AGW extremists are dangerous

Megalodon,
Thanks for the response. As someone who tries to be a skeptic,but admitedly scientifically ignorant on this subject I don't see much real debate on this subject but mainly personal attacks from both sides. I guess when you have been on the forum a long time you have seen most arguements before but I feel like the AGW crowd assumes anyone who questions anythnig has an ulterior motive.
 
Megalodon

Why am I not amazed, here you are proving my very point made in my OP.

Now, how about explaining things to me in a calm rational way. If you have something apart from scorn, ridicule and insults I would love to hear them.
 
Megalodon,
Thanks for the response. As someone who tries to be a skeptic,but admitedly scientifically ignorant on this subject I don't see much real debate on this subject but mainly personal attacks from both sides. I guess when you have been on the forum a long time you have seen most arguements before but I feel like the AGW crowd assumes anyone who questions anythnig has an ulterior motive.

It depends on the tone of the question... If somebody tells you "I'm new to this forum, and I'm a fence-sitter, but [stupidity debunked time and time again] makes me really doubt the 9-11 official story", will you not assume you're addressing a truther?
 
Megalodon

Why am I not amazed, here you are proving my very point made in my OP.

Now, how about explaining things to me in a calm rational way. If you have something apart from scorn, ridicule and insults I would love to hear them.

I explained you things in a calm and rational way, and you chose to make up a position for me. A particular stupid move, as I referred before.

If you have questions, ask. If you want to put up strawmen, enjoy talking to yourself.
 
Agreed, I don't doubt the science because its honestly all over my head. What concerns me is the overall attitude towards dissent. My son goes to a Catholic school and he comes home more indoctrinated to AGW than religion. This is my concern, do you feel that I'm a "denier" because that makes me uncomfortable?

edit. there is no science in what he is being told.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, I don't doubt the science because its honestly all over my head. What concerns me is the overall attitude towards dissent. My son goes to a Catholic school and he comes home more indoctrinated to AGW than religion. This is my concern, do you feel that I'm a "denier" because that makes me uncomfortable?

edit. there is no science in what he is being told.

I can't comment in what he's being told, since you didn't expand. But if you say that the science is all over your head, how can you evaluate what he's being told?

Anyway, school is not where science is made, or even divulged for the main part. High-school teachers can easily be excellent professionals with a firm grasp on their subjects or well-meaning twerps with a loose connection to reality, let alone their field.

If you want to know where the science is, you have to check what's being published, what's being cited in those publications, which works get built upon and which get refuted. In this subject there is no controversy. The scientific community is working upon the theory of AGW, since the few alternatives (and I use this term loosely) were overturned a long time ago.

Read any of the long threads on the subject here, or follow the link in Varwoche's signature for a good reading list on the subject.
 
Megalodon

Why am I not amazed, here you are proving my very point made in my OP.

Now, how about explaining things to me in a calm rational way. If you have something apart from scorn, ridicule and insults I would love to hear them.

Alfie, the basics of GW/CC has been explained here repeatedly on this forum. There are lots of attempts at trying to explain all the theory, from basic to complex. There are even videos that you can watch on it - I recommend those of potholer54 on youtube, and the more technical ones of greenman3610. There are websites designed to explain both sides of the controversy.

What Megalodon has been saying is that these arguments are not a matter of opinion; they are science. There is only one answer, one expression of reality, in the final analysis. When you vote in an election, you are expressing an opinion and there exists no truly right or wrong position (in general, either choice are real possibilities and may occur), but in a matter of science there is right and wrong, correct and incorrect. Further, it is the aim of the scientific establishment to come down, in the final analysis, on the correct side, as a matter of not only policy but by design and execution of the scientific method. No one knows precisely where that ultimate point of reality is right now, but the direction that the scientific establishment is headed is toward the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Their processes are not hidden; they are published, debated, modeled, experimented with and reasoned as finely as the many disparate souls called scientists can do, even within their own ranks.

Now, your task, as in any debate in which you want to take part, is to first educate yourself on the issues. Since this is science that education is technical, and if you do not understand the science then your opinion carries roughly as much weight as a two year old's does in a presidential election. Since you are in reality assumed to be a grownup here, if you try to weigh in without any attempt to display the knowledge the debate requires, you will be treated roughly, and since you are expected to be prepared, the question of what your problem is with the established science is proper. Sorry, but life and time are short.

Finally, be aware this is the Internet, not a science journal. We will not settle the questions here; it is enough if we educate ourselves and others to the way that science works. Almost no one here is influential in the final analysis, but we can all still play like we are.
 
I agree with the OP, the whole AGW has become a religion and I think we should question that. It doesn't mean we deny anythng but the blind obedience of the masses.

Completely wrong. Religion is based on blind faith, that is believing even if there is no evidence. AGW is backed up with, and entirely the result of, evidence based on scientific research. To call it a religion is ignorance.
 
Agreed, I don't doubt the science because its honestly all over my head. What concerns me is the overall attitude towards dissent. My son goes to a Catholic school and he comes home more indoctrinated to AGW than religion. This is my concern, do you feel that I'm a "denier" because that makes me uncomfortable?

edit. there is no science in what he is being told.

1. If you aren't educated in science, then how can you evaluate to what degree what he is being told is scientific or not?
2. Why does what he is telling you makes you uncomfortable? Do you feel you must counter what is coming out of a catholic school? Or because it goes against what you believe?
3. Why do you dislike an outraged attitude about dissent? You are dissenting from what is being taught to your child. Does your own attitude give you pause?
3. How can we call you a denier? We haven't heard an argument yet.
 
Agreed, I don't doubt the science because its honestly all over my head. What concerns me is the overall attitude towards dissent. My son goes to a Catholic school and he comes home more indoctrinated to AGW than religion. This is my concern, do you feel that I'm a "denier" because that makes me uncomfortable?

edit. there is no science in what he is being told.

The evidence would go entirely over his head, as it does with most people. That isn't the fault of AGW theory. Simple explanations are the most the majority of school children could understand.
 
Alfie, the basics of GW/CC has been explained here repeatedly on this forum. There are lots of attempts at trying to explain all the theory, from basic to complex. There are even videos that you can watch on it - I recommend those of potholer54 on youtube, and the more technical ones of greenman3610. There are websites designed to explain both sides of the controversy.

What Megalodon has been saying is that these arguments are not a matter of opinion; they are science. There is only one answer, one expression of reality, in the final analysis. When you vote in an election, you are expressing an opinion and there exists no truly right or wrong position (in general, either choice are real possibilities and may occur), but in a matter of science there is right and wrong, correct and incorrect. Further, it is the aim of the scientific establishment to come down, in the final analysis, on the correct side, as a matter of not only policy but by design and execution of the scientific method. No one knows precisely where that ultimate point of reality is right now, but the direction that the scientific establishment is headed is toward the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Their processes are not hidden; they are published, debated, modeled, experimented with and reasoned as finely as the many disparate souls called scientists can do, even within their own ranks.

Now, your task, as in any debate in which you want to take part, is to first educate yourself on the issues. Since this is science that education is technical, and if you do not understand the science then your opinion carries roughly as much weight as a two year old's does in a presidential election. Since you are in reality assumed to be a grownup here, if you try to weigh in without any attempt to display the knowledge the debate requires, you will be treated roughly, and since you are expected to be prepared, the question of what your problem is with the established science is proper. Sorry, but life and time are short.

Finally, be aware this is the Internet, not a science journal. We will not settle the questions here; it is enough if we educate ourselves and others to the way that science works. Almost no one here is influential in the final analysis, but we can all still play like we are.



Um, you seem to contradict yourself which also proves a point of mine. You say there are "two sides to the argument" in this "controversy" however GW is "not a matter of opinion but science". If that were true then there wouldn't be two sides would there? And by extension there would be no debate.

I will ignore your insults also as irrelevant however they also prove a point I made in the OT regarding derision, scorn etc and your justification for it.

Back to the main point in the OT.
My claim is not a protest that there is no GW but that in the face of public and scientific debate there has to be doubt. And whilst the experts disagree how could anyone in this forum be 100% cetain? As you say this is the internet.
Smarter people than you or I disagree, one side says it's black, the other say white. Who represents the shades of grey?
Why should I believe one faction and not the other.
Why should I trust you and not them and
Why, for Gods sake would I trust the zealots at either end of the spectrum?
 
Um, you seem to contradict yourself which also proves a point of mine. You say there are "two sides to the argument" in this "controversy" however GW is "not a matter of opinion but science". If that were true then there wouldn't be two sides would there? And by extension there would be no debate.

If you want to know where the science is, you have to check what's being published, what's being cited in those publications, which works get built upon and which get refuted. In this subject there is no controversy. The scientific community is working upon the theory of AGW, since the few alternatives (and I use this term loosely) were overturned a long time ago.

Can you read your own thread, please?
 
Can you read your own thread, please?

Just to clear it up for you.

There are two sides to the story and hence there is a controversy. It is because there is contoversy that there is debate.
What you say is cut and dried, others disagree with.

Is that clear now?
 
Whenever you want. You made a wrong assertion, I called you on it. Do of it what you please.

Great, I will choose to ignore it happy in the knowledge that you prefer scemantics to debate, but that's your prerogative.
 
Megalodon,
Thanks for the response. As someone who tries to be a skeptic,but admitedly scientifically ignorant on this subject I don't see much real debate on this subject but mainly personal attacks from both sides. I guess when you have been on the forum a long time you have seen most arguements before but I feel like the AGW crowd assumes anyone who questions anythnig has an ulterior motive.
Thats because most of the people on the other side are ****ing morons in this forum not that they have an ulterior motive.
Just to clear it up for you.

There are two sides to the story and hence there is a controversy. It is because there is contoversy that there is debate.
What you say is cut and dried, others disagree with.
Its a false controversy and mainly stems from the whole being stupid part. Its exactly like the vaccine issue. THEY DON'T CAUSE AUTISM but using your moronic logic we would have to listen to Jenny McCarthy because she disagrees.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom