Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
waldo

Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation

Recommended Posts

Now that there could be really hilarious! You are soooo serious about finding out which kind of funny I am expressing! And the first thing you do is dig into my past to see what my past associations with the topic at hand are. You, my friend, are practicing religion and you don't even know it. I hope you find fulfillment in life.

no more serious than your original vacuous 'funny' post. In any case the 45 seconds I spent on a MLW search of your posts is on me - my treat! :lol: But really, c'mon... let's have you up your game and embrace this thread with some of your past and best disinformation gems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You, my friend, are practicing religion and you don't even know it. I hope you find fulfillment in life.
Spoken like one who hasn't been to a Global Warming worship service yet.
Thank you but no. Just keep the faith and don't drink the cool aid!

:lol: and just who is first to cast the 'science as religious dogma' stone? It is always 'faith affirming' to watch fake skeptics play upon logical fallacy... to read fake skeptics turning away from science to showcase their own impenetrable and unswerving faith that is impervious to methodology, evidence, logic and reason. In any case, we've had some fun with the following video previously: nothing quite like watching a somewhat literal extension; in this case, uber fake skeptic, conservative U.S. GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, giving testimony before a relatively recent congressional hearing... uttering the implausible statement that, "there is a theological debate that this is a carbon starved planet... not too much carbon"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you've got the 'keep the faith' part down.

As a general comment, you can only respond to your assertion by saying these theories are based on science. If you don't have anything more to add than to repeat your assertion, we can't go far with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you are welcome to move along since my comment wasn't directed at you.

But to help you understand, I was not repeating myself so much as indicating that I felt the poster in question was drinking the cool aid. In addition I find it more pleasant to not get overly passionate or dogmatic about a subject that has so much conflicting science from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a general comment, you can only respond to your assertion by saying these theories are based on science. If you don't have anything more to add than to repeat your assertion, we can't go far with this.

yes, the irony is quite perverse... apparently the sharkman is quite content to stick to his drive-by approach that relies upon distraction and assigning religious/dogma labeling to those that might presume to challenge his false skeptic, speaking-in-tongues, anti-science bravado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a general comment, you can only respond to your assertion by saying these theories are based on science. If you don't have anything more to add than to repeat your assertion, we can't go far with this.

Theories based on science are still theories. It is quite reasonable to expect those theories to be modified or even changed as more science is done. To accept the present theories as the last word is an act of faith, not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theories based on science are still theories. It is quite reasonable to expect those theories to be modified or even changed as more science is done. To accept the present theories as the last word is an act of faith, not science.

whether your intent, or not... your reply speaks to the oft-mentioned 'science is settled' meme that fake skeptics/deniers repeatedly trot out, presuming to use it in order to denigrate proponents of the AGW theory. In actuality, the overwhelming majority of scientists who accept the theory work with a basic, fundamental and inherent recognition that the foundation of science is rooted in (legitimate) skepticism... science is neither settled or not-settled. The phrase "settled science" reflects more upon a politicization element; one that doesn't, typically, associate with expressed scientific views. Certainly, there are areas of strong wide acceptance within the AGW theory... areas that are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the scientific community; equally, there are areas with recognized and acknowledged degrees of uncertainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you are welcome to move along since my comment wasn't directed at you.

But my comment was directed at you. This is a forum so comments come from all sides, you see.

In addition I find it more pleasant to not get overly passionate or dogmatic about a subject that has so much conflicting science from both sides.

There isn't much conflicting science. Only the dogmatists and passionate ones seem to think that there's significant opposition to the main ideas put forward by scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theories based on science are still theories.

Yes. Elementary, and I agree.

It is quite reasonable to expect those theories to be modified or even changed as more science is done.

Also completely correct.

To accept the present theories as the last word is an act of faith, not science.

No one accepts present theories as the 'last word'. But we as humans need to act when there is some level of certainty that is below 100%. The degree of doubt in the theories would be the level of warming expected, with even skeptical scientists concurring that there is warming but putting it at the lower end of the scale.

Will they find one day that warming isn't happening ? Yes, it's possible but at the present levels of understanding we're quite certain that the CO2-warming link will be intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But my comment was directed at you. This is a forum so comments come from all sides, you see.

There isn't much conflicting science. Only the dogmatists and passionate ones seem to think that there's significant opposition to the main ideas put forward by scientists.

Spoken like a truther.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoken like a truther.

I can back up my assertion. There are studies that have highlighted the number of papers that dispute that climate change is happening (basically none) and that say CO2 is not the cause (a few).

So, unlike a truther, I'll just reference one source - a survey from Bray and von Storch, 2008.

A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%

...

Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all.

What do you think ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theories based on science are still theories.

if we're speaking of scientific theories the scientific definition of theory is "accepted to be true"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think ?

Those numbers are skewed. It would be better as a 2 part question.

1 - Do you believe the globe is warming? Y or N

2 - IF you answered Y, do you think it is natural or man-made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your being generous...

I would say it's north of 90% consensus ... but ... others dispute the number, and still others wonder what 'consensus' means. Lindzen seems to acknowledge that CO2 causes *some* warming, so is he part of the consensus ?

In any case, since we are going to experts to determine what their saying about these things, it's hard to compare this to 'truther' belief. After all, truthers deny NIST has done a good assessment, they espouse crackpot blogs, and believe that there's group think at play, as well as complicity to obfuscate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we're speaking of scientific theories the scientific definition of theory is "accepted to be true"

I've learned that there just is no point on discussing these matters with an enviro truther. You can come up with reams of data and facts and they simply will not consider it for a second. Global warming is their gospel and anything that says different is heretical.

The problem is these well meaning people are changing our world for the worse and evangelists like Al Gore have Hitler like sway over them. I'm not sure what the answer to that is, but trying to reason with them doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say it's north of 90% consensus ... but ... others dispute the number, and still others wonder what 'consensus' means. Lindzen seems to acknowledge that CO2 causes *some* warming, so is he part of the consensus ?
This question is purely political. In science there is no single question. There are many questions that have different levels of uncertainty associated with them. The key *scientific* questions in climate could be reduced down to:

1) Is CO2 a GHG? (Yes - No Uncertainty)

2) Are humans causing the CO2 levels in the atomosphere to increase? (Yes - Small Uncertainty)

3) Has the planet warmed over the last 100 years? (Yes - No Uncertainty)

4) Is CO2 the cause of the warming? (In Part - Extremely High Uncertainty)

5) How much warming will occur in the future? (1-4 degC - Extremely High Uncertainty)

6) Will the effects of future warming be good/bad/neutral? (Unknown - Extremely High Uncertainty)

In my opinion anyone who talks about the "consensus" without specifying exactly what scientific question they are talking about is an uninformed or deceptive political propagandist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've learned that there just is no point on discussing these matters with an enviro truther. You can come up with reams of data and facts and they simply will not consider it for a second. Global warming is their gospel and anything that says different is heretical.

The problem is these well meaning people are changing our world for the worse and evangelists like Al Gore have Hitler like sway over them. I'm not sure what the answer to that is, but trying to reason with them doesn't work.

Yes, they have reams of data and facts - with that I agree.

Al Gore's influence is likely far less than Rush Limbaugh's so take some sugar with that bitter pill !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question is purely political. In science there is no single question. There are many questions that have different levels of uncertainty associated with them. The key *scientific* questions in climate could be reduced down to:

1) Is CO2 a GHG? (Yes - No Uncertainty)

2) Are humans causing the CO2 levels in the atomosphere to increase? (Yes - Small Uncertainty)

3) Has the planet warmed over the last 100 years? (Yes - No Uncertainty)

4) Is CO2 the cause of the warming? (In Part - Extremely High Uncertainty)

5) How much warming will occur in the future? (1-4 degC - Extremely High Uncertainty)

6) Will the effects of future warming be good/bad/neutral? (Unknown - Extremely High Uncertainty)

In my opinion anyone who talks about the "consensus" without specifying exactly what scientific question they are talking about is an uninformed or deceptive political propagandist.

That's a good point. But is the answer to 4 from the study I quoted ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a good point. But is the answer to 4 from the study I quoted ?
Are you are talking about this question:

"How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?"

It does not address my 4) because in my question I talked about CO2 specifically. The question on whether any type of climate change is occurring is completely irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you are talking about this question:

"How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?"

It does not address my 4) because in my question I talked about CO2 specifically. The question on whether any type of climate change is occurring is completely irrelevant.

Ok - this then.

Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok - this then.
Another deceptive question. "anthropogenic causes" includes anything from black carbon to land use changes. People who agree with that question do not necessarily believe that CO2 is an important factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...