Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[del]

i'd love to hang around, but bill nye the science guy is going to demonstrate cold fusion, and i'd hate to miss it.

 

[SAT]

you're lying when you say si modo's answer was "i don't know"


you're not particularly bright, are you?

Her responses were an endless litany of "You say that there are". In other words, she doesn't know if there are or not. I told the truth. It made you mad. For some reason.

What I just did is called reading. It's more than just calling words. It means understanding the words.

There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming

Is that true?

if there are, you should have no trouble linking one up i would think.

is that true?

Argument: Human carbon emissions have dramatically accelerated global warming - Debatepedia

A list of scientific societies and other scientific organizations and their statements concerning AGW.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

This is science, Si. You need to look at this link from Old Rocks. This is not an interpretation from a reporter. This is a joint statement from scientists. Scientists. Look at it.

 

[Cuyo]

Good grief.

Ask for science and you get blogs.

Show us how it's done. Please link to a peer reviewed journal article that rebuts AGW.

Thanks.

Rebut what?

I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.

It's kinda the same conversation we had a few weeks ago, though he goes at it differently than I do.

 

[del]

Show us how it's done. Please link to a peer reviewed journal article that rebuts AGW.

Thanks.

Rebut what?

I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.

It's kinda the same conversation we had a few weeks ago, though he goes at it differently than I do.

and with every bit as much success

 

[SAT]

And you are still asking a negative be proved.

Amazing.

You are a moron. Until you prove that you are not, it stands as true.

No, no, no. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking that you link to an article. You are not capable of proving anything, and I wouldn't dream of further taxing your abilities. I'm just asking you to provide a link.

 

[SAT]

I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.

It's kinda the same conversation we had a few weeks ago, though he goes at it differently than I do.

There ya go. Thanks very much. You are correct. And somehow, you figured that out with no effort at all. You just read, and you got it. I believe we've established which "side" has the brainpower in this discussion.

As for my going at it differently, you are correct. I go at it from the position of someone who is used to dealing with children who have oppositional defiant disorder and have very limited reasoning skills. I use short, simple sentences to help them see their thinking errors and come to a reasonable conclusion.

The kids get it quicker than this crew.

Your method is, I'm sure, far more elegant.

 

[Si modo]

And you are still asking a negative be proved.

Amazing.

You are a moron. Until you prove that you are not, it stands as true.

No, no, no. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking that you link to an article. You are not capable of proving anything, and I wouldn't dream of further taxing your abilities. I'm just asking you to provide a link.

I'll type slowly....

My claim is that the science does not demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Notice the bolded word?

See that?

That indicates a negative.

You want me to prove that void.



So, you are a fucking moron. Until you prove that you are not a fucking moron, you are a fucking moron.

QED.

 

[Cuyo]

Rebut what?

I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.

It's kinda the same conversation we had a few weeks ago, though he goes at it differently than I do.

and with every bit as much success

I eventually threw my hands up at it, and this guy will eventually, too.

That's kinda the way things work around here. Participants on your side of this "Debate" (which doesn't exist outside of right wing American punditry) can always depend on 5 or 6 more of their "Teammates" showing up to assist them in ignoring the overwhelming consensus of science and attacking the "Warmist" member.

I enjoy talking to Modo, but these threads always seem to be a magnet for a certain type of jackass who will claim the science is some sort of seedy smoking-man conspiracy.

As manny would say, whatcha gonna do.

 

[Si modo]

Show us how it's done. Please link to a peer reviewed journal article that rebuts AGW.

Thanks.

Rebut what?

I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.

It's kinda the same conversation we had a few weeks ago, though he goes at it differently than I do.

And, as I said a few weeks ago, science is not done by vote.

If you want to understand the logic of scientific discovery, I highly recommend this. It is an easy to understand summary of the process, logic, and community.

I really do hope you read it.

I hope everyone who wants to discuss science reads it. I'm not being snarky, either. I think this entire fiasco with politics in the sciences would be better off if more understood just the basics.

 

[RollingThunder]

if there are, you should have no trouble linking one up i would think.

is that true?

I was starting to think I was entering the Twilight Zone, here.

deeply religious people, like SAT, are sometimes a little irrational about their beliefs.

forgive them, they know not what they do.

Deeply retarded people, like del, are always extremely irrational about their cultic beliefs.

Kick their asses, they're the deluded tools of a conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.

 

[westwall]

I was starting to think I was entering the Twilight Zone, here.

deeply religious people, like SAT, are sometimes a little irrational about their beliefs.

forgive them, they know not what they do.

Deeply retarded people, like del, are always extremely irrational about their cultic beliefs.

Kick their asses, they're the deluded tools of a conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.

Interesting how a desire to learn more is suddenly a "crime against humanity". Oh well cult boy, stay with your cult talking points. You are losing the argument with the regular folks because you all resort to BS like that.

And for that we thank you! (as Tosh would say!)

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In a related story, the number of laboratory experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures and acidifies the ocean is still zero.

Number of laboratory experiments showing that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO

Number of physicists who doubt that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO.

Wow - those physicists must not be real scientists!

 

[daveman]

I was starting to think I was entering the Twilight Zone, here.

deeply religious people, like SAT, are sometimes a little irrational about their beliefs.

forgive them, they know not what they do.

It's interesting to see our arguments co-opted by the know nothings. You are all strategy, and no substance.

The OP features a global warming denier who has been forced to eat crow.

But that's still not good enough for you.

You still want more proof.

You claim he's not really a skeptic.

Your belief is faith based, Del. Not science based. That's religion.

Can anyone prove the scientist in the OP was a skeptic? Oh, and for SAT's benefit, "prove" means link to articles and statements of his, not just saying "Yes, he was a skeptic."

 

[gslack]

In a related story, the number of laboratory experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures and acidifies the ocean is still zero.

Number of laboratory experiments showing that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO

Number of physicists who doubt that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO.

Wow - those physicists must not be real scientists!

Konrad.... please stop with the clones already..

 

[westwall]

In a related story, the number of laboratory experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures and acidifies the ocean is still zero.

Number of laboratory experiments showing that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO

Number of physicists who doubt that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO.

Wow - those physicists must not be real scientists!

Konrad.... please stop with the clones already..

Actually poopy is a spidey toober clone.

 

[westwall]

In a related story, the number of laboratory experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures and acidifies the ocean is still zero.

Number of laboratory experiments showing that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO

Number of physicists who doubt that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO.

Wow - those physicists must not be real scientists!

Not much on history are you?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icCM3MvlXks]Russian Tsar Hydrogen Bomb Explosion - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

He's better on history than you are, dingleberry;

A23A

 

[gslack]

Number of laboratory experiments showing that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO

Number of physicists who doubt that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO.

Wow - those physicists must not be real scientists!

Konrad.... please stop with the clones already..

Actually poopy is a spidey toober clone.

And spidey toober was konrads clone lol

 

[Old Rocks]

G-vig is the perfect example of what eating lead paint at an early age does to people.

 

[gslack]

G-vig is the perfect example of what eating lead paint at an early age does to people.

You are the perfect example of a sellout... Ain't that right windy?