That's disappointing. I've heard you argue in a relatively intelligent tone for your cause - albeit you are somewhat gun shy of producing any proof of your assertions. This might have led me to think that your (relatively) rational tone arose from a position which you had formed via a rational process.
But is seems instead (by your own admission) you arrived at this position through onboarding mysticism, magical thinking, circular logic and fallacy.
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one.
I don't recall anyone pretending it was a scientific statement - it is a refutation of the central argument of denialism, which is that the scientists need to convince them (the denialist) personally, plus every other 2 bit ex-weatherman blogger and paid off stooge before the science can be considered valid. In other words, 85-90% of the arguments made by denialists rely on a burden of proof fallacy.
Science doesn't vote, it either provably is or it isn't.
And hence the problem with the denialist position, there is no "proof", or even demonstrable evidence in support of it. It isn't science.
Once again, nobody cares whether you believe it. You beliefs are irrelevant to the debate, and making statements of belief in response to statements of fact is indulging in fallacy.
What matters is whether you can prove. The strength of your assertion (that climate change is caused by x where x != anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases) rests on your proof of the assertion.
I'll believe in CAGW when the scientists quit fudging the numbers and it still shows it.
Nobody owes you an explanation, will offer you an explanation or seek to resolve your ignorance for you. Nobody cares if you don't "believe In" climate change.
..when they can explain historical data that contradicts the theory.
I have a theory - which says you can't produce any instances of historical data that contradict the consensus theory on the causes of the present warming. Prove me wrong.
.and when they can explain why the warming has stopped for the last couple of decades.
I have a theory - which says that you can't produce data to back your assertion that there has been no warming since 1994. Prove me wrong.
According to what measure was this winter colder than any other since 1912? Does a cold winter pose some sort of problem for climate change? If so, why? Explain in detail: Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
Is it a problem if there is no statistical warming for 17 years? Which 17 years are you referring to? Which datasets are you referring to? Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
Then perhaps you can explain why they're adjusting historical temperature data, while claiming that it's "functionally bad or maladjusted" even though those same instruments are in use today, and are considered the gold standard for measurements.
If you don't know why the data is adjusted, that is really your problem, not anybody elses. Nobody is responsible for you ignorance but yourself.
If you think something is wrong with adjusting the data, then by all means, explain in detail what the problem is and how it should be done. Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
Now you mention it, no, I don't remember that. Maybe concerns were expressed and I didn't notice in the excitement and anticipation. Maybe those concerns weren't as widespread as you remember. In any case I don't think that should be the takeaway.
Wow, if we discover the exact region and mechanism for how consciousness emerges from brain activity, then this, in my mind, is the final nail in the coffin of the Soul Hypothesis ( the religious explanation for consciousness being external to the brain, and as something that survives death ).
Feel free to believe whatever. Start with an unfounded assertion "there is no soul" and then use unrelated discoveries in a circular logic to justify your belief to yourself.
Of course, the religionists will carp on about how this study is all a big conspiracy with science finding or some other claptrap, but for the rest of us, this could be a major discovery!
You don't speak for the rest of us, if indeed, there is a class of people ("religionists") and another class ("the rest of us").
We have already been to Mars, and indeed, are still there - at least our representatives are, which is as close as you or I will get to actuly being there. There might be a pedantic definition which defines "go to Mars" differently, but otherwise let's consider that part "job done".
As for the other part, the loud noise and pounding on the chest, I'll make you a machine which makes a loud noise and pounds you on the chest. I'll charge you, let's say, 1/10 th of what this rocket costs. Deal?
Interesting idea but you example of "global warming" being a circular belief is a bit awkward, counter to objective observation and appears grotesquely out of context, like a naked clown.
Perhaps what you meant is that the notion "global warming is a lie" is itself a circular belief? That would make more sense. After all, a key property of a circular belief is that it's exact origins are somewhat obscure. The theory of global warming has well known, logical origins founded in the laws of thermodynamics and provable via repeatable (and oft-repeated) experiments. The origins of the theory can be traced back to those original observations which can't be logically explained otherwise.
Whereas the belief that "global warming is a lie" has all the properties of a circular belief:
(a) The proof of the belief refers to the belief itself
(b) The origins of the belief are obscure and it's proponents are often at considerable effort to avoid discussing the likely origins
(c) The belief makes no reference to observations which justify it and indeed, contradict known observations.
Is it therefore safe to assume that that is what you meant - that the belief "global warming is a lie" is itself a lie?
Clearly, I'm not making myself clear. It's not about what I believe or don't believe.
It isn't. That's very clear. It's about what you can prove.
It's about the depth of conviction of those who believe that massive amounts of money must be spent to avoid a disaster due to global warming, because they are quite convinced it is real, and that the models are good predictors of global climate. Other people's money.
And yet I offered a wager and it seems you intend to refuse it. It is YOU who is unwilling to stand by your convictions. It is YOU refusing to stand by the predictive power of the denialist's model. It is YOU, along with others of your party, advocating that we do nothing and thus risk the lives and wellbeing of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren based on a model that you can't describe, demonstrate - a model whose results you do not, yourself, trust.
Not a problem. Here's some more: If you want people to believe your assertion that the prevailing theory for the causes of the present global warming is wrong, you need to prove it with observations and data.
Put your money where your mouth is.
You want to bet me? Here's the basis of denialism: CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
I'll wager that you cannot prove that that statement is true using experiments and observations. Does AU $1000 sound about right for our wager?
Or would you prefer to bet on the predictive power of the denialist climate model? The denialist model says that over the next 20 years, we will experience a 0 C rise in temperature (2014-2034). I'll wager that statement is wrong. Does AU $1000 sound about right for our wager?
It's nobodies job to justify science for your benefit, because, and lets be open about this: it doesn't matter what you think. You can whinge and moan and prevaricated as much as you like. Nobody has to come begging for your good will, and nobody will.
So, you're saying you've seen someone who believes in global warming models and has wagered actual money on their predictive power?
Apparently you can't read.
Or are someone who does and has?
If not, it's still zero.
Learn the science, encapsulate your theory in a model, and submit it for peer review. Don't have a plausible theory to explain the present warming, whilst simultaneously accounting for the warming we should have had from dumping CO2 into the atmosphere? Then too bad, so sad.
I've encountered plenty of people who are willing to risk the material well-being of billions of strangers on the strength of the convictions about global warming.
Yes indeed - global warming will wipe away 20% of global GDP, and unevenly impact the poorest and most vulnerable the greater. Yet still there are whiney, dithering morons who would prefer we do nothing - and risk the lives and well being of millions, if not billions, of people.
To make it worse there is good reason to believe that these people don't even believe their own statements.
I've encountered approximately zero of them who are willing to wager a modest quantity of their own personal money on the validity of those climate models.
In truth I've never even seen denialists produce a model, let alone wager on it's accuracy.
Not sure how having a gun would help you - unless the gun somehow deflects the incoming bullet. You'd be better off with a vest or similar if being shot is of real concern.
Reality is more powerful than ideology. Reality will always win. Doesn't matter if you reject gravity, gravity still acts. You can't negotiate for, say, acceleration due to gravity [on Earth] to be 4.5 m/s/s. You can't negotiate with Global Warming either. It is, and will continue to be.
Sure I can.
You're going to negotiate with Global Warming? Carry on then.
Their job is to produce a set of theories that explain why the troposphere would not warm if millions of tons of CO2 are dumped into it:
(a) The lack of observable evidence for any of these axioms is compelling evidence that there is no such countering or cancelling mechanism
(b) The fact that the axioms and conclusions are fundamentally contradictory is yet more evidence
Why should I believe their theory if they don't themselves believe it? Which of their competing theories is the one they propose as truth - if indeed, there is a single denialist that actually thinks of their arguments as factual?
Actually a lot of those 'idiots' are simply looking at the models, the stats, the actual _knowledge_ science has about the Earth and it's climate processes, and the _long_ view of history. If you do that, there is a lot of reason to doubt and question.
Yet, apparently you can't articulate what the actual problem with theory is, and thus, stick to blustering generalities.
Repeatedly shouting "It's Wrong! It's Wrong" is not going to convince anybody.
