AGW extremists are dangerous

a_unique_person said:
I'm just asking if you think the accepted point of view on AGW is religious.
Click to expand...

I think I could put the "1%" in the category of religious type fanaticism. They seem somehow obsessed by a cause where nothing else matters, and no means are to great to meet the ends. In this case then absolutely it is religious in the terms you speak about: But they are precisely the people I called zealots and extremists in the OT, so nothing has changed there. They are the dangerous ones of whom I speak.

Just as an additional explanation to the word religion in terms of a following:

There are those who religiously "follow" their sports team, play golf or watch the stockmarket. They too might speak of their 'obsession' as a religion in terms of following it.

Then there are others who might say "I 'religiously' brush my teeth each morning and evening" or "'religiously' go for an evening walk".

As I say, there is more than one definition and they are regularly used in the common vernacular.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
I think I could put the "1%" in the category of religious type fanaticism. They seem somehow obsessed by a cause where nothing else matters, and no means are to great to meet the ends. In this case then absolutely it is religious in the terms you speak about: But they are precisely the people I called zealots and extremists in the OT, so nothing has changed there. They are the dangerous ones of whom I speak.

Just as an additional explanation to the word religion in terms of a following:

There are those who religiously "follow" their sports team, play golf or watch the stockmarket. They too might speak of their 'obsession' as a religion in terms of following it.

Then there are others who might say "I 'religiously' brush my teeth each morning and evening" or "'religiously' go for an evening walk".

As I say, there is more than one definition and they are regularly used in the common vernacular.
Click to expand...

You are pretty much twisting the english language up in knots, or you are backpedaling.

So, what's your point, in saying AGW is a religion?

So, I brush my teeth at least twice a day, religiously, as you point out that some would say.

Actually, I find AGW to be far more important to me and mankind than brushing my teeth.

Does that make me an AGW zealot, and if so, I'm quilty as charged.

Now It's up to you to argue that that makes me dangerous.

Dangerous to whom?
 
A A Alfie, at no point did I ask where I had insulted you. I gave you some constructive advice, which you chose to take in a negative fashion. At this point I do have a low opinion of your critical thinking skills, but that is neither taunt nor insult, but rather my considered opinion based on what you have written on these forums. In particular you have:
1) Attempted to advance a definition of religion that encompasses all accepted science (though strangely it would not encompass science that has been rejected.)
2) Attempted to advance the notion that the simple opinion of a layman is all that is required to overturn scientific consensus.
3) Expressed opinions about the IPCC while freely admitting you don’t know anything about the topic. In fact your posting strongly suggests you haven’t even made an attempt to read it, but still seem to feel your opinion means something.

These have lowered my opinion of your thinking skills, and justifiably so.

For some reason you seem to think you are entitled to have your opinion held in equal weight to that of the consensus opinion of researchers in this field. I can assure you this isn’t the case, I can also assure you advancing such a view will earn you contempt for your thinking skills. You can once again choose not to accept this constructive criticism, that is indeed your right, but trying to cry victim over it will not change anything.
 
Has anyone here read "climate of Extremes" by Michaels and Balling jr.? If so whats your opinion and where can I find out more about the authors?
 
Michaels has a degree related to climatology, he comes from a background in biology rather then physics, chemistry any anything particularly related to atmospheric science. Most of his work has been for far right, politically motivate “think tanks” like the Cato Institute and the Marshall institute. He has published a handful of papers in the last decade, but most of the citations they have received have either come from non-peer reviewed sources. Where he is cited in peer reviewed sources it seems mostly to debunk rather then support or build on his work.

Overall I suppose you could legitimately call him a scientist, albeit one who is mostly significant for his politics rather then his publications.
 
Thanks for that. I've read a couple of their essays online. What do you think about his proposition that the scientific community is not as united as the media and others would have us believe?
 
bobdroege7 said:
You are pretty much twisting the english language up in knots, or you are backpedaling.

So, what's your point, in saying AGW is a religion?

