• 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.

Simpler Question About AGW

JoeEllison said:
Let me say this: when I first started looking into the whole global warming thing a few years ago, what I noticed most strongly and what probably convinced me as much as any of the evidence, is the fact that the anti-global warming crowd behaves EXACTLY like the creationist crowd. In fact, they are nearly identical to every other woo conspiracy theory group in their methods and general behavior. They quote out of context, attack strawmen, and come from a religious/political background that requires that they deny global warming. They have their own journals in which to publish their "work," just like the homeopaths, and make the same claims about a mainstream scientific conspiracy against them.

The scientific consensus on global warming could very well be completely wrong... but it won't make the denialists right. :cool:
Click to expand...

Of course, this is utter subjectivity...I happen to believe exactly the same thing about the AGWists. It's a religion to them; look at the way they want ot make it illegal or to yank credentials from anyone who is a heretic..ooops, "denier." Look at the chill it's put on academia (similar to PC) in that anyone not in that camp is shunned and driven from their field.

Your argument that "deniers" are like creationists, is exactly the argument I would use to identify your side: dogmatic, doctrinaire, shrill, true believers in the One True Faith...

Like Creationists, you use and bastardize science to "prove" your religious position.

By the way...can you identify these "anti-global" warming folks? Can you identify anyone who says that climate does not change on the side of those who see no strong evidence for human activity being the only thing that can cause climate to change?

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
Hmm...again, did you point out WHERE, exactly, I used the term "climate scientist"?

I misremember...

Tokie
Click to expand...

You didn't give your particular definition of AGWist until after I had posted. How was anyone to know you had defined it to exclude climate scientists when others, who use it in the same pejorative way, are not so particular.

How about a full definition of AGWistTC so we can all agree.
 
Tokenconservative said:
I don't do links--LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!

But here is the AGWist argument in a nutshell:

Climate is currently changing.
Human activity is responsible for that change.


Please help me out: if climate change now can only be because of human activity (if you deny that this is what AGWists are saying, then you are either being dishonest or ignorant), how can climate have changed in the past absent human activity?

Tokie
Click to expand...

sheeeoooooooot Forrest even *I* can see that you've grossly oversimplified.

seems to me, the claim isn't that "nothing else is driving climate change but human activity" but rather that "there is an anomalous change happening recently that doesn't fit what we know of past climate change and its causes, that appears to be caused by human activity" or something to that effect. that's what *i* got out of it anyway.

and i'm not sure how exactly you expect to debunk the science without even attempting to read any of it, but tilt on, Senor Quixote, you're bound to take out a windmill or two. or just look "dishonest or ignorant" by oversimplifying things to an absurd degree.
 
mhaze said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...

so you agree that the claim that recent climate changes appear to be anomalous and may be caused by human activity in no way implies that humans are the only thing that causes changes in climate? good. now we're getting somewhere.
 
Tokenconservative said:
First, I already know what AGWists believe.
Click to expand...
Your imaginary "AGWists" believe what you want them to believe in your imagination.

Second, what you are doing now is begging the question...your intention is to provide me now with some climatologists' findings....unless the climatologist is named Al Gore, who cares?
Click to expand...
It is funny that you should accuse anyone of begging the question.

Al Gore is not a climatologist.

Perception is reality and the Algore model is the perception.
Click to expand...
Weird stuff from the fringe...
 
Tokenconservative said:
I don't do links--LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!
Click to expand...

might that be because you don't actually *read* anything, you just decide what you want to believe and pull all your claims out of that orifice in your posterior designed for expulsion of waste material?

can i ask a serious question? are you a shill, planted by pro-AGW types to discredit climate skeptics? if so you're doing an excellent job.
 
Tokenconservative said:
One of the problems I find in this forum is this obtuse denial of reality...yes, amongst "climate scientists" none of them say this.

I am not talking about "climate scientists." I am talking about AGWists, the man on the street who believes Algore with all his heart and soul.
Click to expand...

okie fine, but.... so? in forming *my* opinion of whether AGW is 'real', why should i give a heap of fecal matter what your hypothetical 'man on the street' thinks about it? is this thread nothing more than a windup, then?
 
Last edited:
JoeEllison said:
Let me say this: when I first started looking into the whole global warming thing a few years ago, what I noticed most strongly and what probably convinced me as much as any of the evidence, is the fact that the anti-global warming crowd behaves EXACTLY like the creationist crowd. In fact, they are nearly identical to every other woo conspiracy theory group in their methods and general behavior. They quote out of context, attack strawmen, and come from a religious/political background that requires that they deny global warming. They have their own journals in which to publish their "work," just like the homeopaths, and make the same claims about a mainstream scientific conspiracy against them.

The scientific consensus on global warming could very well be completely wrong... but it won't make the denialists right. :cool:
Click to expand...
Joe, I've noticed the exact same thing. What's funny, of course, is that they like to accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being True Believers, cultists, etc. Notice also that, like Creationists/IDers, they tend to be right-wing, often extremely so.

You might enjoy my HTBAGWS:)
 
Tokenconservative said:
So you are denying that AGWists claim that human activity is responsible for "climate change."
Click to expand...

no. are you illiterate? because your'e doing an excellent job appearing so.

as i've stated a few times already, from what *i* can tell, the claim is that the climate is changing in ways not predicted by other factors typically associated with climate change and that the most likely cause of this aberration is human activity.

i'm interested in knowing whether or not it's true, but fortunately, while i may be pretty stoopid, i'm not stupid enough to base my opinion on what the "hoi palloi" thinks, as you seem to be claiming *you* do.

Hmmm...

Will the sun rise in the east or the west this morning?

Tokie
Click to expand...
how will you know, with your head planted firmly where it is?
 
