But that's exactly the point--you're a denier because you refuse to listen to sound, scientific evidence. You've shown your true colors numerous times in the past, asking the same question again and again and ignoring the scientific answers.
1 i do beleive in climate change, there is overwhelming climate modelling that suggests it must be. Yes there has been these temperature changes in the past, but they have never been so rapid in the change. For this a couple of the other answers show you the evidence
2) does it matter, we need to cut down on our use of fossil fuels, because they are a non-renewable resource, if you look at the earth, it has to come from somewhere, and that place is wells and oil fields, but they are limited and at current usages expected to run out in 40 years, then we will be stuck.
No other energy source causes as much greenhouse gases to be released, biofuels release it, but because they are recently, burning them only puts the CO2 back in the air, and then it is retaken when we replace what we have taken, to keep our supplies high, not taking it out of storage, where it has been for millions of years, and we cannot put it back.
In addition, making everything more efficient makes air pollution lower, which is proven by taking air samples, and is known to cause some diseases, and just generally make everything more unpleasant, and cheaper to run (less energy needed, and energy costs money)
3) dangerous and catastrophic are defined, as able or likely to cause harm, climate change will do this if it does what is predicted, more severe flooding, melting of the polar ice caps causing coastal flooding. Just because it is not quantitative, it still is a valid point to say something is dangerous, so anybody saying that as their answer is chatting rubbish
4) the international committee on climate change recently concluded they are 95% certain that humans are the major cause of climate change, they have all the relavent evidence and have put it in their report. I have put this in the references, it is probably very long, but it would convince you. They also held a conference to announce it, I didn't see all of it, but you can probably find this as well
What would you consider dangerous or catastrophic? Perhaps you should define those terms first with specific instances.
Edit: In order to convince we first need to know what you are asking. Your question regarding the words I posted above can mean pretty much anything. This is a technique used by those that do not want to accept answers. Instead of changing the goalposts they do not set goal posts and expect others to then they can claim that that is not where the goal posts were set. again, I ask, what do those words mean exactly?
If you want to ask specifically, "Will Hurricane frequency increase in a warmer atmosphere?" my answer would be "It does not seem likely. Actually, according to current scientific knowledge, they will either decrease or stay the same." If, on the other hand, you asked, "Will hurricane power increase in a warming atmosphere?" My answer would be "Current scientific evidence indicates they will and have." Then I would provide links to peer reviewed articles or reputable educational sites. The use of the word catastrophic in your question, then asking me to explain it, is silly.
Sagebrush: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/c... keep up the good work Sagebrush. You are making your side look more foolish by the day.
RaisinCane: I have never used the words catastrophic or dangerous to explain the changing climate. It is not my stance as I prefer to work with more exact explanations rather than words that could literally mean anything.
RaisinCane: Many in here, including me, have stated that humans will not face the hardships other species will face. At least in the short term. I pay carbon taxes. Can you tell me how many people the carbon taxes I pay have killed? Your belief is that the entire world will pay. This is ludicrous. Regions of the world will pay based on their economic output.
Sagebrush: sorry for being a simpleton. Oh, could you remind me why you don;t believe in evolution again. Something to do with the bible wasn't it? Haven't you also said before that there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change because God has his hand on the thermostat as well? Sorry my mind is a bit foggy. I also recall you stating the seasons occurred because of the Earth's distance from the Sun. But then again, I'm sorry for being a simpleton.
"I deny that there is sufficient evidence that man's activities are likely to cause dangerous or catastrophic climate change."
What would you call sufficient evidence? Do we really have to be certain that it would be dangerous or catastrophic or do we just need the possibility?
Look, there is an electrical cable. It would be a shame not to touch it just because it might be live.
Look, there is a jar containing some funky looking liquid that I found in a warehouse. It would be a shame not to drink it just because it might be poison.
Well that doesn't indicate you deny AGW, exactly. It could be many years before we see anything catastrophic impact, but scientists are compelled to mention this so they don't get accused of leaving the info out.
The poles and Greenland are melting at 5 times what they were not too many years ago, and even the stupidest denier scientist can see the observable evidence.
We just had the warmest decade on record, even though the professional deniers keep telling it's flock that warming stopped in 1998
We have seen a heightening strength in hurricanes and other storms, which is a prediction of GW/climate change
This year there has been intense heat with places with normally hot temps receiving record hot temperatures. Places like California and Australia are facing more and more bush and wildfires
Just these are all observable or verified by real time records without the aid of models, but even the models predicted some of this accurately. These have been verified by video, covered in local television news, recorded in local newspapers (not denier blogs or tabloids like DailyMail, some including the aforenamed deliberately printing lies with no retraction)
I suggest you watch these videos explaining aspects of climate change and denier myth debunking
Many are very thorough
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_qu...
Sage, yes skepticisn is a healthy part of the scientific process, BUT this has nothing to do with the denial form of skepticism 180 degree difference
I agree. If this makes me a "denier", than I am a denier. But nothing you said disagrees with the "consensus". So they are no longer calling a denier, someone who disgrees with their consensus, but someone who disagree with them.
