"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

[RecoveringYuppy]

@Robert Prey,

You made a positive claim that he repeated and bolded for you.

@excaza,

He also made a postive claim about political origins.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, but it is you and your Amen chorus of Chicken Littles on this board that make the claim of man made global warming. You make the claim; it is up to you to provide the evidence. Or do the Deep Thinkers on this board accept the logical fallacy of proving a negative??????

Here's a good starting place. Lemmie know if you need any piece of that in more depth. I'm sure we give you whatever you need.

 

[lomiller]

The fact that the IPCC has claimed that the trivial amount of Global Warming over a cherry picked number of years is largely caused by MAN without any real evidence.

The IPCC says that global temperatures have increased by ~1 Deg C over the last 100 years and is looking at 2+ Deg C over the next 100 without significant cuts to CO2 emissions. That’s 3 deg C over 200 years.

Are you truly claiming this amount is trivial when the “rapid” warming at the end of the last glaciations was 6 deg C over 5000 years

 

[Corsair 115]

Political hacks, as in appointees from socialist leaning governments, most of whom are not Climatologists, and many not even real scientists.

Once again this does not answer my question. I shall repeat my request for a third time:

The notion of "consensus" comes from the Intergovernmental Panel which is just a group of political hacks, 80 percent of whom are not even climate scientists. The whole movement is rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism.

Please provide evidence which substantiates the bolded claims above.

Be advised that if you fail for the third time to meet my request, I shall be forced to conclude you have no evidence to substantiate your claims. At which point I will dismiss your arguments as the baseless rantings of a crank.

 

[Robert Prey]

The IPCC says that global temperatures have increased by ~1 Deg C over the last 100 years and is looking at 2+ Deg C over the next 100 without significant cuts to CO2 emissions. That’s 3 deg C over 200 years.

Are you truly claiming this amount is trivial when the “rapid” warming at the end of the last glaciations was 6 deg C over 5000 years

Taking a statistic from one cheery picked number of years and extrapolating it to the equal number of future years is fallacious reasoning. Fact is, the earth has been warming, and cooling since its birth zillions of years ago, when man hadn't even been created.

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's a good starting place. Lemmie know if you need any piece of that in more depth. I'm sure we give you whatever you need.

And so, your point is???

 

[Robert Prey]

You've seen the evidence. You accused it of being cherrypicked, so you can't really claim that nobody has presented it to you. Since you have made the accusation, the onus is on you to back it up.

Sorry, but no one has provided any good evidence for any significant man-made global warming.

 

[Upchurch]

And so, your point is???

I, and any number of people here, can provide you as much evidence that is consistent with man-made global warming as you handle. Can you now provide evidence for your claims?

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry, but no one has provided any good evidence for any significant man-made global warming.

What is wrong with the evidence that has been provided to you?

 

[cwalner]

Taking a statistic from one cheery picked number of years and extrapolating it to the equal number of future years is fallacious reasoning. Fact is, the earth has been warming, and cooling since its birth zillions of years ago, when man hadn't even been created.

Um, nobody is denying that, especially not lolmiller in the very quote you are responding to.

However, in the past 6C over 5000 years is considered rapid before humans existed. We are now seeing a projected 3C over 300 years. That is nearly a factor of 10 faster than what is considered rapid natural climate change. What mechanism do you suggest is causing the Earth to warm that rapidly that does not result from (at least in part) human involvement.

 

[Robert Prey]

Wow, you just really don't get it, do you?

When you hear the word "evidence", what do you think people are talking about? It isn't that difficult of a concept and this is a great place to ask for help, if you don't understand.

Here's a first bit of advice: what you said above is not evidence. It is a claim. It can either be true or false, as opposed to an opinion, which is really neither. Good evidence (and there are both good and bad forms of evidence) helps to determine whether or not a claim is false.

Does that help?

"80% of IPCC members have no "dealing with climate""

http://www.sustainableoregon.com/ipccscientists.htm

Common Knowledge for those who read.l

 

[SezMe]

Taking a statistic from one cheery picked number of years and extrapolating it to the equal number of future years is fallacious reasoning.

You're absolutely right. Good thing that nobody has done that, right?

Fact is, the earth has been warming, and cooling since its birth zillions of years ago, when man hadn't even been created.

Created?

 

[lomiller]

Taking a statistic from one cheery picked number of years and extrapolating it to the equal number of future years is fallacious reasoning.

Irrelevant since this isn’t how the numbers the IPCC gives were arrived at.

Since you don’t actually seem to know how the IPCC works or what its findings are we can probably conclude your comments were completely baseless and driven by ideology not fact.

Fact is, the earth has been warming, and cooling since its birth zillions of years ago, when man hadn't even been created.

And in nearly every case where there is sufficient data to attribute cause, CO2 has played a role. Why do you believe this would suddenly change now?

 

[lomiller]

"80% of IPCC members have no "dealing with climate""

http://www.sustainableoregon.com/ipccscientists.htm

Common Knowledge for those who read.l

OMG! When the line between parody and woo-woo becomes indistinguishable!

They even have a link the “papers” Poptart created to try and support his arguments on these vary forums. Anyone else remember how Poptart insisted the “paper” that argued global warming wasn’t being caused by humans because it was really all due to the neutron star hiding inside the Sun was “evidence the scientific community was still debating global warming?

 

[Upchurch]

"80% of IPCC members have no "dealing with climate""

http://www.sustainableoregon.com/ipccscientists.htm

Common Knowledge for those who read.l

First, kudos to you for being able to read a site designed in the early '90s.
Second, "80% of IPCC members have no "dealing with climate"" does not appear on the page you referenced nor, as far as I can tell, is the claim supported.
Third, WTF is wrong with that site? Seriously, that is awful!

 

[Robert Prey]

Irrelevant since this isn’t how the numbers the IPCC gives were arrived at.

Since you don’t actually seem to know how the IPCC works or what its findings are we can probably conclude your comments were completely baseless and driven by ideology not fact.

And in nearly every case where there is sufficient data to attribute cause, CO2 has played a role. Why do you believe this would suddenly change now?

Because it isn't true.

 

[Robert Prey]

First, kudos to you for being able to read a site designed in the early '90s.
Second, "80% of IPCC members have no "dealing with climate"" does not appear on the page you referenced nor, as far as I can tell, is the claim supported.
Third, WTF is wrong with that site? Seriously, that is awful!

NO.Something is wrong with the url. Try this one.

http://www.sustainableoregon.com/ipccscientists.html

 

[Upchurch]

NO.Something is wrong with the url. Try this one.

http://www.sustainableoregon.com/ipccscientists.html

And what IPCC scientific reports were written by non-climate scientists?

 

[TimCallahan]

The source of the material at the sustainableoregon.com website is from the John Locke Foundation. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about this organization (emphasis added):


The John Locke Foundation is a free market think tank in North Carolina started in 1990. Its mission statement says the "John Locke Foundation employs research, journalism, and outreach programs to transform government through competition, innovation, personal freedom, and personal responsibility. JLF seeks a better balance between the public sector and private institutions of family, faith, community, and enterprise." The organization advocates lowering taxes, decreasing spending on social welfare programs, and encouraging free markets. John Hood is its current president.It is named after the philosopher John Locke, who was a primary contributor to what we understand as the idea of classical liberalism.
The Foundation is concerned primarily with state and local issues. The greater part of its funding comes from North Carolina and national conservative grant making foundations, some led by Republican party activists.[citation needed] The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy was in its initial stages a project of the John Locke Foundation. A co-founder is Art Pope.

Heres what Wikipedia says about Art Pope (emphasis added):

James Arthur "Art" Pope (born May 5, 1956) is a North Carolina political figure, businessman, attorney and philanthropist. He is CEO and Board Chairman of Variety Wholesalers, Inc. Pope "through his family foundations has invested millions in a network of foundations and think tanks, and advocacy groups, both in North Carolina and nationally, that are designed to further conservative and free market ideas," according to the News and Observer.[1] He is involved in supporting organizations such as Americans for Prosperity, the John Locke Foundation (which he co-founded), and the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Put quite simply, this data is from an ideologically biased source, quite opposed on its political ideology to any government regulation of business. I'm sure Robert would object to material provided by the Sierra Club as being ideologically biased. The same should apply here.

 

[Corsair 115]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I see Mr. Prey has conspicuously avoided my third request for substantiation of his claims. This speaks volumes. Since he has made assertions without evidence, those assertions can be summarily dismissed.