AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[Tonington]

Moving goal posts ehh? It's so much easier for you to talk about how my content has changed, and without examples I'll note, than it is to actually address the content.

So, how about you provide examples of how the content in my links has changed? You're all talk, and no walk. That certainly hasn't changed.

 

[Scott Free]

Moving goal posts ehh? It's so much easier for you to talk about how my content has changed, and without examples I'll note, than it is to actually address the content.

So, how about you provide examples of how the content in my links has changed? You're all talk, and no walk. That certainly hasn't changed.

Sorry, life is too short. It's time you learned to look under the bed for yourself.

While you're at it you might want to look into dogmatism and evaluate why you're so adamant about this stuff.

 

[Tonington]

You don't even make sense when you try to insult:

I've already looked for myself. I posted material that contradicts you, you outright refuse to look at it (or under thew bed as it were) and you continue on proclaiming that the greenhouse theory is flawed, blah blah blah.

I'm adamant about people backing up what they say, it comes from scientific training. Obviously you're unaware of what that means.

Carry on...

 

[Scott Free]

You don't even make sense when you try to insult:

I wasn't trying to insult you.

Metaphors are easier to grasp sometimes so I thought I would try one.

I was just trying to point out faulty thinking.

I'm not debating with you. It's pointless to debate with a radical. Your mind is made up, I can see that.

 

[Tonington]

Who is trying to correct whoms faulty thinking? I gave evidence for why your thinking is faulty, you resort to rhetoric...

Also, if you're not trying to insult, I don't go by Tonkahead. It's Tonington.

 

[Scott Free]

I tried to use logic, to give an example of a simpler solution that explained the observed phenomena better. I tried to do so in my own words.

Also, a metaphor isn't rhetoric.

And I'm not trying to trick you.

I just honestly think AGW is BS and for some pretty simple logical reasons.

I'm not even denying GW but I am skeptical of some current explanations that aren't even prima facie in my opinion.

 

[Tonington]

I tried to use logic, to give an example of a simpler solution that explained the observed phenomena better. I tried to do so in my own words.

How does you example explain the energy imbalance? More energy enters the top of the atmosphere than leaves. How does your example explain a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere?

A present, we know the Earth is warming, we know that the chemical constituents in our atmosphere are changing, we know that they block outgoing infrared radiation, we know that when this happens the upper atmosphere cools, we know that the greenhouse gases are coming from industrial sources.

In short, what is happening looks exactly like what an enhanced greenhouse should look like.

Also, a metaphor isn't rhetoric.

Yes, it is.

Rhetorical device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Scott Free]

In short, what is happening looks exactly like what an enhanced greenhouse should look like.

I know you believe it. That isn't in question.

 

[Tonington]

I know you believe it. That isn't in question.

That's not a belief, if you clicked on the links I posted earlier you'd see. It's actual science.

Do you also deny that different warming perturbations will manifest with different characteristics in our climate system?

 

[Scott Free]

That's not a belief, if you clicked on the links I posted earlier you'd see. It's actual science.

The science is inductive and therefore probabilistic. If you're going to hold it as an absolute, as you have been doing, then a great deal of faith is involved, Which means you believe in it.

Do you also deny that different warming perturbations will manifest with different characteristics in our climate system?

This is a straw man argument. If you're by a stove and wearing a sweater it isn't the sweater making you warm.

 

[Tonington]

Ahh, more rhetoric. The computer you're typing on was made using the same scientific principles. Seems to work just fine.

So if you're not using science, what are you using?

This is a straw man argument. If you're by a stove and wearing a sweater it isn't the sweater making you warm.

No it's not! It's a question!

 

[Scott Free]

Ahh, more rhetoric. The computer you're typing on was made using the same scientific principles. Seems to work just fine.

So if you're not using science, what are you using?

By your logic then GW was made by science? Seriously!?!

I'm not talking about anything made by science. AGW is inductive correlations and staged experiments (and computer models) fine tuned over time to give specific results a.k.a. "cooked."

No it's not! It's a question!

Seriously!?!

It was a conclusion phrased like a question and you know it.

What benefit are you deriving from this AGW stuff anyway? Is it reassuring insecurities or are you making a buck off of it?

 

[Tonington]

By your logic then GW was made by science? Seriously!?!

No, GW is just a phenomenon. Science gives us methods to test what causes the phenomenon.

It was a conclusion phrased like a question and you know it.

SCIENCE has tested different climate forcings, using KNOWN physics, and the outcome is that no other climate forcing resembles what is happening in our climate system. Then you say it's a belief, not something supported by evidence in other words. So I asked you if you deny that different climate perturbations will be associated with differing responses in our climate.

It's a question, a valid one based on your response.

So, do you deny that different forcings will manifest differently, or do you accept that?

 

[Scott Free]

No, GW is just a phenomenon. Science gives us methods to test what causes the phenomenon.

Then why would you compare it to a computer when, apparently, you know better?

SCIENCE has tested different climate forcings, using KNOWN physics, and the outcome is that no other climate forcing resembles what is happening in our climate system. Then you say it's a belief, not something supported by evidence in other words. So I asked you if you deny that different climate perturbations will be associated with differing responses in our climate.

It's a question, a valid one based on your response.

I already answered your question.

But if I really have to spell my position out: I don't deny GW (as I already said). It is coming from the sun (as I already said). Your science is studying the sweater worn by someone sitting beside a heater (to use a metaphor) (as I already said). It therefore doesn't explain GW but explains sweaters.

So, do you deny that different forcings will manifest differently, or do you accept that?

This is a pointed question. I do not accept that man made carbon is contributing to current forcings. The amount is too small and the atmosphere is already saturated by natural carbon, which, when the sun warms up, as it has evidently done, will result in warmer planets. The planet will retain heat naturally when the sun warms. It is a natural cycle of nature. Some planets and moons warm and stay warmer for longer than others.

But you never answered my question: how are you benefiting from all this misinformation (hysteria/apocalypse mongering)?

 

[Tonington]

Then why would you compare it to a computer when, apparently, you know better?

Because when you're pressed, you start making excuses about science being this or that. Your computer is made possible by advances in science. Our understanding of the climate is made possible by advances in science.

I already answered your question.

No, you didn't. You can't ever shoot straight. Are you a politician?

But if I really have to spell my position out:

Yes, you really do. Because it's not even clear what you think is happening.

I don't deny GW (as I already said). It is coming from the sun (as I already said).

Except that the amount of energy coming in has been flat/decreasing for the last half century. And, the energy coming in is greater than the energy leaving. If you understand conservation of energy, adding more heat would mean that the Earth must emit more heat back out, thermodynamics. Except that's not happening. Energy is being trapped, and the upper atmosphere is cooling. If more energy was coming in, then the upper atmosphere should warm as the energy passes through.

You sun worshipers are out of touch with reality. Increasing solar does heat the Earth, but solar hasn't been a major contributor since the beginning half of the 20th century.

Your science is studying the sweater worn by someone sitting beside a heater (to use a metaphor) (as I already said). It therefore doesn't explain GW but explains sweaters.

No, it isn't. See if you actually read the links I posted, you wouldn't say such false things, that is if you can understand what they are saying. We can differentiate between a sweater and the element on the stove. You're just plain ridiculous if you believe that is the case.

You ought to examine where that belief comes from, because it's certainly not from a reading of the primary science.

This is a pointed question. I do not accept that man made carbon is contributing to current forcings.

Yes, we know. You're a denier.

The amount is too small and the atmosphere is already saturated by natural carbon,

How do you know it is too small? Source? The atmosphere is not saturated, you can't saturate the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. I think you meant something else, like the infrared bands where carbon dioxide absorbs, but that is wrong as well. Bands can widen due to collisions between molecules. It's called pressure broadening.

But you never answered my question: how are you benefiting from all this misinformation (hysteria/apocalypse mongering)?

I don't benefit from your misinformation, nobody does. In fact it's very frustrating to converse with people so ignorant about science in general, and who think they somehow have the answers that people who have devoted a life of study towards have missed.

The only reason I continue to challenge folks like you, captain morgan, slim chance, extrafire and others is because some people might come across this discussion. They might be genuine skeptics. So my hope is that when they see the evidence I post, that they will come away at least with a better understanding of the intellectual bankruptcy of the climate denial movement.

 

[Scott Free]

Because it's not even clear what you think is happening.

wow.... really!?!... OK Tonkahead :tard:

 

[captain morgan]

I don't benefit from your misinformation, nobody does. In fact it's very frustrating to converse with people so ignorant about science in general, and who think they somehow have the answers that people who have devoted a life of study towards have missed.

I see that you've childishly morphed "misinformation" (I believe employed by Scott Free as a comment in general) from a broad statement into a convenient weapon with which to question the opinion of any and all those that don't maintain a parallel attitude as yourself.

Of course, the next step in the Orwellian playbook is to condemn all representatives of opposing positions as uneducated or non-authorities (the exact term you employed was "ignorant") while directly (or via insinuation) declaring you - yourself - as the definitive source from which all knowledge flows.

Dear Leader and all his cohorts must be laughing their balls off at how you've swallowed this bilge and are willing to defend it with what is nothing short of a sickening display of rabid enthusiasm, devoid of reality.

The only reason I continue to challenge folks like you, captain morgan, slim chance, extrafire and others is because some people might come across this discussion. They might be genuine skeptics. So my hope is that when they see the evidence I post, that they will come away at least with a better understanding of the intellectual bankruptcy of the climate denial movement.

Wrong... You don't challenge anyone - you attack and insult.

In so far as your "reason" for doing so, that is insultingly transparent to all but the most devout earth-rangers, eco-fascists and blind faithful - the "reason" is that you are too heavily invested in your position and simply too proud.

 

[Tonington]

I see that you've childishly morphed "misinformation" (I believe employed by Scott Free as a comment in general)

And not substantiated. He does employ misinformation. The greenhouse effect is not saturated. I call a spade a spade. Maybe that's childish to you.

Of course, the next step in the Orwellian playbook is to condemn all representatives of opposing positions as uneducated or non-authorities (the exact term you employed was "ignorant") while directly (or via insinuation) declaring you - yourself - as the definitive source from which all knowledge flows.

I never said I was the definitive source. See, that is an actual strawman. I posted scientific studies that refute his position. He doesn't address them, and makes statements which can be shown to be wrong. That is, he chooses to remain ignorant. I fully accept that the science I am posting may be incorrect, and is entirely falsifiable. But none of you ever try. That is because you just choose to deny it.

Wrong... You don't challenge anyone - you attack and insult.

No, I attack ideas, and when people are willing to carry on without acknowledgment of what scientists have actually shown, I call them ignorant. That's not an insult, and in my field-which is a scientific field-you have to be willing to take criticism if your ideas don't hold up. Maybe I shouldn't expect that from you fellows, it seems clear that you're not only ignorant about what the science foundations are for anthropogenic induced climate change, but you're also ignorant about how scientific debates take place. If you're unprepared and make obviously incorrect statements, and then refuse to even acknowledge countervailing evidence, then you're going to be called exactly what you are, willingly ignorant.

Science is not for those who get offended when they are asked to support their statements. If you don't want to be called ignorant, then you should avoid making definitive statements like Scott Free does when it can be shown that they are not in fact definitive at all.

Or you can just admit that it isn't the science that guides your position. This is in the science sub-forum after all.

In so far as your "reason" for doing so, that is insultingly transparent to all but the most devout earth-rangers, eco-fascists and blind faithful - the "reason" is that you are too heavily invested in your position and simply too proud.

Sure, whatever you say. I'll continue to post science, and continue to make resources available for those who are willing to try to make an educated appraisal of what is what.

That's what separates a skeptic from a denier. A skeptic actually looks at the evidence, and makes an informed judgment. A denier repeats falsehoods even when they are given information that outright contradicts their hypothesis. You guys are not skeptics. Scientists are skeptics. Many non-scientists are skeptics as well. The test is how you handle information.

AGW denial is a scam. I wouldn't call it the greatest scam, because most people haven't actually bought into the lies.

 

[captain morgan]

This wonderful quote:

And not substantiated. He does employ misinformation.

Followed immediately by:

I never said I was the definitive source.... I posted scientific studies that refute his position. He doesn't address them, he chooses to remain ignorant....

The above necessitates that all adopt your "science", assumptions and generous belief system.

There is nothing compelling about that position.

... I fully accept that the science I am posting may be incorrect, and is entirely falsifiable. But none of you ever try. That is because you just choose to deny it.

I see no suggestion (from you) that the science you employ may be incorrect, quite the opposite really. From a scientific perspective; your position offers no form of "testing" in which hypotheses can be examined and repeated... Kinda deflates the notion that there is a hard and fast scientific answer, doesn't it?

On that note, What I have observed is that you point to components that, while they may be accurate on an individual basis, there is no evidence provided that connects them to the opportunity that AGW is in any form the straw that broke the camels back.

You have assumed a position of absolutes and as far as this discussion goes, there is no such thing.

No, I attack ideas, and when people are willing to carry on without acknowledgment of what scientists have actually shown, I call them ignorant.

Sure... Keep telling yourself that.

Or you can just admit that it isn't the science that guides your position. This is in the science sub-forum after all.

I see that the only scientific opinion that counts are ones that meet your individual approval.

AGW denial is a scam.

This statement is almost accurate; eliminate one pivotal word and you'll have it correct.

 

[Tonington]

The above necessitates that all adopt your "science", assumptions and generous belief system.

No, and this is the part you and he both seem to have problems with. Science is falsifiable. You can post a link to a study which finds contradicting evidence to that I posted, or that refutes a portion of the study which renders it's conclusions in err. If you can't, well then in the face of evidence to the contrary, it is misinformation to continue to state such things...

I wouldn't think that this even needs explaining.