AGW denial is anti-science

[AshVX220]

kerplunk said:

AshVX220 said:

All projections relating to the science have not been observed.

Well, apart from global warming obviously.

AshVX220 said:

The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.

Sure your evaluations of the science are clealy objective - no denialism here.

Global Warming? You mean the fact that we're still coming out of an ice age? Warming may be happening, the link the human influence is shaky at best.

I prefer the term skeptical or realist than denier with it's underlying connertations, used excelusively to try and shut down debate.

As I've said before and if the proponents actually want to follow the scientific process it is at best a theory.

[GroundZero]

kerplunk said:

Well, apart from global warming obviously.

This depends on the time line selected doesn't it?

You can snippet the historical time line to show cooling, warming or stagnation. For what ever the agenda.

[Terminator X]

kerplunk said:

AshVX220 said:

All projections relating to the science have not been observed.

Well, apart from global warming obviously.

AshVX220 said:

The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.

Sure your evaluations of the science are clealy objective - no denialism here.

0.85 degrees warmer than 1850 when measurements began. Hardly gonna burn up are we + who has decided what the correct temperature is? My understanding is that plants, trees etc like it warmer + they also like CO2.

TX.

[Einion Yrth]

AshVX220 said:

to follow the scientific process it is at best a theory.

Point of order. In scientific terms you seem to mean "is at best a hypothesis "
I would agree.

[kerplunk]

AshVX220 said:

kerplunk said:

AshVX220 said:

All projections relating to the science have not been observed.

Well, apart from global warming obviously.

AshVX220 said:

The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.

Sure your evaluations of the science are clealy objective - no denialism here.

Global Warming? You mean the fact that we're still coming out of an ice age? Warming may be happening, the link the human influence is shaky at best.

Why would we 'still be coming out of an ice age'? Holocene temps peaked thousands of years ago since when there's been a long slow cooling trend.

AshVX220 said:

I prefer the term skeptical or realist than denier with it's underlying connertations, used excelusively to try and shut down debate.

As I've said before and if the proponents actually want to follow the scientific process it is at best a theory.

I prefer to call sceptics sceptics and deniers deniers - and decide who is who based on the things they say.

Saying 'it's at best a theory' is not a good look imo - it suggests you're holding out for some nebulous unattainable notion of 'proof' which you'll never get. Rendering yourself impervious to evidence and unconvincable is not my idea of what scepticism is about.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 13th February 18:00

[Esceptico]

stew-STR160 said:

Esceptico said:

The reason AGW denial is not science is it is driven by pre-existing personal (political) beliefs like creationism is driven by religious belief.

Thanks for the anti endorsement. I would be worried if the denier brigade actually agreed with something I wrote.


Complete and utter BS. Which does not surprise me considering some of the garbage you have posted on PH.

[kerplunk]

GroundZero said:

kerplunk said:

Well, apart from global warming obviously.

This depends on the time line selected doesn't it?

You can snippet the historical time line to show cooling, warming or stagnation. For what ever the agenda.

The timeline is the period of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - that's a bird in the hand reason to expect warming and warming we see.

[kerplunk]

Terminator X said:

kerplunk said:

AshVX220 said:

All projections relating to the science have not been observed.

Well, apart from global warming obviously.

AshVX220 said:

The proponents of AGW are the ones driven by an existing belief, not the skeptics.

Sure your evaluations of the science are clealy objective - no denialism here.

0.85 degrees warmer than 1850 when measurements began. Hardly gonna burn up are we + who has decided what the correct temperature is? My understanding is that plants, trees etc like it warmer + they also like CO2.

TX.

I think we're exceeded +1C now. Trend since the seventies not far off 0.2C/decade, or 2C/century.

[stew-STR160]

Still ignoring the fact the little ice age came to an end around the mid 1800's though...which is when most of the data and graphs have been refined to start from. Of course it shows warming.

There's still no causal link to it being the result of CO2 increases, only correlation.

[kerplunk]

stew-STR160 said:

Still ignoring the fact the little ice age came to an end around the mid 1800's though...which is when most of the data and graphs have been refined to start from. Of course it shows warming.

There's still no causal link to it being the result of CO2 increases, only correlation.

In line with the thread your argument is a display of double standards and therefore denialism not scepticism. You happily say warming is to be expected since the LIA as a matter 'of course' (why wouldn't it stay cold, or get colder?) with no concern for causal mechanisms, but when you have a plausible mechanism in hand that would imply warming (ie rapidly increasing greenhouse gases) you get all demanding in the proof department.

[BiEilh]

Got a friend in sweden who tells me that the average temperature this winter is 5 degrees. that is a sign in my eyes that global warming is affecting.

[AshVX220]

BiEilh said:

Got a friend in sweden who tells me that the average temperature this winter is 5 degrees. that is a sign in my eyes that global warming is affecting.