Tokenconservative said:
Your argument that "deniers" are like creationists, is exactly the argument I would use to identify your side: dogmatic, doctrinaire, shrill, true believers in the One True Faith...
Click to expand...

well *your* actions support that claim.

Like Creationists, you use and bastardize science to "prove" your religious position.
Click to expand...

whereas *your* approach is superior; you ignore science entirely and rely on the "hoi palloi"(sic) to determine what the relevant positions are in a scientific debate.

By the way...can you identify these "anti-global" warming folks? Can you identify anyone who says that climate does not change on the side of those who see no strong evidence for human activity being the only thing that can cause climate to change?
Click to expand...

can you identify any SCIENTIST on EITHER side who says "climate does not change" OR "human activity (is) the only thing that can cause the climate to change?"
Click to expand...
 
Tokenconservative said:
Of course, this is utter subjectivity...I happen to believe exactly the same thing about the AGWists. It's a religion to them; look at the way they want ot make it illegal or to yank credentials from anyone who is a heretic..ooops, "denier." Look at the chill it's put on academia (similar to PC) in that anyone not in that camp is shunned and driven from their field.
Click to expand...
This is sheer paranoid fantasy, but you have evidence, of course?

Your argument that "deniers" are like creationists, is exactly the argument I would use to identify your side: dogmatic, doctrinaire, shrill, true believers in the One True Faith...
Click to expand...
Note use of "shrill", common among a certain mindset.

Notice also the use of insulting tactics following the failure to win the scientific argument.

Like Creationists, you use and bastardize science to "prove" your religious position.
Click to expand...
Show us one example of an "AGWist" doing this. We can provide many of the "sceptics" doing so: after all, it is all they have.

By the way...can you identify these "anti-global" warming folks? Can you identify anyone who says that climate does not change on the side of those who see no strong evidence for human activity being the only thing that can cause climate to change?

Tokie
Click to expand...
That last one is well stuffed with straw. Better take some out or it will burst.
 
TrueSceptic said:
If you did, I missed it. It certainly fits right in. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah... I left out this bit from the list: The GW deniers pretend to be independent and impartial critics, while actually being the public face of a larger propaganda campaign, created by extremist right-wing organizations to advance a powerful political and financial agenda. The creationists pretend to be independent and impartial critics, while actually being the public face of a larger propaganda campaign, created by extremist right-wing organizations to advance a powerful political and religious agenda.

And, I forgot the part where creationists claim that people "worship Charles Darwin", and denialists claim that people "worship Al Gore."

:) It is exhausting, but ultimately satisfying.
 
JoeEllison said:
Yeah... I left out this bit from the list: The GW deniers pretend to be independent and impartial critics, while actually being the public face of a larger propaganda campaign, created by extremist right-wing organizations to advance a powerful political and financial agenda. The creationists pretend to be independent and impartial critics, while actually being the public face of a larger propaganda campaign, created by extremist right-wing organizations to advance a powerful political and religious agenda.

And, I forgot the part where creationists claim that people "worship Charles Darwin", and denialists claim that people "worship Al Gore."

:) It is exhausting, but ultimately satisfying.
Click to expand...
Good stuff.

Now, why are so many taken in? How obvious does it have to be? I suspect the need to reject the very possibility that we should change our ways is so strong that any claims, no matter how poor, obviously false, or contradictory, are gladly accepted.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Good stuff.

Now, why are so many taken in? How obvious does it have to be? I suspect the need to reject the very possibility that we should change our ways is so strong that any claims, no matter how poor, obviously false, or contradictory, are gladly accepted.
Click to expand...
What I've come to suspect is that these people have a kind of generalized anger/paranoia/fear about the world. They then find their way towards a set of beliefs that confirm their warped viewpoint, and it somehow makes them feel "safe" even as it feeds their anger/paranoia/fear. They find one conspiracy theory or a combination of them, and it justifies the feelings that they've always had about the world. There "is" someone out to get them, suppressing "the truth," holding them back. They really "are" smarter than everyone else, and the reason people have never accepted them is because of jealousy or because they are part of the conspiracy.

It is sad, really... but the more I read the posts of the different woosters, the more clear the overall pattern becomes.
 
JoeEllison said:
What I've come to suspect is that these people have a kind of generalized anger/paranoia/fear about the world. They then find their way towards a set of beliefs that confirm their warped viewpoint, and it somehow makes them feel "safe" even as it feeds their anger/paranoia/fear. They find one conspiracy theory or a combination of them, and it justifies the feelings that they've always had about the world. There "is" someone out to get them, suppressing "the truth," holding them back. They really "are" smarter than everyone else, and the reason people have never accepted them is because of jealousy or because they are part of the conspiracy.

It is sad, really... but the more I read the posts of the different woosters, the more clear the overall pattern becomes.
Click to expand...
Woosters :D
 
zeusbheld said:
can you identify any SCIENTIST on EITHER side who says "climate does not change" OR "human activity (is) the only thing that can cause the climate to change?"
Click to expand...

Bolded creates a question phrased so as to rebut Tokie's assertion.
 
TrueSceptic said:
This is sheer paranoid fantasy, but you have evidence, of course?


Note use of "shrill", common among a certain mindset.

Notice also the use of insulting tactics following the failure to win the scientific argument.


Show us one example of an "AGWist" doing this. We can provide many of the "sceptics" doing so: after all, it is all they have.


That last one is well stuffed with straw. Better take some out or it will burst.
Click to expand...
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513
"What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act,"
Click to expand...
How utterly stupid do you want to look? How many examples do you want? 50? 100?

Of course we could go back and gather up all the ludicrous statements made right in this forum by the warmers. Shall we resurrect Schneibster? Go back and look at which side has continually used ad hom attacks and which side has been warned the most regarding violating forum rules.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom