Simpler Question About AGW

[Tokenconservative]

I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

Please explain.

Tokie

[Gravy]

The climate is, and has always been, constantly changing. Has anyone said different?

[jimtron]

Ditto what Gravy said. Please cite "AGWists" claims that climate doesn't change on its own.

[zeusbheld]

I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

Please explain.

Tokie

i've not seen *anywhere* that a climatologist standing in "the AGW Stance" (trademark that, it's impressive) has claimed that ONLY human activity can cause climate change. EVER. so perhaps you can provide a link to all these claims you're seeing? or do they even exist?

[Mobyseven]

Someday, when I'm writing a textbook of logical fallacies, this will be used as an example of a strawman fallacy.

[Dr Adequate]

I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance) ... You lied, you lose.

---

There are two meanings of the word "simple". Only one of them is a good thing.

[David Rodale]

Tokie,
It's much simpler than you think. When it's warming it's AGW. When it's cooling, it's natural variation. Got it? ;)

[mhaze]

i've not seen *anywhere* that a climatologist standing in "the AGW Stance" (trademark that, it's impressive) has claimed that ONLY human activity can cause climate change. EVER. so perhaps you can provide a link to all these claims you're seeing? or do they even exist?

Well, the basic concept of the Mann Hockey Stick was that natural variation was low level noise (shaft of the stick) with no statistically significant rise or fall, then only man's actions in the last century or so caused the statistically significant rise (the puck of the stick). This concept was applied to roughly the last 1000 years in one case, later supposedly to 2000 years.

[zeusbheld]

Well, the basic concept of the Mann Hockey Stick was that natural variation was low level noise (shaft of the stick) with no statistically significant rise or fall, then only man's actions in the last century or so caused the statistically significant rise (the puck of the stick). This concept was applied to roughly the last 1000 years in one case, later supposedly to 2000 years.

thanks for the answer, but it would be far more persuasive if you actually answered my question. "tokie" said this:

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

what you're describing is a special case that in no way implies that the climate, in general, is otherwise static.

incidentally i'm on the fence on the climate change thing, so you can blow all your "religion of AGW" stuff out of your posterior. i'm not saying that AGW is happening, not saying it isn't. i AM saying that what i've seen of you so far, is a smoke-and-mirrors show. i'm not impressed and more than a little annoyed.

[mhaze]

thanks for the answer, but it would be far more persuasive if you actually answered my question. "tokie" said this:

what you're describing is a special case that in no way implies that the climate, in general, is otherwise static.



Obviously, a statement that climate is static for millions of years until man came along is false.

[DRBUZZ0]

I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

Please explain.

Tokie


It is certainly not static nor is it determined entirely by humans. The climate changes and always has. We have been increasing in temperature since the last ice age and would continue to do so but at a very slow amount.

Human activity is not the only force at work and perhaps not even the most dominant in magnitude but it is one of the most rapid in changing the atmospheric composition. As such it has managed to push things to move faster than a natural system would alone. This is combined with the positive feedback that it can generate.

The actual magnitude is rather unimpressive in numeric terms. But that is overly simplistic and ignores that the change has been more rapid than from natural forces and that if it continues it could be very problematic.

I don't think there are any climatologists who will say that they are 100% certain what all the implications of global warming will be in absolute terms. However the fact that it is accelerating at an alarming level is universally agreed upon. Rising sea levels, climate destabalization and such are going to happen but the absolute results are not certain. We are best off keeping it as low as practically possible.

[bobdroege7]

Well, the basic concept of the Mann Hockey Stick was that natural variation was low level noise (shaft of the stick) with no statistically significant rise or fall, then only man's actions in the last century or so caused the statistically significant rise (the puck of the stick). This concept was applied to roughly the last 1000 years in one case, later supposedly to 2000 years.

Well, we are piling straw on top of straw

Natural variation is between snowball earth and iceless earth, care to provide evidence otherwise?

[zeusbheld]

Obviously, a statement that climate is static for millions of years until man came along is false.

right, but what "tokie" said was that the AGW 'believers' are making that claim. i have not seen ANY scientist claim that.

whereas

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

can any of you find ONE example of a paper claiming IN GENERAL, ONLY human activity can cause climate change?

that's hardly the "AGW stance" from what i've seen. if you sincerely believe it is, please provide specific, unequivocal examples.

how stupid do you think i, the marginally interested, undecided layman, am? wait don't answer that, it's obvious.

luckily for you, i am not basing my opinion on AGW on which side tries more ham-handedly to con me. are you sure you lot are not on the payroll of the pro-AGW crowd? you're doing a great job making "climate skeptics" look like snake oil salesmen (and rather poor ones at that).

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative
If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

what you're describing is a special case that in no way implies that the climate, in general, is otherwise static.



Agreed.

[Tokenconservative]

The climate is, and has always been, constantly changing. Has anyone said different?

Yes.

AGWists say that climate can ONLY change if man is causing it to do so.

Tokie

[Mobyseven]

AGWists say that climate can ONLY change if man is causing it to do so.

Dear Tokie,

No, they don't.

Sincerely yours,

Mobyseven

[Tokenconservative]

i've not seen *anywhere* that a climatologist standing in "the AGW Stance" (trademark that, it's impressive) has claimed that ONLY human activity can cause climate change. EVER. so perhaps you can provide a link to all these claims you're seeing? or do they even exist?

I don't do links--LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!

But here is the AGWist argument in a nutshell:

Climate is currently changing.
Human activity is responsible for that change.


Please help me out: if climate change now can only be because of human activity (if you deny that this is what AGWists are saying, then you are either being dishonest or ignorant), how can climate have changed in the past absent human activity?

Tokie

[TrueSceptic]

I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

And also for people who can spell "tedious"?


If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

That is not the AGW stance. Where did you get that strange idea?


Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

That is false. No "AGWist" that I'm aware of claims that. Where did you get this strange idea?

Why have you started a thread with 2 pieces of obvious nonsense?

Please explain.

[Tokenconservative]

Tokie,
It's much simpler than you think. When it's warming it's AGW. When it's cooling, it's natural variation. Got it? ;)

Simpler!?

We don' need no stinkin' simplers!!!

Now it's all clear to me: when it's "bad" humans caused it, when it's "good" our Mother, the Earth caused it?

Ah.

Wait....I hate the cold. We have been having one of the worst winters here since I was a kid...more snow, sustained cold weather for months on end. So to me, cold is "bad." But to AGWist "hot" is?

I think it's time for a war.

Tokie

[TrueSceptic]

Yes.

AGWists say that climate can ONLY change if man is causing it to do so.

Tokie
Show us a single example of any "AGWist" saying that.

[TrueSceptic]

I don't do links--LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!

But here is the AGWist argument in a nutshell:

Climate is currently changing.
Human activity is responsible for that change.


Please help me out: if climate change now can only be because of human activity (if you deny that this is what AGWists are saying, then you are either being dishonest or ignorant), how can climate have changed in the past absent human activity?

Tokie
Do you really believe what you are saying?

[Tokenconservative]

It is certainly not static nor is it determined entirely by humans. The climate changes and always has. We have been increasing in temperature since the last ice age and would continue to do so but at a very slow amount.

Human activity is not the only force at work and perhaps not even the most dominant in magnitude but it is one of the most rapid in changing the atmospheric composition. As such it has managed to push things to move faster than a natural system would alone. This is combined with the positive feedback that it can generate.

The actual magnitude is rather unimpressive in numeric terms. But that is overly simplistic and ignores that the change has been more rapid than from natural forces and that if it continues it could be very problematic.

I don't think there are any climatologists who will say that they are 100% certain what all the implications of global warming will be in absolute terms. However the fact that it is accelerating at an alarming level is universally agreed upon. Rising sea levels, climate destabalization and such are going to happen but the absolute results are not certain. We are best off keeping it as low as practically possible.

Increasing temps since the last ice age...hmmm...does Algore know about this!??

Forces at work: that' s not the AGWist stance. They say that the DOMINANT factor is human activity. YOU may disagree with that (and good for you if you do) but that's their stance. And no, I don't have a link--LIIINNKKKKKK!!!--for that..nor do I have one that argues the sun rises in the east or that up is up and down is down.

Sorry.

Given that we know next to nothing about climate (as you admit) how do we, outside religious belief, "know" that the current rate of temp increase is "faster" than...anything?

AGWists are not suggesting we "keep looking at it." They are saying we need to ACT NOW!!!!! Mostly, this means crippling or (best hope) destroying the US economy...

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Do you really believe what you are saying?

Yes, but some specifics would help.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

right, but what "tokie" said was that the AGW 'believers' are making that claim. i have not seen ANY scientist claim that.

whereas



can any of you find ONE example of a paper claiming IN GENERAL, ONLY human activity can cause climate change?

that's hardly the "AGW stance" from what i've seen. if you sincerely believe it is, please provide specific, unequivocal examples.

how stupid do you think i, the marginally interested, undecided layman, am? wait don't answer that, it's obvious.

luckily for you, i am not basing my opinion on AGW on which side tries more ham-handedly to con me. are you sure you lot are not on the payroll of the pro-AGW crowd? you're doing a great job making "climate skeptics" look like snake oil salesmen (and rather poor ones at that).

So you are denying that AGWists claim that human activity is responsible for "climate change."

Hmmm...

Will the sun rise in the east or the west this morning?

Tokie

[volatile]

Yes.

AGWists say that climate can ONLY change if man is causing it to do so.

Tokie

You're mighty bad at reading for someone who used to be an English teacher.

Where do you get this nonsense from?

[TrueSceptic]

So you are denying that AGWists claim that human activity is responsible for "climate change."

Hmmm...

Will the sun rise in the east or the west this morning?

Tokie
Would you be at all interested in what "AGWists" actually think (or claim), or would you carry on believing the obvious falsehoods you started with?

[TrueSceptic]

incidentally i'm on the fence on the climate change thing, so you can blow all your "religion of AGW" stuff out of your posterior. i'm not saying that AGW is happening, not saying it isn't. i AM saying that what i've seen of you so far, is a smoke-and-mirrors show. i'm not impressed and more than a little annoyed.
Don't get too annoyed yet. You've only had a taster so far. ;)

[Acleron]

I don't do links--LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!

But here is the AGWist argument in a nutshell:

Climate is currently changing.
Human activity is responsible for that change.


Please help me out: if climate change now can only be because of human activity (if you deny that this is what AGWists are saying, then you are either being dishonest or ignorant), how can climate have changed in the past absent human activity?

Tokie

Sorry, there is no help for you. Climate scientists do not state that human activity is the only reason for climate change. They have expended a great deal of effort in extracting the human from the non-human inputs to climate change. You state you don't do links but presumably you do read them.

Solar insolation and volcanism. (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/eng/press/041105/index.html)

[Mobyseven]

Will the sun rise in the east or the west this morning?

Neither. The earth will rotate on its axis as per usual.

[Tokenconservative]

You're mighty bad at reading for someone who used to be an English teacher.

Where do you get this nonsense from?

One of the problems I find in this forum is this obtuse denial of reality...yes, amongst "climate scientists" none of them say this.

I am not talking about "climate scientists." I am talking about AGWists, the man on the street who believes Algore with all his heart and soul.

The "climate scientists" really don't matter. They are few in number and those few who do not toe the line are ignored in the media, and so their thoughts don't matter. Only those who are themselves True Believers in the One True Faith or simply going with the flow out of the abject but understandable fear they probably feel, or those trying to piggyback AGW to greater things by being loud champions of it get "face time" in the media and are paid attention to by the hoi palloi.

Now, you can dismiss this (and will) but the general "consensus" amongst that hoi palloi is that warming is happening and that human activity is the sole cause.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Would you be at all interested in what "AGWists" actually think (or claim), or would you carry on believing the obvious falsehoods you started with?

First, I already know what AGWists believe. Second, what you are doing now is begging the question...your intention is to provide me now with some climatologists' findings....unless the climatologist is named Al Gore, who cares?

Perception is reality and the Algore model is the perception.

Tokie

[TrueSceptic]

Neither. The earth will rotate on its axis as per usual.
:D

[Tokenconservative]

Sorry, there is no help for you. Climate scientists do not state that human activity is the only reason for climate change. They have expended a great deal of effort in extracting the human from the non-human inputs to climate change. You state you don't do links but presumably you do read them.

Solar insolation and volcanism. (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/eng/press/041105/index.html)

I'm sorry, um...is it YOU or ME who is confusing AGWist with "climate scientist"?

Can you point out where, in the post you quoted, where I say "climate scientists..."?

I'll wait.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Neither. The earth will rotate on its axis as per usual.

And there it is.

Tokie

[TrueSceptic]

One of the problems I find in this forum is this obtuse denial of reality...yes, amongst "climate scientists" none of them say this.

I am not talking about "climate scientists." I am talking about AGWists, the man on the street who believes Algore with all his heart and soul.

The "climate scientists" really don't matter. They are few in number and those few who do not toe the line are ignored in the media, and so their thoughts don't matter. Only those who are themselves True Believers in the One True Faith or simply going with the flow out of the abject but understandable fear they probably feel, or those trying to piggyback AGW to greater things by being loud champions of it get "face time" in the media and are paid attention to by the hoi palloi.

Now, you can dismiss this (and will) but the general "consensus" amongst that hoi palloi is that warming is happening and that human activity is the sole cause.

Tokie
The OP did not define who these "AGWists" are and you expected us to guess what your meaning was. Fine.

You now define them as ignorant lay persons who believe "Algore" with all their "heart and soul" (and yet manage to believe something very different to what he does).

Do you have any evidence that these people exist in significant numbers, or even at all, outside your imagination?

[Tokenconservative]

The OP did not define who these "AGWists" are and you expected us to guess what your meaning was. Fine.

You now define them as ignorant lay persons who believe "Algore" with all their "heart and soul" (and yet manage to believe something very different to what he does).

Do you have any evidence that these people exist in significant numbers, or even at all, outside your imagination?

Sure, turn on any morning or nightly news program in the US.

Tokie

[Acleron]

I'm sorry, um...is it YOU or ME who is confusing AGWist with "climate scientist"?

Can you point out where, in the post you quoted, where I say "climate scientists..."?

I'll wait.

Tokie

It's you. I wasn't aware of your definition as you posted it after mine.
Cause and effect you know, like pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and warming it up.

[Tokenconservative]

It's you. I wasn't aware of your definition as you posted it after mine.
Cause and effect you know, like pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and warming it up.

Hmm...again, did you point out WHERE, exactly, I used the term "climate scientist"?

I misremember...

Tokie

[JoeEllison]

incidentally i'm on the fence on the climate change thing, so you can blow all your "religion of AGW" stuff out of your posterior. i'm not saying that AGW is happening, not saying it isn't. i AM saying that what i've seen of you so far, is a smoke-and-mirrors show. i'm not impressed and more than a little annoyed.
Let me say this: when I first started looking into the whole global warming thing a few years ago, what I noticed most strongly and what probably convinced me as much as any of the evidence, is the fact that the anti-global warming crowd behaves EXACTLY like the creationist crowd. In fact, they are nearly identical to every other woo conspiracy theory group in their methods and general behavior. They quote out of context, attack strawmen, and come from a religious/political background that requires that they deny global warming. They have their own journals in which to publish their "work," just like the homeopaths, and make the same claims about a mainstream scientific conspiracy against them.

The scientific consensus on global warming could very well be completely wrong... but it won't make the denialists right. :cool:

[seayakin]

Lets all sing, the wheels on the bus go round and round (thats where this argument is going).

[Tokenconservative]

Let me say this: when I first started looking into the whole global warming thing a few years ago, what I noticed most strongly and what probably convinced me as much as any of the evidence, is the fact that the anti-global warming crowd behaves EXACTLY like the creationist crowd. In fact, they are nearly identical to every other woo conspiracy theory group in their methods and general behavior. They quote out of context, attack strawmen, and come from a religious/political background that requires that they deny global warming. They have their own journals in which to publish their "work," just like the homeopaths, and make the same claims about a mainstream scientific conspiracy against them.

The scientific consensus on global warming could very well be completely wrong... but it won't make the denialists right. :cool:

Of course, this is utter subjectivity...I happen to believe exactly the same thing about the AGWists. It's a religion to them; look at the way they want ot make it illegal or to yank credentials from anyone who is a heretic..ooops, "denier." Look at the chill it's put on academia (similar to PC) in that anyone not in that camp is shunned and driven from their field.

Your argument that "deniers" are like creationists, is exactly the argument I would use to identify your side: dogmatic, doctrinaire, shrill, true believers in the One True Faith...

Like Creationists, you use and bastardize science to "prove" your religious position.

By the way...can you identify these "anti-global" warming folks? Can you identify anyone who says that climate does not change on the side of those who see no strong evidence for human activity being the only thing that can cause climate to change?

Tokie

[Acleron]

Hmm...again, did you point out WHERE, exactly, I used the term "climate scientist"?

I misremember...

Tokie

You didn't give your particular definition of AGWist until after I had posted. How was anyone to know you had defined it to exclude climate scientists when others, who use it in the same pejorative way, are not so particular.

How about a full definition of AGWistTC so we can all agree.

[zeusbheld]

I don't do links--LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!

But here is the AGWist argument in a nutshell:

Climate is currently changing.
Human activity is responsible for that change.


Please help me out: if climate change now can only be because of human activity (if you deny that this is what AGWists are saying, then you are either being dishonest or ignorant), how can climate have changed in the past absent human activity?

Tokie

sheeeoooooooot Forrest even *I* can see that you've grossly oversimplified.

seems to me, the claim isn't that "nothing else is driving climate change but human activity" but rather that "there is an anomalous change happening recently that doesn't fit what we know of past climate change and its causes, that appears to be caused by human activity" or something to that effect. that's what *i* got out of it anyway.

and i'm not sure how exactly you expect to debunk the science without even attempting to read any of it, but tilt on, Senor Quixote, you're bound to take out a windmill or two. or just look "dishonest or ignorant" by oversimplifying things to an absurd degree.

[zeusbheld]

Agreed.

so you agree that the claim that recent climate changes appear to be anomalous and may be caused by human activity in no way implies that humans are the only thing that causes changes in climate? good. now we're getting somewhere.

[TrueSceptic]

Sure, turn on any morning or nightly news program in the US.

Tokie
Verbatim quotes? Excerpts on YouTube? Newspaper articles? Until you show us evidence we only have your word that anyone at all says what you claim.

[TrueSceptic]

First, I already know what AGWists believe.

Your imaginary "AGWists" believe what you want them to believe in your imagination.


Second, what you are doing now is begging the question...your intention is to provide me now with some climatologists' findings....unless the climatologist is named Al Gore, who cares?

It is funny that you should accuse anyone of begging the question.

Al Gore is not a climatologist.


Perception is reality and the Algore model is the perception.

Weird stuff from the fringe...

[zeusbheld]

I don't do links--LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!

might that be because you don't actually *read* anything, you just decide what you want to believe and pull all your claims out of that orifice in your posterior designed for expulsion of waste material?

can i ask a serious question? are you a shill, planted by pro-AGW types to discredit climate skeptics? if so you're doing an excellent job.

[zeusbheld]

One of the problems I find in this forum is this obtuse denial of reality...yes, amongst "climate scientists" none of them say this.

I am not talking about "climate scientists." I am talking about AGWists, the man on the street who believes Algore with all his heart and soul.

okie fine, but.... so? in forming *my* opinion of whether AGW is 'real', why should i give a heap of fecal matter what your hypothetical 'man on the street' thinks about it? is this thread nothing more than a windup, then?

[TrueSceptic]

Let me say this: when I first started looking into the whole global warming thing a few years ago, what I noticed most strongly and what probably convinced me as much as any of the evidence, is the fact that the anti-global warming crowd behaves EXACTLY like the creationist crowd. In fact, they are nearly identical to every other woo conspiracy theory group in their methods and general behavior. They quote out of context, attack strawmen, and come from a religious/political background that requires that they deny global warming. They have their own journals in which to publish their "work," just like the homeopaths, and make the same claims about a mainstream scientific conspiracy against them.

The scientific consensus on global warming could very well be completely wrong... but it won't make the denialists right. :cool:
Joe, I've noticed the exact same thing. What's funny, of course, is that they like to accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being True Believers, cultists, etc. Notice also that, like Creationists/IDers, they tend to be right-wing, often extremely so.

You might enjoy my HTBAGWS (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105743):)

[zeusbheld]

So you are denying that AGWists claim that human activity is responsible for "climate change."

no. are you illiterate? because your'e doing an excellent job appearing so.

as i've stated a few times already, from what *i* can tell, the claim is that the climate is changing in ways not predicted by other factors typically associated with climate change and that the most likely cause of this aberration is human activity.

i'm interested in knowing whether or not it's true, but fortunately, while i may be pretty stoopid, i'm not stupid enough to base my opinion on what the "hoi palloi" thinks, as you seem to be claiming *you* do.

Hmmm...

Will the sun rise in the east or the west this morning?

Tokiehow will you know, with your head planted firmly where it is?

[JoeEllison]

Joe, I've noticed the exact same thing. What's funny, of course, is that they like to accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being True Believers, cultists, etc. Notice also that, like Creationists/IDers, they tend to be right-wing, often extremely so.

You might enjoy my HTBAGWS (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105743):)

Didn't I post my Creationist/Denialist comparison list (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3175007&postcount=16) somewhere in your thread?

[zeusbheld]

[quote]Your argument that "deniers" are like creationists, is exactly the argument I would use to identify your side: dogmatic, doctrinaire, shrill, true believers in the One True Faith...

well *your* actions support that claim.

Like Creationists, you use and bastardize science to "prove" your religious position.

whereas *your* approach is superior; you ignore science entirely and rely on the "hoi palloi"(sic) to determine what the relevant positions are in a scientific debate.

By the way...can you identify these "anti-global" warming folks? Can you identify anyone who says that climate does not change on the side of those who see no strong evidence for human activity being the only thing that can cause climate to change?

can you identify any SCIENTIST on EITHER side who says "climate does not change" OR "human activity (is) the only thing that can cause the climate to change?"

[TrueSceptic]

Of course, this is utter subjectivity...I happen to believe exactly the same thing about the AGWists. It's a religion to them; look at the way they want ot make it illegal or to yank credentials from anyone who is a heretic..ooops, "denier." Look at the chill it's put on academia (similar to PC) in that anyone not in that camp is shunned and driven from their field.

This is sheer paranoid fantasy, but you have evidence, of course?


Your argument that "deniers" are like creationists, is exactly the argument I would use to identify your side: dogmatic, doctrinaire, shrill, true believers in the One True Faith...

Note use of "shrill", common among a certain mindset.

Notice also the use of insulting tactics following the failure to win the scientific argument.


Like Creationists, you use and bastardize science to "prove" your religious position.

Show us one example of an "AGWist" doing this. We can provide many of the "sceptics" doing so: after all, it is all they have.


By the way...can you identify these "anti-global" warming folks? Can you identify anyone who says that climate does not change on the side of those who see no strong evidence for human activity being the only thing that can cause climate to change?

Tokie
That last one is well stuffed with straw. Better take some out or it will burst.

[TrueSceptic]

Didn't I post my Creationist/Denialist comparison list (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3175007&postcount=16) somewhere in your thread?
If you did, I missed it. It certainly fits right in. :D

[JoeEllison]

If you did, I missed it. It certainly fits right in. :D

Yeah... I left out this bit from the list: The GW deniers pretend to be independent and impartial critics, while actually being the public face of a larger propaganda campaign, created by extremist right-wing organizations to advance a powerful political and financial agenda. The creationists pretend to be independent and impartial critics, while actually being the public face of a larger propaganda campaign, created by extremist right-wing organizations to advance a powerful political and religious agenda.

And, I forgot the part where creationists claim that people "worship Charles Darwin", and denialists claim that people "worship Al Gore."

:) It is exhausting, but ultimately satisfying.

[TrueSceptic]

Yeah... I left out this bit from the list: The GW deniers pretend to be independent and impartial critics, while actually being the public face of a larger propaganda campaign, created by extremist right-wing organizations to advance a powerful political and financial agenda. The creationists pretend to be independent and impartial critics, while actually being the public face of a larger propaganda campaign, created by extremist right-wing organizations to advance a powerful political and religious agenda.

And, I forgot the part where creationists claim that people "worship Charles Darwin", and denialists claim that people "worship Al Gore."

:) It is exhausting, but ultimately satisfying.
Good stuff.

Now, why are so many taken in? How obvious does it have to be? I suspect the need to reject the very possibility that we should change our ways is so strong that any claims, no matter how poor, obviously false, or contradictory, are gladly accepted.

[JoeEllison]

Good stuff.

Now, why are so many taken in? How obvious does it have to be? I suspect the need to reject the very possibility that we should change our ways is so strong that any claims, no matter how poor, obviously false, or contradictory, are gladly accepted.What I've come to suspect is that these people have a kind of generalized anger/paranoia/fear about the world. They then find their way towards a set of beliefs that confirm their warped viewpoint, and it somehow makes them feel "safe" even as it feeds their anger/paranoia/fear. They find one conspiracy theory or a combination of them, and it justifies the feelings that they've always had about the world. There "is" someone out to get them, suppressing "the truth," holding them back. They really "are" smarter than everyone else, and the reason people have never accepted them is because of jealousy or because they are part of the conspiracy.

It is sad, really... but the more I read the posts of the different woosters, the more clear the overall pattern becomes.

[TrueSceptic]

What I've come to suspect is that these people have a kind of generalized anger/paranoia/fear about the world. They then find their way towards a set of beliefs that confirm their warped viewpoint, and it somehow makes them feel "safe" even as it feeds their anger/paranoia/fear. They find one conspiracy theory or a combination of them, and it justifies the feelings that they've always had about the world. There "is" someone out to get them, suppressing "the truth," holding them back. They really "are" smarter than everyone else, and the reason people have never accepted them is because of jealousy or because they are part of the conspiracy.

It is sad, really... but the more I read the posts of the different woosters, the more clear the overall pattern becomes.
Woosters :D

[mhaze]

can you identify any SCIENTIST on EITHER side who says "climate does not change" OR "human activity (is) the only thing that can cause the climate to change?"

Bolded creates a question phrased so as to rebut Tokie's assertion.

[David Rodale]

This is sheer paranoid fantasy, but you have evidence, of course?


Note use of "shrill", common among a certain mindset.

Notice also the use of insulting tactics following the failure to win the scientific argument.


Show us one example of an "AGWist" doing this. We can provide many of the "sceptics" doing so: after all, it is all they have.


That last one is well stuffed with straw. Better take some out or it will burst.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513
"What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act,"How utterly stupid do you want to look? How many examples do you want? 50? 100?

Of course we could go back and gather up all the ludicrous statements made right in this forum by the warmers. Shall we resurrect Schneibster? Go back and look at which side has continually used ad hom attacks and which side has been warned the most regarding violating forum rules.

[TrueSceptic]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513
How utterly stupid do you want to look? How many examples do you want? 50? 100?

Of course we could go back and gather up all the ludicrous statements made right in this forum by the warmers. Shall we resurrect Schneibster? Go back and look at which side has continually used ad hom attacks and which side has been warned the most regarding violating forum rules.
Your dishonesty and hypocrisy are truly breathtaking.

