Global Warming The debbil made me do it

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
wishful thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their hysteria.

Bottom line is we can throw numbers and counterpoints till hell freezes over
(which is just as likely as the next MWP) and we will not convince the other
to change their mind (due to the trust in "lies, lies, and statistics" we
both exhibit).

The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However, nobody
has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global climate change.
Because that proof has been demanded and is unavailable, the AGW crowd trots
out the Precautionary Principle - "just in case we're right." (And no, I
don't think taking hugely expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good
cause.)

Now, if you want to discuss whether we should pay attention to a cleaner
environment and alternative energy sources to improve quality of life, we
have room to talk. Continuing to batter non-believers about the head trying
to force them to believe the AGW tripe is just as fruitless as the faithful
trying to convert an atheist.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

"John T" wrote:


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
wishful thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their hysteria.

Derbyshire is a conservative columnist who agrees that AGW is a fact. It is
the denier crowd who wishes it would all go away.


Bottom line is we can throw numbers and counterpoints till hell freezes over
(which is just as likely as the next MWP) and we will not convince the other
to change their mind (due to the trust in "lies, lies, and statistics" we
both exhibit).

Sorry, there's a big difference between your and my level of credulousness on
this issue. In order for you to maintain your position, you must allow
yourself the belief that virtually all the active geo-scientists in the world
are stupid, lying or stifled by a giant conspiracy. That is simply not
believable without deliberate self deception.


The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However, nobody
has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global climate change.
Because that proof has been demanded and is unavailable, the AGW crowd trots
out the Precautionary Principle - "just in case we're right." (And no, I
don't think taking hugely expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good
cause.)

Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands "proof" in
that way. And this proof that is demanded is never defined. This tactic is
an old one; it's been used by evolution deniers for years.

Now, if you want to discuss whether we should pay attention to a cleaner
environment and alternative energy sources to improve quality of life, we
have room to talk. Continuing to batter non-believers about the head trying
to force them to believe the AGW tripe is just as fruitless as the faithful
trying to convert an atheist.

Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've already
convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the world's scientists to
trick you, you are way too far gone.

--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


...the belief that virtually all the
active geo-scientists in the world...

Who's telling you about this consensus?

Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands
"proof" in that way. And this proof that is demanded is never
defined.

Not at all. I'll even settle for a realistic theory (like Darwin's) with
real data to demonstrate it without needing a lot of assumptions to make the
result come out in a predetermined way.

Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've
already convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the
world's scientists to trick you, you are way too far gone.
"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and
remember the difference."
- Clive James

Hehe. You're funny. Truly, you brought a smile to my day.

You're just proving that nobody likes a skeptic - regardless of the
skeptic's position. "Dare not question what we tell you, heretic!"

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

"John T" wrote in
:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


...the belief that virtually all the
active geo-scientists in the world...

Who's telling you about this consensus?

Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands
"proof" in that way. And this proof that is demanded is never
defined.

Not at all. I'll even settle for a realistic theory (like Darwin's)
with real data to demonstrate it without needing a lot of assumptions
to make the result come out in a predetermined way.

Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've
already convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the
world's scientists to trick you, you are way too far gone.
"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and
remember the difference."
- Clive James

Hehe. You're funny. Truly, you brought a smile to my day.

You're just proving that nobody likes a skeptic - regardless of the
skeptic's position. "Dare not question what we tell you, heretic!"

Thats not the way it is at all. The only difference between your
position and the position of the intelligent design adherents is that
you're probably not invested in having to believe in divine creation but
you do have a major investment in the other.
IOW you are starting from a political position in regards ecological
damage. Science demands you go where the data leads you. You try and
lead it and you just end up blind.





Bertie

"John T" wrote:

...the belief that virtually all the
active geo-scientists in the world...

Who's telling you about this consensus?

I've already posted a list of the major professional scientific organizations
which have issued position papers acknowledging the fact of anthropogenic
climate change. Do you have an alternate list?

Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands
"proof" in that way. And this proof that is demanded is never
defined.

Not at all. I'll even settle for a realistic theory (like Darwin's) with
real data to demonstrate it without needing a lot of assumptions to make the
result come out in a predetermined way.

You sound just like a creationist. There are mountains of data and hundreds
(thousands?) of peer reviewed research papers supporting the science behind
AGW.

Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've
already convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the
world's scientists to trick you, you are way too far gone.
"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and
remember the difference."
- Clive James

Hehe. You're funny. Truly, you brought a smile to my day.

You're just proving that nobody likes a skeptic - regardless of the
skeptic's position. "Dare not question what we tell you, heretic!"

Don't give yourself airs.

If you were a true skeptic, you wouldn't fall for crap like the "scientists
were all hysterical about global cooling in the '70s" argument, or even worse,
the "CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere" argument. A very little checking
on your part would have revealed to you that you were being bull****ted.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


I've already posted a list of the major professional scientific
organizations which have issued position papers acknowledging the
fact of anthropogenic climate change. Do you have an alternate list?

*That* list is the consensus you speak of? Oh. Well. I *must* be wrong,
then.

I guess I could quickly compile a list of anti-AGW peers of your peers, but
I seriously doubt the effort is worth it since you're so tied to your own
belief system.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

"John T" wrote:



I've already posted a list of the major professional scientific
organizations which have issued position papers acknowledging the
fact of anthropogenic climate change. Do you have an alternate list?

*That* list is the consensus you speak of? Oh. Well. I *must* be wrong,
then.

You're catching on.

I guess I could quickly compile a list of anti-AGW peers of your peers,

No, you couldn't.

but I seriously doubt the effort is worth it since you're so tied to your
own belief system.

Stop it. You're going to break my irony meter.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


You're going to break my irony meter.

I told you early on we wouldn't convince the other to change their
position/belief any you devolve this discussion into ad hominem.
sarcasmShocking./sarcasm That's the pattern observed time after time
with this topic.

Some folks like to believe in magical beings; others like to believe humans
have the power to change global climate. I'll wait for the evidence for
either.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

On Mar 8, 12:40 pm, "John T" wrote:

The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However, nobody
has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global climate change.
Because that proof has been demanded and is unavailable, the AGW crowd trots
out the Precautionary Principle - "just in case we're right." (And no, I
don't think taking hugely expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good
cause.)


Well said.


Dan

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 8, 12:40 pm, "John T" wrote:

The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However,
nobody has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global
climate change. Because that proof has been demanded and is
unavailable, the AGW crowd trots out the Precautionary Principle -
"just in case we're right." (And no, I don't think taking hugely
expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good cause.)


Well said.

All cherry picked to support a position.


Bertie