Northwest Passage

[Moo]

Originally Posted by newhaul

oh no not the old debunked 97% bs

Don't you think the 3% of conspiracy theorists might actually be the BS ers?


Some of that crap you fellas have been quoting here... Mr coincidence Corbyn etc.. only help explain certain members of this forumns gulibility... By the was that much touted video dates from 2010 or 2012 I can't remember which and the continous rise in global temperature since then slaps his theories out of orbit.


He drags through history and dredges up a few coincidences and then an edited video gets posted online and viola we have Global warming disproved in an instant.



Some of his electromagnetic theories are accepted.. they are just not called "electricity and stuff" as he calls them all radiation from the sun from waves at different frequencies from VLF to way up there... nobody, not one person, argues that they don't have an effect.. I know a few people like him ...pet theory is not accepted (which of course they can prove by coincidence ) so they start preaching "the world is against me" crap... CIAO

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by conachair

Doesn't it cross your mind even just a tiny bit that the tens of thousands of climate scientist around the world might actually be on the right track and you just might have got it wrong.........?


Go to any major scientific institution around the globe and you'll heard the same story as this, are they all wrong and just you and a few others dotted around the web are right? >

I think it is pretty futile to argue with a TRUE BELIEVER (even though I sometimes do it )


This Article Won’t Change Your Mind

The facts on why facts alone can’t fight false beliefs

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't think there's much doubt that the planet has been going through a warming cycle, or that AGW has played a role. The controversy is over the extent of that role.

There is one chance in a million that the current warming is not human induced. My own words, with no cut and paste.

Happy now.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is one chance in a million that the current warming is not human induced. My own words, with no cut and paste.

Happy now.

cut and past a few links then put in your personal assessment of said reports .
Bet they all have at least a few of the following buzz words in them .

" could, may, might, and possibly ."

I know I'm forgetting a few of the buzz words that actually mean they don't know but are not willing to admit it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is one chance in a million that the current warming is not human induced. My own words, with no cut and paste.

Happy now.

they have shown that man some 5,000 years ago did change the climate on the planet when they started farming large areas thereby changing the albedo of the land.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is one chance in a million that the current warming is not human induced. My own words and also my opinion, with no cut and paste.

Happy now.

Even happier with my suggested addition in bold. Conveys to the reader that you are asserting an informed but not an expert opinion, one that has support in the scientific community (that you can cite no doubt) but hasn't reached the level of scientific truth. Who knows, it might even attract a well-researched challenge which could lead to a greater level of understanding overall. These threads are discussions amongst laymen (mostly), not lectures.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

cut and past a few links then put in your personal assessment of said reports .
Bet they all have at least a few of the following buzz words in them .

" could, may, might, and possibly ."

I know I'm forgetting a few of the buzz words that actually mean they don't know but are not willing to admit it.

I have posted it already. Look it up. That is your standard retort.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Even happier with my suggested addition in bold. Conveys to the reader that you are asserting an informed but not an expert opinion, one that has support in the scientific community (that you can cite no doubt) but hasn't reached the level of scientific truth. Who knows, it might even attract a well-researched challenge which could lead to a greater level of understanding overall. These threads are discussions amongst laymen (mostly), not lectures.

It is expert conclusion from a peer-reviewed published study.

[SailOar]

There are five stages to climate denial:

1/ it’s not real (it’s a Chinese hoax)
2/ it’s not humans: let’s witch-hunt the scientists
3/ warmer is better!
4/ it’s too expensive to fix
5/ it’s too late; you scientist’s really should have warned us earlier.

https://twitter.com/khayhoe/status/1...543680?lang=en

Our two most active deniers skeptics on this thread seem to mostly fit into categories 1 and 2, with occasional forays into the more advanced categories.

[DeepFrz]

Well said SailOar.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is an expert conclusion from a peer-reviewed published study, but there are other studies from acknowledged experts which refute it.

(Only trying to help).

[jackdale]

Thanks for the missed article. Now show us the peer-reviewed articles that support your other amendment.

Originally Posted by Exile

(Only trying to help).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

There are five stages to climate denial:

1/ it’s not real (it’s a Chinese hoax)
2/ it’s not humans: let’s witch-hunt the scientists
3/ warmer is better!
4/ it’s too expensive to fix
5/ it’s too late; you scientist’s really should have warned us earlier.

https://twitter.com/khayhoe/status/1...543680?lang=en

Our two most active deniers skeptics on this thread seem to mostly fit into categories 1 and 2, with occasional forays into the more advanced categories.

