Most skeptics consistently fail to disprove anything, their idea of proof often relies on what a politician, journalist or blogger has said and bears no resemblance to science or the real world.
According to the skeptics the world is cooling, or is it that temps are steady, or is it that we’re hading into an ice age, or is it that the Sun has become more active, or is it cosmic rays, or is it that we’re recovering from the Little Ice Age, or is it that the temperature data are manipulated, or is it that we’re warming but it’s entirely natural, or is it that manmade warming is beneficial etc etc etc.
The skeptics can’t even work out if the world is warming or cooling. They can’t agree with each other and just spew out an endless stream of contradictory excuses.
The overwhelming majority of skeptics just don’t have the first clue about climate science (or science in general) and are incapable of formulating any kind of rational argument. What they do come up with are an assorted collection of bizarre and irrational claims that are totally without merit and that have been conclusively debunked over and over again.
Do you know what’s really telling? There are many uncertainties in climate science, many unknown factors and several unanswered pertinent questions. It’s these things the skeptics should be using but they just don’t know enough to even be aware of them, let alone offer them up as counter arguments.
If you have ANY credible evidence that questions our current understanding of global warming and climate change then please present it.
I'd love to see discussions where people are civil and at least understand enough of the basic science to agree on the fundamentals but AGW rejectors never accept or seem to understand the basic facts. They're too focussed on their ideology and reject anything which challenges the least part of it.
Kano: "Because to them it is a matter of faith not science, if they hear anything they dont like or cannot prove wrong, they resort to abuse and accusations"
Wrong way round Kano: for deniers, it's about faith (in opinions they've read or heard, not religious faith) while for me and others the science provides the basis from which we can move on to discuss policy, mitigation etc.
I show warmers are wrong all of the time. They make stupid claims like AGW is causing the food prices to go up. They use the logic that California is in drought caused by AGW and thus the increase to food prices.
I show WITH REPUTABLE SITES, that the amount of crops produced per person has been increasing. That there has been no increase in droughts across the world for the past 60 years, so there could not possibly be a causal link of the Cali drought to AGW. I show that 26.3% of our corn crop is being used to make ethanol for fuel and that it is actually this warmer "solution" that is causing the increase in prices. The amount of crop by value lost to ethanol fuel is 4 times as much as lost to the cali drought.
Concede the point??? I would just be happy if they would stop calling me an idiot and insulting me, when I show their claims are in error.
But alas, I expect too much.
Pegminer,
I am glad you find this entertaining. Lets all have a big laugh that the warmers are making the food prices increase with stupid things like the ethanol regulations, whilst they falsely blame AGW for the increase in costs. I always get a good chuckle when the poor and middle class struggle. Its a real knee-slapper.
What the hell would they concede? They are never wrong, if it's not something they predicted natural variation is interfering but their claims may still come to pass, you'll just have to wait x number of years before you can question the validity of their claims. But my favorites are those rebuttals that start with "it only sounds ridiculous, err I mean contradictory". Another good one is pointing to normally occuring weather and claiming that it's not normal because property damage occurred or people were killed or harmed.. for example floods in areas that normally flood or droughts in deserts.
>Because you do not concede things to idiots and liars
GaryF has revealed the thinking that animates do many. No surrender, no retreat. This is why things like upside-down graphs get put into the latest IPCC report. Because the so-called scientists do not wish to concede that a blogger caught them making an embarrassing error.
"Because you do not concede things to idiots and liars"
Most climate questions here are not really questions. They are just political rants.
Simple, the warmists only only care about the crisis du jour. Or to put it another way, liberals have short memories. They have forgotten that the turning point was supposed to be 1999, or according to James Hansen, we were supposed to have at least 0.5 degrees of warming since 2000. They have forgotten about the dire predictions of increased hurricanes and the Arctic being ice free. It took ten years of stable temperatures before they would admit warming had at least temporarily halted. They don't care that all their models grossly overestimated observed warming. Any model that does track with observed climate shows we have nothing to worry about.
Now tell me Wifflebop, which basic facts don't I accept?
Concede what?
- It's cooling? It's not warming? Cooling is going to start next year? Get over it, it's warming. Not in a straight line, but it's continuing to warm.
- CO2 isn't the cause? The sun is warming? Mars is warming? None of those is true. CO2 is the cause. The solar output hasn't changed significantly. CO2 is the problem.
- The oceans aren't rising? They are. That's been measured. Not the same amount everywhere, but the average, around the world, is rising.
- The arctic and antarctic ice is increasing? There is a large area of new ice. But that's all fresh ice this year. The area of thick permanent sea ice is decreasing. The antarctic ice shelves are breaking off. That allows the glaciers behind them to slide into the ocean faster. The oil companies are looking to drill in the arctic because the reduction in sea ice has made that possible.
- Warmer is better? No, it's not. A rise in sea level will cause considerable population dislocation. That kind of thing leads to wars. Really not good. Also, warmer generally does not make food grow better. That's just not true.
- If it's warmer, there will be more rain. Surely not in Calif this year. And the flooding we see along the east coast does not help farmers. It drowns crops. Warmer will change where it rains. It will change wind patterns. Some places will be okay, but others will not.
I really don't understand what you'd like agreement on. It would be really nice if we did agree. I just haven't seen much of what AGW 'skeptics' post that I find that I agree with.
Climate Changers? You mean those who are changing the climate?
i wonder the same thing
Personally, i just try to explain the science. If deniers were paying attention, they would know that I tell the "skeptics" what points would be valid to bring up in the discussion, but most of them insist on repeating the same stuff that has been debunked a million times.
EDIT: I got a good chuckle out of Raisin Caine's answer.
Because to them it is a matter of faith not science, if they hear anything they dont like or cannot prove wrong, they resort to abuse and accusations just like Gary F.
Because they're brainwashed, and addicted to the lies of that liberal lunatic and fat pig, Al Gore. Because they are Deniers of Reality.
Stoop lying and we can finally have a "discussion"
Because you do not concede things to idiots and liars.
=====
kano –
What is the cross-spectral coherence of PDO and global temperature? Can you define the PDO or are you just accepting its existence on faith (if you do not understand the mathematical definition, the answer is ‘faith’)?
Pretend that there is a mathematical test that could show there has been a ‘pause’ in global warming – What is the null hypothesis?
What are some scientific assumptions about the nature of knowledge?
Prove that you are not a scientifically illiterate liar,
Can you be more specific?