[David Rodale]

Your dishonesty and hypocrisy are truly breathtaking.

We've been through this before TrueSceptic. Honestly, you don't know what you're asking for :D

[mhaze]

We've been through this before TrueSceptic. Honestly, you don't know what you're asking for :D

I must comment that is one h*** of an understatement.

Things started to slip when I really, seriously asked for "contrarian" to be given a definition that would enable clarification of the small sinkhole considered to be peer reviewed "contrarian" articles. 500, then 407 more came up lickety-split and confronted with gaping chasm between assetion and fact now Trueskeptic wants an apology from me.

Weird. And I'm the guy that is more often than not, just arguing that the Warmologists are trying to hijack the middle ground of science, as embodied in the IPCC literature. Unfair. I deserve an apology.

Of course I'm joking. That long hard road of ad homs and personality attacks leads absolutely, 100% nowhere. Simpler and easier to just discuss the scientific understanding although perhaps not if intellectually challenged.

Hypothesis:

1. There exists an AGW pseudoscience as opposed to valid but controversial and not perfectly understood, actual AGW science.
2. AGW pseudoscience is a group of beliefs and concepts held by non-scientists almost exclusively. I think we all know of some scientists who hold these beliefs but they are the exception rather than the rule.
3. The fuzzy and ill defined enemy, the "contrarians", exists only in the minds of those believing in (or promoting for ulterior motives) AGW pseudoscience.

Prove me wrong.

[BenBurch]

The climate is, and has always been, constantly changing. Has anyone said different?

Absolutely. The only constant is change. The QUESTION is; have we given the usual random walk the climate takes a push in one direction or another?

[mhaze]

Absolutely. The only constant is change. The QUESTION is; have we given the usual random walk the climate takes a push in one direction or another?

Or could various paths of world wide development, including the third world, be shown to have a statistically significant likelihood of pushing the trend?

[zeusbheld]

Bolded creates a question phrased so as to rebut Tokie's assertion.

by pointing out its irrelevance.

in other words, if NO scientist has claimed such a thing.... is it worth pointing out that no anti-AGW scientist has claimed such a thing?

wait, wait. i'll answer that myself. no. it's irrelevant.

[fsol]

Weird. And I'm the guy that is more often than not, just arguing that the Warmologists are trying to hijack the middle ground of science, as embodied in the IPCC literature. Unfair. I deserve an apology.


Of course your posting history shows otherwise. But why let that get in the way eh?

[zeusbheld]

Hypothesis:

1. There exists an AGW pseudoscience as opposed to valid but controversial and not perfectly understood, actual AGW science.
2. AGW pseudoscience is a group of beliefs and concepts held by non-scientists almost exclusively. I think we all know of some scientists who hold these beliefs but they are the exception rather than the rule.
3. The fuzzy and ill defined enemy, the "contrarians", exists only in the minds of those believing in (or promoting for ulterior motives) AGW pseudoscience.

Prove me wrong.

agree somewhat with the first 2 except the part about scientists working in the service of psuedoscience who you "think we all know." name names, please. we don't all know, at least i don't.

there are ill-informed "evangelists" on both sides of the divide. including "CONTRARIANS." personally i've certainly encountered some outstanding examples of #3, they most definitely exist.

my frustration as someone who is on the fence as to what is actually happening, is that it is hard to wade through all the sleight of hand, dubious citations and claims of a global conspiracy on the "AGW skeptic" side to find credible, science-based skeptics. really effing annoying. you lot would be more likely to win over those in the middle without all the smoke and mirrors.

[varwoche]

Hypothesis:

1. There exists an AGW pseudoscience as opposed to valid but controversial and not perfectly understood, actual AGW science.
2. AGW pseudoscience is a group of beliefs and concepts held by non-scientists almost exclusively. I think we all know of some scientists who hold these beliefs but they are the exception rather than the rule.
3. The fuzzy and ill defined enemy, the "contrarians", exists only in the minds of those believing in (or promoting for ulterior motives) AGW pseudoscience.

Prove me wrong. Fuzzy and ill defined aptly (and generously) describes this remarkably vague and goofy challenge. I particularly enjoy the "I think we all know" bit.

[mhaze]

agree with the first 2, but there are ill-informed "evangelists" on both sides of the divide. including "CONTRARIANS." personally i've certainly encountered some outstanding examples of #3, they most definitely exist.

in fact, my frustration as someone who is on the fence as to what is actually happening, is that it is hard to wade through all the sleight of hand, dubious citations and claims of a global conspiracy on the "AGW skeptic" side to find credible, science-based skeptics. really effing annoying. you lot would be more likely to win over those in the middle without all the smoke and mirrors.

Well, regarding #3, then, do they exist in the neigborhood bar? In the media? Where? That's all I'm trying to get at in analyzing the use of the phrase "contrarian". Or to put it another way, if a bunch of (ulterior motive, dumb a** new agers, radical evironmental wackos) hard line push the likes of An Incovenient Truth into all the school systems, is "contrarian" just a natural response that ought to be expected? People see garbage, they instantly go "anti-garbage".

It's too much to expect the politics, emotion and science to be separated, so you'll have to ignore the whole subject or get used to the big mess, because there are trillions of dollars mixed up that are moving one way or the other based on outcomes.

Unfortunate, but true. Then of course you've got the extremists, but of those, the radical environmentalists are basically unchanged for 40 some years, this is just a new bandwagon for them.

[zeusbheld]

Well, regarding #3, then, do they exist in the neigborhood bar? In the media? Where? That's all I'm trying to get at in analyzing the use of the phrase "contrarian". Or to put it another way, if a bunch of (ulterior motive, dumb a** new agers, radical evironmental wackos) hard line push the likes of An Incovenient Truth into all the school systems, is "contrarian" just a natural response that ought to be expected? People see garbage, they instantly go "anti-garbage"

It's too much to expect the politics, emotion and science to be separated, so you'll have to ignore the whole subject or get used to the big mess, because there are trillions of dollars mixed up that are moving one way or the other based on outcomes.

Unfortunate, but true. Then of course you've got the extremists, but of those, the radical environmentalists are basically unchanged for 40 some years, this is just a new bandwagon for them.

well seems to me the best place to find #3 is net fora.

[mhaze]

well seems to me the best place to find #3 is net fora.

Hmm...But if we join Greenpeace, we get a membership card. No "card carrying contrarians" huh?

A shadow enemy to those immersed in pseudoscience.

[zeusbheld]

Hmm...But if we join Greenpeace, we get a membership card. No "card carrying contrarians" huh?

A shadow enemy to those immersed in pseudoscience.

who said anything about carrying cards? oh wait, that was you.

so let me see if i got this: you can't be a wing nut without a membership card?

no membership card = nonexistent?

interesting claim.

[TrueSceptic]

I must comment that is one h*** of an understatement.

Things started to slip when I really, seriously asked for "contrarian" to be given a definition that would enable clarification of the small sinkhole considered to be peer reviewed "contrarian" articles. 500, then 407 more came up lickety-split and confronted with gaping chasm between assetion and fact now Trueskeptic wants an apology from me.

I want an apology for something else. You know this.


Weird. And I'm the guy that is more often than not, just arguing that the Warmologists are trying to hijack the middle ground of science, as embodied in the IPCC literature. Unfair. I deserve an apology.

What for? You kept moving the goal posts. We can go back there any time.


Of course I'm joking. That long hard road of ad homs and personality attacks leads absolutely, 100% nowhere. Simpler and easier to just discuss the scientific understanding although perhaps not if intellectually challenged.

Note personal attack. Note also that mhaze knows nothing about the scientific knowledge or intellect of others here.


Hypothesis:

1. There exists an AGW pseudoscience as opposed to valid but controversial and not perfectly understood, actual AGW science.
2. AGW pseudoscience is a group of beliefs and concepts held by non-scientists almost exclusively. I think we all know of some scientists who hold these beliefs but they are the exception rather than the rule.
3. The fuzzy and ill defined enemy, the "contrarians", exists only in the minds of those believing in (or promoting for ulterior motives) AGW pseudoscience.

Prove me wrong.
That's the joke bit, yes?

[Tokenconservative]

You didn't give your particular definition of AGWist until after I had posted. How was anyone to know you had defined it to exclude climate scientists when others, who use it in the same pejorative way, are not so particular.

How about a full definition of AGWistTC so we can all agree.

Sure: Anyone who believes that absent the eeeehhhhvvviiillllll of modern, industrial humans, climate would be static.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

sheeeoooooooot Forrest even *I* can see that you've grossly oversimplified.

seems to me, the claim isn't that "nothing else is driving climate change but human activity" but rather that "there is an anomalous change happening recently that doesn't fit what we know of past climate change and its causes, that appears to be caused by human activity" or something to that effect. that's what *i* got out of it anyway.

and i'm not sure how exactly you expect to debunk the science without even attempting to read any of it, but tilt on, Senor Quixote, you're bound to take out a windmill or two. or just look "dishonest or ignorant" by oversimplifying things to an absurd degree.

That's a dandy definition...I like it. It's sciency!

But that's not what rabid, zealous true believers in the One True Faith believe.

They believe that ONLY human activity is causing "climate change" (nifty switch to a better phrase since Algore got snowed out of a Global Warming conference a few years ago...).