Hmmmm . . . I can only speak for myself, and certainly not the US Prez you so often speak so highly of. Not sure about Newhaul's solar theories either, but that means I also can't simply dismiss them. Besides, he's so damn polite about it in the face of all you guys berating him. And I can't dismiss the mainstream position either given the majority of experts signing up, but I do question the group think & incentives, and it's still unclear how deep the consensus goes beyond AGW existing and having some undetermined level of impact. So I might rework Dr. Hayhoe's "tweet" as follows, but only for myself [that'd be "opinion" Jack, not scientific fact ]:

There are five stages to climate denial skepticism [you missed this one ]:

1/ it’s real (and not a Chinese hoax)
2/ it’s partly humans, with other non-human/natural factors definitely in play: let’s not witch-hunt scientists on either side but exposing potential biases (w/o slandering them) is fair game
3/ warmer is probably (much) better than colder, but it depends how much!
4/ it may be unrealistic to fix and more cost-effective/realistic to adapt
5/ it’s too late; but only if you voted for Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez

On the other hand, if you still believe the roots of the skepticism are really as simplistic as Dr. Hayhoe's tweet lays out, I'd recommend re-reading the well-written and illuminating article you recently posted from The Atlantic. In fact I think I'll re-read it myself. The author has some trouble discounting her own liberal political bias of course, but that's to be expected, easily discounted, and the article is more objective than most (imo). Besides, it only goes to reinforce the article's main theme, namely how much of our thought processes & political alignment are influenced by innate human traits rooted in tribalism, social acceptance, group identification, and ego. For many, as the article points out, facts, logic & reason are often secondary, thus explaining why it can be so difficult to change minds.

Thanks SailOar. A good read. But just as a brain exercise, see if you can try applying some of its politically-neutral points to opinions you don't happen to share. It might be a useful exercise, and I'll never tell . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Thanks for the missed article. Now show us the peer-reviewed articles that support your other amendment.

Ahhhh . . . now we're back to your ever-so-popular, high level brand of CF "debate." The battle of the experts and their peer-reviewed articles. My expert is better than yours; I have more experts on my side than you do; my expert has been peer-reviewed and yours has not; your expert never even submitted for peer review; the publication your expert used is bogus; etc., etc. Did I miss something? I'm sure I did, but I'm also sure it matters a lot less than it did before climate change science was so successfully politicized.

But then I really wasn't convinced by all the criticism of the academic peer review process until I learned that highly credentialed climate scientists -- who's only sin was questioning the "consensus" -- were being discouraged and even prevented from submitting their works. This has been discussed extensively in prior threads, and we even have Congressional testimony on the subject. Do we need to go back & refresh your memory? Or should we finally stop pretending that the peer review process when it comes to CC science doesn't suffer from the same lack of scientific objectivity as you do, namely conflating contrarian opinion with competence.

So what exactly are you challenging me to go find yet another citation for? A "peer-reviewed" article -- complete with charts & graphs of course -- that refutes your scientific truth assertion informed opinion opinion that, in your words, "there is one chance in a million that the current warming is not human induced?" If you really have that much trouble finding contrary opinion on your own, try narrowing it down a bit and I might give you a hand. Otherwise, it's frankly hard to equate your pronouncements with intelligent and productive discussion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ahhhh . . . now we're back to your ever-so-popular, high level brand of CF "debate." The battle of the experts and their peer-reviewed articles. My expert is better than yours; I have more experts on my side than you do; my expert has been peer-reviewed and yours has not; your expert never even submitted for peer review; the publication your expert used is bogus; etc., etc. Did I miss something? I'm sure I did, but I'm also sure it matters a lot less than it did before climate change science was so successfully politicized.

But then I really wasn't convinced by all the criticism of the academic peer review process until I learned that highly credentialed climate scientists -- who's only sin was questioning the "consensus" -- were being discouraged and even prevented from submitting their works. This has been discussed extensively in prior threads, and we even have Congressional testimony on the subject. Do we need to go back & refresh your memory? Or should we finally stop pretending that the peer review process when it comes to CC science doesn't suffer from the same lack of scientific objectivity as you do, namely conflating contrarian opinion with competence.

So what exactly are you challenging me to go find yet another citation for? A "peer-reviewed" article -- complete with charts & graphs of course -- that refutes your scientific truth assertion informed opinion opinion that, in your words, "there is one chance in a million that the current warming is not human induced?" If you really have that much trouble finding contrary opinion on your own, try narrowing it down a bit and I might give you a hand. Otherwise, it's frankly hard to equate your pronouncements with intelligent and productive discussion.

So you you have no "acknowledged experts which refute it." Got it. Just another unsubstantiated assertion. You have nothing.

I am getting ready to head offshore for some time on a shake down and have no time for your nonsense.