rejection of climate change theory closely linked to conspiracy ideation

so many typos in the article. wonder why. hmmmmmmm

 

My first objection is to the word 'deniers.' That is a deliberately loaded term to use, Godwining the discussion from the get go. A nasty rhetorical technique.
Not accepting a new scientific theory, even when you say the evidence is overwhelming, is not denial, it is skepticism.

The purpose for a theory is to predict the future. The climate models don't do well at that. In fact, near as I can tell, they don't do that at all.
No mention f the little ice age, no talk of the inconstant output from the sun, and an unquestioned assumption that global warming will be unrelievedly bad, when other, equally valid science, says that is unlikely. So to say the jury is still out is a perfectly valid position to take, and frankly, only people who call skepticism 'denial' would not get that point.

"Self serving?"
Really? All actions by every person on earth are "self serving." That is part of our nature. To say is as an insult is to misunderstand what human action is.

So many assumptions there I don't want to unpack it.

 

well dang, double post

 

and another one who dismisses scientifically conducted research as a conspiracy to support a prejudice, thus supporting the op.

 

Chicken Littles et al. The weather will not change significantly in any of our lifetimes. In what, 15,000 years or so, the Earth will have another Ice Age, and all the CO2 we put in the air won't stop it. Man is not that powerful. If we were, we would stop hurricanes and volcanos and earthquakes. The Sun, the shifting Earth axis, Earth's distance and rotation around the Sun, Earth's magnetic fields, all factors that we could ever have any control over. The slight increase in CO2 might help plants grow better, but it is not gonna make the snow stop in New York, or melt the ice caps or glaciers. That has been happening for a couple of thousand years before the invention of the SUV.

 

what would you have them called instead of "denier"?

the term "sceptic" is inappropriate, as a sceptic would also look askance at the numerous "facts" presented by the anti AGW brigade ... and in the end, would be more likely to concede that there may be a case for AGW.

they would certainly question the validity of some of the claims made in your post.

 

***mod edit - personal attack*** I can't be a skeptic because I didn't come to the right conclusion? Is that your premise?

IOW, since you are convinced, and you know you are properly skeptical, you feel that anyone who looks at the evidence will be convinced.

...well, get over yourself, You can not make a judgement for me, despite your utter certainty.
You are not arguing for science, you are arguing for religion. Anyone who disagrees with you is not just wrong, but a heretic, as evidenced by the quotes around 'facts'.

EDIT: What claims do you say are invalid?

 

that you believe that you are a sceptic indicates that you do not know what a sceptic is.

as I said, they would look askance at both sides of the argument.

they would not blindly accept the kind of "facts" that you present, which are at best a distortion of the information presented by real scientists.

re arrogance ... perhaps I am when confronted with blind ignorance.

I see no reason to suffer fools gladly.

 

((((((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))

And once again we have a complete failure to understand the difference between weather and climate

 

Once again you insinuate that there climate and the weather are unrelated.

 

Isn't that what you are saying, that climate and weather are unrelated?

 

People who write RWNJ rants and people who read these semi-incoherent blurbs:

1. If you live, for several five-year increments, you will notice considerable warming and an increase, in El Nino events. Oceanic acidification has started to get with over-fishing, to wipe out desirable fish species and families. By 2050, warming and sea level rise will accelerate. Of course, the tipping point could be as near as 2030, and I'm planning on living, until then.

2. The Earth should be on its 80-100K year path, to a glacial maximum, but you haven't studied any geologic history OR read any of the better PF posts, so you have NO CLUE, how the Earth's climate operates in cycles, depending on orbital variation and solar intensity, until your afterthought statement, at the end of your rant. If you had a clue, you'd know we are ALREADY supposed to be cooling off, toward re-glaciation. Solar intensity is mild, and CO2 has been maxed out, at 280 ppm, for awhile. But somebody jumped that CO2, all the way to 400 ppm, headed for over 1000 ppm. Try a science website, instead of RWNJ Sunday News or a puppy toy, for once.

3. Humans have minds and hands. If we were all SMART, we'd re-green deserts and polluted areas, in one quick hurry. But people aren't all smart. In fact, many humans are gross deniers of any facts, including guys who go into bath-houses, as if they won't get HIV, from at-risk behavior, or smokers, who won't admit they will die, from heart disease or cancer, or if somebody eats a heaping helping, of badly-cooked legumes, digestion will be complicated, to yield a lot of methane. Storms will get more powerful and more numerous, both. We re-green, or we face the wind, with a lot of rain or snow, in some of it.

4. You can't READ, can you! The greenhouse effect means the Earth will heat up, from rising CO2 concentration, which will be joined by increasing atmospheric concentration, of CH4, NO2, SO2, and all kinds of industrial GHGs. The Earth will take AT LEAST SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS, to clear the excess CO2! Did you graduate, from a reputable middle school?

Even in M.S., kids have heard of Stefan-Boltzman and the greenhouse effect.

So don't be calling an ice age, in 15K, when all you did was look at Disney cartoons, where the animals are frolicking, in some fictional glacial age. Those are dubbed voices; did you notice?

 

Who cares about words? How about focusing on the root issue?

Skepticism is a waste of everyone's time. Either you accept other people's research and data and studies or you present your own. To casually say 'I'm skeptical' has zero meaning.

Scientific theories are not for predicting the future??

There are no legitimate scientists who will claim to predict the future.

You are among the few in modern civilizations who are incapable of observing the world around you and determining that climate is changing. In doing so you ignore climate trends that MIGHT lead to something very critical if we don't pay attention.

PEOPLE are the stewards of Earth! There is no one else who is going to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about Earth! When a majority of people go about their lives as if none of these issues are real, that all of the scientific data is BS, that all of the truly smart people seem to find consensus...this is self-serving behavior...

 

1. My first assumption is you used to cut English, and then you'd what the hey, and cut science.

OK, then you can get skeptical, about whether smoking causes cancer, or maybe the Earth is flat, not a spheroid, and we're not going, to a bath-house, even if you say I'm a phobe.

My second assumption is you have some sort of denial, about global warming or human causes or climate change, without saying what that is, since if you were a skeptic, you'd have an issue, all picked out, which we could review. Instead, you intend to DENY, by deflection.

2. The purpose for a scientific theory is to explain phenomena, which will allow observers, to predict outcomes. You aren't far off.

Your assessment of climate models is a so-what, since you don't pick one out, during your rant.

3. The Little Ice Age isn't as interesting as either the 600,000 year record of temperatures and CO2 OR the mass extinction event temperature record OR the coral record, which allow us to know what the future will certainly be like.

You don't have a clue, what you are writing about, do you. Global warming is already noticeable, climate change is already noticeable, sea level rise is already noticeable, and it won't even START to really accelerate, for another 20-40 years, while the GHG concentrations rise and the Arctic ice cap failure phenomena both approach a tipping point, which will precede accelerated warming and sea level rise. Oceanic acidification will kill off the ocean food web, and warming will kill desirable fresh water fish. Land species will also become extinct, just not as fast as water life.

4. Of course, if you can't interact, all you have left is "self-serving." Serve THIS, to yourself: we are in the opening stages, of Mass Extinction Event 6. The other 5 were really nasty. They were all preceded, by fast-rising atmospheric CO2, which killed off ocean life, first, but some events were so nasty, no species was spared big die-offs, even if they survived.

Maybe you are perfectly "self-serving," so you don't depend on civilization! Good for you, if then.

 

wow.
Sorry about the personal attack. I haven't been to this forum for years and didn't realize. (MOds, you might want to erase the offensive sentence from the posts of several people who quoted it )

As for the other posts, all I will say is you are proving my point. You can't accept that both sides have merit, and you don't realize or won't accept that it is not global warming I am 'denying' but the validity of your remedies.

You want to speak for me or not let me talk if I don't reach the same conclusion, and it is that arrogant attitude that I find off putting.

It is this attitude that I find arrogant. You are saying there is only one right answer to the question. And the way you present it to me is as a guilt trip. So even if I conceded your basic point, that global warming is occurring (which indeed I do say) it doesn't follow that not doing what you want done is somehow hurting you. You are still free to do as you please.

You are crusaders, I can appreciate that. But that DOES NOT mean that you can tell me what is right and wrong. Morality comes from choice. You are saying there is no choice.
I don't agree.

And I know the response, which is "If we don't all work together we will fail." But I reject involuntary associations, so the only way you have to get me on board is to find proof that convinces me. This silly guilt tripping makes me wonder what you aren't telling me.

 

1. You don't have a point. You aren't a skeptic. You don't read other posts and offer points, for debate. You just generally deny posted scientific reports, studies, and dialogue, without even defining your own viewpoint.

You may be hearing voices. Read what you wrote. Nobody who posts science at PF is at fault, if you hear voices, and you don't think very well or write very well.

2. I am NOT a "crusader(s)." A Crusader is usually a religious zealot, who invades the Middle East. You are projecting, and your message implies you are hearing more voices. If you don't know what is right or wrong, and you post wild rants, you will get to read other posts, which tell you how lousy your posts are.

Maybe somebody introduced "morality." Go ahead and reference this, or admit you issue unreferenced rants, if you won't admit to hearing voices.

We science buffs, who post at PF are not here, to analyze you, professionally. A number of us are here because the process may be healthier than going back, to school. I find other posters put up valuable links and messages, so I read what other people write. I don't hear their voices.

If this process is "silly," you might consider posting with your style, at a forum, without defined rules, since you offer no proper debate media, in any of your posts. See if you can post any topical media, at all, or you might consider giving up, at sciencey threads.

Rejection of climate change seems to me a conspiratorial position, given all the deniers who keep popping up, with questionable motives. If you have nothing, but a disclaimer of the thread's OP and proper replies, you are already corrupt, by PF standards.

 

Wow, I apologized and everything

I'll leave you all by yourself to work out the fate of the earth

Let me know how it turns out, OK?

 

associating dissention and conspiracy theorists closely linked to stupidity.

 

if you could so kindly show that there is sufficient merit to warrant consideration, I would be happy to consider the argument.

so far, I haven't seen anything.

but I have seen deliberate attempts to misrepresent information and present it out of context from the anti AGW crowd.

if you want to discuss morality, there are some strong arguments to suggest that the moral thing to do is to ensure we do not stuff up the environment for future generations.

if you can't be convinced that there is sound evidence for AGW, then the fault is yours.

 

Did you see the part where I said "I accept global warming"?

 

what about AGW?

 

define it for me

 

define it for me

 

if you do not know what AGW is - what are you doing discussing this topic?

 

Since I don't know which you mean when you use the acronym, I asked.

I've heard both Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Anti Global Warming but I have no idea what YOU mean by it. So please do me the courtesy of defining it for me so we can be on the same page.