NASA: Human Activity, Not Solar Activity, Drives Global Warming and...

Ex Machine Operator, I understand what you're trying to say. Trying to give you a link to counter your point would be useless. The internet has abundance of information regarding GW. There seems to be "well respected scientists" to argue for either side. Their findings can be very confusing because one can be just as believable as the other.

It's difficult for me to fully believe that GW is real. It's equally difficult for me to believe that GW is not real. I used to drive an SUV. I now drive a Prius to honor GW out of fear. I'm sure you know that fear is a great tool to control the masses. Yes, fear-based religions comes into mind. It would be foolish of us to carelessly destroy our environment wether GW is real or not.

What I'm actually saying is that GW is either a scam(cashing in at our own expense) or the other. I hope you know what I mean.

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

Ex Machine Operator, I understand what you're trying to say. Trying to give you a link to counter your point would be useless. The internet has abundance of information regarding GW. There seems to be "well respected scientists" to argue for either side. Their findings can be very confusing because one can be just as believable as the other.
It's difficult for me to fully believe that GW is real. It's equally difficult for me to believe that GW is not real. I used to drive an SUV. I now drive a Prius to honor GW out of fear. I'm sure you know that fear is a great tool to control the masses. Yes, fear-based religions comes into mind. It would be foolish of us to carelessly destroy our environment wether GW is real or not.
What I'm actually saying is that GW is either a scam(cashing in at our own expense) or the other. I hope you know what I mean.

My mistake EMO. I didn't think my post went through. You get my point though.

freakthunker wrote:

I'm sure you're well educated when it comes to believing that global warming is real. The internet has abundance of info towards the argument for both sides.
It gets very confusing when you read their findings because one is just as believable as the other.
I'm sure that you're starting to see my standpoint on this matter.
Wether(sic) our actions contributes to global warming or not, it doesnt(sic) matter.

freakthunker is a nubee AGW denier pretending 2 c both sides. Been done here before & freakthunker isn't any better than the others.

freakthunker shows his undereducated bias already, since he finds his science on the internet & thinks AGW deniers are comparable to AGW advocates.

freakthunker must know:
The authors of peer-reviewed science papers comfirming AGW have 10+ years more education than AGW deniers & usually have 12+ years more education in science & mathematics. Few AGW deniers have valid peer-reviewed science papers & most often could NOT develop science papers.

freakthunker will find numerous educationally short topix AGW deniers on these threads & many without hi skule deegreees.

Isn't it pointless to argue about something that scientists will not accept by majority? One must prove the whole truth in order to be accepted as a fact. Statistics can be misleading. Unfortunately, there's little, and most likely, none of us knows the whole truth. I'm not a person that is all knowing to say I'm right and everyone else is wrong. There's a difference in being biased and knowing the whole truth.

Even if it's accepted by majority, there's still a chance that a theory can be replaced by a more acceptable theory. It goes on and on.

Pointless isnt it?

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

Even if it's accepted by majority, there's still a chance that a theory can be replaced by a more acceptable theory.

Absolutely, but dyed in the wool AGW believers don't want to believe that's possible.

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

It goes on and on.
Pointless isnt it?

What's pointless, is arguing with people whose minds are made up.

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

<quoted text>
My friend, I understand what you're trying to say.

I did not 'try to say' anything. I stated facts as well as we currently know them.

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sure you're well educated when it comes to believing that global warming is real.

Well educated (yes, university at least) means that you are capable of reasoned critical thinking, not just grabbing 'beliefs'.

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

<quoted text>
The internet has abundance of info towards the argument for both sides. The problem is that there's just as many "respected scientists" to argue for either side.

Not. Many surveys of the climate scientists and literature show that 97% or more of those with the skills to evaluate the evidence have been convinced by it.

The denial that grabs retired, senile, and those in other scientific fields that are not familiar with the evidence, and gets them to make political statements on their 'beliefs' are meaningless.

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

<quoted text>
It gets very confusing when you read their findings because one is just as believable as the other. In other words, trying to give you a link to counter your point is useless.

That is the purpose of critical thinking. The ability to judge the evidence, not just compare google hits. But to do that you have to be able to read and learn. Or debate with someone who has a better knowledge. Who would be the most 'expert' in knowledge of climate science? The climate scientist, of course, and they are ALMOST unanimous in supporting AGW theory.

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

<quoted text>
With that said, I can't fully believe that global warming is real; and neither can I fully believe that it isn't.

Reality doesn't care what you BELIEVE. And science is about understanding reality. Reality will bite your ass if you ignore it no matter whether you believe in it or not.

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

<quoted text>
What I'm trying to say is that I will not just carelessly destroy the environment. I used to drive an SUV. Now I drive a Prius to honor global warming out of fear.

Drive a Prius out of economic logic and prudence. After all, it is a multi-year investment and oil is bound to keep increasing in price as the gap between supply and demand increases.

But two things. A Prius may not be the most economical option. Don't get caught in 'fads'. And second, while the science of AGW is solid, what we DO about it is not dependent on that. Some think that we are better off 'adapting' to AGW. Some think that we are better off 'avoiding' AGW. We do not know enough about climate to be certain of the response. AGW itself is NOT a risk. What it does to the climate IS. And there we have a fair bit of room for doubt or belief.

So, the main argument for reducing GHGs is that we DON'T 'know' the risks. And studies have shown that there are major problems that MAY be helped by reducing GHG emissions. That said, we have the allied problems of the end of cheap oil, expansion of the 'developed world', population, etc. That AGW is real or not does NOT affect those problems and they have similar solutions. Reduce waste and resource usage. Reduce pollution. For that matter, it is a matter of 'quality of life'. We need to use our current abundance to ensure the long term.

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

Even if it's accepted by majority, there's still a chance that a theory can be replaced by a more acceptable theory. It goes on and on.
Pointless isnt it?

Can you conceive that the body of physics would be replaced so that greenhouse effect is rejected? No way.

Man-made CO2 => Greenhouse Effect => AGW => Climate Change

The fundamental conclusions about climate change are:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased
concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our
atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington
does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration
of these gases over the last century is due
to human activities, especially the burning of
fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in
changing Earth’s climate, but are now being
overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many
other climatic patterns to change at speeds
unprecedented in modern times, including
increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations
in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations
of carbon dioxide are making the
oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex
climate changes threatens coastal communities
and cities, our food and water supplies,
marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests,
high mountain environments, and far more.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/68...

Apart from the unusual lack of spelling errors and typos, it would seem that LessFactMoreHype, alias, NobodyYouEverWantToKnow from Toronto, has possibly decided a third alias is necessary.
The excess use of capitalised words is the only similarity so far.
Then again, maybe he simply went to the same 'one roomed' school as Less/Nobody, with the dictionary that listed 'fourty' as the correct spelling of 40.
Only time will tell.

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Can you conceive that the body of physics would be replaced so that greenhouse effect is rejected?

From his posts, I would say that he can conceive of a brick outhouse falling upstairs. After all, gravity is 'just a theory'.

That is the problem with trying to convince the undereducated.

They think that it is ALL a matter of opinion and since science admits that any theory MIGHT be overturned (though the probability may actually be close to zero), it obviously will be.. so who can believe science?

What it really boils down to is that they will believe what they WANT to believe.

Earthling-1 wrote:

Apart from the unusual lack of spelling errors and typos, it would seem that LessFactMoreHype, alias, NobodyYouEverWantToKnow from Toronto, has possibly decided a third alias is necessary.

Actually that was NobodyYouKnow. I thought the alias was more appropriate for the post and got caught with the stupid thing defaulting one every other post I made. I thoght I had changed it back. Never happened with the usenet posts. Oh, well. I live and learn.

Not that it lessens in any way what I posted. So now you know a bit more about me. Happy?

LessFactMoreHype, alias:

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:

Actually that was NobodyYouKnow. I thought the alias was more appropriate for the post and got caught with the stupid thing defaulting one every other post I made. I thoght I had changed it back. Never happened with the usenet posts. Oh, well. I live and learn.
Not that it lessens in any way what I posted. So now you know a bit more about me. Happy?

Not quite.
Unlike you, I have a very good memory and I do recall LessfactMoreHype making the same excuse when he posted as NobodyYouKnow.
-
You could settle this once and for all by telling me how you spell 40 as a word and why you think epistemologists compile dictionaries?

Fr3eth1nker wrote:

The internet has abundance of information regarding GW. There seems to be "well respected scientists" to argue for either side. Their findings can be very confusing because one can be just as believable as the other.

Actually, almost no respected scientists still question our responsibility for warming the climate. More important, no major scientific review bodies do. All the major national scientific academies have been agreed for years, as have all the relevant scientific societies.

The oil and coal industry's strategy has been to promote the idea that this settled science is still controversial. Yesterday's unmasking of the Heartland Institute's whoring shows what I mean:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/fe...

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, almost no respected scientists still question our responsibility for warming the climate. More important, no major scientific review bodies do. All the major national scientific academies have been agreed for years, as have all the relevant scientific societies.
The oil and coal industry's strategy has been to promote the idea that this settled science is still controversial. Yesterday's unmasking of the Heartland Institute's whoring shows what I mean:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/fe...

Of course not. By this time they already know that it is a dead end. And the funny thing about your scientific bodies is that the leadership is more political than scientific.

The fact is if the coal and oil have been promoting that this science isn't settled then they must be doing an excellent job. Because the majority of actual scientist now believe man has little to do with climate change and that it is a natural event. Of course that could be that all the theories that claimed man was the cause could not survive outside the industrial revolution. Or it could be that many of the major claims have fallen flat. Sea level rises have yet to happen with time growning short. People like Dr Mann, Jones, or the deal with the IPCC and the research including references.

To many less than respectful people were involved in man made climate change. Along with the fact that the public has more important things to worry about and those in Europe are digging themselves out of a meter of snow make the whole thing sound a little silly. Along with claiming everything that happens weather wise is the result of climate change. Even though worse things have happened in the past.

I know what you mean by revelant scientific societies. Those who agree with you are relevant and those who do not are not. Of course that dosn't mean that those who agree are right or those who disagree are wrong, except to you.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact is if the coal and oil have been promoting that this science isn't settled then they must be doing an excellent job.
To many less than respectful people were involved in man made climate change.

..........
The fact is if the coal and oil have been promoting that this science isn't settled then they must be doing an excellent job.
..........
False
..........
To many less than respectful people were involved in man made climate change.
..........
True

SoE wrote:

<quoted text>
..........
The fact is if the coal and oil have been promoting that this science isn't settled then they must be doing an excellent job.
..........
False
..........
To many less than respectful people were involved in man made climate change.
..........
True

1. Yet, the science is not settled and if anything when it is it looks like man made climate change is going to be the looser. The increase in peer reviewed published work backing that man is not the primary cause is rising fast and far out paces the amount supporting the idea. So far the only point which critics have been able to attack such work is who is funding it, not the actual results itself. Which is completely diffferent than what happened with Dr Mann, the IPCC, and a host of others.

2. Replace respectful with honest and your right. How many of the studies, reports, and other sources your friends have once quoted that were discovered to be far from truthful. Of course your not referring to them but those who point out how AGW was wrong while ignoring those who were far less respectful.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
I know what you mean by revelant scientific societies. Those who agree with you are relevant and those who do not are not. Of course that dosn't mean that those who agree are right or those who disagree are wrong, except to you.

False. Name a single major scientific society that disputes our responsibility for warming the climate.

Just one should do.

You're on.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
False. Name a single major scientific society that disputes our responsibility for warming the climate.
Just one should do.
You're on.

Here is one.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/c...

Of course I sure your going to claim that they are not. Because in your little mind that one of the quals is that they have to back the idea of man made global warming.

I can also name far more where the actual scientist disagree with the society that they are a member. I can also name one that made similar claim about the ice age in 75. It is the National Academy of Science. Just because they all agree and they have all backed the IPCC and it's report which was discovered to be so wrong that it should of been filed in the fiction section.

Here is one for you. Can you name one study funded by the Koch brothers that can be refuted based on science and not who funded it.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is one.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/c...

Try again. SPPI is not a peer-reviewing scientific society; it is a corporate front group that sprang from the Heartland Institute and Frontiers For Freedom, and which shares those grease traps' under-the-table funding from the oil and coal industries (although Heartland's whoring is obviously no longer much of a secret).

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php...

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Try again. SPPI is not a peer-reviewing scientific society; it is a corporate front group that sprang from the Heartland Institute and Frontiers For Freedom, and which shares those grease traps' under-the-table funding from the oil and coal industries (although Heartland's whoring is obviously no longer much of a secret).
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php...

Silence!

Hope she tries :)

Do you recognize the material in denier copy/paste posts stemming from this site?

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/