Are deniers in the evolution and global warming camps the same people?

Gore didn't come up with the science of climate change. Your argument is idiotic.

 

Quantify your definition of "exactly". Is 85F "exact'? Or do you require 85.4335353F to be "exact". Or is temperature between 80F and 85F "exact"?
Sorry! You do not to get to make up your own definition of climate. Climate is, by definition, an average.
And what am I "making up"?
ETA:

See injest, Panzerkampfwagen understands. The next "roll' is the weather, and the trend is the climate.

 

And they are? Come on now you are evading the answer because there IS no answer. We have disproved every other alternative

 

Every other theory that doesn't involve human activity. What don't you understand about that?

You are aware that other theories exist, aren't you?

Water vapour, geological, solar variation, cosmic rays, etc.

I find all of those theories "MORE convincing" than the AGW theory.

No, I gave you the answer: any theory that doesn't involve human activity. I'm evading nothing.

No, you have not.

 

So now you are saying warming is happening?

And again you just throw inaccuracies out there like monkey poo and expect anyone else to pick them up

The most cursory google will show you that there are a lot of people working on solutions including adaptation to a warmer climate - but that does not mean we can get away with not cleaning up the messes we are making

 

Yes you are evading because all you have are words no research and no actual theories

So let us look at these words and skim over the fact that you believe scientists are so dumb and inept that they would not have investigated them themselves

Water vapour - now how exactly is water vapour increasing the temperature of earth? Please do tell

"Geological" = What? Plate tectonics? magnetospheric changes? Vulcanism? Large underground farts? What exactly?

Solar variation - and again I have to ASSUME that you mean the sunspot cycles/ Now it seems you think that scientists are either complete frauds or completely inept NOT to have actually measured the output from the sun - after all it is not as if we do not have solar satellites up there.

And you are right the sun does play a part in our climate - and there are nice graphs to show this



but oooops! There seems to be a divergence over recent years - still holding onto THAT theory??

Cosmic rays: Oh Dear! Now we are REALLY scraping the barrel. But here goes and another graph to chew



Got any more??

 

LOL

"no research" You are a very funny person.

I suggest that you do as I have, and read some books on climate change.

Not books on AGW, or weather: books on climate change.

Read from a variety of sources that offer different opinions: it'll do you good.

 

Please provide a link where I said that.

We're all waiting ...

 

Again an analogy - grain of sand (0ne datum) and a whole beach (lots and lots of data over a wide range in time) Admittedly one can narrow the focus so that you have a climate trend from a particular area or broaden it to look at global trends over millennia

 

Yes.

I'll type this slowly so that you can understand:

Every other theory on global warming that does not involve human activity.

AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis: it is not the only one.

If you don't believe me, try reading a book.

 

You really need to calm down and read my posts properly. Take a breath, and then go back and read them properly.

I am not "holding onto" any theory.

I don't think AGW is a very convincing theory: I find the non-anthropogenic theories more convincing.

However, that's not to say that I am 100% convinced by any one theory and that I will close my mind to all other data (I'll leave that to you and your fellow AGW followers).

I continue to read books on the subject, and as such, I'm finding out new things every day. My mind is not made up yet: I'm not exactly sure what is causing climate change. I am convinced though, that human activity is not causing climate change.

However, I have an open mind on the matter (unlike the AGW followers) and if new evidence is presented in the future that can convince me 100% that humans are involved, well ... so be it. I will accept it.

At the moment, no such evidence exists.

Thus, I'll remain open minded and refrain from "holding onto" just one theory.

 

You are evading again - BTW been there and done that. The books on climate change you seem to want to quote are full of bad science, conspiracy theories and more cherry picking than the Riverina on a good year

 

You mean those theories you are refusing to expand and explain because they are FOS??

 

So, no evidence exists - and you are telling ME I am "closed minded" Whooeee! Just as well I am used to denialists projecting their own shortcomings onto others

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/sep/21/climate-sceptics-evidence-gullible

Now I will admit that a lot of the members here can do this better than I but here goes

For a start - nice debunking of the alternative theories showing how science actually HAS investigated them

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now the myth that there is no "Proof"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm

Oh! And BTW - the very fact that there are debunking sites out there often written by scientists, means that contrary to right wing radio pundit bull(*)(*)(*)(*) the scientists actually DO read the "alternative explanations"

 

Please read my posts carefully.

No evidence exists "that can convince me 100% that humans are involved".

I've never said that there is no evidence to support the AGW theory: there is plenty of flimsy evidence out there.

When did I use the word "proof".

Once again, please read my posts carefully and stop making things up.

 

So, even before I mention one book, you declare them all full of "bad science" and "conspiracy theories".

Well, I must say, I've seen some close-minded people before but you take the cake.

 

No: I mean the theories contained in the books you've read on climate change.

You have read books on climate change, haven't you?

 

I guess you know more about science than these people...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

Amazing how so many of them are outside of the field.

 

Amazing how you just moved the goalposts from "understanding science" to being "outside the field".

Pick a position and stick with it.

 

There was no goal post moved. The people who put lists together and put scientists outside of the field on it and pretend that's equal to lists with scientists in the field is moving the goal posts.

 

You initially contended that "deniers" are "not intelligent enough to understand science", and you did not qualify this statement with any references to their field of study, so I provided you with a list of "deniers" who are scientific experts. Seeing that your initial contention had been utterly decimated by a simple conveyance of factual information, you proceeded to move the goalposts to being "outside the field".

Now that you have been caught moving the goalposts, you are attempting to deflect blame away from yourself by making a laughably false accusation against me.

What other transparently intellectually dishonest tactics will you employ in a sad and pathetic attempt to avoid admitting you were wrong?

And just to clarify, which position are you going with? (1) Not intelligent enough to understand science or (2) outside the field? Please pick one so I can proceed to refute it.

 

There's a difference too between deniers and skeptics. The deniers are the ones using logical fallacies, claiming that climate change can't happen because of a promise to Noah from God, etc.

 

Whatever...

 

LOL old chap - do you not think I have read widely on this and can come to the conclusion that those speaking as you do are most likely to have read the denialist rubbish rather than the CSIRO versions?

If I am wrong - prove me wrong tell me the books you have been reading and I might retract what I have said

But so far you have been coming up awful lean on actual science