So, if you hold to something less dogmatic (all those "anamolous" and "may be" things you put in there are not very doctrinaire...do you need a refresher course?) good for you!

Meanwhile, who cares? Your kind are not driving the thing, the other kind IS. You and I will soon be paying higher taxes of all sorts because Humans Cause Global Warming!!!!

You, as a lib, may think we all should pay higher taxes to Stop Global Warming, Now!!! But I don't see any True Believers marching in Beijing and demanding that China stop polluting so much...or in India and Pakistan...or even in Canada (the biggest polluter on a per capita basis on the planet).

Tokie

[JoeEllison]

You didn't give your particular definition of AGWist until after I had posted. How was anyone to know you had defined it to exclude climate scientists when others, who use it in the same pejorative way, are not so particular.

How about a full definition of AGWistTC so we can all agree.

How much do you want to bet the tokie's definition is so much of a strawman that it applies to exactly zero people?

[Tokenconservative]

Joe, I've noticed the exact same thing. What's funny, of course, is that they like to accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being True Believers, cultists, etc. Notice also that, like Creationists/IDers, they tend to be right-wing, often extremely so.

You might enjoy my HTBAGWS (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105743):)

Notice as well (not that you will) that it's the LEFT which has so conveniently identified Creationists and IDers as "rightwing" or "conservative."

Works out well, doncha think!?

Tokie

[Acleron]

Sure: Anyone who believes that absent the eeeehhhhvvviiillllll of modern, industrial humans, climate would be static.

Tokie

How much do you want to bet the tokie's definition is so much of a strawman that it applies to exactly zero people?

For my money, you are right on the button.

However, I suspect he has left a lot of wriggle room. Notice the lack of definition of evil, modern, industrial, human, climate and static.

Taking then an AGWistTC at face value (talk about living dangerously) I don't know of anybody, does anyone?

[Tokenconservative]

okie fine, but.... so? in forming *my* opinion of whether AGW is 'real', why should i give a heap of fecal matter what your hypothetical 'man on the street' thinks about it? is this thread nothing more than a windup, then?

Um...I guess you need to reframe the question...is there something here or elsewhere that suggests to you I give a flying naked mole rat's ass what you do or do not think?

If so, I apologize for having led you down that particular primrose path for I assure you, what you do or do not think of this or any issue is of no concern to me whatsoever.

I hope we've cleared up that misconception.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

For my money, you are right on the button.

However, I suspect he has left a lot of wriggle room. Notice the lack of definition of evil, modern, industrial, human, climate and static.

Taking then an AGWistTC at face value (talk about living dangerously) I don't know of anybody, does anyone?

Sure...I do.

Your Pope: Algore.

Tokie

[zeusbheld]

They believe that ONLY human activity is causing "climate change" (nifty switch to a better phrase since Algore got snowed out of a Global Warming conference a few years ago...).
problem is... i've not run into anyone, even on the net, who believes that version. i'd ask you to find me one example, but i know you're tooo LAAAAAAAZYYYY to do LIIIIIINNNKKss.

So, if you hold to something less dogmatic (all those "anamolous" and "may be" things you put in there are not very doctrinaire...do you need a refresher course?) good for you! hmmmmm... "not very doctrinaire." that's because i don't adhere to ANY doctrine whatsoever. more than i can say for you.

Meanwhile, who cares? Your kind are not driving the thing, the other kind IS. You and I will soon be paying higher taxes of all sorts because Humans Cause Global Warming!!!! who cares, well *i* do for one. *i* want to know what is really happening, unlike you, apparently.

You, as a lib WHOA THERE, PARDNER. just coz you're a rigid, unthinking lockstep party-line ideologue does NOT mean you have the right to assume i am.

[zeusbheld]

Um...I guess you need to reframe the question...is there something here or elsewhere that suggests to you I give a flying naked mole rat's ass what you do or do not think?

If so, I apologize for having led you down that particular primrose path for I assure you, what you do or do not think of this or any issue is of no concern to me whatsoever.

I hope we've cleared up that misconception.

Tokie

yep, crystal clear. the thread IS nothing more than a windup, and not only have you have no interest in persuading someone like me, who as yet has no opinion on AGW, you don't give a "flying naked mole rat's ass" what's really happening. glad we cleared that up.

MHAZE: "Tokie" is a perfect example of your #3. for the sake of your own credibility, distance yourself from him.

[The Gnomon]

Let me say this: when I first started looking into the whole global warming thing a few years ago, what I noticed most strongly and what probably convinced me as much as any of the evidence, is the fact that the anti-global warming crowd behaves EXACTLY like the creationist crowd.

Partly true, IMHO. Also, it is partly true that the pro-global warming crowd has its own dogmatically religious fanatics.
I hope that there are some, in both groups, who are willing to look at the evidence. Assuming, as I believe is reasonable, that there is an anthropogenic component to global warming, it none-the-less is not at all clear as to what specific activity or group of activities is responsible for this. Clearly such information would be vital to designing countermeasures. Wouldn't it be typically human if we assumed CO2 to be the culprit, somehow reduced CO2 at great cost, and find that it wasn't the problem, but only a by-effect? And finding this out too late?
Meanwhile, massive destruction of forests and fisheries continues unabated, oil reserves become increasingly depleted, and a clearly unsustainable population continues (in spite of some slowing of the rate) to grow.
Are these a unitary problem? or are they separable, just equally severe?
These are issues which require careful thought and scientific study, not dogmatism and name-calling.

I recommend we end this thread.

[JoeEllison]

Partly true, IMHO. Also, it is partly true that the pro-global warming crowd has its own dogmatically religious fanatics.
Except, of course, that you can't really point to any of them here, can you.... that dishonest "both sides do it" argument bores me to tears.

[JoeEllison]

problem is... i've not run into anyone, even on the net, who believes that version. i'd ask you to find me one example, but i know you're tooo LAAAAAAAZYYYY to do LIIIIIINNNKKss..

It isn't laziness. Tokie posted a very obviously stupid lie, and there's no way he can back up his very stupid lie.

[Acleron]

Sure...I do.

Your Pope: Algore.

Tokie


First, you have no information what my religion is or not.

Second, transforming somebody's name is just childish.

Third, you already know I haven't seen the film, unlike yourself I prefer to look at the data, not have my mind made up major media outlets whose first aim is not to educate you but to make money by selling to you or not upsetting large advertisers.

Fourthly, in the UK, the film was subject to a high court action which found nine points which was not backed up by a consensus of climate scientists, your point wasn't one of them, so you are back to zero people.

[JoeEllison]

First, you have no information what my religion is or not.

Second, transforming somebody's name is just childish.

Third, you already know I haven't seen the film, unlike yourself I prefer to look at the data, not have my mind made up major media outlets whose first aim is not to educate you but to make money by selling to you or not upsetting large advertisers.

Fourthly, in the UK, the film was subject to a high court action which found nine points which was not backed up by a consensus of climate scientists, you point wasn't one of them, so you are back to zero people.
And #5, just like a creationist, he pretends that the people who hold the opposing viewpoint do so from some sort of religious belief... mostly, I guess, because that is how he forms his own views.

#6, also like a creationist, he pretends that we worship someone, in this case AL Gore, whose name tokie is incapable of spelling correctly...


... proving once again why right-wingers hate education so much: because they themselves are incapable of learning.

[Tokenconservative]

problem is... i've not run into anyone, even on the net, who believes that version. i'd ask you to find me one example, but i know you're tooo LAAAAAAAZYYYY to do LIIIIIINNNKKss.

hmmmmm... "not very doctrinaire." that's because i don't adhere to ANY doctrine whatsoever. more than i can say for you.

who cares, well *i* do for one. *i* want to know what is really happening, unlike you, apparently.

WHOA THERE, PARDNER. just coz you're a rigid, unthinking lockstep party-line ideologue does NOT mean you have the right to assume i am.

1. I have no control over how much you limit your contact with others on the net or elsewhere.
Maybe you should get out more?

2. If you, as you claim, hold the views you claim, then no, you don't hold to any doctrine involving AGW. We shall see, I suppose.

3. I know what is "really happening."

4. No, actually, I do have that right. And I don't leap to that conclusion with you...you've demonstrated it here and elsewhere.

Tokie

[zeusbheld]

Second, transforming somebody's name is just childish.

but it can be so much fun! for example, in Thailand, a "tokkae" (spelled tokay in the west) is a kind of large-ish gecko that bleats incesssantly. just sayin'.

[Mobyseven]

And there it is.

Tokie

There what is? How very obtuse of you.

You tried to imply that those of us who oppose your view are living in a bizzaro world where perhaps the sun rises in the west. I pointed out that it's a matter of perspective - the sun doesn't actually rise at all, the rotation and movement of the Earth manufactures the illusion of a rising sun.

You insist on taking a position unsupported by evidence while attacking a position not held by any of your opponents. If there was a response other than ridicule you were looking for, you went the wrong way about getting it.

[zeusbheld]

1. I have no control over how much you limit your contact with others on the net or elsewhere.
Maybe you should get out more? tell me where i can find these mythical beasts you say are everywhere, and maybe i will get out more. can you tell me where i can find unicorns? i bet you know that too.

