"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

[Robert Prey]

"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.

What claims? I'm still waiting for your evidence of man made global warming.Got any?

 

[jj]

What claims? I'm still waiting for your evidence of man made global warming.Got any?

That is purely disingenious. There are many, many reports you can read. Claiming you have no evidence, when the evidence is publically available and overwhelming, is nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

The sun, perhaps. Ocean currents, perhaps. Volcanic activity, perhaps.

 

[SezMe]

The sun, perhaps. Ocean currents, perhaps. Volcanic activity, perhaps.

All of those have been definitively ruled out as playing a major role.

Look, substantial evidence of AGW has been offered to you in this thread. Your continued insistence that no evidence has been presented is a blatant lie. That you don't like the evidence, don't believe it, it offends your ideology or whatever is another matter. If you want, maybe we can deal with those issues if you persist in denying that which is before you.

 

[stokes234]

Come on guys, he's obviously a troll.

 

[SezMe]

Come on guys, he's obviously a troll.

I don't think so although a plausible case can be made for it. I'm guessing that he's the real deal which, actually, makes it more interesting to interact with him.

 

[stokes234]

I don't think so although a plausible case can be made for it. I'm guessing that he's the real deal which, actually, makes it more interesting to interact with him.

Nah, i'm pretty sure he is. I can tell from the wording and from seeing quite a few trolls in my time. See how he slipped in:

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.

He's just trying to start arguments using posts that only last a sentence or two. He's not engaging with the debate and he's not providing any new information, he just makes controversial statements with minimal effort.

 

[Robert Prey]

All of those have been definitively ruled out as playing a major role.

Look, substantial evidence of AGW has been offered to you in this thread. Your continued insistence that no evidence has been presented is a blatant lie. That you don't like the evidence, don't believe it, it offends your ideology or whatever is another matter. If you want, maybe we can deal with those issues if you persist in denying that which is before you.

Perhaps I missed it. Offer it up again -- if you can. Assertions from a bunch of political hack pseudo-scientists is not "evidence".

 

[Robert Prey]

That is purely disingenious. There are many, many reports you can read. Claiming you have no evidence, when the evidence is publically available and overwhelming, is nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden.

So overwhelming, that you can't cite even a single piece of it.

 

[Upchurch]

Perhaps I missed it. Offer it up again -- if you can. Assertions from a bunch of political hack pseudo-scientists is not "evidence".

Ok:

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.

 

[jj]

So overwhelming, that you can't cite even a single piece of it.

You've been cited evidence. It's not my fault you've failed to read and comprehend it.

You are now trying to demand that yet another person cite you yet more evidence, which is pure disingenuity.

The evidence is still overwhelming, regardless of your unwillingness to read it.

 

[Bri]

Perhaps I missed it. Offer it up again -- if you can.

So overwhelming, that you can't cite even a single piece of it.

Are you kidding me? I posted a PolitiFact article way back near the beginning of this discussion which you apparently chose not to read. It cites MANY reports, which you apparently chose not to read. It's disingenuous of you to choose not to read evidence and then claim that there is no evidence.

Here:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Working Group I Report: "The Physical Science Basis."

U.S. Global Change Research Program, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," June 2009.

NASA, Climate Change: How do we know?

National Research Council of the National Academies, America's Climate Choices

G8+5 Academies' joint statement, Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future, May 2009

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Global Climate-Change Resources, accessed Aug. 19, 2011

British House of Commons, The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, May 18, 2010

Eos, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Jan. 20, 2009.
​

Robert, this one isn't even close. Climate researchers have seen the evidence and have examined the data. There is a 97% - 98% consensus that global warming is caused by human activities. That you simply choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence or don't understand it doesn't change the fact that there is overwhelming evidence.

-Bri

 

[lomiller]

The sun, perhaps

Nope the sun has been in a slight cooling trend for the last 50 years

Ocean currents, perhaps.

Nope, ocean currents doesn’t have much impact on the earth’s energy balance.

Volcanic activity, perhaps.

Nope, volcanic activity would cool the planet, not warm it.

Before you start throwing around “possibilities” you should really take note of my signature. For our purposes we are looking things that are actually happening not random poorly thought out speculation.

"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

 

[Robert Prey]

Are you kidding me? I posted a PolitiFact article way back near the beginning of this discussion which you apparently chose not to read. It cites MANY reports, which you apparently chose not to read. It's disingenuous of you to choose not to read evidence and then claim that there is no evidence.

Here:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Working Group I Report: "The Physical Science Basis."

U.S. Global Change Research Program, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," June 2009.

NASA, Climate Change: How do we know?

National Research Council of the National Academies, America's Climate Choices

G8+5 Academies' joint statement, Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future, May 2009

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Global Climate-Change Resources, accessed Aug. 19, 2011

British House of Commons, The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, May 18, 2010

Eos, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Jan. 20, 2009.
​

Robert, this one isn't even close. Climate researchers have seen the evidence and have examined the data. There is a 97% - 98% consensus that global warming is caused by human activities. That you simply choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence or don't understand it doesn't change the fact that there is overwhelming evidence.

-Bri

And from all that could you kindly direct me to just one piece of evidence that confirms that global warming is largely or even partially caused by Man. Not opinions, but evidence????? Then maybe you could shut me up. But till then.... I'm still waiting.

 

[Biscuit]

And from all that could you kindly direct me to just one piece of evidence that confirms that global warming is largely or even partially caused by Man. Not opinions, but evidence????? Then maybe you could shut me up. But till then.... I'm still waiting.

Get ready to watch Robert move the goal posts.

 

[lomiller]

And from all that could you kindly direct me to just one piece of evidence that confirms that global warming is largely or even partially caused by Man. Not opinions, but evidence?????

CO2 prevents heat from leaving the atmosphere and humans are relapsing massive amounts of CO2. QED.

 

[Upchurch]

CO2 prevents heat from leaving the atmosphere and humans are relapsing massive amounts of CO2. QED.

Speaking of QED, Robert demonstrates the OPs point fairly well.

Which isn't to say that every Republican is like Robert. I'm quite sure there are some who understand and accept logic and science with few reservations, realizing that it is a self-correcting system and represents the best understanding we currently have. However, I would guess that, to varying degrees, most Republican voter fall in line with Robert's point of view, which is thoroughly anti-science and anti-reason.

 

[Bri]

Then maybe you could shut me up.

Somehow I doubt it. Did you read the reports I cited? They contain plenty of evidence. Please read them. Then present your evidence that their conclusions are wrong.

-Bri

 

[lomiller]

Somehow I doubt it. Did you read the reports I cited? They contain plenty of evidence. Please read them. Then present your evidence that their conclusions are wrong.

-Bri

TBH the reports go far beyond what Robert was asking for. They are well into the process of quantifying how much we are causing the earth to warm and figuring out what impact that will have.

By way of analogy what he’s doing is looking at calculations describing the earth’s orbit around the sun and complaining they don’t prove the earth does go around the sun and insisting that we need to disprove every possible wacky model even the ones he can’t personally think if.

In fact he’s especially concerned with the possibilities he can’t think of because the ones he can think up are so easily disproven.

 

[Tatyana]

Speaking of QED, Robert demonstrates the OPs point fairly well.

Which isn't to say that every Republican is like Robert. I'm quite sure there are some who understand and accept logic and science with few reservations, realizing that it is a self-correcting system and represents the best understanding we currently have. However, I would guess that, to varying degrees, most Republican voter fall in line with Robert's point of view, which is thoroughly anti-science and anti-reason.

I find it quite scary.

I do think that anytime anyone mentions 'Marx' or 'Marxism' as evidence it really needs to be declared as 'Poe'.