Conservatives and climate change

[uke2se]

I haven't "denied" anything so I find that hard to believe. Then again you seem to have a vivid imagination so anything is possible.

No, you are just arguing for the science denier position, making sure to keep your escape route open. You're basically a coward.

Still nothing, just empty claims. Please quote Anthony Watts and show what science he's "denied". Questioning the science or methodology isn't "denial".

Has already been done in this thread.

Evidence? I'd like to see what "anti-science" he's posted. I know the guy is a bit crazy, but that's all I know. I've never read anything he's written I've seen him once on a YouTube video.

See any of his presentations.

No, just some specific examples and what science they "deny" and why.

And I gave you specific examples. For some reason that wasn't enough.

At the moment you sound like a Conspiracy Theorist talking about "them" and "they". It's all in your head, making mountains out of mole hills so you can validate your alarmism.

No, it's not in my head. I wish it was in my head and there weren't a bunch of empowered nutters out there hell bent on denying established science. Sadly, that's the case, and you know it as well as I. That you chose to deny it here is simply a symptom of your apparent clinical need to be contrarian.

 

[Furcifer]

Ok, then you can provide examples of a scientist intimidating a denier by, for example, filing lawsuits against them, publishing blatantly false op-eds against them, etc.

Probably not.

I don't see how that changes the fact that there are wackos on either side of this issue making crazy claims and saying outrageous stuff? I would be surprised if high profile "deniers" like Watts haven't received threats and the like from disturbed alarmists. It comes with being a public figure.

 

[uke2se]

Probably not.

I don't see how that changes the fact that there are wackos on either side of this issue making crazy claims and saying outrageous stuff? I would be surprised if high profile "deniers" like Watts haven't received threats and the like from disturbed alarmists. It comes with being a public figure.

Can you prove it? How about you provide evidence for climate realists threatening Watts. I mean, you keep demanding evidence for the bleeding obvious. How about not being a hypocrite?

 

[Furcifer]

No, it's not. Even if it was, why did you feel the need to lie about what I actually said?

What lie?

It has been substantiated with evidence many times, even in this thread. Your response to the evidence: utter denial.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. Who said what specifically and what "science" did they deny and how was it proven demonstrably false? So far you've made erroneous and unsubstantiated claims.

You're not a skeptic though.

That's a lie.

But you aren't. You are denying actual science and embracing pseudoscience.

Nonsense. Peer reviewed science published in journals is not pseudoscience. The politically biased garbage at RealCrapClimate.com posing as science is. I read the science at the source. The EGU, the DOE and what's freely available through Google scholar is not pseudoscience. Sorry

 

[uke2se]

What lie?

Can't even remember your own posts? Perhaps you should have a lie down.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. Who said what specifically and what "science" did they deny and how was it proven demonstrably false? So far you've made erroneous and unsubstantiated claims.

Evidence has been posted in this thread. You denied it.

That's a lie.

No, it has become rather obvious.

Nonsense. Peer reviewed science published in journals is not pseudoscience.

Then why do you keep insisting that it is?

The politically biased garbage at RealCrapClimate.com posing as science is.

Here you do it again.

I read the science at the source. The EGU, the DOE and what's freely available through Google scholar is not pseudoscience. Sorry

That's just another lie. It's obvious you know nothing about climate science.

 

[Furcifer]

Can you prove it? How about you provide evidence for climate realists threatening Watts. I mean, you keep demanding evidence for the bleeding obvious. How about not being a hypocrite?

No, I'm not familiar enough with Watts and his website to know. I've been there in the past and seen comments deleted for explicit content, but I don't know what they've entailed.

I've just been using the internet for long enough to know people make a lot of stupid threats on the internet. I remember when I was using Yahoo Games death threats were pretty much the norm.

I don't know if there's any video on YouTube of Watts, but if there is I'm fairly confident there will be death threats against him there. If I found those would that suffice?

 

[uke2se]

No, I'm not familiar enough with Watts and his website to know. I've been there in the past and seen comments deleted for explicit content, but I don't know what they've entailed.

I've just been using the internet for long enough to know people make a lot of stupid threats on the internet. I remember when I was using Yahoo Games death threats were pretty much the norm.

I don't know if there's any video on YouTube of Watts, but if there is I'm fairly confident there will be death threats against him there. If I found those would that suffice?

Youtube threats made in the comments section of youtube versus phone and mail threats? Hmmm... what do you think?

 

[SezMe]

I don't see how that changes the fact that there are wackos on either side of this issue making crazy claims and saying outrageous stuff?

I can move right along with the goalposts; I'm ok with it in this instance. So, can you cite some climate scientists "making crazy claims and saying outrageous stuff?"

 

[Furcifer]

Can't even remember your own posts? Perhaps you should have a lie down.

I remember my posts just fine, there's no lies though.

Evidence has been posted in this thread. You denied it.

lol. That's a lie. You haven't provided any evidence of "science denial", at best we have an invalid hypothesis from a single internet blogger.

Still waiting....

That's just another lie. It's obvious you know nothing about climate science.

Unsubstantiated claims and alarmist rhetoric. Typical.

 

[uke2se]

I remember my posts just fine, there's no lies though.

Yes, there clearly is. I consider strawmanning a form of lying. Perhaps you don't.

lol. That's a lie. You haven't provided any evidence of "science denial", at best we have an invalid hypothesis from a single internet blogger.

Still waiting....

I haven't, no. I said it has been posted in this very thread. I didn't say I had posted it. When it was posted, you moved the goal posts to further your denial.

Unsubstantiated claims and alarmist rhetoric. Typical.

Yes, it seems you aren't going to contribute much more to this discussion but contrarianism and utter denial.

 

[Furcifer]

I can move right along with the goalposts; I'm ok with it in this instance. So, can you cite some climate scientists "making crazy claims and saying outrageous stuff?"

I've never read any in the peer reviewed literature.

I still don't see how this has anything to do with the the wackos on either side of the climate change issue? The nuttery comes from politicians and private citizens, not scientists.

If I can find it I'll get the clip of Ted Turner claiming global warming will turn us into cannibals. That's pretty outrageous.

 

[uke2se]

I've never read any in the peer reviewed literature.

I still don't see how this has anything to do with the the wackos on either side of the climate change issue? The nuttery comes from politicians and private citizens, not scientists.

If I can find it I'll get the clip of Ted Turner claiming global warming will turn us into cannibals. That's pretty outrageous.

There's two sides here, and you seem to be confused as to the make up of your opponents. Your opponents are the climate scientists and those who argue that we should listen to the climate scientists. The nutty politicians and private citizens are all on your side.

 

[Furcifer]

Yes, there clearly is. I consider strawmanning a form of lying. Perhaps you don't.

Nice use of irony to lighten the mood.

I haven't, no. I said it has been posted in this very thread. I didn't say I had posted it. When it was posted, you moved the goal posts to further your denial.

lol, are you ever going to substantiate your alarmists claims? I get it, you think everyone is in denial.

Yes, it seems you aren't going to contribute much more to this discussion but contrarianism and utter denial.

True, skeptics deny unsubstantiated pseudoscientific claims. That's not going to change anytime soon.

 

[uke2se]

Nice use of irony to lighten the mood.

So you even deny your obvious use of a strawman despite me calling you on it?

Must be easy living in your world. Deny every part of reality that you don't like.

lol, are you ever going to substantiate your alarmists claims? I get it, you think everyone is in denial.

I didn't have to. Others did it for me. Please snap out of your denial.

True, skeptics deny unsubstantiated pseudoscientific claims. That's not going to change anytime soon.

But you're not a skeptic. You're a contrarian, and a damned confused one at that.

 

[mhaze]

I've never read any in the peer reviewed literature.

I still don't see how this has anything to do with the the wackos on either side of the climate change issue? The nuttery comes from politicians and private citizens, not scientists.

If I can find it I'll get the clip of Ted Turner claiming global warming will turn us into cannibals. That's pretty outrageous.

I posted it earlier. Notice how these guys that claim to be on the "side of science" NEVER, EVER disavow radical hysterical things like Turner's comment.

Sort of like Muslims staying quiet about their little radical fringe minorities. But don't forget "it's a religion of peace".

 

[Furcifer]

I posted it earlier. Notice how these guys that claim to be on the "side of science" NEVER, EVER disavow radical hysterical things like Turner's comment.

Sort of like Muslims staying quiet about their little radical fringe minorities. But don't forget "it's a religion of peace".

It's nonsense. I personally don't have any issue with the current "consensus" opinion; it's warmed about 1degree in the last 150 years primarily due to humans burning fossil fuels. I haven't said anything else about climate science and the fundies are screaming "denial". It's hilarious. There's no arguing with fundamentalists however, this is faith based.

 

[mhaze]

It's nonsense. I personally don't have any issue with the current "consensus" opinion; it's warmed about 1degree in the last 150 years primarily due to humans burning fossil fuels. I haven't said anything else about climate science and the fundies are screaming "denial". It's hilarious. There's no arguing with fundamentalists however, this is faith based.

But you see, you still have to recite the opinion .... "the belief".... prior to discussion.

I suggest NOT doing that, it really, really drives them up the wall. Because they want to redefine "Denier" ad hoc, to apply that anyone that doesn't believe whatever moronic thing they are spouting at the moment.

And yes, that includes being a Denier of "billions will die and those who remain will be cannibals". That's Turner's comment. He's a complete nutcase, and none of the resident Faithful will disavow him. That's why they deserve to be called "sciency and truthy", not men of science.

 

[uke2se]

It's nonsense. I personally don't have any issue with the current "consensus" opinion; it's warmed about 1degree in the last 150 years primarily due to humans burning fossil fuels. I haven't said anything else about climate science and the fundies are screaming "denial". It's hilarious. There's no arguing with fundamentalists however, this is faith based.

Like I said, you take the coward's position, using all the denialist arguments but never actually giving your own opinions. You know as well as I that there's more to AGW than "1 degree in the last 150 years", but you'd rather offer a straw man of what we're really arguing about here.

I especially like how you have retreated your position with virtually every post you made as the evidence against your argument piles up until you go "oh, but I always agreed with the scientists", like your other posts never existed.

Contrarian to the bone, but certainly no skeptic.

ETA: You can skip the "" around the word consensus. It's as strong in climate science as it is in biology for the theory of evolution.

 

[dc1971]

You know what they say, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoXFpymugbk

Great scientific verification. Awesome!

So if I need any other verification of planetary studies, I should ask dead people?

 

[BenBurch]

While our deniers are stuck in the 19th century, the world of carbon-free energy advances;

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ect_to_pour_water_into_volcano_to_make_power/