Stop arguing about climate change and start finding ways to save lives

Jul 13, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Palladium-Item

WASHINGTON -- It's odd how little we've heard lately from the skeptics who deny that climate change is real.

Comments
21 - 36 of 36 Comments Last updated Jul 16, 2010
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jul 14, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Disraeli wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not "settled science" until the Academy of Sciences can report without using terms such as "much" and "very likely." Neither are very scientific.
It will be settled science once they can state that "XX percent of this warming has been conclusively proven as due to human activities"
After all it is man-caused global warming that we're worried about, right?
Scientists and actuaries deal in the same stuff: probability. Never certainty. However, ALL the world's major scientific academies, and 98% of the world's climatologists, agree that it's almost certain that we have caused this warming, and that it will grow much worse. Exactly how much worse is open to debate.

I wish it were otherwise.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jul 15, 2010
 
Northie...your wish has come true!

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Peter Jones

Auckland, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jul 15, 2010
 
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists and actuaries deal in the same stuff: probability. Never certainty. However, ALL the world's major scientific academies, and 98% of the world's climatologists, agree that it's almost certain that we have caused this warming, and that it will grow much worse. Exactly how much worse is open to debate.
I wish it were otherwise.
"Almost" yeah that "settles" it!.
Peter Jones

Auckland, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jul 15, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Whittle the list down to those who are active climate scientists and you have I think three names.
Look at the credentials of the other and you'll find some examples of outright fraud.
Vincent Gray, for example, is not a "climate consultant", he's a retired chemist and coal industry researcher.
Then you have the retired geology professors earning retirement money going on the fossil fuel industry funded denial circuit and the professional hired deniers who've been taking money to do it since the tobacco industry first bought them.
But that's three more names then you have.You then bring up a list and it goes back an forth.We trade links,insults an around we go again.You now see what I mean about this not being settled.
AGW'rs say you had better believe this or else.Reminds me of the guy on the corner screaming"repent for the end is near".
Peter Jones

Auckland, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jul 15, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities”
New report confirms failure to act poses "significant risks"
May 19, 2010
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/19/nationa...
"Very likely" yeah its settled!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jul 15, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Peter Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
"Very likely" yeah its settled!
Science will tell you it's very likely you'll kill yourself if you shoot yourself in the head. Only a moron would shoot himself in the head on that advice.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jul 15, 2010
 
Peter Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
But that's three more names then you have.
Rubbish.

98% of active climate scientists disagree with the three on your list.
Peter Jones

Auckland, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jul 15, 2010
 
Wheres the proof?.Show the science.Or is it show me the money!An around we go again.Do you think?If you keep chanting that enough times people might believe?.Do the 98% still hold fast to the hockey stick,maybe the C02 v Temp,what about Jonesy's data?Settled?
Peter Jones

Auckland, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jul 15, 2010
 
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Science will tell you it's very likely you'll kill yourself if you shoot yourself in the head. Only a moron would shoot himself in the head on that advice.
To keep falling for the "end of the world is nigh" group. ditto

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jul 15, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

What about comet hits and globull dooming and global cooling and warming and volcanoes and earthquakes and storms and bad weather and bad luck and unfairness and evil republicans and..........I'm so afraid, so very very afraid. The world is SO unfair. BOOWHO!
-a climate changer/loser
Disraeli

Abell, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jul 15, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
All reality is measured by fuzzy yardsticks. Science is just more HONEST about what it considers 'established science' by saying that the data is not perfect and there is some (small) chance of error. But as soon as science backs it (and NAS has backed it as solid theory) it IS a scientific fact qualified to be taught as fact in schools. Thus we can see that you are an ignorant yahoo with no understanding of 'fact' much less reality.
In this case, it would appear that the fuzzier the better.

Gee, how about a range, an estimate, something? The fact is no one seems to want to know these numbers. Stating that the "Science is settled" does not acknowledge that the data is incomplete. Once it is, then we can talk about facts, until then we are talking about theories. Theories are generally not considered settled science, and are different than facts.

Or, to put it another way, you seem to be more about hype than facts yourself.

The funny thing is, I believe there is ample evidence of AGW, as well as solid evidence that man contributes SOME amount. However, no one wants to address the approximate amount man contributes and would rather march forward with the ideology that it is 100% due to human activities. This ideology requires that anyone not marching in lockstep be insulted and dismissed. As you attempted to do with your above reply.

Not only is that hardly scientific, it is this kind of arrogant behavior that plays right into the skeptics and deniers hands.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jul 15, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Disraeli wrote:
<quoted text>
In this case, it would appear that the fuzzier the better.
Gee, how about a range, an estimate, something? The fact is no one seems to want to know these numbers. Stating that the "Science is settled" does not acknowledge that the data is incomplete. Once it is, then we can talk about facts, until then we are talking about theories. Theories are generally not considered settled science, and are different than facts.
Or, to put it another way, you seem to be more about hype than facts yourself.
The funny thing is, I believe there is ample evidence of AGW, as well as solid evidence that man contributes SOME amount. However, no one wants to address the approximate amount man contributes and would rather march forward with the ideology that it is 100% due to human activities. This ideology requires that anyone not marching in lockstep be insulted and dismissed. As you attempted to do with your above reply.
Not only is that hardly scientific, it is this kind of arrogant behavior that plays right into the skeptics and deniers hands.
Good post. Essentially, the energy industry is repeatedly poking the scientific establishment with an electric cattle prod, waiting for scientists to react rashly so they can be damned for discomposure. Lots of concerned lay folk get caught in the same trap.

Crazy how nuts like Beck and Palin can just throw around wild lies without being held to account, while no one worried about runaway warming can so much as hiccup without being smeared all over the net for it.
Earthling

Hondón De Las Nieves, Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jul 16, 2010
 
Disraeli wrote:
In this case, it would appear that the fuzzier the better.
Gee, how about a range, an estimate, something? The fact is no one seems to want to know these numbers. Stating that the "Science is settled" does not acknowledge that the data is incomplete. Once it is, then we can talk about facts, until then we are talking about theories. Theories are generally not considered settled science, and are different than facts.
Or, to put it another way, you seem to be more about hype than facts yourself.
The funny thing is, I believe there is ample evidence of AGW, as well as solid evidence that man contributes SOME amount. However, no one wants to address the approximate amount man contributes and would rather march forward with the ideology that it is 100% due to human activities. This ideology requires that anyone not marching in lockstep be insulted and dismissed. As you attempted to do with your above reply.
Not only is that hardly scientific, it is this kind of arrogant behavior that plays right into the skeptics and deniers hands.
I have a strange feeling that Norfie didn't get the gist of your post and it's a certainty that it will fly over the head of its intended recipient in Toronto.
People like him and other alarmists who use strong arm tactics, are one reason why so many people become sceptical.

Yes, a good post, but go easy with your use of the word 'denier,' please, it doesn't fit many people.
Glasnos

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jul 16, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post. Essentially, the energy industry is repeatedly poking the scientific establishment with an electric cattle prod, waiting for scientists to react rashly so they can be damned for discomposure. Lots of concerned lay folk get caught in the same trap.
Crazy how nuts like Beck and Palin can just throw around wild lies without being held to account, while no one worried about runaway warming can so much as hiccup without being smeared all over the net for it.
You would not recognize a cogent thought if it came notorized.
You belive in fairy dust and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. You shouldn't be trusted around sharp objects.

Fossil fuels powers economies ... To try and suppress fossil fuels for energy sources teo or three times as expensive is insane. You want to stimulate the economy ... stmulate the cheapest energy production possible ... It is why China has high coal useage ... and why they have a vibrant, growing economy ... Do you think they could do it with windmills?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jul 16, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Disraeli wrote:
<quoted text>
In this case, it would appear that the fuzzier the better.
Gee, how about a range, an estimate, something?
Try this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Climat...

From here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-chang...

Also here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensi...

And here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-c...
Peter Jones

New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jul 16, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
The emperor has wonderful threads on!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••