I also have a friend on Fort Worth that has said this is the 3rd coldest year on record, so it flips and flops across the globe.

[stew-STR160]

kerplunk said:

In line with the thread your argument is a display of double standards and therefore denialism not scepticism. You happily say warming is to be expected since the LIA as a matter 'of course' (why wouldn't it stay cold, or get colder?) with no concern for causal mechanisms, but when you have a plausible mechanism in hand that would imply warming (ie rapidly increasing greenhouse gases) you get all demanding in the proof department.

Ok, I deny. And you exhibit a faith based approach. 1+1= whatever you believe it to be and evidence is not required to prove it.

Why would it stay cold, or get colder, after a glacial period(of any magnitude)? You know how cycles go, yes?


I guess CO2 is all that matters in your book? The main assertion is that AGW is a result of the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Correlation, check. Causal link...lacking. Contributing factor, likely.

I'm semi fishing to determine just what it is you think is the reality of things.

Edited by stew-STR160 on Friday 14th February 13:34

[kerplunk]

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

In line with the thread your argument is a display of double standards and therefore denialism not scepticism. You happily say warming is to be expected since the LIA as a matter 'of course' (why wouldn't it stay cold, or get colder?) with no concern for causal mechanisms, but when you have a plausible mechanism in hand that would imply warming (ie rapidly increasing greenhouse gases) you get all demanding in the proof department.

Ok, I deny. And you exhibit a faith based approach. 1+1= whatever you believe it to be and evidence is not required to prove it.

Why would it stay cold, or get colder, after a glacial period(of any magnitude)? You know how cycles go, yes?


I guess CO2 is all that matters in your book? The main assertion is that AGW is a result of the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Correlation, check. Causal link...lacking. Contributing factor, likely.

I'm semi fishing to determine just what it is you think is the reality of things.

Edited by stew-STR160 on Friday 14th February 13:34

You're on a roll - accussing people of a faith-based approach whilst waving your hand in the air about 'cycles'.

[Terminator X]

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

In line with the thread your argument is a display of double standards and therefore denialism not scepticism. You happily say warming is to be expected since the LIA as a matter 'of course' (why wouldn't it stay cold, or get colder?) with no concern for causal mechanisms, but when you have a plausible mechanism in hand that would imply warming (ie rapidly increasing greenhouse gases) you get all demanding in the proof department.

Ok, I deny. And you exhibit a faith based approach. 1+1= whatever you believe it to be and evidence is not required to prove it.

Why would it stay cold, or get colder, after a glacial period(of any magnitude)? You know how cycles go, yes?


I guess CO2 is all that matters in your book? The main assertion is that AGW is a result of the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Correlation, check. Causal link...lacking. Contributing factor, likely.

I'm semi fishing to determine just what it is you think is the reality of things.

Edited by stew-STR160 on Friday 14th February 13:34

You're on a roll - accussing people of a faith-based approach whilst waving your hand in the air about 'cycles'.

You do agree that climate does cycle though yes eg always has always will?

TX.

[kerplunk]

Terminator X said:

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

In line with the thread your argument is a display of double standards and therefore denialism not scepticism. You happily say warming is to be expected since the LIA as a matter 'of course' (why wouldn't it stay cold, or get colder?) with no concern for causal mechanisms, but when you have a plausible mechanism in hand that would imply warming (ie rapidly increasing greenhouse gases) you get all demanding in the proof department.

Ok, I deny. And you exhibit a faith based approach. 1+1= whatever you believe it to be and evidence is not required to prove it.

Why would it stay cold, or get colder, after a glacial period(of any magnitude)? You know how cycles go, yes?


I guess CO2 is all that matters in your book? The main assertion is that AGW is a result of the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Correlation, check. Causal link...lacking. Contributing factor, likely.

I'm semi fishing to determine just what it is you think is the reality of things.

Edited by stew-STR160 on Friday 14th February 13:34

You're on a roll - accussing people of a faith-based approach whilst waving your hand in the air about 'cycles'.

You do agree that climate does cycle though yes eg always has always will?

TX.

Yes absolutely, but requires more meat on the bone. Handwaving at 'cycles' is just that - a handwave. We could fill pages here discussing the LIA, what's know about it, the causes of it, why it ended, the uncertainties. Doubtless people would nod along at the reasonableness of suggesting a rebound due to reduced volcanic activity and probably a contribution from increased solar activity too. But then mention increased greenhouse gases and it would be shutters down, drawbridge up, and "I DEMAND PROOF!" My comments above are aimed at the 'argumentation' as much as anything, in line with the theme of the thread - do you pass muster as a sceptic or does another name fit you better?

