|
davar55,
Suppose you witness a dispute between two people. One of them provides multiple items of evidence to support his claim. The other keeps repeating that the first one's claim is a hoax, but never provides a single bit of evidence to support that contention. How do _you_ decide which side is correct? By determining which of the two people has the same political leanings as you do? Or by looking at the evidence? - - - - - As I said, I've often posted links. Here, I'll repeat some and add a few: Explanations for beginners: [URL]http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming[/URL] [URL]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/[/URL] [URL]http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/understanding-climate-change.shtml[/URL] [URL="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Climate_Change_%28collection%29"]http://www.eoearth.org/article/Climate_Change_%28collection%29[/URL] [URL]http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/globalwarmingfaq.htm[/URL] [URL]http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/[/URL] [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf[/URL] - History of the discovery of global warming: [URL]http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm[/URL] - Evidence in favor of the AGW hypothesis: [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html[/URL] [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm[/URL] - Refutations of over 150 anti-AGW arguments: [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php[/URL] - - - Yet another of the many nontotalitarian methods of reducing global warming: [URL]http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/black-carbon-control[/URL] (since you want only one at a time) |
Update:
[QUOTE=cheesehead;259260] Refutations of over 150 anti-AGW arguments: [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php[/URL] [/QUOTE]skepticalscience.com presents this list two different ways. The original list at [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php[/URL] sorts them in order of [I]recent popularity of the argument[/I]. That may not make it easy to find a particular anti-AGW argument, so the site has recently added a page with the same list, but sorted 4 different ways. The default order is sorted according to [I]type of argument[/I]: [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php[/URL] but you can click at the top to sort it three other ways: sorted by type of argument, but showing only [I]peer-reviewed papers[/I], sorted by [I]popularity over most recent week[/I], or sorted by [I]popularity over most recent month[/I] - - Example: davar55's "The so-called near-term dangers of AGW haven't been demonstrated" is not listed with precisely that wording, but several other listed anti-AGW arguments seem to apply in one way or another: ([I]Remember that these phrases are anti-AGW arguments that are [U]refuted[/U] at this site.[/I]) "It's not urgent" "It's not happening" "It's not bad" "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected" "We don't need to cut CO2 emissions" "Carbon cycle amplification less than thought" "Humidity is falling" "Clouds provide negative feedback" "Warming in pipeline is small" "Spectroscopic study finds low climate sensitivity" "Water vapour levels have fallen since the 1950s hence water vapour does not increase with temperature" "Animals and plants can adapt to global warming" "Amazon is not vulnerable to drought" "Heat waves won't become more intense or frequent" "It's only a few degrees" "There is no tipping point" Pick one. Find it on the skepticalscience.com list. Follow the link there to see a refutation of that anti-AGW argument. |
[QUOTE=davar55;259228]Yes, Manhattan under five feet of water might make me nervous.
But I wouldn't require all vehicles to be hybrid to prevent it. There are degrees of danger, and nothing about AGW leads me to feel threatened by it. Only by some of the proposed "solutions".[/QUOTE] I have some land near a failed nuclear plant in Japan for sale to you, cheap! The dangers, tsunamis and radiation, aren't urgent at the moment, and shouldn't threaten you at all...especially since radiation is invisible without instruments. Do you think those 10,000 japanese people who died felt any fear of a tsunami until a moment before it happened? |
[QUOTE=Christenson;259288]I have some land near a failed nuclear plant in Japan for sale to you, cheap! The dangers, tsunamis and radiation, aren't urgent at the moment, and shouldn't threaten you at all...especially since radiation is invisible without instruments. Do you think those 10,000 japanese people who died felt any fear of a tsunami until a moment before it happened?[/QUOTE]
Sure, they knew it was a possibility. But world-wide natural disaster? Forget it. Unless a global nuclear war, asteroid hit, or solar explosion occurs, it's just wrong to rely on false premises to alter human interaction. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;259257]I never said it was.