Slashdot Mirror
But is seems instead (by your own admission) you arrived at this position through onboarding mysticism, magical thinking, circular logic and fallacy.
A pity.
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one.
I don't recall anyone pretending it was a scientific statement - it is a refutation of the central argument of denialism, which is that the scientists need to convince them (the denialist) personally, plus every other 2 bit ex-weatherman blogger and paid off stooge before the science can be considered valid. In other words, 85-90% of the arguments made by denialists rely on a burden of proof fallacy.
Science doesn't vote, it either provably is or it isn't.
And hence the problem with the denialist position, there is no "proof", or even demonstrable evidence in support of it. It isn't science.
What matters is whether you can prove. The strength of your assertion (that climate change is caused by x where x != anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases) rests on your proof of the assertion.
I'll believe in CAGW when the scientists quit fudging the numbers and it still shows it.
Nobody owes you an explanation, will offer you an explanation or seek to resolve your ignorance for you. Nobody cares if you don't "believe In" climate change.
..when they can explain historical data that contradicts the theory.
I have a theory - which says you can't produce any instances of historical data that contradict the consensus theory on the causes of the present warming. Prove me wrong.
.and when they can explain why the warming has stopped for the last couple of decades.
I have a theory - which says that you can't produce data to back your assertion that there has been no warming since 1994. Prove me wrong.
According to what measure was this winter colder than any other since 1912? Does a cold winter pose some sort of problem for climate change? If so, why? Explain in detail: Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
Is it a problem if there is no statistical warming for 17 years? Which 17 years are you referring to? Which datasets are you referring to? Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
Then perhaps you can explain why they're adjusting historical temperature data, while claiming that it's "functionally bad or maladjusted" even though those same instruments are in use today, and are considered the gold standard for measurements.
If you don't know why the data is adjusted, that is really your problem, not anybody elses. Nobody is responsible for you ignorance but yourself.
If you think something is wrong with adjusting the data, then by all means, explain in detail what the problem is and how it should be done. Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
Now you mention it, no, I don't remember that. Maybe concerns were expressed and I didn't notice in the excitement and anticipation. Maybe those concerns weren't as widespread as you remember. In any case I don't think that should be the takeaway.
Wow, if we discover the exact region and mechanism for how consciousness emerges from brain activity, then this, in my mind, is the final nail in the coffin of the Soul Hypothesis ( the religious explanation for consciousness being external to the brain, and as something that survives death ).
Feel free to believe whatever. Start with an unfounded assertion "there is no soul" and then use unrelated discoveries in a circular logic to justify your belief to yourself.
Of course, the religionists will carp on about how this study is all a big conspiracy with science finding or some other claptrap, but for the rest of us, this could be a major discovery!
You don't speak for the rest of us, if indeed, there is a class of people ("religionists") and another class ("the rest of us").
As for the other part, the loud noise and pounding on the chest, I'll make you a machine which makes a loud noise and pounds you on the chest. I'll charge you, let's say, 1/10 th of what this rocket costs. Deal?
Perhaps what you meant is that the notion "global warming is a lie" is itself a circular belief? That would make more sense. After all, a key property of a circular belief is that it's exact origins are somewhat obscure. The theory of global warming has well known, logical origins founded in the laws of thermodynamics and provable via repeatable (and oft-repeated) experiments. The origins of the theory can be traced back to those original observations which can't be logically explained otherwise.
Whereas the belief that "global warming is a lie" has all the properties of a circular belief:
(a) The proof of the belief refers to the belief itself
(b) The origins of the belief are obscure and it's proponents are often at considerable effort to avoid discussing the likely origins
(c) The belief makes no reference to observations which justify it and indeed, contradict known observations.
Is it therefore safe to assume that that is what you meant - that the belief "global warming is a lie" is itself a lie?
How can you tell the difference between a [scientist] and an islamic extremist? You can't.
If you can't tell the difference it's because of you, not because of any inherent similarities between scientists and islamic extremists.
If you feel threatened by science, feel free to bow out of this society built on the innovations of science and return to you cavemen roots.
And how rich would that country be if immigrants weren't allowed in?
Immigrants == cash
Patch immigrant code into your stack today for wads of cash tomorrow!
Yes, how dare they report facts that you don't like.
Clearly, I'm not making myself clear. It's not about what I believe or don't believe.
It isn't. That's very clear. It's about what you can prove.
It's about the depth of conviction of those who believe that massive amounts of money must be spent to avoid a disaster due to global warming, because they are quite convinced it is real, and that the models are good predictors of global climate. Other people's money.
And yet I offered a wager and it seems you intend to refuse it. It is YOU who is unwilling to stand by your convictions. It is YOU refusing to stand by the predictive power of the denialist's model. It is YOU, along with others of your party, advocating that we do nothing and thus risk the lives and wellbeing of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren based on a model that you can't describe, demonstrate - a model whose results you do not, yourself, trust.
Why should we believe a word that you say?
Thanks for the unsolicited advice.
Not a problem. Here's some more: If you want people to believe your assertion that the prevailing theory for the causes of the present global warming is wrong, you need to prove it with observations and data.
Put your money where your mouth is.
You want to bet me? Here's the basis of denialism: CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
I'll wager that you cannot prove that that statement is true using experiments and observations. Does AU $1000 sound about right for our wager?
Or would you prefer to bet on the predictive power of the denialist climate model? The denialist model says that over the next 20 years, we will experience a 0 C rise in temperature (2014-2034). I'll wager that statement is wrong. Does AU $1000 sound about right for our wager?
Nice try, shifting the burden of proof. Busted.
It's nobodies job to justify science for your benefit, because, and lets be open about this: it doesn't matter what you think. You can whinge and moan and prevaricated as much as you like. Nobody has to come begging for your good will, and nobody will.
So, you're saying you've seen someone who believes in global warming models and has wagered actual money on their predictive power?
Apparently you can't read.
Or are someone who does and has? If not, it's still zero.
Learn the science, encapsulate your theory in a model, and submit it for peer review. Don't have a plausible theory to explain the present warming, whilst simultaneously accounting for the warming we should have had from dumping CO2 into the atmosphere? Then too bad, so sad.
I've encountered plenty of people who are willing to risk the material well-being of billions of strangers on the strength of the convictions about global warming.
Yes indeed - global warming will wipe away 20% of global GDP, and unevenly impact the poorest and most vulnerable the greater. Yet still there are whiney, dithering morons who would prefer we do nothing - and risk the lives and well being of millions, if not billions, of people.
To make it worse there is good reason to believe that these people don't even believe their own statements.
I've encountered approximately zero of them who are willing to wager a modest quantity of their own personal money on the validity of those climate models.
In truth I've never even seen denialists produce a model, let alone wager on it's accuracy.
Not sure how having a gun would help you - unless the gun somehow deflects the incoming bullet. You'd be better off with a vest or similar if being shot is of real concern.
It seems to me that statements of your own ignorance are meaningless. What do you expect me to do with this information? Feel guilt? Pity?
Reality is more powerful than ideology. Reality will always win. Doesn't matter if you reject gravity, gravity still acts. You can't negotiate for, say, acceleration due to gravity [on Earth] to be 4.5 m/s/s. You can't negotiate with Global Warming either. It is, and will continue to be.
Sure I can.
You're going to negotiate with Global Warming? Carry on then.
Wtf are you talking about. I said there are scientist that dont agree with ipcc.
Here' what you said:
I dont know what they believe or why
And
Im not in the club I dont know what their opposing science is
(a) The lack of observable evidence for any of these axioms is compelling evidence that there is no such countering or cancelling mechanism
(b) The fact that the axioms and conclusions are fundamentally contradictory is yet more evidence
Why should I believe their theory if they don't themselves believe it? Which of their competing theories is the one they propose as truth - if indeed, there is a single denialist that actually thinks of their arguments as factual?
Actually a lot of those 'idiots' are simply looking at the models, the stats, the actual _knowledge_ science has about the Earth and it's climate processes, and the _long_ view of history. If you do that, there is a lot of reason to doubt and question.
Yet, apparently you can't articulate what the actual problem with theory is, and thus, stick to blustering generalities.
Repeatedly shouting "It's Wrong! It's Wrong" is not going to convince anybody.
That is not what I would call a convincing argument.