• 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.

"Skeptical Science" Website on Global Warming

Aussie Thinker said:
Maximus



It is NOTHING like talk origins.

The evolution debate is easy to follow and except for a very few fringe issues totally solved by science.

EVERY argument for AGW boils down to this…

We don’t know why the planet is warming
CO2 causes warming
CO2 (therefore man) is the culprit.

This in spite of the FACT that NEVER at any level can CO2 be shown to cause the warming that is attributed to it.

Now I admit to a horrible feeling that I am being a creationist over this issue.. but why is it SOOO easy for me to see how evolution works.. so easy for me to debunk all other conspiracies.. so easy to cut through other woo and superstition.. yet this one leaves me stumped.

I am NOT religious
I am NOT a republican
I have NO vested interest in whether AGW is true or not.

I have never seen anything that would convince and honest analytical person that AGW is real !
Click to expand...

Actually, Aussie, you have that exactly backwards. While global warming was kicked around as an idea as early as the 19th century, advances in data gathering and our understanding lead to it being a serious topic in the 1970s. At that time there had been little major warming, and the warming trend was certainly not anything outside of other natural variance seen.

The reason the theory was proposed was a greater understanding of the Greenhouse effect, an effect that currently keeps our earth heated to habitable conditions (without it, humanity could not exist). CO2's role in the greenhouse effect, especially upper atmospheric dynamics, was reexamined in light of the greater understanding we gained of the effect. At that time, it was predicted that our emmissions of CO2 would impact the effect.

Initial calculations were in many respects badly off, due to very, very poor understandings of the feedbacks and responses in the 1970s.

However, it is generally speaking not true to say that the current warming trend was unpredicted, or that CO2 concentration increases driven by burning fossil fuels were blamed simply because there were no other available culprits.

Hopefully this website will be available to answer your concerns and the concerns of individuals actually interested in learning (which I am increasingly becoming convinced are mostly deniers playing the 'just asking questions' game for the lurkers - not that you fall into this category, since I clearly have never explained any of this to you in any other thread, which I cannot link for anyone interested to show, and which since I cannot link definitely does not show any intellectual dishonesty).
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
I just don't understand why people want to believe that global warming is a hoax. Do they really think 97% of the climate scientists are in a conspiracy? I can understand the denial of evolution, because of the emotional attachment to their gods...... but what is the emotional attachment that causes denial of global warming?
Click to expand...

Some of it is ideology & money, as Ben says, but there are other reasons as well. For some it is fear of a "socialist" take-over of their lifestyle via moving to a green economy. Other people also have religious objections (I've actually heard the "God gave us the Earth to do with as we wish" argument - seriously).

And then there's just good old fashioned ignorance on an incredibly complicated scientific topic. Don't forget that one - my guess is that's the majority of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Aussie Thinker said:
Maximus

It is NOTHING like talk origins. ...

...I have never seen anything that would convince and honest analytical person that AGW is real !
Click to expand...

If you have honest questions about GW science, I suggest you take a look at the Skeptical Science site. That's why I posted it. But if you've got your mind made up that "it's all a scam!" or something similar, then it isn't for you.

'Nuff said.
 
Last edited:
DogB said:
I know lots of warmers who won't click on Watts Up With That. ;)
Click to expand...

Yep, those darn skeptical blogs are annoying, aren't they?

wait....that blog which was the subject of the OP? What was it? I've forgot. It has not won any awards

Let's start a "Best of Church of Warmer Porn" blog award contest. Let's make things....fair.....:clap:
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
The debate on climate change is not settled.
Click to expand...

Neither is the scientific debate over creationism........:rolleyes:


If a leading AGW scientist is not sure! Does that make him a denier?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Perhaps not. There is no debate on whether or not climate change is occuring, or that humans have made a significant contribution to bringing it about. The extent of how much and how to solve the problem is where the debate is.
 
So blog awards = scientific validity? I looked at the Watt blog, and compared to the Skeptical Science one, it's rather poor.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Yup, be careful Ben. That sword cuts both ways, as AAA correctly points out.
Click to expand...

As I have pointed out repeatedly, AGW is a DISASTER for the Left, and we would rather it didn't exist.

All of the things we want to do to elevate the living standards of all of humanity depends on capital and cheap energy. AGW deprives us of both.
 
BenBurch said:
As I have pointed out repeatedly, AGW is a DISASTER for the Left, and we would rather it didn't exist.

All of the things we want to do to elevate the living standards of all of humanity depends on capital and cheap energy. AGW deprives us of both.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it's a disaster for both the left and the right. So why is it that there are more skeptics on one side than the other?

Edit: Well, I should have said --- the above question should be asked with this fact in mind. A few answers have already been given in this thread, e.g. fear of socialism. I didn't mean to ask it while ignoring what's already been said.
 
Last edited:
Wait, MHaze is reduced to arguing science based on blog awards?

I've seen low, but this is the end of the line.
 
mhaze said:
Yep, those darn skeptical blogs are annoying, aren't they?

wait....that blog which was the subject of the OP? What was it? I've forgot. It has not won any awards

Let's start a "Best of Church of Warmer Porn" blog award contest. Let's make things....fair.....:clap:
Click to expand...

Would that be a weekly award?:D
 
thaiboxerken said:
I just don't understand why people want to believe that global warming is a hoax. Do they really think 97% of the climate scientists are in a conspiracy? I can understand the denial of evolution, because of the emotional attachment to their gods...... but what is the emotional attachment that causes denial of global warming?
Click to expand...

Global warming isn’t a problem that can be addressed without government involvement. This places it in direct opposition to political ideologies that think the free market can handle anything if government just leaves it alone.
 
thaiboxerken said:
So blog awards = scientific validity? I looked at the Watt blog, and compared to the Skeptical Science one, it's rather poor.
Click to expand...

Worse, that particular award is by public vote any doesn't do a good job of preventing ballot box stuffing.
 
lomiller said:
Worse, that particular award is by public vote any doesn't do a good job of preventing ballot box stuffing.
Click to expand...

LGF's 'Ron Paul' poll is popping to mind now ('what should the new color scheme be? Red/Blue, Green/Blue, or Ron Paul (RP won by a factor of 20 or so).
 
BenBurch said:
They get props for that gimmick. And I usually will not have a nice thing to say about them.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I've always enjoyed reading it, even when I disagree, though he's been heading towards the bitter recently.
 
GreyICE said:
That's funny, I've always enjoyed reading it, even when I disagree, though he's been heading towards the bitter recently.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the bitter gets to me.

I did read it long ago.

People are amazed that there are conservatives I actually enjoy reading - people who have something real to say that they have applied some thought to always are on the list even when I do disagree with their conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom