• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

Because you need to add the unscientific claims made and beliefs held by people who call themselves the "scientific" side but show little sign of real science.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Because you need to add the unscientific claims made and beliefs held by people who call themselves the "scientific" side but show little sign of real science.
Click to expand...
This thread is about GW sceptics so I need do no such thing, even if I thought there were any such "unscientific claims".
 
Perhaps them as would call themselves skeptics could educate the rest of us.

How should one be 'a global warming skeptic'?

Seriously, what am I doing wrong?
 
Pipirr said:
Perhaps them as would call themselves skeptics could educate the rest of us.

How should one be 'a global warming skeptic'?

Seriously, what am I doing wrong?
Click to expand...
It's easier than you think. Just read the OP. ;)

Of course, true sceptics are another matter...
 
CapelDodger said:
Woolly talk reflects woolly thinking. Tighten up your prose (at least stop changing subject in the course of a sentence) and it might just tighten up your thinking,
Click to expand...

Obfuscation and, again, ad hominem, a favorite tactic of those who aren't really interested in getting to the truth but instead being "right" at all costs.

Why don't you address my legitimate and well-articulated concern about dendrochronology, a field of research that forms the basis of historical temperature records? They're claiming that they are able to pinpoint historical temperatures in fractions of degrees. It's just silly.

CapelDodger said:
What did you expect to accomplish on this thread? In this context, you're a specimen in a controlled environment.
Click to expand...

:confused: Huh? Talk about "woolly" thinking.

-Dr. Imago
 
TrueSceptic said:
How is it one-sided? It is a list of claims made and beliefs held by people who call themselves sceptics but show little sign of real scepticism.
Click to expand...

Great! I am glad to hear your list gives a fair, balanced view of the extremism surrounding global warming.

I must have missed them, though, so can you direct me to those examples in your list that are there from AGW true believers who call themselves skeptics but show little sign of real skepticism?
 
jsfisher said:
Great! I am glad to hear your list gives a fair, balanced view of the extremism surrounding global warming.

I must have missed them, though, so can you direct me to those examples in your list that are there from AGW true believers who call themselves skeptics but show little sign of real skepticism?
Click to expand...
Are you pretending not to understand? This thread is about GWS. Could you not tell from the thread title and the OP?

There is now a rival thread which I think would suit you better. :)
 
Pipirr said:
Perhaps them as would call themselves skeptics could educate the rest of us.

How should one be 'a global warming skeptic'?

Seriously, what am I doing wrong?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing.

I first came across CO2-induced AGW in the late sixties, as a teenager, and was highly sceptical. I next came across it in the mid-70's as a student, and was still highly sceptical. I'm firmly grounded in the anti-catastrophist and "humans should get over themselves" scientific culture established in the 19thCE (bless 'em).

I have been persuaded by events. I'm still sceptical of presented evidence and predictions, of course. I'm not going to nail my flag to a dubious ship. I hate to be wrong.

(I've just had DanishDynamite questioning my scepticism; this from someone who goes gooey-eyed over a Torygraph article that mentions CERN and "60 scientists". Sad, or what? :rolleyes:)

Our kind of sceptic hasn't had to keep jumping ship to keep convictions alive. It's been a pretty smooth path, all in all. I never denied the possibility, I just belittled it. Subsequent events have changed my opinion.

It's been a much jerkier ride for the GWS. "It won't happen", "It's not happening", "It's happening but we've come up with something to explain it retrospecively", "Perhaps it's not happening at all anyway and we expect to have photographs to prove it, just you wait and see, oh and just in case, we're still working on those reasons why it is happening, if it is", "Al Gore", "Solar Cycle 25 is the charm (but we'll take 24 if it works out right)"; would you wish it on your own worst enemy?

This is why I'm a sceptic. No entanglements, fewer embarrassments.

I noticed in passing that Lucifage Rocifale has come into the parlour. Hats off to TrueSceptic for arranging this space :). This thread must never die.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Are you pretending not to understand? This thread is about GWS. Could you not tell from the thread title and the OP?

There is now a rival thread which I think would suit you better. :)
Click to expand...

Now you are arguing in circles. I think it you that is pretending not to understand.

This thread is about global warming "skeptics". And as you have told us, the quotes around the word, skeptic, indicate you are talking about people who call themselves skeptics but show little sign of real skepticism.

You seem to understand that skepticism is not about being against something. It is a methodology of analyzing and accepting or not accepting claims. You yourself have claimed you are a global warming skeptic (without the pejorative quotation marks).

It is also you that challenged the suggestion your list is one-sided. If the list really is not one-sided, then there should be a balance of examples from both extremes of "skepticism" regarding global warming. So, I will ask again, please point out the examples from global warming "skeptics" from the pro side.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Now you are arguing in circles. I think it you that is pretending not to understand.

This thread is about global warming "skeptics". And as you have told us, the quotes around the word, skeptic, indicate you are talking about people who call themselves skeptics but show little sign of real skepticism.

You seem to understand that skepticism is not about being against something. It is a methodology of analyzing and accepting or not accepting claims. You yourself have claimed you are a global warming skeptic (without the pejorative quotation marks).
Click to expand...
See CD's post above. That is very close to where I stand.
It is also you that challenged the suggestion your list is one-sided. If the list really is not one-sided, then there should be a balance of examples from both extremes of "skepticism" regarding global warming. So, I will ask again, please point out the examples from global warming "skeptics" from the pro side.
Click to expand...
IMO the list is a fair, although (or therefore?) provocative, view of GWS claims and beliefs. Note that the claims gets more reasonable as you near the bottom.

The point is to show the many contradictions in the GWS mindset more than the validity of individual claims.

The thread is about that. Anything else is irrelevant.
 
TrueSceptic said:
IMO the list is a fair, although (or therefore?) provocative, view of GWS claims and beliefs. Note that the claims gets more reasonable as you near the bottom.
Click to expand...

You still wander in circles.

There is nothing inherent in the word, skeptic, that puts it on the con side of any debate, yet all your examples are from that side.
 
TrueSceptic said:
See CD's post above. That is very close to where I stand.
Click to expand...

Likewise. I had to be persuaded, both by events and the science. Anthropogenic climate change wasn't a natural fit with my understanding of the world.

I find it especially helpful to focus on what climate science actually is, rather than what it isn't. There are plenty of people complaining about the faults as they see them, but ignoring those areas that are better understood. I don't find that approach to be reasonable.

TrueSceptic said:
The point is to show the many contradictions in the GWS mindset more than the validity of individual claims.
Click to expand...

An exercise which is not without value.
 
Pipirr said:
Likewise. I had to be persuaded, both by events and the science. Anthropogenic climate change wasn't a natural fit with my understanding of the world.
Click to expand...

The GWS presentation of the scientific zeitgeist is, of course, utterly alien to our way of thinking. AGW has had a lot of persuading to do, and events have been persuasive. Not models, not Al Gore, not our own lying eyes, events. Which the so-called "sceptics" can only react to.

I find it especially helpful to focus on what climate science actually is, rather than what it isn't. There are plenty of people complaining about the faults as they see them, but ignoring those areas that are better understood. I don't find that approach to be reasonable.
Click to expand...

A GWS-trait : focus on a spread of munitiae, keep the spread changing, thread-hop, launch new threads, claim retrospective victory, Al Gore.

For all the noise, those guys are really on the back-foot. And I feel vindicated. Not "validated", but vindicated. Which is still good.


An exercise which is not without value.
Click to expand...

I emphatically second your valuedation :).
 
jsfisher said:
You still wander in circles.

There is nothing inherent in the word, skeptic, that puts it on the con side of any debate, yet all your examples are from that side.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. The GWS side. The faux-sceptics. That's what the thread is about. It's all made very clear in the OP.
 
CapelDodger said:
Yes, they are. The GWS side. The faux-sceptics. That's what the thread is about. It's all made very clear in the OP.
Click to expand...

And he has made the contrary very clear in other posts. He has also claimed he is a GWS himself.

So, which is it? Or do the meanings of his words shift with each post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom