explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
So I may be a denier too Julia. Anyway the following meaning is the one I have meant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deniers
So how dare you, therefore, label anyone who simply acknowledges that indeed we do not know as a 'denier'?
No. The term 'denier' has for now many years been associated with those who deny the holocaust ever occurred. You know this. You have therefore knowingly cast this slur on any of us who decline to accept that 'the science is settled' and who are concerned about the adverse effects on our economy and on individual Australians, via a tax which even your so called experts (e.g. Garnaut and Flannery) have conceded will do nothing to change the climate in the absence of the major emitters doing likewise.
And on this, explod, you earlier said accusingly "so we should do nothing just because no effect will be shown for more than 1000 years", conveniently leaving out the fact that the 'no effect for more than 1000 years" was if the major emitters all fell into line with a similar scheme. They have clearly stated they have no intention of doing this.
Exactly.
You, and Ghoti, further damage your cause by this transparent sophistry.
Almost daily there are reports now around the globe of massive storms, insurance companies are going to the wall because of it, so I think there may be a problem, and that is not in my view being hysterical or mad.
I was not aware that I used the term as you say. I do not mean to hit out at those who do not agree with my line.
I suppose the word denier is for those in my view who are adamant that there are no problems at all. And this thread would suggest that there is a lot of concern each way; so yes the word denier may be wrong.
Almost daily there are reports now around the globe of massive storms, insurance companies are going to the wall because of it, so I think there may be a problem, and that is not in my view being hysterical or mad.
I didn't, and don't, use the term, and I flatly deny the accusation of sophistry. I do not believe that the word "denier" refers exclusively to Holocaust denial, or that its use is so strongly associated with holocaust denial that the implication can be assumed. If anyone thinks I've been insulting them by implication I apologise; it was not my intention.So how dare you, therefore, label anyone who simply acknowledges that indeed we do not know as a 'denier'?
No. The term 'denier' has for now many years been associated with those who deny the holocaust ever occurred. You know this. You have therefore knowingly cast this slur on any of us who decline to accept that 'the science is settled'
You, and Ghoti, further damage your cause by this transparent sophistry.
But I do not know, however anectotally from my own experience and with my own eyes I note changes in seasons that are causing some plants and crops to behave as they have not before. And on talking to other older codgers on these direct experiences they are saying the same things.
I suppose the word denier is for those in my view who are adamant that there are no problems at all.
First we need to listen............
Almost daily there are reports now around the globe of massive storms........
I was not aware that I used the term as you say. I do not mean to hit out at those who do not agree with my line.
I repeat, on climate as laypeople we do not know the finite answers or facts. In regards to science there are scientists also I am told who's specific task it is to confuse the issues and to discredit those who do come up with the real facts.
But I do not know, however anectotally from my own experience and with my own eyes I note changes in seasons that are causing some plants and crops to behave as they have not before. And on talking to other older codgers on these direct experiences they are saying the same things.
I suppose the word denier is for those in my view who are adamant that there are no problems at all. And this thread would suggest that there is a lot of concern each way; so yes the word denier may be wrong.
I believe that there may be problems and rather than turn the other cheek we ought in my view try and clarify what they are and what we can do about them. And of course I do not know what more we can do, that is for the experts in these fields. First we need to listen, if needed accept and then to do what we can. We now minimise and sort rubbish, we have water tanks and try to save on power use. I grow vegitables, barter for eggs and check the recycle station for odds and ends before buying conventionally.
Almost daily there are reports now around the globe of massive storms, insurance companies are going to the wall because of it, so I think there may be a problem, and that is not in my view being hysterical or mad.
In the history of the world there have always been floods, bushfires, storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc, often many times more violent than those we are witnessing today. This is normal.
Yeppers ..... All we need is another Krakatoa and the alarmists will claim it is the CO2 causing volcanic eruptions rather than tectonic plates shifting.
Dr. Dave says:
June 21, 2011 at 2:51 pm
The best way to control population is to decrease poverty, provide abundant, affordable electricity and enhance education. It works like a charm everywhere it has been tried…perhaps too well. Developed countries have had to import the poor from third world countries for labor because their own fecundity has been reduced.
JP says:
June 22, 2011
..if you look at either stats from the CIA Factbook or the UN population studies, you will find that since 1970 global birh rates have dropped. Currently, birthrates are in free-fall. The world population is growing, but it is also getting older..
If trends continue, the global population will peak out somewhere around 2040. It will begin to fall after 2050. And the fall will be swift. Many nations are set to see thier populations halved every generation (Japan, Russia, China, Italy, and Spain).
I didn't, and don't, use the term, and I flatly deny the accusation of sophistry. I do not believe that the word "denier" refers exclusively to Holocaust denial, or that its use is so strongly associated with holocaust denial that the implication can be assumed. If anyone thinks I've been insulting them by implication I apologise; it was not my intention.
Yep back to Far Far Away Land could be a good option Calliope. But then who would you argue with to give yourself a little boost now and again ole pal.
Could peace talks ever end the 'climate war'?
The climate debate rages on without progress, but a 'meeting of moderate minds' might be the answer
......When I heard the news about the possibility of olive branches being gestured in Afghanistan, I couldn't help but think of the ongoing "climate war". Here we have a seemingly intractable, bitter, hostile conflict between two firmly entrenched foes with no obvious sign of resolution ahead. (And I won't dare for a second suggest who might be analogous to the Taliban!) Day after day, week after week, the battle rages on. And, in Australia, where the conflict is arguably at its most intense at present, we now have reports of climate scientists receiving death threats. But, as with the killing fields of France during the first world war, "progress" can only ever be measured in a matter of inches.
Are those of us engaged in this dispute destined to remain in this state of stasis for years ahead? If so, it's a thoroughly depressing thought.
But there have been two flickers of hope to report over the past week that hint at the possibility of a positive, constructive alternative. First, we had a blog post by a US blogger called Skeptoid who, as a self-proclaimed "libertarian/conservative" climate sceptic, announced that he had "converted" and was now "persuaded that anthropogenic global warming is real". For me, though, the far more compelling component of his post was not the revelation of his conversion per se, but his thoughtful advice to his "friends on the left and right" for how to reach some shared middle ground.
It's well worth a read, but, in summary, what he seems to be saying is, first, erase any political allegiances from your mind and concentrate on getting to grips with what the best available science is telling us. Only then can you introduce your politics when talking about how to move forward. I couldn't agree with him more and have been trying to make this same point for years by exposing what I see as naked ideology or vested interest rather than genuine scientific enquiry."
I, Global Warming Skeptic
Posted on June 15, 2011 by Craig Good
I am a global warming skeptic. Politically, I land somewhere in the libertarian/conservative camp. If liberal still meant what it did sixty years ago I’d probably be one of those. Whatever my label, I am not a progressive/socialist kind of guy. I wrote on my own blog a long time ago that I needed to be convinced that warming was happening at all, then that people were causing it, and then that it was actually a bad thing.
I have many good reasons to be skeptical about AGW (anthropogenic global warming).
I’m old enough to remember “Global Cooling”, the population bomb, the hole in the ozone, and any number of other tidings of doom. The Chicken Littles have a track record indistinguishable from that of Harold Camping.
The issue is massively politicized. The Left has seized on it as an opportunity to dismantle free markets and grow government. They have entangled it with their beliefs the way creationists entangle evolution with religion.
That amount of politicization brings corrupting quantities of money.
The IPCC was formed by the United Nations. The UN is a systemically-corrupt, left-wing political organization. Any organization that coddles dictators and thugs should not be trusted even if it claims the sky is blue.
Anybody who didn’t just fall off the turnip truck can see “cap and trade” and carbon credit markets for the bald-faced scams they are.
Climate science is very complicated, and there are any number of legitimate questions having to do with the accuracy of our models, the true effect of CO2 as a forcing agent, the reliability of temperature data, the effect of solar cycles, etc.
There is, in short, more heat than light in the AGW debate, and plenty of reason to be skeptical. It’s pointless to even begin to talk about policy until the science is solid and well-understood. Which is why I’m so grateful to a particular scientist by the name of Dr. Peter Gleick.
A skeptic isn’t someone who merely holds doubts. A skeptic, as my daughter points out, is the one with the truly open mind. A skeptic will believe anything as long as it is supported by data, sound science and a logically consistent argument.
When I heard Dr. Gleick speak at the recent SkeptiCal, I was all braced for the typical alarmist assault. I was about to be called a “denier”, and told why Kyoto must be signed.
Except that’s not what happened.
Dr. Gleick started by pointing out that good policy without good science is unlikely. I had to agree. He then carefully teased out the science from the politics and talked about the fallacies that commonly appear around the science of global warming. Especially illuminating was the part about cherry-picking data. It was refreshing.
Since his talk I have spent a lot of time on a site he recommended, skepticalscience.com. There they have taken each of the most common science questions, numbered them, and carefully addressed them with the current science. The answers are even presented in basic, intermediate, and advanced formats so that there’s likely to be one matching the reader’s level of scientific knowledge.
With the caveat that a few of the questions don’t belong on their list (42, 63, 105 and 165, at least) because they are economic and/or political rather than scientific, I highly recommend the site.
So, yes, I am now persuaded that anthropogenic global warming is real. That’s because I’m a skeptic.
I also took the opportunity of following up the Skeptoid blogger article that was referred to in the previous post.
Again worth a close read.
The rest of his article is the money shot. Check it out.
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/i-global-warming-skeptic/
I also took the opportunity of following up the Skeptoid blogger article that was referred to in the previous post.
Again worth a close read.
The rest of his article is the money shot. Check it out.
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/i-global-warming-skeptic/
SkepticalScience appears to me to present the science accurately. They also present, as I mentioned, some non-scientific views. I wish they didn’t, as it does weaken their position. They may be wrong. I may be wrong. But rather than a road to Damascus moment, it was closer to a tipping point. It’s getting harder to find experts who disagree with the basic idea of CO2 contributing to global warming.
SkepticalScience.com is a tour de force of pro-AGW argument. They present over 100 important skeptical arguments in such a way as to make skeptics look ignorant. The formula is simple. Present the skeptical argument in naive terms then answer it with a relatively sophisticated pro-AGW response, preferably citing a paper or two. They now even have three levels of response sophistication in some cases. As propaganda goes it is an impressive achievement.
The glaring fallacy is that there are skeptical counter arguments of equal, or even superior, scientific merit, for every argument listed. There is no hint on SS.com that these even exist. But the denizens here know these counter arguments well so your 99% claim is not merely false, it is silly. There is a wealth of skeptical scientific knowledge on this blog, none of which is found on SS.com. [...]
One problem with skepticalscience is the use of circular reasoning. A top of my head example is the assertion that temps have been stable for 2000 years until man started with fossil fuel and then straight up with added CO2. Mann’s famous false hockey stick graph is the IPCC basis for their AGW claim and the number one hat hanger for intervention via cap and trade. If this point is false then the rest does not make sense Cook tries to argue temp stability with the settled science argument and studies have shown method, his reference, Mann’s hockey stick graph and paper. Cook proves a false premise by reference to the false premise.
Here's an experiment you can do at home
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
Here's an experiment you can do at home
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
Just experiment no. 1.
Ok, we all agree its a greenhouse gas which means it causes warming. So if the amount of CO2 rises then you would expect some warming to occur.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?