So, I brush my teeth at least twice a day, religiously, as you point out that some would say.

Actually, I find AGW to be far more important to me and mankind than brushing my teeth.

Does that make me an AGW zealot, and if so, I'm quilty as charged.

Now It's up to you to argue that that makes me dangerous.

Dangerous to whom?
Click to expand...


Answered, answered answered and answered.
I do not belive I have called you dengerous either - unless you put yourself in our 1%.
Is that where you fit in the spectrum?
 
lomiller said:
A A Alfie, at no point did I ask where I had insulted you. I gave you some constructive advice, which you chose to take in a negative fashion. At this point I do have a low opinion of your critical thinking skills, but that is neither taunt nor insult, but rather my considered opinion based on what you have written on these forums. In particular you have:
1) Attempted to advance a definition of religion that encompasses all accepted science (though strangely it would not encompass science that has been rejected.)
2) Attempted to advance the notion that the simple opinion of a layman is all that is required to overturn scientific consensus.
3) Expressed opinions about the IPCC while freely admitting you don’t know anything about the topic. In fact your posting strongly suggests you haven’t even made an attempt to read it, but still seem to feel your opinion means something.

These have lowered my opinion of your thinking skills, and justifiably so.

For some reason you seem to think you are entitled to have your opinion held in equal weight to that of the consensus opinion of researchers in this field. I can assure you this isn’t the case, I can also assure you advancing such a view will earn you contempt for your thinking skills. You can once again choose not to accept this constructive criticism, that is indeed your right, but trying to cry victim over it will not change anything.
Click to expand...



Firstly my apologies, it was in fact Shadron that asked for an example of the insult and not you.

To your three numbered points:
1. Religion/science. If you wish to twist meaning in this fashion that's just fine with me. All I have discussed is the definition of the word and that we might pop that 1% in the zealot category - I argue that these follow their beliefs with a certain 'religious' fanaticism
2. I have never suggested that my opinion or layman can overturn science. I have said from the outset the science is largely beyond me. I have consistently said I neither deny nor accept AWG but continue to watch the debate.
3. IPCC opinions? Please show me.

In all three cases as well as your final paragraph you ascribe unsaid statements and inferences everywhere. Misinformation and lies?

On my thinking abilities. You have your opinion on mine and are entitled to it, as I have mine on yours.

Victim? He he, that's funny.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
Overall I suppose you could legitimately call him a scientist, albeit one who is mostly significant for his politics rather then his publications.
Click to expand...

It is exactly this sort of statement I hear from the "right" about many of the "lefts" scientists. Each side disparages and argues against the other. If the science looks reasonable and the credentials are legitimate they attack their politics and/or the person themselves as you have done here.

This is where us 'laymen' get confused. They all seem like "legitimate" scientists.
 
Werdum said:
Thanks for that. I've read a couple of their essays online. What do you think about his proposition that the scientific community is not as united as the media and others would have us believe?
Click to expand...

If anything the media vastly overstates the amount of debate going on in scientific circles.

Surveys have reported 97% of scientists who publish papers on the topic of climate

The IPCC report is the largest scientific literature review ever conducted and looked at over 2000 recent papers and concluded there is a very high probably humes are significantly changing the earths climate.

This paper in Science from 2004 sampled nearly 1000 papers appearing in refereed journals and didn’t find a single one that explicitly contradicts the consensus on global warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

some of the science organizations who have made official statements regarding human impact on the earths climate.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Science Foundation
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
Australian Coral Reef Society
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Societ
American Statistical Association


In a joint statement,
the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
 
lomiller, I will freely admit that I have some confirmation bias issues I'm trying to deal with. I guess this whole thread is about the tone of this "debate". I want to believe there is still debate and look for evidence of it. As has been said before for a lay person with an honest bias you can see how it would appear there is still alot of debate on the subject.I know you could respond to the "facts" in this essay but I'm more interested as to what he says about the ipcc.http://www.raleightavern.org/globalwarming.htm
 
"The final draft report was produced in 1995 by Working Group I, scientists who reviewed the world scientific literature. The UN likes to claim that “2,500 scientists” were involved. In fact, what they did was to add up all the authors in all the papers reviewed and all the reviewers, which total comes to 2100 by actual count! (“Not Scientific Consensus”, S. Fred Singer, WSJ, 1996; he is professor emeritus of environmental sciences, U. of Virginia) This group actually totaled about 200 working scientists, of whom 80 or so were bone fide climatologists" The relevant part
 
Werdum said:
"The final draft report was produced in 1995 by Working Group I, scientists who reviewed the world scientific literature. The UN likes to claim that “2,500 scientists” were involved. In fact, what they did was to add up all the authors in all the papers reviewed and all the reviewers, which total comes to 2100 by actual count! (“Not Scientific Consensus”, S. Fred Singer, WSJ, 1996; he is professor emeritus of environmental sciences, U. of Virginia) This group actually totaled about 200 working scientists, of whom 80 or so were bone fide climatologists" The relevant part
Click to expand...

Hey Werdum
was this all, it kinda seems incomplete

i.e. is there anything else after "The relevant part..."
 
A.A.Alfie said:
On the science - I do not debate it - I can't and wont - any of you will run rings around me. Throwing it up as evidence in an effort to convert the non believer (especially in aggressive ways) does nothing for the cause at all.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed noone picked up on this. Throwing up the scientific evidence is no way to convince a non believer about something scientific? Well how the hell else do you do it, magic?

Would you apply this to Creationsim (to take a totally random example) as well? You shouldn't point to the masses of scientific research about evolution to those who deny it, because that isn't what you should use as evidence.

Seriously, what the hell WOULD you use as evidence of Global Warming other than the science? What else COULD you use?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I'm amazed noone picked up on this. Throwing up the scientific evidence is no way to convince a non believer about something scientific? Well how the hell else do you do it, magic?

Would you apply this to Creationsim (to take a totally random example) as well? You shouldn't point to the masses of scientific research about evolution to those who deny it, because that isn't what you should use as evidence.

Seriously, what the hell WOULD you use as evidence of Global Warming other than the science? What else COULD you use?
Click to expand...




You've come in a bit late on all this. You have taken one comment from the thread and commented on it - it is a little out of context.

You are actually agreeing with what I'm saying to a point. The run up (and there was much) to the point you've plucked out was about the requirements for 'lay' information to come through to the non scientific. And given that there is lots of information coming from a variety of sources, how do we start to comprehend.

My point here is that rather than discuss in simple terms, they would rather abusepeople and throw technical stuff up.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
You've come in a bit late on all this. You have taken one comment from the thread and commented on it - it is a little out of context.

You are actually agreeing with what I'm saying to a point. The run up (and there was much) to the point you've plucked out was about the requirements for 'lay' information to come through to the non scientific. And given that there is lots of information coming from a variety of sources, how do we start to comprehend.

My point here is that rather than discuss in simple terms, they would rather abusepeople and throw technical stuff up.
Click to expand...

That isn't at all in agreement with what I said.

You CAN'T explain things in simple terms after a while. I mean, there is only a limited amount you can explain without referring to data points and technical arguments otherwise it's all rubbish. You can't make it simple after a while, because ANYONE can do that.

"AGW is real because CO2 is bad and we're making a lot. This makes the Earth Wwarm up progressively but there's a small amount of variation during this, as normal"

"No, AGW is false because this isn't true at all!"

How, exactly, does one pick who is telling the truth without referring to the technical discussion? How do you judge who is right without mentioning the science? Going back to the results and checking the core data?

It simply can't be done, which is why you cannot make an argument about AGW, Creationism or hell, even Heliocentric models of the solar system without being technical. I can't agree with abusing an opponent unless they have shown absolutely no desire to learn and are totally ignoring any point you bring up, but to ask for a science discussion without the science is....worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom