Originally posted by @metal-brainYou figure people are not impacting the environment, and yet agree the world is melting. Shouldn't we be be worried? Taking steps to not kill our world?
You are uninformed. All that proves is there is global warming, not man made global warming. ...
Originally posted by @wildgrassNova discredited itself. You have not even said what Nova got right, you just say it. For all I know you might be wrong about that too. I will not know until you are specific.
You conveniently forgot to mention the things the Nova program got right about climate change. Furthermore, KazetNagorra is very clearly correct. Getting your information from popular television shows and politically-biased news websites is not how scientists form objective opinions about the validity of claims. You need to dig a lot deeper than you're wi ...[text shortened]... aters a bit. That's where you lose your objectivity and credibility. The big picture is obvious.
You are claiming I got my information from popular TV shows? That is ridiculous. What shows do you claim I am getting my information from? I discredited Nova so it isn't that show. You are just making stuff up hoping others will believe your nonsense.
As for politically biased websites you are just as guilty of getting your information from those too. You are another one of those partisan creatures that holds people to double standards when they challenge your politically driven biases. Besides, you are being ridiculous for even bringing it up. Nobody is going to waste time looking to find supporting data for AGW on the Daily Caller website and the opposite is true as well. Do you expect me to waste time looking for data showing climate models are inaccurate on a leftist website? The truth is we all get on politically biased websites that often provide their sources of information and lead to science journal articles. Your assertion that I am somehow bypassing science journal articles with websites is dishonest and absurd. This is another feeble attempt to apply an unfair double standard that you have no intention of honoring yourself.
You and all other leftists on the science forum have failed to explain why the Pliocene Epoch was much warmer than today even though we have about the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We all agree it was natural causes, but none of you can cite which natural causes they were. Your basic response was you don't know and it doesn't matter. It does matter if you want to convince people you have any idea what you are talking about, because you don't.
"When prompted, you conveniently ignore the work and and any data that goes against your opinion"
That is exactly what you do. That is your psychological projection.
Are you willing to condemn nova for falsely claiming CO2 drives temperatures as shown in the ice core samples?
Originally posted by @apathistWhen did I say the world is melting? I never said that.
You figure people are not impacting the environment, and yet agree the world is melting. Shouldn't we be be worried? Taking steps to not kill our world?
Kill our world? I am torn between telling you to shut up or telling you to keep going to help make my point that partisan creatures are unrealistic. Nah, keep going.
Originally posted by @metal-brainI'm not being dishonest, you just don't understand that PBS programs aren't "science." Perhaps they asked some scientists for advice while making their popular-scientific programming, but active scientists don't have time to make such programs.
You are being dishonest. Nova is a science program, at least they claim to be. They have recently exposed themselves into being propagandists which apparently you agree with since you are distancing yourself from Nova as much as you can.
"Again, you can't claim to have a view "based on science" if you're not a scientist."
Now you are showing your ...[text shortened]... to attempt to prove that embarrassingly false assertion if you want to. You will fail miserably!
As you well know, the consensus among relevant scientists is that anthropogenic climate change is real, and no amount of teary-eyed foot-stamping will change this.
Originally posted by @metal-brainSo how many other such situations have you seen?
Nova discredited itself. You have not even said what Nova got right, you just say it. For all I know you might be wrong about that too. I will not know until you are specific.
You are claiming I got my information from popular TV shows? That is ridiculous. What shows do you claim I am getting my information from? I discredited Nova so it isn't that sho ...[text shortened]... g to condemn nova for falsely claiming CO2 drives temperatures as shown in the ice core samples?
It could well be, it true, there were other factors that forced world temps up followed by CO2 level rise.
What proof do YOU have this is not an isolated incident, like I said, even if true?
Suppose back then a giant increase in CH4 happened with no increase in CO2, temps would rise and then CO2 would come up too.
Or a huge volcano blow up or something.
Prove THAT situation could not happen before you make grand assumptions about what is going on today.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraReally? Nova has another spin off called "Science Now".
I'm not being dishonest, you just don't understand that PBS programs aren't "science." Perhaps they asked some scientists for advice while making their popular-scientific programming, but active scientists don't have time to make such programs.
As you well know, the consensus among relevant scientists is that anthropogenic climate change is real, and no amount of teary-eyed foot-stamping will change this.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/
I look forward to you trying to prove PBS programs are not science programs. I find it hilarious that you have resorted to attacking PBS. Do you feel cornered right now?
Yes, the consensus among relevant scientists is that anthropogenic climate change is real, but how much? 1%, 5%?
Just what does the consensus really say? Is natural causes 99%, 95%? Let's have an honest conversation about how much AGW really is compared to natural causes. That seems fair, right? Assuming is over-rated isn't it?
