Polar Vortex brings near record cold temps this winter

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83

Yup.

The critical views of skeptics has led them to the same conclusion as most climate scientists. That's how most people get there and that's why opponents of the AGW premise aren't actually skeptics, but instead, deniers.


 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Without evidence? I can't help that myself and Tonington--two scientists--post scientific rebuttals all the time on this site. We post verifiable evidence of our viewpoints. Usually the reply is something about wealth distribution or Al Gore or some incoherent rambling about how physics has it all wrong.

It's not the AGW proponents that are lacking in evidence.

No you don't, you post the consensus of the established order. I am a scientist myself, I never leave home without my measuring tape. And since your position is built on expert and expensive established incoherent rambling I'm at a loss as to selection of that feeble defense. Of course you believe that wealth distribution doesn't control science to the advantage of that wealth, that's illogical you're illogical. Science is a commodity flogged on the market like underarm deodorant and toothpaste both also highly reccomended by scientists.
 
Last edited:

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
No you don't, you post the consensus of the established order. I am a scientist myself, I never leave home without my measuring tape. And since your position is built on expert and expensive established incoherent rambling I'm at a loss as to selection of that feeble defense. Of course you believe that wealth distribution doesn't control science to the advantage of that wealth, that's illogical you're illogical. Science is a commodity flogged on the market like underarm deodorant and toothpaste both also highly reccomended by scientists.

Wealth distribution may control scientists. It doesn't control science. It doesn't control me. I'm not all that political.

To argue science though you need acommon denominator that we don't have. It's like my buddy that believes in chem trails. It doesn't matter what I say, he deosn't believe it. There is no common reality we share.

The same with you. I beieve charts that I see that show CO2 increasing. You don't. Where do we go from there?

I believe that radiation physics is real. You don't. Nowhere to go from there, really.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Wealth distribution may control scientists. It doesn't control science. It doesn't control me. I'm not all that political.

To argue science though you need acommon denominator that we don't have. It's like my buddy that believes in chem trails. It doesn't matter what I say, he deosn't believe it. There is no common reality we share.

The same with you. I beieve charts that I see that show CO2 increasing. You don't. Where do we go from there?

I believe that radiation physics is real. You don't. Nowhere to go from there, really.

Remember that old stuff called experimentation and observation and evidence. I"m with your buddy and don't believe what you say either and since you can't point to some substantial solid warming chunk of this planet I'm forced by basic science to disbelieve your theory.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Remember that old stuff called experimentation and observation and evidence. I"m with your buddy and don't believe what you say either and since you can't point to some substantial solid warming chunk of this planet I'm forced by basic science to disbelieve your theory.

Well, if you don't accept the temperature record, that's fine. Most people, even among skeptics, accept the instrumental temperature record showing a global rise in temperature of about 0.74 deg C. If you don't accept the temperature record, then your logical response with respect to global warming, should be "I don't know" since that should be your conclusion when lacking any data.