So, in your opinion, if you don't want to believe something, all you have to do is find someone that takes it too far and then you can dismiss the entire thing. That sounds like a logical fallacy. We should invent a name for that type of fallacy.
I am more than happy to dumb it down to your level. Activists are not the same thing as scientists. There. That was easy.
Look at you, blathering about nothing.
He has a brain defect and deep down he knows it. It makes him upset and incoherent. The bad news is that while he hopes I am going to help him, I can't. He has to help himself and we were all told we are too worthless to do that. I'm wondering if knowing how despicable he is would help. The reason that conservatives are so despicable is precisely because they are in denial of that fact. So maybe if he just has to face that night and day the need to deny will go away. Conservatives are despicable and there's no getting around no matter how hard they try. They are poisoned inside, so maybe they need some immunity, more of their own poison. We have to figure out something or they will kill us all out of their own unconscious need to destroy themselves.
I give you James Hansen.
Political activists are in direct command and control of our scientists, and our temperature records.
You mock that which you do not understand.
You do realize that because one activist is a scientist, not even a climatologist even, doesn't mean anything? You need to demonstrate that all activists are motivated by a deep understanding of climate change on scientific level. You are saying that if one woman is an activist then all women are crazy. You owe yourself better thinking.
I thought he only needed to show a trend? Maybe his model of activist scientist doesn't need any data or evidence?
Kind of like Global Climate Models.
Holy bat crap!Not only should they despised, they should also be treated for a mental illness according to Professor Norgaard of the University of Oregon.
http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/n...break-cultural-inertia-climate-change-respons
or Moonie can call for the death penalty like this professor did.
Damn, he already took it down. lol
http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html
web citation.
http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ
Damn nutcake climate alarmists.
Holy bat crap!
Yeah, I just can't wait until we place our society into the foam-speckled hands of these idiots on the basis of their PhDs.
One activist scientist, not even a climatologist, isn't a trend. The statement that global climate models have no data or evidence is wrong. You are using your intelligence improperly. Your comments are not scientific. You need to accept that you have no judgment is these things. Try to see that you are being led in your thinking by bias.
Posted from my silo shelter! http://www.silohome.com/2012_end_of_the_world_ultimate_survival_shelter_2012_shelter_.htm
Can someone point me to a scientific study or studies that definitively prove that AGW is the only cause, or even the primary cause, of climate change?
Can someone point me to a scientific study or studies that definitively prove that AGW is the only cause, or even the primary cause, of climate change?
Your opinion has been disproved by science. I simply use the word defect because the differences in conservative brains are disastrous at this point in history, sort of like a fatal mutation, or gills for a snake on land.
Oddly enough, of the two of us, only one of us believes in a magical man in the sky, and it's not me.Can you prove to a fundamentalist Christian that we evolved from an ape like ancestor? Science proposes theories that explain observed facts. New observations bring new theories. Science isn't about proving things but explaining them in ways that make sense. There are many scientists who think the best explanation for global warming is human produced CO2. Your job would be to propose a different theory that convinces more scientists.
The above is the crux of your intellectual tilting at windmills so allow me to address that and ignore the rest, which is mostly trolling.M: You are asking for proof when science provides explanations that either test out over time or don't. You are asking to be convinced against your will because you already have an opinion.
Can someone point me to a scientific study or studies that definitively prove that AGW is the only cause, or even the primary cause, of climate change?
Au contrair. Science can indeed provide proof. Considering our currently incomplete knowledge of the universe that proof can never be absolute, but it can generally be accepted with an extremely high level of confidence. For example, science says that water is composed of 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen. Would anyone argue contrary to that claim? Wouldn't the level of confidence of that claim be way in excess of 99.99999%?TLC, Science cannot PROVE anything! Science is about developing plausible explanations for what it observes. You could argue that there is a buffalo orbiting Venus and Science can only say that it is unlikely. There is one aspect, however, about Science that is fundamentally sound and that is that Science seeks to falsify hypotheses and when it does the notion is dropped like any reasonable person ought to do.
There is evidence that various factors contribute to Global Warming. What the contribution of each is to the issue is debatable but real. The argument is which can be mitigated by some means by us humans. Or, even if it matters at all.
I figure that it is plausible for the Earth to be destined for what ever its life course might be but that there may be some human contribution which speeds that process up. We can't reasonably eliminate what may be our greatest threat to life which may be a visit by some Comet or other natural occurrence but should we simply sit back and await the ultimate catastrophe and ignore what may be a real factor that threatens life? Is there some dollar value assignable to mitigation beyond which we simply say we can't afford it and who cares even if that mitigation only eliminates an unproven threat? I think we should consider the economic entirety of actions and in this case it seems to point to a favorable economic endeavor if we choose to act. As humans we ought to consider doing anything reasonably priced to further our life on this planet. It makes no sense to worry about and fund feeding the hungry given the end result of other issues makes that endeavor futile. Is it more humane to step in and end a killer virus and neglect a killer atmosphere because one may be further in the future but just as deadly?
Au contrair. Science can indeed provide proof. Considering our currently incomplete knowledge of the universe that proof can never be absolute, but it can generally be accepted with an extremely high level of confidence. For example, science says that water is composed of 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen. Would anyone argue contrary to that claim? Wouldn't the level of confidence of that claim be way in excess of 99.99999%?
Now contrast that with the claim about AGW. The IPCC posits that they have a 90% - 99% confidence level that AGW is a major factor in contributing to global warming. In many scientific endeavors, if a scientist released a paper whose findings were based on a 99% confidence level he'd be laughed out of academia. Yet the confidence level for the influence of AGW ranges somewhere between 90% as a low and 99% as the absolute high, so there's a lot of waffle room there. Then they go on to say that they believe AGW is a "major influence" yet can't seem to put a figure on what that means. Is major influence defined as 51% or do they mean 99.99%? Nobody knows because all we get is the rather vague term "major influence," which really doesn't tell us a whole lot and, again, leaves more waffle room.
Yet we are somehow supposed to devise a plan to combat something that we aren't exactly sure is really a major cause of the problem, and that we can't define how much it's responsible for if it actually is a major cause in the first place. I don't get a warm fuzzy about that, How the hell are we supposed to make any scientific determinations based on that kind of information? Should we spend billions, hundred of billions, or trillions to combat AGW? What is the proper plan? How do we force major polluters in Asia to go along with this plan? Shall we hamstring economic progress in the name of "Save The Children." based on what we currently know?
The world may be heating up but we'd just be playing with a different sort of fire. There's an old saw "You don't fuck with Mother Nature." That saw cuts both ways.
I say so what to global warming. What you going to do about it?