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

Sorry but who has been expanding on your sound bytes here with actual theories?

So far you have come up with nothing.

 

White flag accepted: you've never read a book on climate change.

We all suspected as much, but now you have confirmed it.

Thank you.

All I can suggest is that you try to broaden your knowledge a little, and then people may take you more seriously.

Until then, close-minded AGW followers like you are only giving the hypothesis a bad name. You're not helping your cause any by remaining stubbornly ignorant.

Read a book or two and expand your mind: you might enjoy it!

 

Ad hom - as per usual the signal that someone is losing

Still waiting for these "alternate theories" you keep claiming are more valid that AGW

 

Scroll back darling: I posted a few.

If you can't remember them, that's your problem.

If you refuse to admit they exist, that's an even bigger problem.

 

YEs, the sound bytes - they were not theories and no had no validation in any of them

Scroll back -they were the ones I have debunked quite nicely - with references

 

They are theories sweetheart.

Just because you don't subscribe to them it doesn't mean they cease to be theories.

Even debunked theories are still theories.

You have an awful lot to learn about science (and the English language).

 

No darling they were debunked sound bytes and quite frankly I could truly wish for something more substantive

How can "geology" be a theory challenging AGW??

 

They are theories. You don't have the power to change that fact. I'm sorry.

Please buy a dictionary and find out what a theory is, OK?

"A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something"

Have a look at this for starters:

http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Yes, yes, I know you'll say it's all crap and it's been debunked etc. That's fine: everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have no problem with that.

However, it is still an alternative theory to AGW, and nothing you say can change that fact. Sure, it's certainly not the accepted hypothesis, however, it is still an alternative theory.

 

At the risk of reaffirming myths with consolidation of concepts - can you explain again how "water vapour" or "geological" are theories?

Wait let me google up something

Here we go - NASA - any problem with them old chum? Too biased for you perhaps?

Now far from saying that water vapour does not play a part in climate change - they are actually admitting it!! Whaaaa?? I mean one of your "theories" turns out to be a feedback mechanism that scientists are well aware of and have factored into the research and models
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Tsk Tsk Who would have thought that one of the "alternate theories" actually would turn out to be a valid and incorporated known phenomena

almost as good as some of the American right wingers rubbish

 

Oh! Goody! A blog! /sarcasm

Hmmmm - I love to check out the Authors - just to see who it is that is being quoted and here in his own words are

http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

He is a JOURNALIST and no more a climate "expert" than me - and I will tell you this for free I have been reading about climate change and the effects of CO2 since the late 1960's (yes I am a science nerd). He does not even have a bloody science degree!! I don't care about his qualifications in relation to climate science but does he have the requisite ability to critique research? Does he have the cognitive construct to be able to decipher the complexities inherent in climatology? As you see by the bolded part he is almost admitting freely to "confirmation bias" before he has even published his "book"

Let us slide past the bit about what makes this guy so much more informed than say CSIRO or the BOM and get to what he is positing

Dear lord! I did not even get past the first sentence before 2 facts leapt out

1. Worldview bias - IF ALGORE said it it jest plane can't be true!!!
2. Straw man - the only person saying that Al Gore has claimed 100% consensus is the author of that article

Let me try further

Brushing aside the attempt to validate his theory by claiming consensus among geologists and ignoring the fact that most of what he then discusses is in fact paleoclimatology we are left with the most incredibly mushed amounts of cherry picking, false premises and partisan hackery I have ever had to swallow in a blog

 

At last: you admit that other theories exist!

It took a while, but we got there.

Well done.

 

I have NEVER said they did not exist - in fact they do but they have been tested and found not to be the major cause of the current climate change.

Desperate for a "win" old chap??

 

Yes. AGW is currently the accepted hypothesis. I've stated that fact.

Everybody knows that.

However, it's not accepted by me (and many others).

No: I'm not out to "win" anything.

All I've said is that I find the non-anthropogenic theories more convincing. Remember?

 

and i am giving you a golden opportunity to expand on that by telling me

A) which theories are more convincing and
b) what is the basis for this overwhelming logic

So what have you got that beats CSRIO, BOM, NASA, every science academy and society existent and 99% of all universities and 97% of all scientists

What have you and a badly written blog got that can beat that?

 

Thanks, but I'm not interested in expanding on anything.

Unlike AGW followers, I don't try to push my beliefs down other people's throats.

I don't subscribe to any one theory, as I've said before, however I do discount AGW based on the wide range of books and data that I've studied.
My position may change in the future, if any credible evidence is ever presented, but for the time being AGW does not have a very convincing argument.

