AWG conspiracy, why?

[Hallo Alfie]

Your case seems to be that it's too complicated to understand but all the scientists are in on it for the money.

You have no understanding of the science involved yet feel qualified to expound on it.

A gross oversimplification.
And when have I ever expounded on science?

If you review my posts (not that you would) you would see that I am nothing but consistent.

I do not suggest for a minute that global warming is not real.
I do however suggest that the 'A' in AGW is disputed and I remain skeptical.
I also know enough about science to know that there is no way in gods universe that 100% of the scientists think AGW is fact.
I do think that scientists - like any human being can be influenced by their beliefs, hopes, money, status etc etc.
That said, I do not believe that every scientists in the world is conspring against anything.
I do think that some well placed people have too much power and influence.
I find it odd - at the least - the AGW is the only science in the field of human endeavour that cannot be questioned.
AGW adherents follow the party line, but generally have no better training in the field than anyone else (including me).
I see much ideology and religious fanaticism in the mix.
When it is questioned, one is treated like a Jew in 1939 Berlin. Why?
And on and on I could go..

That said, I do not for one second think that all is fair and good in the 'deniers' camp either. There are dirty tricks and propaganda all around and I will be the first to admit I've fallen for some of them

Climategate, Wikipedia, Hockey sticks, Copenahegen etc are all pointers to something rotten in Denmark (no pun intended). There is plenty more too and plenty more on the way methinks.

In isolation, I could dismiss any one of the factors; as a whole I have trouble - in fact I find it impossible.

Now, maybe AGW is real - I couldn't say for certain it's not. But, because of the above, a solid understanding of history, and an excellent understanding of human beings, etc all leads me to think that all is not quite as you (and others) would have me believe.

But tell me, why would you accept AGW as "settled science"? Just because some scientists say so? Have you that much faith?

 

[mailman]

Haven't read a book on the subject, so I cannot recommend any.

However, here is a good place to begin; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Im pretty sure Holmes asked for a woo free source of info here? Realclimate are up to their eyeballs in woo. In fact, these clowns invented woo! Conspiracy?

Mailman

 

[mailman]

But tell me, why would you accept AGW as "settled science"? Just because some scientists say so? Have you that much faith?

I think this is a very good question Alfie, why have some people accepted the science behind Mann Made Global warming (tm) as being settled with nothing more than the words of a few scientists and the UN?

Further more, I wonder if Richard Black will conduct a survey of the types of people who accept global warming (tm) as fact. After all, he has already stereo typed "deniers" as being white republicans

Mailman

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I think this is a very good question Alfie, why have some people accepted the science behind Mann Made Global warming (tm) as being settled with nothing more than the words of a few scientists and the UN?

Further more, I wonder if Richard Black will conduct a survey of the types of people who accept global warming (tm) as fact. After all, he has already stereo typed "deniers" as being white republicans

Mailman

White republican!

I resent that!
Everyone here knows I am an ignorant retard with a woody for AGW CT.

 

[BenBurch]

Im pretty sure Holmes asked for a woo free source of info here? Realclimate are up to their eyeballs in woo. In fact, these clowns invented woo! Conspiracy?

Mailman

I really hope you are not serious? If you are, the CT forum is your natural home.

 

[tsig]

A gross oversimplification.
And when have I ever expounded on science?

If you review my posts (not that you would) you would see that I am nothing but consistent.

I do not suggest for a minute that global warming is not real.
I do however suggest that the 'A' in AGW is disputed and I remain skeptical.
I also know enough about science to know that there is no way in gods universe that 100% of the scientists think AGW is fact.
I do think that scientists - like any human being can be influenced by their beliefs, hopes, money, status etc etc.
That said, I do not believe that every scientists in the world is conspring against anything.
I do think that some well placed people have too much power and influence.
I find it odd - at the least - the AGW is the only science in the field of human endeavour that cannot be questioned.
AGW adherents follow the party line, but generally have no better training in the field than anyone else (including me).
I see much ideology and religious fanaticism in the mix.
When it is questioned, one is treated like a Jew in 1939 Berlin. Why?
And on and on I could go..

That said, I do not for one second think that all is fair and good in the 'deniers' camp either. There are dirty tricks and propaganda all around and I will be the first to admit I've fallen for some of them

Climategate, Wikipedia, Hockey sticks, Copenahegen etc are all pointers to something rotten in Denmark (no pun intended). There is plenty more too and plenty more on the way methinks.

In isolation, I could dismiss any one of the factors; as a whole I have trouble - in fact I find it impossible.

Now, maybe AGW is real - I couldn't say for certain it's not. But, because of the above, a solid understanding of history, and an excellent understanding of human beings, etc all leads me to think that all is not quite as you (and others) would have me believe.

But tell me, why would you accept AGW as "settled science"? Just because some scientists say so? Have you that much faith?

So you are a conspiracy theorist and think that all the scientists are ganging up to fool everyone.

I see you resort to the old canard about having faith. Did it occur to you that maybe some people could reach their conclusions independently using facts and not faith?

 

[elbe]

So you are a conspiracy theorist and think that all the scientists are ganging up to fool everyone.

I see you resort to the old canard about having faith. Did it occur to you that maybe some people could reach their conclusions independently using facts and not faith?

Apparently, unless you are actually a climate scientist, you are just gullible and accept whatever you are told. At least that's what he said before.

 

[tsig]

Apparently, unless you are actually a climate scientist, you are just gullible and accept whatever you are told. At least that's what he said before.

And if I'm a climate scientist I am in on the conspiracy and not to be trusted. A nice little catch that catch 22.

 

[varwoche]

And when have I ever expounded on science?

If you review my posts (not that you would) you would see that I am nothing but consistent.

Though you spam the forum with flimsy inferences about GW science, it's true that you steadfastly avoid discussion of anything to do with scientific fact.

Actually, now that I think about it, you steadfastly avoid facts, period. This is demonstrated by your reliance on agenda-driven opinion pieces, often written by abject nutjobs, without lifting a finger to fact-check.

You're like a one person fact-free zone.

 

[fourtoe]

I think this is a very good question Alfie, why have some people accepted the science behind Mann Made Global warming (tm) as being settled with nothing more than the words of a few scientists and the UN?

Further more, I wonder if Richard Black will conduct a survey of the types of people who accept global warming (tm) as fact. After all, he has already stereo typed "deniers" as being white republicans

Mailman

A few scientists? Are you seriously saying that a few scientists accept AGW?

And also what's up with the complaining about being called names? None of us are doing that and it should be accepted as given that resulting to that in an argument is really stupid. I mean, I can say the same thing about the other side but who cares?

All I wanted to know was where ppl get their facts from and why it is the case that those sources are deemed creditable.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I see you resort to the old canard about having faith. Did it occur to you that maybe some people could reach their conclusions independently using facts and not faith?

How?
I have been repeatedly told that unless one is a climate scientist, one cannot possible understand the science.
So, just how have you managed this miraculous display of learning and intellect?

Apparently, unless you are actually a climate scientist, you are just gullible and accept whatever you are told. At least that's what he said before.

See previous post and explain to me how you personally have come up with your conclusions. If I am right - you have simply believed what you've been told. You accept unquestioning - that in my opinion (and that of any dictionary) is gullible.

And if I'm a climate scientist I am in on the conspiracy and not to be trusted. A nice little catch that catch 22.

Not at all. Look up "groupthink".

Though you spam the forum with flimsy inferences about GW science, it's true that you steadfastly avoid discussion of anything to do with scientific fact.

Actually, now that I think about it, you steadfastly avoid facts, period. This is demonstrated by your reliance on agenda-driven opinion pieces, often written by abject nutjobs, without lifting a finger to fact-check.

You're like a one person fact-free zone.

Heh heh
Thanks for your opinion. Oh..., or are those facts?
A bit hard to tell really based on your loose definitions of truth, fact or opinion, from what I can tell.

 

[Peephole]

I also know enough about science to know that there is no way in gods universe that 100% of the scientists think AGW is fact.

No, but 99% of all published material on climate change agrees that AGW is fact, as does 90% of all publishers on climate change, the consensus established by the IPCC, and finally pretty much every single science organisation in existence.

Climategate, Wikipedia, Hockey sticks, Copenahegen etc are all pointers to something rotten in Denmark (no pun intended).

No, that's all nothing more than denier propaganda that you've fallen for.

 

[fourtoe]

No, but 99% of all published material on climate change agrees that AGW is fact, as does 90% of all publishers on climate change, the consensus established by the IPCC, and finally pretty much every single science organisation in existence.

No, that's all nothing more than denier propaganda that you've fallen for.

What sucks is even when presented with this info, it will be hand waved away by making an alarmingly original comparison to Galileo v. the Church of that period.

This happened to me before when I went to a presentation by Willie Soon at my uni last February. When he hand waved all the stats that Peephole has presented here, he supported it by citing the Petition Project too.