Irrelevant.
And another uncharitable label.
Is it now standard practice to attack the opposing views on a personal level, deride them and degrade them before actually getting to a real point that addresses the argument?
- Status
And another uncharitable label.
Is it now standard practice to attack the opposing views on a personal level, deride them and degrade them before actually getting to a real point that addresses the argument?
T
Theo520
Guest
It’s probably a ‘gotcha’ since it will likely be easy to prove you’ve mislabeled them. That these ;DENIERS’ in fact do believe in climate change, science, and that man is having an influence.
It might expose you are more interested in shaming and blaming than discussing the facts and merits of the topic.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
This isn’t the thread for it, but vaccine injury is real. Anecdotal, I know, but I have seen the injured with my own eyes. They are real and those fighting for them are suppressed hard. Have to ask, why is that?
Back to the topic at hand: we’re about to have a rather short summer season this year. My old California connections advised that the first snow already fell at Mammoth Mountain in the Sierras last week. This less than two months after they closed the last ski season on July 28, the 3rd latest close on record. Global warming, my rear end…
Back to the topic at hand: we’re about to have a rather short summer season this year. My old California connections advised that the first snow already fell at Mammoth Mountain in the Sierras last week. This less than two months after they closed the last ski season on July 28, the 3rd latest close on record. Global warming, my rear end…
T
Theo520
Guest
Dang, that’s bad news for the election cycle. It deflates the emotional urgency of a key dem pillar this election cycle. I know it’s just weather but voters notice when the facts on the ground don’t support the talking points.
Your about two decades behind.
The new crisis is ‘climate change’.
Seems someone was taking notes when global cooling didn’t and global warming failed to catch on.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No more so than the label of “alarmist” attached to those who agree that the climate is changing. Maybe you would say “but it’s true. They are alarmists.” To which I might reply “but it’s true. They are deniers.”Londoner:
Point out one.
Well actually two. Otherwise this label you placed upon people you disagree with is both innacurate and uncharitable.
Then we can agree.
Name-calling is not proper discourse.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Interesting that you would cite anecdotal evidence for vaccine hesitancy in the same post where you cite anecdotal evidence against global warming. I think I see a pattern here, and it actually strengthens Londoner’s point about the similarity between anti-vaxxers and climate deniers. And yes, Theo, we understand that climate deniers do not deny many of the facts about climate change. But that is not why they are given the label of denier. It is because they accept only the smallest bit of the results climate scientists have produced and denied anything that might mean we need to do something about it.
L
Londoner
Guest
Nobody is denying that vaccine injury is real. Virtually all medical treatments have possible side effects. It’s about weighing up the vanishingly small risks associated with vaccines against the certainty that if people were not receiving vaccines there would be huge numbers of people getting very ill, being disabled for life, and dying.
It depends what’s taxed and how the money is spent. There is definitely a case for higher taxes on products and services that contribute to climate change, e.g. fossil fuels and flying. One positive result would be to reduce human activity that contributes to climate change. The other positive result would be raise funds that can be spent on reducing global warming, e.g. investing in renewable energy and reforestation.
It’s unfeasible to imagine that a problem on this scale can be effectively tackled solely by means of private enterprise and individual responsibility. Only government has the capability to implement policy decisions in fields such as energy and transport on a large enough scale to bring about change. Government can, for example, encourage people to walk more, cycle more, and use more public transport and use their cars less and fly less. Government can try to shift energy production from fossil fuels to renewables.
International cooperation is of course essential. The planet will not be saved solely through the efforts of small and/or developed countries. There need to be treaties in which countries commit to cooperating and there needs to be some kind of supranational oversight.
Clearly we do, although it’s an exaggeration to say that the planet is at imminent risk of conflagration.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Londoner . . . .
I have seen irrelevancies and ad hominems, and I have pointed out many of the specifics.
But you are right. You (at least here) do not argue your points about your support for the whole global warming routine (which goes waaaaay beyond greenhouse gas emission, energy conservation, and finger wagging about cow flatus (not from you. I am talking about the global warming “movement” as a whole).
Well Londoner. You have been true to this principle of yours here. Because in all honesty, you have not attempted to put forth any arguments so far.
I have seen irrelevancies and ad hominems, and I have pointed out many of the specifics.
But you are right. You (at least here) do not argue your points about your support for the whole global warming routine (which goes waaaaay beyond greenhouse gas emission, energy conservation, and finger wagging about cow flatus (not from you. I am talking about the global warming “movement” as a whole).
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
There is a point to be made here and you are very wide of the mark in missing it. That is this: when enough people have enough anecdotes about the truth on the ground, yet they see everything from their point of view get suppressed and they see that suppression happen for everyone in their position, well they begin to realize they’re not just seeing things, there really is something rotten in Denmark.
The farmer in the Midwest who notes that the temperate zones aren’t even close to moving north like they did during the Medieval Warming Period. The homeowner on the water along the southeast Atlantic Coast or the Gulf Coast who doesn’t see severe hurricanes multiply for a decade following Katrina as he was assured by AGW’ers that this was a sure thing. The skier at California’s Mammoth Mountain resort who skied on the last day of last year’s season that didn’t end until July 28 and is overjoyed to hear about the first snow that happened several days ago. The Indian government that discovered the Himalayan glaciers are still very much there. The certain former President who just bought a $15m estate in the Hamptons. The certain leading foreign country that is building up islands in the sea for military use. The countries who were given a free pass by the Paris Agreement. The point is, Leaf, is that thanks to alternative media, the people are finding out just how much baloney they’ve been force fed. Leaving you and your ilk to play whack a mole. Problem is, you can’t whack them all, there is a totality to the larger picture to be had here. But that totality doesn’t play well with the approved narrative.
Same deal with the anti-vaxxers: there has been enough vaccine injury to call into question just how much the tradeoff is worth. Enough people have seen vaccine injury first hand that they’ve banded and are looking for an open discussion. But that discussion isn’t allowed to take place and those who advocate it are suppressed hard. Just as with AGW.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Ah, but how do you know when the anecdotes amount to “enough?” Do just based on intuition of what seems “enough” to you? Or do you employ some scientific reasoning?LeafByNiggle:
There is a point to be made here and you are very wide of the mark in missing it. That is this: when enough people have enough anecdotes about the truth on the ground, yet they see everything from their point of view get suppressed and they see that suppression happen for everyone in their position, well they begin to realize they’re not just seeing things, there really is something rotten in Denmark.
The problem with forming opinions based on what stories you see in your Facebook news feed or in your favorite on-line channels is that they are strongly affected by your choice in what channels you visit. All you will be measuring is how determined this group or that group is to put forth their particular narrative. That will not tell you anything about which narrative happens to be true.
So set up some scientific method of determining what is true (random sampling of scientists, direct measurements, whatever) and then you will be on more solid ground.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle . . . .
There was just criticism above for one of the global warming outfits
THROWING AWAY "direct measurements"
in favor of manufactured temperatures
which made global warming appear artificially . . . . well . . . Alarming.
I’m not going to go back and re-read the posts and links to find out which one (you can do that if you want).
Would you say Leaf . . . That when predictions do not become true. . . That there is SOMETHING WRONG, with the “scientific” model?
It may be politics. It may not be as nefarious as mere politics. It might be we just do not know all the variables yet. Or the dynamics of how known or unknown variables interact. (It may be some of both.)
Whatever it is, global warming alarmists just pretending all bogus predictions were merely from outlier scientists (that almost none of the REAL scientists – whoever they are) sat by silently and ALLOWED these bogus prophesies to be propagated without challenge just seems disingenuous to me.
And this bit about how all the science guys who have made wrong predictions were not really the main-guy scientists anyway . . . .but not say that until AFTER their prophecy fizzles . . . is just a no true scotsman fallacy.
(Global warming Alarmist: Of course they were NEVER one of our REAL science guys anyway. At least one of the MAIN GUYS! Especially now that we can all see he was wrong."
Common sense person: “Well WHY wouldn’t you say that BEFORE his prediction was wrong!?”)
I’ve given you guys ample opportunities to affirm, and deny, and “nail down” time tables here but you guys just keep dodging it.
Look. If I held to some superstition admixed with real science and pretended it was all science, I’d “dodge” too. I’m not blaming you guys for that.
But can we quit pretending like the international global warming alarmists are all about “science” when that is obviously only a partial truth?
Bold mine.
There was just criticism above for one of the global warming outfits
THROWING AWAY "direct measurements"
in favor of manufactured temperatures
which made global warming appear artificially . . . . well . . . Alarming.
I’m not going to go back and re-read the posts and links to find out which one (you can do that if you want).
Would you say Leaf . . . That when predictions do not become true. . . That there is SOMETHING WRONG, with the “scientific” model?
It may be politics. It may not be as nefarious as mere politics. It might be we just do not know all the variables yet. Or the dynamics of how known or unknown variables interact. (It may be some of both.)
Whatever it is, global warming alarmists just pretending all bogus predictions were merely from outlier scientists (that almost none of the REAL scientists – whoever they are) sat by silently and ALLOWED these bogus prophesies to be propagated without challenge just seems disingenuous to me.
And this bit about how all the science guys who have made wrong predictions were not really the main-guy scientists anyway . . . .but not say that until AFTER their prophecy fizzles . . . is just a no true scotsman fallacy.
(Global warming Alarmist: Of course they were NEVER one of our REAL science guys anyway. At least one of the MAIN GUYS! Especially now that we can all see he was wrong."
Common sense person: “Well WHY wouldn’t you say that BEFORE his prediction was wrong!?”)
I’ve given you guys ample opportunities to affirm, and deny, and “nail down” time tables here but you guys just keep dodging it.
Look. If I held to some superstition admixed with real science and pretended it was all science, I’d “dodge” too. I’m not blaming you guys for that.
But can we quit pretending like the international global warming alarmists are all about “science” when that is obviously only a partial truth?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
C
Cathoholic
Guest
You were the one that brought up the importance of “direct measurements”" in science to be on “more solid ground”.
Now you are doing a 180 on your own post.
Here it is again (from you Leaf) . . .
Bold mine.
Your guys want things like “direct measurements” when they evangelize the religion.
But want to eschew "“direct measurements” when they don’t support the effort.
It’s phony Leaf.
Don’t fall for it.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
That’s wrong.
That is a partial truth.
If you know all the variables and apply them correctly the outcome will be entirely predictable.
It is only when you do not know all the variables, or how these known variables (or even unknown variables) interact, that you cannot predict the outcome.
And this latter example is exactly what we have today.
Which is WHY specifics are so scant and so false.
Which is EXACTLY WHY these 500+ scientists give the following admonition . . . .
- Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools.
.
Here are the 500+ scientists bullet points again (From post 27) . . .
- Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming
- The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed
- The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
- The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
- Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools.
- CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth.
- There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent
- There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.
To others here. These are pretty safe bulletin points.
You would think EVERYONE would support them. (But you’d be wrong.)
Consider this point . . .
- The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed
That’s pretty simple right?
Yet in post 5, I got THIS reply (bold mine) . . .
"No".
.
Consider also this point . . .
- Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming
None of the political global warming advocates even affirm this!
REALLY?
All that is asked in this point is for exaggerations to be openly and honestly addressed as well as uncertainties . . .
. . . And the political global warming guys are going to push back? . . .
. . . On THIS!?
Read for yourself, draw your own conclusions.
I don’t even have to tell you readers.
This type of thing keeps going on and on.
Don’t be fooled.
This is not the pure science these guys want you to believe.
There IS some science,
admixed in with a LOT of GLOBAL POLITICS,
and with a big helping of SUPERSTITION too. (Not “superstition” from the people here at CAF.)
Last edited:
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
How come we the public cannot have access to Michael Mann’s set of direct measurements? Leaf, you just asked for direct measurements from us, why should Mann be exempt from that?
What is he hiding from the rest of us? If he really believes in the cause, he should be more than willing to put it all out there and take on all challengers. But he isn’t. What are we supposed to think about that in light of the failed predictions?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You misunderstand me. I was not insisting on direct measurements. I was just offering you options of ways in which you could support your point scientifically. Of course direct measurements are not within the capability of an individual. You need a world-wide network of sensors to do that. Frankly, I think the most accessible scientific method available to you to refute global warming would be to conduct a survey comparable to Cook and the other surveys of a random sampling of scientists showing that most of them do not support global warming. Maybe you don’t have the resources to do that, but I’m sure Anthony Watts does and I’m sure Breitbart does. So that leads to the question, “Why haven’t they done so?”LeafByNiggle:
How come we the public cannot have access to Michael Mann’s set of direct measurements? Leaf, you just asked for direct measurements from us, why should Mann be exempt from that?
What is he hiding from the rest of us? If he really believes in the cause, he should be more than willing to put it all out there and take on all challengers. But he isn’t. What are we supposed to think about that in light of the failed predictions?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I don’t care about bullet points of claims made up by someone. I want to see which reputable scientists agreed with these bullet points and how the question was presented to them.
T
Theo520
Guest
Sounds like you are unable to respond to the arguments on their merit.
Instead you want to go to “the man”, aka ad hominem
- Status