I'm not here to "win" anything: I merely stated that I find non-anthropogenic theories more convincing than AGW.

Moreover, I'm not about to fill this thread with data supporting alternative theories for three reasons:
1. You would not accept anything presented: your mind is made up and nothing will change it (which is fine, I couldn't care less).
2. If you are as well informed on the topic of climate change as you say you are, you would have already read all the relevant data out there on alternative theories and thus presenting them to you again would be pointless.
3. I'm not interested in trying to convince people that they are "wrong". I'll leave that to the AGW followers.

So, I'm sorry if my open-mindedness annoys you, but that's just the way I am.

If you have anything new to support your theory, by all means present it.
My mind remains open.

 

So can you at least tell us the names of the books you have read? "Alternative" ideas range from "CO2 has no effect on temperature" to "it is the sun" to "there is no warming". It is difficult to enter into a discussion without having somewhere to start.

 

I'm not interested in entering into a discussion: I've stated my case, and I'm not out to change anyone's views.

However, some of the books I've read include:

• Heaven and Earth - Ian Plimer
• The Climate Caper - Paltridge
• Climate Change Lunacy - Lawson
• The Chilling Stars - Calder & ???
• The Deniers - Solomon
• Political Theory and Climate Change - Vanderheiden
• Climate Change - Pittock

And, there's Seven Theories on Climate Change that you can get here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/seven_theories.pdf

Now, if you've read these books already and you think they are crap that's fine. I really couldn't care less. I'm not interested in debating their worth. I'm merely providing a list of some of the books I've read, as requested.


EDIT: There are also some interesting books cited in the 'sources' of 'Seven Theories ... '

 

well no...everyone is entitled to THEIR opinion...any other opinion is invalid apparently...

 

at one time I would have had no problem with NASA but since Obama turned them into a Muslim outreach program instead of a science program, everything they say is suspect.

 

so you admit you know no more than he does but we are supposed to take your words over his?

which has more authority, a real journalist or an anonymous post on a forum?

 

they feel the tide turning against them...they overplayed their hand. And the more shrill and denigrating they get the more they lose.

the facts are that most people are NOT going to spend hours and hours studying up on global warming, so if they can't argue reasonably without the mocking and the snickering and the 'you are simply too stupid to understand' then they will only strengthen their opposition instead of winning over the people that need to get on board with them.

 

From personal observation I'd say that people who are anti evolution are almost always anti AGW as well, but not so much the other way around. Evolution is accepted by pretty much everyone but the far religious right, where as AGW is a straight 50/50 partisan split.

 

see, I see this as just an attempt to get Ethereal to side with you...

"come on, Ethereal, you aren't REALLY one of 'those' people, are you? come on! you aren't one of those knuckle dragging 'denier' people..you are just a skeptic, right? *wink wink*"

it's the same tactic any clique uses...'Hey Bobby, you dont' really want to hang out with the losers at the loser table, come sit with us! THEY'RE losers but you're NOT...agree with us so you can be one of the cool kids too!'

 

Al Gore is taking scientific data out of context. For example, he takes a graph which tracks temperature oscillations over a 200 year span (since industrial revolution started) and which displays no long-term change, and then disregards all the data except for a short 20-year segment where temperatures spiked. Even if there is a marginal temperature rise, how will you curb global carbon emissions if China and India want to have nothing to do with it? Global problems require global solutions. There's more to economic prosperity than a thriving service sector.

 

Neither do I - I am simply defending my position here - YOU were the one telling ME that you did not find the theory of AGW "convincing" and yet when I have challenged you to offer alternatives you have backed and filled and finally cried victim. (Don't push your beliefs down other peoples throats indeed!)

.

You keep stating this and if you want to keep this as a personal belief - fine, no skin off of my nose BUT once you come on a debate forum and lay that crud in the middle of a thread then expect to be challenged on that belief system. I other words if you do not want your religion questioned do not go into the religion forum.

I have already old dear and it is blindingly obvious - where is all the fossil carbon coming from hmmmmmm - it is easy to distinguish CO2 put out by animals and volcanoes from CO2 put out by burning fossil fuels

We have satellite measurements that show the infrared radiation signature of Earth has changed

What more do you want? (sorry but I am not about to re-enforce your myth system by debunking more of YOUR theories - what I have said can easily be googled

But it still comes down to - who would you rather believe - an anonymous blogger on the net or CSIRO, BOM, Ross Garnaut, The Stern Review, Scientific societies from around the world..............

And if you think I have given you a bad time over this wait till some of the others get here