Originally posted by @sonhouseYou are resorting to asking me to prove a negative again. That is not reasonable. That is a clear sign of your weakness to explain anything relevant to this issue. You explain why the Pliocene was much warmer than today. The CO2 levels are about the same and you are claiming you know the sun is not a significant factor, not me. The Maunder Minimum caused the mini ice age and Global Warming Alarmists are in denial of the science of that. I even created a thread called Maunder Minimum and all of the partisan creatures failed to prove me wrong.
So how many other such situations have you seen?
It could well be, it true, there were other factors that forced world temps up followed by CO2 level rise.
What proof do YOU have this is not an isolated incident, like I said, even if true?
Suppose back then a giant increase in CH4 happened with no increase in CO2, temps would rise and then CO2 w ...[text shortened]... THAT situation could not happen before you make grand assumptions about what is going on today.
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhy is that ureasonable?
You are resorting to asking me to prove a negative again. That is not reasonable.
You are asking us to prove a 'negative' all the time; specifically, that there is NO man made global warming.
To say proving a 'negative' rather than a 'positive' is 'unreasonable' is to recommend a totally arbitrary and illogical difference in treatment between the so called 'negative' and 'positive'.
Originally posted by @metal-brainI'm not "attacking" PBS or their programming.
Really? Nova has another spin off called "Science Now".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/
I look forward to you trying to prove PBS programs are not science programs. I find it hilarious that you have resorted to attacking PBS. Do you feel cornered right now?
Yes, the consensus among relevant scientists is that anthropogenic climate chang ...[text shortened]... W really is compared to natural causes. That seems fair, right? Assuming is over-rated isn't it?
What I'm saying is that scientific discourse goes through the peer reviewed literature, not television programs. If you have a problem with the science, find faults in the literature, not television programs.
It has already been explained to you ad nauseam that there is a strong consensus among experts that mankind is significantly contributing to climate change.
Originally posted by @humy"You are asking us to prove a 'negative' all the time; specifically, that there is NO man made global warming."
Why is that ureasonable?
You are asking us to prove a 'negative' all the time; specifically, that there is NO man made global warming.
To say proving a 'negative' rather than a 'positive' is 'unreasonable' is to recommend a totally arbitrary and illogical difference in treatment between the so called 'negative' and 'positive'.
I have never asked you to prove there is NO man made global warming. What is wrong with you?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraFred Singer has written a lot of peer reviewed literature. I have told you that many times before. It is like you are in the habit of fooling yourself into believing falsehoods. Do I have to keep repeating that ad nauseam??
I'm not "attacking" PBS or their programming.
What I'm saying is that scientific discourse goes through the peer reviewed literature, not television programs. If you have a problem with the science, find faults in the literature, not television programs.
It has already been explained to you ad nauseam that there is a strong consensus among experts that mankind is significantly contributing to climate change.
There is no strong consensus among experts that mankind is significantly contributing to climate change. I created a thread on this forum about AGW consensus and everything and nobody could prove your false claim. I even posted that Fred Singer article in the OP of that thread and I even posted it on this thread recently. We have been though this ad nauseam and you didn't prove anything of the sort despite your best efforts. I'll post the link again since you seem to be experiencing memory loss.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/climate_consensus_con_game.html
15 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainThat was a bad mispost.
I have never asked you to prove there is NO man made global warming.
That should have been;
"You are asking us to prove a 'negative' all the time; specifically, that there is NO NO man made global warming."
Two negatives make a positive; but that is still a negative of a negative so, according to your own logic, all requests to prove a positive as well as a negative must be 'unreasonable'; and that shows the stupid flaw in your logic of making the completely arbitrary and illogical difference in treatment between the 'positive' and 'negative'.
There is another way of saying that;
"You are asking us to prove a 'negative' all the time; specifically, that the recent global warming is NOT purely natural"
This is an example showing how a so called 'positive' can always be arbitrarily expressed as a 'negative' and vice versa thus showing the idiocy of making the arbitrary extinction between the two when it comes to their treatment. If it is unreasonable to prove a 'negative' then it must be unreasonable to prove a 'positive'; I assert neither is the case and whether something is merely 'negative' or 'positive' is by itself irrelevant to whether it is 'unreasonable' to demand proof of it.
Originally posted by @metal-brainI have also written a lot of peer reviewed literature, but you don't blindly accept everything I say.
Fred Singer has written a lot of peer reviewed literature. I have told you that many times before. It is like you are in the habit of fooling yourself into believing falsehoods. Do I have to keep repeating that ad nauseam??
There is no strong consensus among experts that mankind is significantly contributing to climate change. I created a thread on thi ...[text shortened]... memory loss.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/climate_consensus_con_game.html
Scientific consensus isn't about any single individual, moreover, Singer isn't a climate scientist.
Notice how humy tries to mislead people into thinking I expect others to prove a negative. When someone claims global warming is mostly man made and I say prove it, am I asking them to prove a negative? Nope.
Note that he insulted me with another ad hominem attack indicating his weakness and failure.