I would define dangerous or catastrophic in a relative manner. First, one must consider that some of the "changes", if I accept everything the warmers are saying, are actually positive changes. We already are aware of the possible problem of overpopulation. In the case of over-population, the increase in farmland that a warmer environment would give, is a good thing.
So my relative version of "catastrophic" is that the changes causes more deaths than are saved by the changes. BUT in addition the measure of what we should do is also based upon lives saved. If a global taxation scheme has the effect of killing more people via starvation, then would be killed by climate change, then clearly the "cure" is more catastrophic than the "problem".
Some may say, a centralized world authority is necessary to truly address the problem, but the wars and problems such a centralization would cause would likely be more catastrophic.
Elizabeth,
Says the person that talks of the dangers of climate change as if that is well defined???
******,
So what you are saying is that your side is too stupid to adequately define what you mean??? That you are SOOOOO stupid that you must rely upon the opposing side to actually defien your own stance???
OR are you suggesting that we are simply engaging in a strawman argument and being unfair in our assessment of your stance??? Are you saying the you do not believe the climate change will be catastrophic???
Edit:
I can't say I agree with Billy on much, but there is one point that he got dead on. The people claiming that cliamte change is a threat are the very same people who created this "threat" and wish us to sacrifice to fix the "problem" they created.
Warmers wonder why we bring up Al Gore so often. It is because the politician and Fat cats like the Goracle, are claim that I need to give him money, even though his "carbon footprint" is FARRR higher than mine. The rich ar ethe ones using far more than they need and stepping on our backs to get their plush lifestyle, but they want a regressive tax. Not even a regressive tax. A tax designed to hit SOLELY the middle class working person, upon whose backs, these rich pukes have been standing.
The middle class has been holding up the poor while the rich stand on our backs. We are getting tired.
Jeff M,
I never said you did. BUT you did ask for a definition of catastrophic and the questor asked us for a definition. This is my definition.
The funny thing is that you are denying something which your denying side has coined themselves: the CAGW term was invented and is almost exclusively used by those who are on your side of this argument.
The use of the CAGW term is just another try to move the goalposts after having lost previous arguments about whether it was warming at all and whether humans were to blame.
Edit @ Ottawatts Mike:
<
I never stated anything like that. Please don't pretend I did.
As far as I can ascertain, it was Arthur B Robinson and his son Zachery Robinson who first introduced the term in a 1997 Wall Street Journal op-ed (where else!) and subsequently it was used in the infamous Oregon Petition run by the "Oregon Institute of Science and Health" which Robinson Sr presided.
And since then all the deniers have adopted the term, utterly unaware that they are denying other deniers' nonsense.
>>"I deny that there is sufficient evidence that man's activities are likely to cause dangerous or catastrophic climate change." <<
Yep, that makes you a Denier.
And, that is not a definition of anything since its main concepts "sufficient evidence," "dangerous.", and "catastrophic" have no defined meanings.
==-===
edit --
>>@Gary F: If you don't attach any meaning to those terms, then calling somebody a "denier" is purely for insult purposes. That's exactly what I figured.<<
People (Deniers) who do not define those terms - or define them so as to be intentionally misleading - are Deniers. They may be ignorant Deniers too stupid to know what anything means and too lazy to care or they may be lying Deniers - or maybe they are mindless Zombie pawns of the Illuminati or alien reptiles - but they are Deniers of science, of reality, and of the truth..
'dangerous or catastrophic' are words definable in our common dictionary. Climate Change is not. Even the IPCC hasn't bothered to define it, much to their advantage. They reap billions on this ambiguity and paralyze simple people like Jeff M into submission.
OM: You are in good company.
Quote by John Dewey: “Scepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind.”
Quote by Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: “Being a scientist means being a skeptic.”
Skepticism is not a threat to science but it is a threat to a political agenda. That is why alarmists spew such venom at skeptics but they deny they are motivated by politics. Some really don't know it and simply believe. Science is never advanced by those who are happy to simply believe everything they are told.
Science if furthered by skeptics such as Einstein that dared to question the scientific orthodoxy of the day. That isn't an admission by me that there really is a scientific consensus about significant or harmful warming but it is a declaration that such a consensus would be meaningless anyway.
I too believe there isn't sufficient evidence that our CO2 emissions are a significant threat. They certainly aren't enough of a threat to drop all common sense and throw away our way of life, push unproved energy technology, and give our freedoms to an every encroaching central authority.
However, since I've admitted it, I now get to define what I am denying:
"I deny that there is sufficient evidence that man's activities are likely to cause dangerous or catastrophic climate change."
Please feel free to convince me otherwise using sound, scientific evidence.
the 'denier' epithet is both a petitio principii and an ad hominem. Neither one is scientific. It assumes that there is an established 'fact' to deny. It likens the skeptic to the holocaust denier.
It's use is evidence that the speaker is not promoting science, but a political agenda. The assertion of the degree of certitude necessary to make such a judgment is an anti-scientific position. It presumes a level of certainty that science cannot provide. It is a propaganda technique.
In the words of Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, "A scientist is never certain."
No, I'm not going to convince you. The reason is that terms like 'dangerous' and 'catastrophic' are not scientific. They're not defined. So how can any 'evidence' be 'scientific' if you don't define the terms?
To a point I agree with you.
Yopu deny facts don't try to squirm out of it
