Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Hey thanks!
Nota bene.
Nota bene bene bene bene!
It is NOT in accordance with scientific principles o rthe behavior of reasonable, decent, honest scientists to harass and denigrate other scientists who disagree with them.
This behavior, trying to squelch opposing viewpoints and declare the debate ended just because one can claim, whether rightly or wrongly, a majority of others in agreement, is a behavior associated with RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS, which the great vocal majority of the global warming crew appears to be.
The "consensus based on predictions that work" is JUST GOSH_DARNED WRONG!
1) The computer models DON'T work. They constantly drift off their predicted lines and the modelers must then "adjust" (Read FUDGE) their parameters to make the models demonstrate something at all reasonable. Which is to say, to make them agree with what they THINK they should show! This is HARDLY a climate model that works. If the models can't predict accurately what will happen next month, then it is darn sure they aren't accurately predicting--"working"--decades down the road.
2) The models are supposedly predicting something that will happen decades or centuries or eons hence--we have NO WAY TO SHOW THESE "WORK" unless you have an operating time machine. If you do, please demonstrate.
"So what? Your argument that sometimes the consensus is wrong is completely tiresome, and proves absolutely nothing. Hell, it doesn't even suggest anything, much less prove it.
There are also lots of consensuses that have not been wrong. It doesn't prove that every consensus is correct, either. It's simply irrelevant, and such irrelevant arguments are typical from global warming deniers."
I didn't say I could PROVE anything. I have consistently said that the global warming crowd can't PROVE anything either, and that taking a nose count doesn't prove or disprove anything!
Your argument is a perfect example of why your devout belief in global warming is untrustworthy.
That a consensus neither proves nor disproves a THEORY is NOT irrelevant--it is the heart of the argument here! And it's a point in my favor!
I love the "global warming DENIER" phrase.
It is most revealing, showing as it does the religious nature of your position.
The correct phraseology would be "those who do not subscribe to the manmade global warming theory as proven or even probable."
--Brooks
SailFree: The "consensus based on predictions that work" is JUST GOSH_DARNED WRONG!
It's not. You like to argue ignorantly against vague generalities like computer models.
Even before we had sophisticated computer models, climatologists have been predicting the warming trend based on CO2 levels relatively accurately. A 1 degree rise was predicted long ago, and the part that we seem to have wrong is that actually, the warming is following the CO2 rise faster than we expected, and seems to be on an elevator to the top floor, in geological terms.
These are not disputed facts amongst anyone who is actually scientifically and mathematically educated in the subject. I attempted earlier to explain why your sources all make two fundamental mistakes: first they assume that the researchers are making a claim that CO2 rises never follows a warming, when in fact researchers would make no such claim, because the system is much more mathematically complex than that. Secondly, they fail to note significant spikes in CO2 before all of the largest warming trends.
You either don't understand what I'm saying, or are ignoring it. Either way, when you continue lying about the evidence, I will continue calling you on it, because you aren't even attempting a rational discussion. You simply ignore anything that does not fit your pre-defined worldview, and call others ignorant and hardheaded.
Scientists are constantly harassed by non-scientists, such as yourself, SailFree, with pop arguments that don't adequately consider either the theory or the data. It's obvious to an actual scientist that you aren't even familiar with the basics of the science you are claiming to criticize. Your constant, loudly expressed, willful ignorance has proved that, many times.
Discourse between scientists is entirely different from loudly expressed ignorance. If you took some time to actually read up on the subject, you'd show it in the sorts of arguments you would make. Your arguments are all based on private think tanks that only criticize others, and don't even do that very well, since even I can see the obvious flaws in their non-scientific puff pieces.
I've explained to you, twice now, why your principal arguments are formed from a false premise. You've seized on a misinterpretation of the data, and held that up as proof that a theory you don't understand is incorrect, and in the process shown yourself to be ignorant and irrational.
Start talking like a scientist, ask questions rather than assuming you know the theory, and you'll be treated as a scientist. Make wild claims, then claim that they're mainstream and it's a legit scientific disagreement, with lousy evidence, and others will respond as I have.
1. What is your theory?
2. What falsifies your theory?
3. What predictions do you make, based on your theory?
Can you do that for us, SailFree?
I can.
The Theory
1. Theory: Sharply increased CO2 levels can lead (and have led) to global warming.
2. Falsified if: A large CO2 rise with no mitigating factors, and no subsequent rise in temperature
3. Prediction: a large rise in CO2 will be followed by warming
The Data
I can back up #1 easily with many different kinds of evidence, none of them involving any computer models.
#2 has never been shown
Given that we have actually observed warming, as predicted by the theory, and we are in the unique situation of having raised CO2 by 30% in the last 100 years, it seems that the predicted theory is being shown to be correct. Furthermore, the consensus has been accurate in predicting warming trends based on both sea levels and temperature, even without any computer models.
The computer models you so easily and ignorantly disparage mainly get things wrong like currents, and ice floes, not the overall mean temperature predictions.
But let's hear your theory.
You're welcome!
Regarding sailfree, his tactic of "That's religion! That's religion!" has been used by Coulter and others.
I just keep reminding myself, "He voted for Bush. Twice."
Nuff said.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