2. If you, as you claim, hold the views you claim, then no, you don't hold to any doctrine involving AGW. We shall see, I suppose.

if you hold the views you claim, *you* hold to a doctrine. rigidly.

3. I know what is "really happening." and given that you rigidly ignore scientists in matters of science, exactly how did you come upon this enlightenment? "common sense"?

4. No, actually, I do have that right. And I don't leap to that conclusion with you...you've demonstrated it here and elsewhere.

is this more of your "common sense"? impressive, as usual. apparently your definition of a "liberal" is someone who doesn't agree with "tokie".

[David Rodale]

Hmm...But if we join Greenpeace, we get a membership card. No "card carrying contrarians" huh?

A shadow enemy to those immersed in pseudoscience.

You could always go to a glacier, strip naked with hundreds of other nutbags to help save the planet.

[BenBurch]

Well, isn't this all pretty?

Right wing zealots trying to beat people up with straw men.

Really Sad.

Truth is that there is only one reality, no matter how much you try you cannot bend it as you will by pure belief.

Its a good thing that you folks are not going to be making these decisions much longer.

[Acleron]

but it can be so much fun! for example, in Thailand, a "tokkae" (spelled tokay in the west) is a kind of large-ish gecko that bleats incesssantly. just sayin'.

Just listened (http://www.gekkota.com/assets/multimedia/TokayBuddy.wav) to one. Sounded to me like flatulence :)

[mhaze]

Partly true, IMHO. Also, it is partly true that the pro-global warming crowd has its own dogmatically religious fanatics.
I hope that there are some, in both groups, who are willing to look at the evidence. Assuming, as I believe is reasonable, that there is an anthropogenic component to global warming, it none-the-less is not at all clear as to what specific activity or group of activities is responsible for this. Clearly such information would be vital to designing countermeasures. Wouldn't it be typically human if we assumed CO2 to be the culprit, somehow reduced CO2 at great cost, and find that it wasn't the problem, but only a by-effect? And finding this out too late?
Meanwhile, massive destruction of forests and fisheries continues unabated, oil reserves become increasingly depleted, and a clearly unsustainable population continues (in spite of some slowing of the rate) to grow.
Are these a unitary problem? or are they separable, just equally severe?
These are issues which require careful thought and scientific study, not dogmatism and name-calling.

I recommend we end this thread.

Comments all agreed with, recommendation seconded.

[Safe-Keeper]

Look, I agree with I recommend we end this thread.
This thing serves no purpose other than mudslinging and giving mhaze, Rodale and Tokie attention by giving them a stage for their cute little one-liners (read: let's stop feeding the trolls).

[zeusbheld]

if we're all agreed that we're done here and the thread is useless, lets all just go!

last one out, turn off the light.

[Tokenconservative]

but it can be so much fun! for example, in Thailand, a "tokkae" (spelled tokay in the west) is a kind of large-ish gecko that bleats incesssantly. just sayin'.

It's also, since it's not just a misspelling, a violation of TOS.

Someone could report you. I got suspended for doing this.

Just sayin.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

There what is? How very obtuse of you.

You tried to imply that those of us who oppose your view are living in a bizzaro world where perhaps the sun rises in the west. I pointed out that it's a matter of perspective - the sun doesn't actually rise at all, the rotation and movement of the Earth manufactures the illusion of a rising sun.

You insist on taking a position unsupported by evidence while attacking a position not held by any of your opponents. If there was a response other than ridicule you were looking for, you went the wrong way about getting it.

...and there it is, part deux.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

tell me where i can find these mythical beasts you say are everywhere, and maybe i will get out more. can you tell me where i can find unicorns? i bet you know that too.



if you hold the views you claim, *you* hold to a doctrine. rigidly.

and given that you rigidly ignore scientists in matters of science, exactly how did you come upon this enlightenment? "common sense"?



is this more of your "common sense"? impressive, as usual. apparently your definition of a "liberal" is someone who doesn't agree with "tokie".


Not sure where you are, but in the US you can find them on any college campus and by turning on the "new" or reading a "news" organ such as a "news"paper or "news" magazine.

The views I hold on climate change are pretty simpe: yes....climate changes. We know this. It always has and it always will; it did before humans existed, and has since we've come on the scene, and will do so after we are gone.

No, my definition of liberal is anyone who is a leftist.

Like you.

Incidentally, you cannot BE a liberal without a doctrinaire belief in AGW.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, isn't this all pretty?

Right wing zealots trying to beat people up with straw men.

Really Sad.

Truth is that there is only one reality, no matter how much you try you cannot bend it as you will by pure belief.

Its a good thing that you folks are not going to be making these decisions much longer.

How comically hypocritical coming from a far left libbie...libs have been shrieking for years that it's all "relative."

Now, on this ONE issue...it's not?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Look, I agree with
This thing serves no purpose other than mudslinging and giving mhaze, Rodale and Tokie attention by giving them a stage for their cute little one-liners (read: let's stop feeding the trolls).

Translation: we (libbies) would prefer not paring this down to its bare facts, and would much prefer you (thinkers) continue arguing this issue OUR way, by ignoring the reality of our politics and talking about ice core samples.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

if we're all agreed that we're done here and the thread is useless, lets all just go!

last one out, turn off the light.

Translation:

If youse guys don't play by my rules I'm goin' home!

Tokie

[BenBurch]

...libs have been shrieking for years that it's all "relative." ...

Bzzzzt! Wrong, try again!

Moral relativism seems to be what GOP politicians do when they proposition guys in airport restrooms and then claim that they "are not gay." Or when they have sex with once-sexy washington lobbyists whose clients get helped with their problems with licensing just coincidentally....

Noting in the universe other than purely cultural things has ever been "relative".

Natural law absolutely is not.

And no Liberal ever argued that it is.

Tokie, you present the most pathetic straw men sometimes; I know you can do better than this if you give the matter some thought. There ARE things to debate here, but this is not one of them.

[CapelDodger]

Lets all sing, the wheels on the bus go round and round (thats where this argument is going).

Way to round off the first page, dude :).

Tokie has already gone from the "AGW Stance" to "where did I say climate scientist, eh? Eh?", via (inevitably) the Algore. Just in page one.

The zeusbheld/mhaze sub-plot is shaping up interestingly. I'll read on ...

[CapelDodger]

[can you identify any SCIENTIST on EITHER side who says "climate does not change" OR "human activity (is) the only thing that can cause the climate to change?"

Can Tokie find anybody that claims this? I think not. Even the plebs have heard of the Ice Age (there've been a couple of animated films about them recently, they're very popular with the masses) but apparently Tokie hasn't. Perhaps he's on a superior intellectual plane, above populism and science the generally mundane.

Tokie seems to have a high opinion of Al Gore, but Al Gore is of the post-colonial aristocratic class, so that's explicable.

[CapelDodger]

And, I forgot the part where creationists claim that people "worship Charles Darwin", and denialists claim that people "worship Al Gore."

Excellent point. When the fight is taking place on Science's ground, the side that personalises the issue is revealed as the intruder.

:) It is exhausting, but ultimately satisfying.

There's a lot to be said for being on the winning side. Well worth the effort of getting involved at all :).

The only satisfaction I'm sensing from Tokie is self-satisfaction; the main signal coming through is anger. Taking that as a proxy for frustration , I conclude that he should get out more. Not very scientific but hey, I'm not a scientist.

[volatile]

The thing that irks me the most is that they think they're pointing out something new. They think they've found the hole in the case. They think that no climate scientist ever noticed that it was warmer and colder at various points is our history, and they think that no-one bothered to check the expected temperature as per the cycles and the measured temperature today. In short, they're asking the right questions but then ignoring the answers.

It's willful ignorance.

[BenBurch]

volatile, just so.

The real question behind AGW is; Are we adding a forcing factor to the usual random walk of climate change that will be deleterious to our posterity?

The answer appears to be "Absolutely, yes."

-Ben

[CapelDodger]

Absolutely. The only constant is change. The QUESTION is; have we given the usual random walk the climate takes a push in one direction or another?

The question is that simple, isn't it? Is what we're doing (burning fossil-fuels) going to materially affect the climate? ("Materially" from a human perspective, obviously, not a palaeological one.) All the other stuff will carry on as normal; not even the Algore can influence the Sun or Earth's orbit and precession.

[BenBurch]

Well, you know, I have some ideas about how one might change the Earth's orbit involving an asteroid and a solar sail; But it takes hundreds of thousands of years.

[CapelDodger]

Partly true, IMHO. Also, it is partly true that the pro-global warming crowd has its own dogmatically religious fanatics.

None of them seem attracted to this Forum, though, do they? Whereas Tokie thrusts himself upon us.

Any such fanatic would be disowned (not to say mobbed) by the usual pro-science suspects, but Tokie isn't disowned by the other side. They're only gradually moving away down the bench as they realise he's not doing their cause any favours at all.

Lord Munchkin will get the same treatment in time, but not before the damage is done.

[Mobyseven]

...and there it is, part deux.

Tokie

:dl:

[zeusbheld]

Translation: we (libbies) would prefer not paring this down to its bare facts, and would much prefer you (thinkers) continue arguing this issue OUR way, by ignoring the reality of our politics and talking about ice core samples.

