With John Kerry's pointed remarks on climate change yesterday, it's important to note the various arguments that the Church of the Climate Denier uses all the time and illustrate how they are lying. Here is a complete list of their assertions by popularity which are all linked to the evidence that shows how they are completely false. Take note of how one can examine the data from a basic, intermediate or advanced point of view with many of the falsehoods.
So, the next time you encounter the adolescent climate skeptic who just can't stand the fact that liberals are correct about something, show the this list. Ask them to refute the evidence using the same scientific method used in each of the links. Remind that "No, you are!!" and a stomp down the hallway with a door slam are not logic based arguments.
15 comments:
I note they don't address the question: what is the correct temperature of the planet - or even a range where we would not be concerned?
I know that one, juris, based on talking to friends, relatives, and in-laws who are too old to have simply been indoctrinated in school (and moronic cartoons like Ted Turner's Captain Planet and the Planeteers). The answer, as far as I can extract a straight answer, seems to boil down to, "Whatever it was when I was growing up is the right and proper temperature." So for people who grew up in the cooling trend of the late '40s-'70s, it's definitely too fucking warm now. Even if it's only slightly warmer. Mostly, they also tend to be effectively innumerate.
From Markadelphia (and Nikto in particular), it's pretty apparent that the Medieval Warm Period (which was significantly warmer than it is now) was way too fucking warm, the even warmer Roman Warm Period was godawfully hot, and the even warmer Minoan Warm Period preceding, well, most life couldn't have survived that, so it must not have really happened. Or something.
Interestingly enough, the Medieval Warm Period used to be called the Medieval Climatic Optimum because the Little Ice Age that followed was widely recognized as having had quite bad effects on civilization.
I should make clear for the umpteenth time before Markadelphia or Nikto-roids jumps in with the flaming strawmen of bile that there's no doubt the climate is warmer than it was 200 years ago during the Little Ice Age. But then, it's actually pretty normal for temperatures to rise significantly when the climate comes out of a cold spell. Amazing, ain't it? Who'd a thunk it even possible? It's like dat shit's magic.
The good thing about science, gents, is that it's true whether you believe it or not (NGT)
But it's only science if you can prove it with repeatable and verifiable results. You know, like if your projections and observations match....
But it's only science if you can prove it with repeatable and verifiable results
Check.
Sorry if you don't like the results.
like if your projections and observations match....
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions-intermediate.htm
Have you taken the time to read through the list? It pretty much decimates all of the BS you guys peddle. Any claim you make has a link with evidence that shows that you are either lying or believing a lie. Which is it?
Got a link to a non-biased source?
They are contained within the links themselves. Have you taken the time to read through the list?
They are contained within the links themselves.
M goes meta-irrelevant.
Yes, but do you have any unbiased sources that don't already believe in climate change
I have already put forth Richard Muller who was hired by the Koch Bros to disprove the science. How did that turn out?
http://berkeleyearth.org/data
Belief doesn't enter into it, GD. Are you still sticking by the whole we use logic, facts and evidence and you don't meme? Seems pretty much BS now...
Actually we showed you that Mueller was in no way unbiased other than his 'own' claim to be.
Belief doesn't enter into it
Then why did you claim the link I posted on the earlier thread was biased?
Actually I should probably ask you if you understand what the definition of bias is?
Bias: That which contradicts Markadelphia's assertions du jour.
Hmm...now we are (as if by magic) away from a discussion about the settled science of climate change and back onto me and my knowledge of ____ along with more questions.
Getting back to the topic at hand, you have hit upon quite a puzzler. With so many scientific organizations recognizing the settled science of climate change, it sure is tough to find one that doesn't. I wonder why that is...:)
The topic of climate change (or the assets v debt discussion) would make a great debate on debate.org. What do you say, GD?
Yeah. Magically you are unable to recognize your own words used against you.
This is no more about climate than the game you played using those same words was.
Post a Comment