freaking lemon meringue pie.

 

"Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint."
-Mark Twain

Hard? It's the easiest thing in the world. Science denialism is ridiculous. As illustrated by your statement. My cable TV is also supported by the same "type" of science (which is the only "type" of science that exists). And it's often a dis

What have we learned from that fact? Nothing.

Ok! You got me! I admit it: My cable TV service sucks!

Whyyyy oh whyyy did you make me say it....

Again... your post is excessively long....

I can't respond to that because I have no idea what you do. Nor interest to find out as it is irrelevant to this discussion.

It is clear to me that you don't understand what Science is. But I have already shown that... so let's move on.

You know... it's actually irrelevant. When I wrote the part that originated this I was under the impression that you understood what Science is, and that you were denying the validity of AGW from the perspective of somebody who understood Science. Now I know more about what you know and don't know. You're denying it from the perspective that you deny all of Science.

On the other hand, you claimed that I attributed something to you, and after three opportunities I gave you to either quote it or retract, you did neither. That fact alone complete blows up your credibility. So, at this point, I don't think this discussion serves much of a purpose.

I just say what I said at the beginning: we won't try to explain AGW or Science to you anymore. It's been 20 years. All we ask of deniers is that they please don't interfere in the efforts of those who are trying to solve the problem.

God! Why did you have to go there?

Of course it's a theory. It's a proven Theory. Like Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation. Like Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Like Einstein's relativity Theory. Like the Big Ban Theory. Like Cell Theory. Like Quantum Theory.... All proven theories.

But please don't continue, because I know how this discussion degrades from the purely nonsensical, to downright stupidity. And the slippery slope starts by you saying something like... "no... laws are proven... theories aren't". When I taught Epistemology, I made it a practice to throw the whiteboard eraser at the first idiot student who said that. Now I'd probably get fired for doing that. But it was OK in the 70s and 80s. And by God they deserved it!

So let's stop there, please!

As for the rest: don't worry about it. That's something that needs to be discussed between those who understand AGW, and will need to do something about it. The rest can just... lay down until we're done. At least while they can find a dry spot to lie down on.

 

Cute. But not an argument.

Yet all you do is deflect.

Ok. You are out of any sort of intellectual arguments. You could just say so and avoid the long posts. You’ve conceded several points by becoming completely non responsive. Probably wise at this point.

As irrelevant as your claim of studying epistemology. If you don’t know what I do at this point in the discussion you are certainly not qualified to have opinions on such weighty matters as the plight of an entire planet.

You have to move on because you have no argument. I understand and don’t blame you. At this point you need an exit strategy for sure.

More deflection. You are out of gas. The proof is in your engagement with me personally and your unwillingness to debate the subject. Not a good look.

You took me for and still maintain that I’m an AGW denier. You can not quote anything I’ve said to back up that claim that you have made repeatedly in this post. You have nothing but repeated assertions. No proof whatsoever. And that reflects on my credibility?

You have no ability to solve the problem. The people you vote for have no ability to solve the problem. If you did, the “problem” wouldn’t exist. People like me will always have to solve these problems because we have the tools.

You were dead wrong to refer to AGW as a scientific fact. Don’t be angry at me. You said it. You could have used the correct terminology but you didn’t. I don’t care how many erasers you throw, you are dead wrong.

I’m not worried. I’m excited to be alive to take advantage of this opportunity. I will even let you partake of the lemon pie.

 

Well you guys have fun. I'm sure it's thrilling to start doing without stuff like oil and whatever else has your bee in a bonnet. (don't know and don't care)

that's where it is now. You'll just have to do without the rest of us, and well... have fun!!!!