Tokie

how precious. "Tokie," who can't even tell one poster from another, has just declared himself a thinker. guess i can go ahead and declare myself an NBA All-Star now.

incidentally, the reason people are leaving this thread "Tokie" is because you have nothing to offer--your OP:

I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

Please explain.

Tokie

the claim you're calling the AGW stance is not a claim that anyone credible has made. ever.

don't take it personally, honey, i still think you're utterly irrelevant and don't mind telling you so; it's just that the thread is a big load of nothin' even by your "standards."

in other words, a waste of time even by internet standards. therein lies your achievement, i suppose.

see you on some other, more credible thread. buh-bye.

[rockoon]

Several times I have asked people here on this forum to give me evidence of AGW where I was then given a big list of links (several times) compiled by someone on these forums.

I went through the first 4 or so links, and then looked at half a dozen more near the middle of that list.

Every link I visited was detailing evidence of climate change, specifically Global Warming. None of them was detailing evidence of AGW.

Further, I have engaged many of the AGW proponents on this forum on the specific subject of AGW and quite a few of them have gotten themselves confused by the distinction between GW and AGW.

Reading between the lines... I believe that several of the more vocal AGW proponents here really do believe that climate change is equivilent to anthropogenic, because it is the simplest explanation for why they confuse GW with AGW so frequently.

[a_unique_person]

Several times I have asked people here on this forum to give me evidence of AGW where I was then given a big list of links (several times) compiled by someone on these forums.

I went through the first 4 or so links, and then looked at half a dozen more near the middle of that list.

Every link I visited was detailing evidence of climate change, specifically Global Warming. None of them was detailing evidence of AGW.

Further, I have engaged many of the AGW proponents on this forum on the specific subject of AGW and quite a few of them have gotten themselves confused by the distinction between GW and AGW.

Reading between the lines... I believe that several of the more vocal AGW proponents here really do believe that climate change is equivilent to anthropogenic, because it is the simplest explanation for why they confuse GW with AGW so frequently.

Understanding and attributing climate change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf It's quite complex, but this explains where the "A" comes into it all.

[BobK]

Understanding and attributing climate change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf It's quite complex, but this explains where the "A" comes into it all.
You've posted up the link to chapter 9 so often that by now you must really be an expert on what is contained in the chapter.

I noticed no white in the legend colors for the figure 9 graphs. So maybe you would explain to the readers here why they used white-out from 50s to 90s and 50n to 70n in the lower portion of figure 9.1 graphs, and why the figure 9.2 graphs are cropped back to 75n through 75s.

Could it be there was money in the budget for white-out but not to fix the models?

[Pipirr]

You've posted up the link to chapter 9 so often that by now you must really be an expert on what is contained in the chapter.

I noticed no white in the legend colors for the figure 9 graphs. So maybe you would explain to the readers here why they used white-out from 50s to 90s and 50n to 70n in the lower portion of figure 9.1 graphs, and why the figure 9.2 graphs are cropped back to 75n through 75s.

Could it be there was money in the budget for white-out but not to fix the models?


Apart from your one graphic design concern, do you have any comment on the 84 page chapter as a whole, with its 11 pages of references?

Personally, I find the chapter an excellent primer for understanding where the 'A' in in 'AGW' comes in.

[Crossbow]

I guess I'm being to "tedius" so I'll simplify this for those of you who can't read more than a few words at a time.

If only human activity can cause climate change (the AGW stance), the implication is that climate is otherwise static.

Yet AGWists claim that it is "deniers" who believe that climate is static.

Please explain.

Tokie

'Tokenconservative' has now been banned!

:)

Great! Now I will no longer have to deal with his legions of strawmen.

It sure is a good Wednesday.

:)

[Safe-Keeper]

'Tokenconservative' has now been banned!Tokentroll is gone? Finally:).

[BobK]

Apart from your one graphic design concern, do you have any comment on the 84 page chapter as a whole, with its 11 pages of references?

Personally, I find the chapter an excellent primer for understanding where the 'A' in in 'AGW' comes in.
You slough off the missing areas in graph as if they were unimportant. It might be understandable if these were graphs of real data points and possibly they could be missing. However this is not real data. These graphs are simply output from computer models. As such there should be no white-out modified areas in the graphs, and if there are they should provide an explanation.

This leads to many questions. If they really have output from those areas why not show it? Don't they simulate the whole world? Are those areas too tough to explain? Are they hoping the public won't notice? No explanation at all leads me to think they don't want to show or explain the warts their models have. They'd rather try to slip one past the public.

As to what I thought of the chapter. I found nothing but a lot of conjecture about warming being caused mainly by humans, and not much other than some evidently wart-filled computer models and a weak correlation with CO2 to demonstrate it. The temperature hasn't risen in several years, but CO2 keeps steadily rising. Yet this needs no explanation as far as you're concerned. You might want to hone your skepticism.

Maybe you would be so kind as to demonstrate the reliability of their position by citing a few things from that chapter that shows they are so right about humans being the main cause of warming that the debate should be over. That only foolish ostriches would fail to get on the band-wagon along with them. I don't think you can.

[Pipirr]

You slough off the missing areas in graph as if they were unimportant. It might be understandable if these were graphs of real data points and possibly they could be missing. However this is not real data. These graphs are simply output from computer models. As such there should be no white-out modified areas in the graphs, and if there are they should provide an explanation.

This leads to many questions. If they really have output from those areas why not show it? Don't they simulate the whole world? Are those areas too tough to explain? Are they hoping the public won't notice? No explanation at all leads me to think they don't want to show or explain the warts their models have. They'd rather try to slip one past the public.

Thanks, that is more informative than your earlier comment. Why be mysterious and coy when you can just say what the problem is?

Still, I wonder just how important the missing areas are. In the context of the entire chapter, is it a big deal, or just a small technical quibble? I tend toward the latter. Whichever, I do not think it reasonable to conclude that the authors wanted to try and "slip one past the public".

As to what I thought of the chapter. I found nothing but a lot of conjecture about warming being caused mainly by humans, and not much other than some evidently wart-filled computer models and a weak correlation with CO2 to demonstrate it. The temperature hasn't risen in several years, but CO2 keeps steadily rising. Yet this needs no explanation as far as you're concerned. You might want to hone your skepticism.

My skepticism is doing fine, thanks.

I think the chapter is very useful for understanding why there is an A in AGW. It provides valuable context and a lot of background information for anyone interested in, for example, what climate scientists are doing, the state of play in climatology, and the evidence basis upon which policies will and are being enacted. If someone has a question about the atrribution of climate change, it is a useful and relevant place to find an answer.

Temperature hasn't risen in several years: I understand why people say that. I do not think that claim stands up well to scrutiny.

Maybe you would be so kind as to demonstrate the reliability of their position by citing a few things from that chapter that shows they are so right about humans being the main cause of warming that the debate should be over. That only foolish ostriches would fail to get on the band-wagon along with them. I don't think you can.

To your satisfaction? I have to agree with you: I don't think I can! :)

[mhaze]

Temperature hasn't risen in several years: I understand why people say that. I do not think that claim stands up well to scrutiny.
To your satisfaction? I have to agree with you: I don't think I can! :)

The pop version, the pseudoscience of AGW, of course is not substantiated by the technical understandings.

[BenBurch]

Tokentroll is gone? Finally:).

I'm sorry that happened. I liked him even if I never agreed with him.

[JoeEllison]

Several times I have asked people here on this forum to give me evidence of AGW where I was then given a big list of links (several times) compiled by someone on these forums.

I went through the first 4 or so links, and then looked at half a dozen more near the middle of that list.

Every link I visited was detailing evidence of climate change, specifically Global Warming. None of them was detailing evidence of AGW.

Further, I have engaged many of the AGW proponents on this forum on the specific subject of AGW and quite a few of them have gotten themselves confused by the distinction between GW and AGW.

Reading between the lines... I believe that several of the more vocal AGW proponents here really do believe that climate change is equivilent to anthropogenic, because it is the simplest explanation for why they confuse GW with AGW so frequently.

Replace "GW" and "AGW" with "microevolution" and "macroevolution", and this argument is nearly identical to what a creationist would say.

Thanks, rockoon. I appreciate having your post as further confirmation that AGW denial is the same sort of woo as creationism. :D

[BenBurch]

JoeEllison; Not sure I would compare this with Creationism YET. But the certainty is growing and I think it won't be many more months before that comparison is totally fair.

-Ben

[JoeEllison]

JoeEllison; Not sure I would compare this with Creationism YET. But the certainty is growing and I think it won't be many more months before that comparison is totally fair.

-Ben
Waiting for a scientific consensus? :D

How many matching points do you need?

[CapelDodger]

Well, you know, I have some ideas about how one might change the Earth's orbit involving an asteroid and a solar sail; But it takes hundreds of thousands of years.

We'd best get started on it then. As Algorean control-freaks we naturally demand a circular orbit, not this messy ellipse :cool:.

[CapelDodger]

I'm sorry that happened. I liked him even if I never agreed with him.

I'm sorry too. I don't like him one tiny bit, but he does more harm to his own cause than we're ever likely to. I think even his compadres have come to recognise that.

Ah well. There's plenty left.

What did he get banned for? Bad spelling? That would be harsh.

[CapelDodger]

Waiting for a scientific consensus? :D

How many matching points do you need?

Ah yes, the consensus thing. I remember the Famous 400 list that was supposed to drive a stake into the consensus. The Heritage Foundation has been touting 19,000 scientists in publicity for its upcoming "International Scientific Conference" on climate change. That figure probably derives from the Oregon Petition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition.

By the way, that conference may well be worth a thread when it comes off. Monckton will be speaking, which is juicy news.

[JoeEllison]

Ah yes, the consensus thing. I remember the Famous 400 list that was supposed to drive a stake into the consensus. The Heritage Foundation has been touting 19,000 scientists in publicity for its upcoming "International Scientific Conference" on climate change. That figure probably derives from the Oregon Petition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition.

By the way, that conference may well be worth a thread when it comes off. Monckton will be speaking, which is juicy news.

Yeah, that should be... fun? :confused:

[BenBurch]

Waiting for a scientific consensus? :D

How many matching points do you need?

Oh, not me! I shoot from the hip. But others are more cautious.

[BenBurch]

We'd best get started on it then. As Algorean control-freaks we naturally demand a circular orbit, not this messy ellipse :cool:.

Cool! I'll need about 2000 Ares launches to get the basic equipment lofted, then we can begin.

[CapelDodger]

Cool! I'll need about 2000 Ares launches to get the basic equipment lofted, then we can begin.

Only have faith, and the Algore will provide. The Algore doesn't just move mountains, he moves all mountains at the same time. Trust me on that. It would help if you sent my Algorean Foundation some money as well. Whatever you can afford; the widow's mite is worth more than ... I just can't carry on with a straight face :).

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, that should be... fun? :confused:

Lord Munchkin's going to be given free rein, and he's already ramping up revelations of Fayedian proportions. Damn' straight there'll be fun available (if MI6 don't take him out beforehand, of course. Were I Munchkin I'd avoid underpasses. Dealey Plaza would be tantamount to suicide).

[rockoon]

Replace "GW" and "AGW" with "microevolution" and "macroevolution", and this argument is nearly identical to what a creationist would say.


Such a replacement would be dishonest.

Thanks, rockoon. I appreciate having your post as further confirmation that AGW denial is the same sort of woo as creationism. :D

Being dishonest with yourself is the worst form of it.

*******

Joe Ellison is infact one of the more vocal proponents of AGW here on these forums.

Does Joe know that microevolution and macroevolution are two terms for the same thing?

I think that he does.

Therefore I also think that Joe thinks that GW and AGW are two terms for the same thing.

I rest my case. Some vocal AGW proponents commonly confuse GW with AGW because they truely believe that it is the same thing. This certainly leaves the impression that many AGW proponents also cannot make the distinction, because the vocalness of AGW proponents appears to be proportional to their ignorance.

Good stuff.

[JoeEllison]

Such a replacement would be dishonest.



Being dishonest with yourself is the worst form of it.

*******

Joe Ellison is infact one of the more vocal proponents of AGW here on these forums.

Does Joe know that microevolution and macroevolution are two terms for the same thing?

I think that he does.

Therefore I also think that Joe thinks that GW and AGW are two terms for the same thing.

I rest my case. Some vocal AGW proponents commonly confuse GW with AGW because they truely believe that it is the same thing. This certainly leaves the impression that many AGW proponents also cannot make the distinction, because the vocalness of AGW proponents appears to be proportional to their ignorance.

Good stuff.

You've not shown any indication that you have even a basic understanding of the issues in this case. Your rant has done absolutely nothing for your case. Your best bet at this point is to quit while you are ahead only slightly behind.

Your behavior has been identified as being nearly identical to that of the creationists, on at least one occasion. I get the feeling that you'd prefer to distance yourself from the creationists. I don't blame you... but it also makes your own position seem more obviously foolish.

Please, tell me that I'm "projecting", or that I have a "religious attachment" to AGW... it fits my profile of you perfectly. :D

[fsol]

You slough off the missing areas in graph as if they were unimportant. It might be understandable if these were graphs of real data points and possibly they could be missing. However this is not real data. These graphs are simply output from computer models. As such there should be no white-out modified areas in the graphs, and if there are they should provide an explanation.

This leads to many questions. If they really have output from those areas why not show it? Don't they simulate the whole world? Are those areas too tough to explain? Are they hoping the public won't notice? No explanation at all leads me to think they don't want to show or explain the warts their models have. They'd rather try to slip one past the public.



If this is the same chart McKitrick called the "scissor chart" over on CA, then there is a perfectly reasonable explanation given for the white bits in that same thread. Of course if people really were interested in figuring stuff like this out they could simply work it out for themselves, much as a couple of posters over there did. Instead McKitrick thinks it better just to insinuate fraud and the unsceptical yapping follows.

[JoeEllison]

If this is the same chart McKitrick called the "scissor chart" over on CA, then there is a perfectly reasonable explanation given for the white bits in that same thread. Of course if people really were interested in figuring stuff like this out they could simply work it out for themselves, much as a couple of posters over there did. Instead McKitrick thinks it better just to insinuate fraud and the unsceptical yapping follows.
You mean the McKitrick that is engaged in junk science with coal and oil executive Stephen McIntyre?

[rockoon]

You've not shown any indication that you have even a basic understanding of the issues in this case.


The issue in this case is what AGW proponents believe.

Not only did I show understanding of what some AGW proponents believe, I got you to provide evidence that you too believe what I demonstrated.

You believe that GW is the same thing as AGW.

You are wrong.


Your rant has done absolutely nothing for your case.


I'm really sorry that immediately after I posted about a phenomenon here on these forums, that you replied to that very message and proceded to demonstrate it.

Good stuff.

Your behavior has been identified as being nearly identical to that of the creationists, on at least one occasion.


You do realize that you are violating a forum rule right now, correct?

The reson for this rule is that behavior such as yours is known to not be condusive to a rational discourse about a topic.

In this case the thread topic is what AGW proponents believe and claim.


I get the feeling that you'd prefer to distance yourself from the creationists. I don't blame you... but it also makes your own position seem more obviously foolish.


Is there logic in there?

I distance myself from creationists both because I am not a creationist, and because this topic is not about creationism. I am an athiest and this topic is about what AGW proponents believe and claim.

I understand why you want it to be about creationism, which is why you continualy bring it up in AGW threads. I truely do understand. You dont know the AGW subject very well but still insist on being very vocal about it, so you have to change the subject and try to undermine the arguementor, rather than his arguement. A violation of forum rules I might add. (Membership agreement bullet #12)

[JoeEllison]

The issue in this case is what AGW proponents believe.

Not only did I show understanding of what some AGW proponents believe, I got you to provide evidence that you too believe what I demonstrated.

You believe that GW is the same thing as AGW.

You are wrong.



I'm really sorry that immediately after I posted about a phenomenon here on these forums, that you replied to that very message and proceded to demonstrate it.

Good stuff.



You do realize that you are violating a forum rule right now, correct?

The reson for this rule is that behavior such as yours is known to not be condusive to a rational discourse about a topic.

In this case the thread topic is what AGW proponents believe and claim.



Is there logic in there?

I distance myself from creationists both because I am not a creationist, and because this topic is not about creationism. I am an athiest and this topic is about what AGW proponents believe and claim.

I understand why you want it to be about creationism, which is why you continualy bring it up in AGW threads. I truely do understand. You dont know the AGW subject very well but still insist on being very vocal about it, so you have to change the subject and try to undermine the arguementor, rather than his arguement. A violation of forum rules I might add. (Membership agreement bullet #12)

You didn't comment on the projection part of my post, although you engaged in that behavior throughout your entire post... and no coincidence.

Again, thank you for proving my point. The more you post, the more I have to work with.

[Cuddles]

Once again, the global warming threads are filling up with personal attacks and bickering. Stop it, or there's going to be an awful lot of posts heading to AAH.

[TrueSceptic]

I'm sorry that happened. I liked him even if I never agreed with him.
Please let it not be true. A funnier caricature of an ignorant right-wing bigot would be hard to find.

What does it take to get banned here anyway? Are there certain trigger words?

[TrueSceptic]

Replace "GW" and "AGW" with "microevolution" and "macroevolution", and this argument is nearly identical to what a creationist would say.

Thanks, rockoon. I appreciate having your post as further confirmation that AGW denial is the same sort of woo as creationism. :D
Another comparison would with belief in psychics. No matter how often they are debunked, discredited, or exposed as frauds, believers keep saying that, well OK he/she might be a fraud, but this one is honest and is the real thing.

Of course, all the while they accuse anyone sceptical of paranormal claims of being close-minded dogmatists!

[TrueSceptic]

Such a replacement would be dishonest.



Being dishonest with yourself is the worst form of it.

*******

Joe Ellison is infact one of the more vocal proponents of AGW here on these forums.

Does Joe know that microevolution and macroevolution are two terms for the same thing?

I think that he does.

Therefore I also think that Joe thinks that GW and AGW are two terms for the same thing.

I rest my case. Some vocal AGW proponents commonly confuse GW with AGW because they truely believe that it is the same thing. This certainly leaves the impression that many AGW proponents also cannot make the distinction, because the vocalness of AGW proponents appears to be proportional to their ignorance.

Good stuff.
Hmmm. I can't decide whether this strawman is deliberate or the result of stupidity. So hard to tell with some...