Like in politics, it is clearly a chicken vs. egg scenario. There is a LOT of bashing and insulting going on from both sides of the issue and neither side is more responsible than the other for starting or perpetuating it.
It is also obvious that the regulars here are frustrated with one another and a lot of continuing sniping, name calling and accusations about conspiratorial efforts to silence one side or the other are going on. On the skeptical side, there is a lot of stuff continually being presented that has been disproven or is inaccurate, and repeated instances of it along with multiple errors in elementary science, logic and statistical analysis. The proponents of AGW are understandably frustrated with this and often react to it both negatively and vocally. On the proponent side, there is a tendency to dismiss innocent requests for information as denial and permanently label people whose questions or beliefs contradict their understanding of climate science as deniers.
None of these tactics are helping to promote a dialogue that seeks common ground, and rarely if ever will either side will yield any point to the other. In addition, the conspiracy theories so often presented here are very poorly received and the obvious partisan agendas held by so many and are so often intermixed with any commentary, question or answer that the individuals who do so tend to undermine both their objectivity and credibility on the scientific points and issues, especially when they quote partisan sources, such as Lord Monckton, etc.
OK Jeffy. You want data? You want information? HeyDook, Peg, Bach, Big G, Jeff M, Gary F, Antart - The “Chronic 7” of Yahoo Global Warming have a total answer count of 37,106. Yes folks, 37 THOUSAND. An average 5,300 for each contestant. If estimating that each answer takes 10 minutes (that’s fair right for typing, thought – it does appear there is some thought), then you find that each of these folks has spent the equivalent of a full 8 hour work day for about 6 months doing this. Assuming you are not doing one of these after the other, then safe to say this is a full time gig for you all. Holysh/t Batman! You people are obviously not employed, no families, and are obviously spending no time reading and assessing new thought or data. So why are you here so often?….hhhmmmm.
So defend this statement “Keep in mind that there are a number of Warming Activists on this board who depend on Taxpayer-provided grant/welfare money to maintain their employment”
Get a life.
The word denier is not name calling and neither is the word ignorant.
Denier: One who denies. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
Ignorant: Destitute of knowledge or education. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar... (As is the case with regards to environmental sciences.)
Why are people like you so thin skinned? You seemingly find anything and everything to argue about. I have not seen one 'denier' yet supply information. all they do is spout nonsense about conspiracy theories and how areas in the Northern Hemisphere are so cold this winter. People who I would label closer to skepticism post links to sites but they are usually to sites like blogs or wikipedia. I have seen very few post links to peer reviewed articles that state what they are saying or to actual data from the source. and most of them have already made up their mind about the answer before they even asked the 'question'.
Deniers do not question truth. They come up with their own truths concerning conspiracies and how all scientists who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming is the major cause of the current warming are in it for the money and are working towards a one world socialist government and make you their slaves.
And before you start posting links to how Nunavut polar bear numbers have increases perhaps you should look at the reason why? Polar bears do not follow borders. They can roam where they want. And with the decline in sea ice more polar bears are searching for food inland.
Keef rules: By your 'insulting' and reactionary reply I would count you as one of those who are 'thin skinned'. Man up.
Many of the richest people of trillions of dollars at stake in the business-as-usual production of fossil fuels. If governments do the right thing and limit production of fossil fuels, the vast wealth of these people will be destroyed. Mankind must actually NOT produce and burn a large portion of known fossil fuel reserves to prevent catastrophic global warming. So accordingly, these people are fighting with every trick they can think of to preserve their right to produce every last bit of fossil fuel so they can stay rich. Their primary strategy is to use front organizations to promote junk science that claims that man is not responsible for climate change, or, if there is climate change it is small and can be adapted to, or, the earth is cooling, etc.... the list is long and doesn't really matter. The only purpose is to present politicians with the illusion that climate science is not settled so no firm action can be taken to address the problem. And so the people invested in fossil fuel production and use can continue to rake in their billions of dollars.
Deniers do not present useful information or empirical data. They present either bogus data, irrelevant data, or data that does not show what they think it shows. The reason is that 99% of Deniers are so scientifically and mathematically illiterate that they cannot define science, evaluate data, or understand analytical procedures.
On top of that, they are intellectually lazy and shameless liars. They have spent their entire lives avoiding science, but think they know more than people who have dedicated their lives to scientific inquiry - and, further, they constantly insult and defame scientists, as well as everyone else who do not buy into their paranoid, conspiratorial, political belief system..
In short: They are deniers - so calling them Deniers is accurate and honest; The fact that almost every Denier is scientifically ignorant is relevant information that needs to be pointed out.
=====
kano --
>>I have always been fascinated by science and always wanted to be a scientist,<<
You are one of a handful. Most are disinterested - at best. Many are overtly anti-science.
They're called deniers because they don't care anything about scientific truth and will glom onto any bogus idea that they think supports their denial. They constantly characterize scientists as corrupt liars, only after money. In a recent question you, Ottawa Mike, Ian, Keef all mischaracterized a cloud as water vapor. When I explained the science behind it, were any of you grateful? No, I don't think any of you were the least bit interested in real science--it was dismissed as "semantics."
Deniers are not interested in real science, they're interested in promoting their political viewpoint.
EDIT for Ian: It's good to see someone dig back through my answers to check the science. It is very correct that to someone sitting in the middle of Greenland we are still in an ice age. In my defense I'll argue that I was answering the question in the framework with which it was asked, but I should be more careful. I always want people to correct any scientific or factual errors they find in my answers--even if they are from 2 years ago.
Keep in mind that there are a number of Warming Activists on this board who depend on Taxpayer-provided grant/welfare money to maintain their employment. When soneone/something threatens their Golden Goose, they are.....understandably.... quite protective. Afterall, without those taxpayer -provided subsidies, they might have to find a job in the private sector....where real results are expected. This explains their ad hominem attacks....resorting even to associating those who disagree, with the Holocaust Deniers. In shrill tones, the Warming Activists 'deny' that the label of AGW "Denier" is associated with the Holocaust, but they are smugly playing games with the English language......it's a Liberal/Activist thing.
Well this is the type of denier post. No science at all. Deniers consistently post blogs and personal website links as scientific proof but have no real climate science to back up anything they believe.
Referring to a person who denies reality as a denier isn't name calling, it is fact
So maybe you can come up with some real climate science to support the denier position. None of the other deniers can.
Who cares? Most alarmists are psychotic anyways.
@ Antarctic... You do know that most those are from simulations though right, not counts?
The Nunavut government did a survey and it showed an increase in the Davis Strait population where PBSG estimated a decrease.
http://env.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files...
@Pegminer..."Ottawa Mike, Ian, Keef all mischaracterized a cloud as water vapor. When I explained the science behind it, were any of you grateful? No"
I apologize. I just thought you were being a pretentious ********. Thank you so much for explaining that water vapour is present in the air and that I could see through it.
Oh, on this question...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
Pegminer: "Pretty much everyone agrees that aerosols CAN cool the planet, that's obvious from volcanic explosions. But we decreased our aerosol emissions, so no one's expecting an ice age."
You're mischaracterizing an ice age for a glacial period. We are currently in the Quaternary ice age. We can't be expecting an ice age if we are already in one can we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of...
Some people might say that's semantics and that I could easily infer your meaning but precision is important when we're talking about science and I have no idea if you actually knew that or not.
Oh, and Pegminer... you're welcome.
so insulting and abusive, why do they have to resort to name calling (denier, ignorant and much worse), every time (deniers) supply information and empirical data, they reply with insults why?
You cannot name one single person or organization that researches or attempts to count polar bears that says they populations are increasing. The only reason you would say something is that because you are ranting ignorantly. You cite a political blog as scientific evidence but your obviously lack the critical thinking skills to even realize that they don't provide the source.
If you choose to say stupid things have have not merit, it is important that others see that you are ranting ignorantly. That is just the truth.
Educate yourself first. Stop trying to spread lies. Read from scientists not political blogs.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-t...
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/a...
A question a female denier here posts regularly and like you she can never provide examples.
I find the term denier apt and accurate and no more insulting than the term alarmist, which I note you neglected to mention. A few insults do fly from time to time but even a shred of honesty would show denier throw as much or more than they receive.
While I know you will ignore it, you ask for evidence (amusing since you never supply any) here's an example of the 'ignorant' (your word), an example from you in fact.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
And in case you try to delete or change your answer
"Polar bears are doing fine, there numbers are growing, climate has little to do with polar bears, hunting quotas have a lot."
Given that the evidence from the real experts on polar bear numbers say no such thing, you demonstrate the very ignorance you claim is an insult, because that evidence shows no overall growth.
They said in fact that:
"Reviewing the latest information available the PBSG concluded that 1 of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are declining. For the remaining 7 subpopulations available data were insufficient to provide an assessment of current trend."
So 1 of 19 is growing 8 are shrinking, 3 are stable and 7 are unknown and from this denier claim their numbers are growing, how is this denier claim anything but a fantasy, like all your other claims.
Claims that like to talk about "empirical data" but can never actually provide it while at the same time making up stories about real science and scientists, which again you can never provide real evidence for, deniers should not be insulted but they should be pitied.
And unlike you I will provide the link to what they said.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-...
Laughable as always
And as if to prove my point a link to a blog that is sourced from the national post.
Gary F, for those of us with good memories the expert mentioned in the story Dr. Susan J. Crockford is in fact a name mentioned before by deniers she cropped up a few years ago as a lead name in one of those many petitions deniers like to send out from time to time, the funny thing is back then she was an expert in wild dogs.
The site it leads back to is "polar bear science" which is yet another thinly disguised denier blog in fact outside denier blogs there is little about Dr. Susan J. Crockford to be found, odd given goggle is quite good at finding published papers, her comment of PB's seems to be no more than comment on the above blog, I could find no papers she has published on the subject, which is frankly pretty standard for denier experts, lots of noise but no real substance.
People who deliberately lie hundreds of times about science are liars. It may sound "insulting" to say that, but it is misleading to pretend otherwise. The name of this website is Answers, not Lies.
The links under sources below explain where the lies about climate science come from.
If you want to understand the science, start reading it and stop wasting time with anti-science denier blogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
Frustration! Emotions rule their day. It's a socialistic issue to them. It's OK to take offense to these people, but patience and understanding with the truth will win the day.
When dictators send their army against rebels, it is to quash any objections to their rule over people.
I would call them "problem seekers" instead of "problem solvers". Their only reasoning is to "Stop Global Warming".
---------------------------------------...
Here's the science Hey Dook and Rolando Prico - http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/201... - Do what you can with the truth on this matter. Mathematics and science will win the day.
---------------------------------------...
Prico - You ramble on about my answer saying nothing as usual. You seem to think my link is a blogger. LOL! It's an actual scientific summary from an actual scientist complete with scientific graphs and scientific information supporting it.
It's not an insult when it's true