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 14th February 18:58

[stew-STR160]

kerplunk said:

Terminator X said:

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

In line with the thread your argument is a display of double standards and therefore denialism not scepticism. You happily say warming is to be expected since the LIA as a matter 'of course' (why wouldn't it stay cold, or get colder?) with no concern for causal mechanisms, but when you have a plausible mechanism in hand that would imply warming (ie rapidly increasing greenhouse gases) you get all demanding in the proof department.

Ok, I deny. And you exhibit a faith based approach. 1+1= whatever you believe it to be and evidence is not required to prove it.

Why would it stay cold, or get colder, after a glacial period(of any magnitude)? You know how cycles go, yes?


I guess CO2 is all that matters in your book? The main assertion is that AGW is a result of the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Correlation, check. Causal link...lacking. Contributing factor, likely.

I'm semi fishing to determine just what it is you think is the reality of things.

Edited by stew-STR160 on Friday 14th February 13:34

You're on a roll - accussing people of a faith-based approach whilst waving your hand in the air about 'cycles'.

You do agree that climate does cycle though yes eg always has always will?

TX.

Yes absolutely, but requires more meat on the bone. Handwaving at 'cycles' is just that - a handwave. We could fill pages here discussing the LIA, what's know about it, the causes of it, why it ended, the uncertainties. Doubtless people would nod along at the reasonableness of suggesting a rebound due to reduced volcanic activity and probably a contribution from increased solar activity too. But then mention increased greenhouse gases and it would be shutters down, drawbridge up, and "I DEMAND PROOF!" My comments above are aimed at the 'argumentation' as much as anything, in line with the theme of the thread - do you pass muster as a sceptic or does another name fit you better?

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 14th February 18:58

Handwaving at cycles, akin to handwaving to NASA/CO2/Michael Mann etc you mean? A tactic displayed by many believers of AGW. Not saying you per se, but others on that side of the fence.

Serious claims require serious proof. Correlation is not causation.

[kerplunk]

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

Terminator X said:

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

In line with the thread your argument is a display of double standards and therefore denialism not scepticism. You happily say warming is to be expected since the LIA as a matter 'of course' (why wouldn't it stay cold, or get colder?) with no concern for causal mechanisms, but when you have a plausible mechanism in hand that would imply warming (ie rapidly increasing greenhouse gases) you get all demanding in the proof department.

Ok, I deny. And you exhibit a faith based approach. 1+1= whatever you believe it to be and evidence is not required to prove it.

Why would it stay cold, or get colder, after a glacial period(of any magnitude)? You know how cycles go, yes?


I guess CO2 is all that matters in your book? The main assertion is that AGW is a result of the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Correlation, check. Causal link...lacking. Contributing factor, likely.

I'm semi fishing to determine just what it is you think is the reality of things.

Edited by stew-STR160 on Friday 14th February 13:34

You're on a roll - accussing people of a faith-based approach whilst waving your hand in the air about 'cycles'.

You do agree that climate does cycle though yes eg always has always will?

TX.

Yes absolutely, but requires more meat on the bone. Handwaving at 'cycles' is just that - a handwave. We could fill pages here discussing the LIA, what's know about it, the causes of it, why it ended, the uncertainties. Doubtless people would nod along at the reasonableness of suggesting a rebound due to reduced volcanic activity and probably a contribution from increased solar activity too. But then mention increased greenhouse gases and it would be shutters down, drawbridge up, and "I DEMAND PROOF!" My comments above are aimed at the 'argumentation' as much as anything, in line with the theme of the thread - do you pass muster as a sceptic or does another name fit you better?

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 14th February 18:58

Handwaving at cycles, akin to handwaving to NASA/CO2/Michael Mann etc you mean? A tactic displayed by many believers of AGW. Not saying you per se, but others on that side of the fence.

Serious claims require serious proof. Correlation is not causation.

To restate, here's how I see it.

Me - causal link in hand, radiative forcing from increasing GHGs studied and quantified by calculation, and warming correlation observed.

You - hand waving in the air about cycles.

Ball is in your court to demonstrate causal link lacking, or put more meat on the cycles bone - handwaves don't cut it. This is my 'sceptical' truth.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 17th February 11:47

[Gadgetmac]

I'd like to know exactly what type of causal link would satisfy the deniers?

Please give an example of one that would make you say "OK, that's fair enough, you've proven that humans are the main contributors to global warming".

[Esceptico]

[quote=Gadgetmac]I'd like to know exactly what type of causal link would satisfy the deniers?

Please give an example of one that would make you say "OK, that's fair enough, you've proven that humans are the main contributors to global warming".[/quote

Even if you could get them to give an answer and you then met the test they would just ignore it and move onto other arguments (I’ve seen this with creationists). That is why they are deniers and not skeptics. They don’t want to accept AGW. Everything they say and do has to fit in with that premise.