By "pleasant response", I was referring to the non-social-changing things that can be done to avert AGW. Why are you twisting my words? Can't you refute my argument without distorting what I wrote? Yes, they have! Many times! I've provided many links where you could go to read about it yourself -- why won't you do so? But you've never, ever given us any [B]_evidence_[/B] that your claim is factually correct. You've never given us even such a teeny-tiny fact such as the name of someone who both (a) played any significant part in formed the AGW hypothesis and (b) has shown any political motive for distorting, faking or hiding any of the evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis! Stop merely repeating your fears. Start listing facts that support your claim. Not once have you presented any [B]evidence[/B] that what you repeatedly claim is true! I've provided dozens of links to where [U]you can read evidence that AGW is true[/U]. You haven't ever provided any link to any evidence that it's not true!!! Don't you understand the definition of "[B]evidence[/B]"? Why do you never, ever present any [B]evidence[/B] to support your claim that AGW is a hoax? It shouldn't be necessary for me to keep begging you to show us [B]evidence[/B]! Just do it! Show us some [B]evidence[/B], davar55. Don't just keep making your empty claim that AGW is a hoax. Don't you know even one single fact that supports your claim that AGW is a hoax? Do you know the meaning of "[B]evidence[/B]"?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=cheesehead;259260]davar55, Suppose you witness a dispute between two people. One of them provides multiple items of evidence to support his claim. The other keeps repeating that the first one's claim is a hoax, but never provides a single bit of evidence to support that contention. How do _you_ decide which side is correct? By determining which of the two people has the same political leanings as you do? Or by looking at the evidence? - - - - - As I said, I've often posted links. Here, I'll repeat some and add a few: Explanations for beginners: [URL]http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming[/URL] [URL]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/[/URL] [URL]http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/understanding-climate-change.shtml[/URL] [URL]http://www.eoearth.org/article/Climate_Change_%28collection%29[/URL] [URL]http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/globalwarmingfaq.htm[/URL] [URL]http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/[/URL] [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf[/URL] - History of the discovery of global warming: [URL]http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm[/URL] - Evidence in favor of the AGW hypothesis: [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html[/URL] [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm[/URL] - Refutations of over 150 anti-AGW arguments: [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php[/URL] - - - Yet another of the many nontotalitarian methods of reducing global warming: [URL]http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/black-carbon-control[/URL] (since you want only one at a time)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=cheesehead;259274]Update: skepticalscience.com presents this list two different ways. The original list at [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php[/URL] sorts them in order of [I]recent popularity of the argument[/I]. That may not make it easy to find a particular anti-AGW argument, so the site has recently added a page with the same list, but sorted 4 different ways. The default order is sorted according to [I]type of argument[/I]: [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php[/URL] but you can click at the top to sort it three other ways: sorted by type of argument, but showing only [I]peer-reviewed papers[/I], sorted by [I]popularity over most recent week[/I], or sorted by [I]popularity over most recent month[/I] - - Example: davar55's "The so-called near-term dangers of AGW haven't been demonstrated" is not listed with precisely that wording, but several other listed anti-AGW arguments seem to apply in one way or another: ([I]Remember that these phrases are anti-AGW arguments that are [U]refuted[/U] at this site.[/I]) "It's not urgent" "It's not happening" "It's not bad" "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected" "We don't need to cut CO2 emissions" "Carbon cycle amplification less than thought" "Humidity is falling" "Clouds provide negative feedback" "Warming in pipeline is small" "Spectroscopic study finds low climate sensitivity" "Water vapour levels have fallen since the 1950s hence water vapour does not increase with temperature" "Animals and plants can adapt to global warming" "Amazon is not vulnerable to drought" "Heat waves won't become more intense or frequent" "It's only a few degrees" "There is no tipping point" Pick one. Find it on the skepticalscience.com list. Follow the link there to see a refutation of that anti-AGW argument.[/QUOTE] Alright, now that you've REPEATED your falacious AGW claim, why don't you provide a list of ANTI-anti-agw articles which you may try to refute? And not any from the religion crowd, thank you. BTW I forgot to mention before that all the agw solutions are simply undisguised socialism. And the opposite of socialism is NOT religion. |
[QUOTE=davar55;259296]Alright, now that you've REPEATED your falacious AGW claim,[/QUOTE]Exactly what is fallacious about it?
The greenhouse effect has been scientifically known for over a century. Measurements show in many different ways that AGW is true. Anthropogenic emissions have been measured. Those match the measurements of the various greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. The amount of heat they send back to Earth's surface has been measured. It matches the amount of heat that would produce the observed amount of global warming attributable to anthropogenic GHGs. Exactly what is the fallacy you claim? What evidence (not merely suspicion, fear, political propaganda, or hearsay) can you offer to explain that fallacy? [quote]why don't you provide a list of ANTI-anti-agw articles[/quote]I DID, in my posts #859 and #860. Read one of those articles, then tell me what's wrong with it. |
[quote]Alright, now that you've REPEATED your falacious AGW claim, why
don't you provide a list of ANTI-agw articles which you may try to refute? And not any from the religion crowd, thank you. BTW I forgot to mention before that all the agw solutions are simply undisguised socialism. And the opposite of socialism is NOT religion.[/quote]That corrected quote is what I meant to say. I object to the consequences (the socialist agenda) before needing to refute the clearly biased data and analysis. And I did say it's fine if you want to make one suggestion. The massive societal changes offered are a political proof. (Of their motives.) |
What is fallacious about my AGW claim? Show us a scientific refutation of it.
You have not yet posted even a single fact that refutes the scientific basis of AGW. [QUOTE=davar55;259200]the cause is the falseness of the pseudo-science.[/QUOTE]How is the "pseudo-science" (of AGW, I presume you mean) false? You haven't yet posted even one bit of (real) scientific evidence that the AGW hypothesis is false! Why do you keep dodging my challenge? I post links to evidence that AGW is true. You [I]don't[/I] post any links to evidence that AGW is false. The situation is not symmetrical. One side (mine) has scientific evidence to support its claims. The other side (yours) has no scientific evidence to support its claims. - - - If _I_ choose an anti-AGW site to refute, you'll just claim that I deliberately chose a weak one. So -- _you_ choose the anti-AGW site, that _you_ think has strong arguments, for me to refute, so you can't claim later that I chose a site that didn't have strong arguments. After all, in the mirror-image situation, I have already chosen a pro-AGW site ([url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html[/url] in particular, or [URL="http://www.skepticalscience.com"]www.skepticalscience.com[/URL] in general) for _you_ to refute ... but you haven't said even one word to try to do so!! If you choose an anti-AGW site, I'll guarantee that I can refute it -- let's see you accept the mirror-image challenge! |
[quote]What is fallacious about my AGW claim?
... The situation is not symmetrical. One side (mine) has scientific evidence to support its claims. The other side (yours) has no scientific evidence to support its claims. ... If you choose an anti-AGW site, I'll guarantee that I can refute it -- let's see you accept the mirror-image challenge![/quote]Ignoring my political proof (that the motives of the AGWers disprove their scientific claims) (and you admit they're only claims, not fact), is only possible if the societal changes suggested are indeed an agenda. The politics of the suggesters must be considered seriously. Always. Your guarantee that you can refute any anti-agw site a priori is ridiculous. |
And before you repeat the lame excuse that your science background isn't good enough (then how did you decide that AGW was pseudo-science?) -- I never said you had to do it unaided, by yourself. You're welcome to ask any of your friends who has a better science background. You're welcome to find your answers on any Web site. You're welcome to link to anything on the Internet that shows us a piece of evidence that AGW is false. You're welcome to consult any school teachers or university professors.
|
[QUOTE=davar55;259331]Your guarantee that you can refute any anti-agw site a priori is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]No, it isn't, because I know that [I]real[/I] science is on my side. Go ahead -- test me!! Out here in public!!
Are you afraid I'll be able to do it? |
| All times are UTC. The time now is 23:09. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.