Originally Posted by segovius
Actually my positions are not valid - I am not a scientist. Nor are you.
The difference is that I am saying I respect and acknowledge the science and you are saying you somehow know better.
I'm calling you on that so if that means I have a personality disorder then why not? I'll buy it... whatever you call it, I'm on the other end of the spectrum from those who know nothing of science - like me - but claim they know better - unlike me.
I do respect the science. But, the science is not conclusive. That is the point. Now, we can can disagree on this issue. You may feel it is conclusive, but hat doesn't mean you are right, nor does it mean those with whom you disagree are stupid. As for me, what possible motivation would I have to deny overwhelming evidence and current events proving the theory of global warming? Of course, that does nothing to address your (potential) belief that I am stupid, but I would hope that in our discussions I have shown that I am not.
The point is that current data does not support the theory. C02 has not been conclusively linked to warming. And, global temperature has increased negligibly over the past 100 years. Lack of current evidence and lack of theoretical evidence does not satisfy me. To do that, I need: 1) Conclusive evidence that shows C02 causes
warming. 2) Man-made carbon emissions contribute in a statistically significant way to that warming through C02 levels and 3) Actual temperature increases over recent history. Is that really an unreasonable standard?
Yep.....some things...you're right.
I refuse to question whether the earth is round, whether evolution is correct or whether the Biblical 7 day account is false.
I agree that anyone who questions those things is looney. That said, there is some nuance in those statements. Evolution may be "correct," but I also consider it possible that a superior being directed the process (intelligent design). It's not provable, but it's possible. Secondly, many Christians believe that the creation story is metaphorical. I, for one, believe that the Bible is the word of God as edited by man. Therefore, it cannot all be taken at face value. This is another discussion to be sure.
On the other hand I DO question the non-scientific aspects of things and the insane beliefs (some of them) so it revolves just the same. All comes down to which side you're on I guess.
But you're not. You refuse to question the virtual raping
of the scientific method and pursuit of truth that many who are in the Global Warming Club engage in. You stand by, watching them pound away. Then you slap the Republican next to you because he looked at your girlfriend.
Most 'skeptics' as you refer to them are not Skeptics though SDW....they are merely Conservatives. True Skeptics are atheists more often than not and debunk religion and frauds etc. I don't think they spend much time trying to debunk established science in the area of climate change.
Oh, come on. Can you provide support for that? Are you honestly saying that true skeptics can only be godless socialist-progressives?
There you go again. It's not enough to strongly disagree with your opponent. He must be exposed as lying, stupid, steaming pile of shit.
I'm not embracing any one PERSON or GROUP. I am merely acknowledging the science.
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. You've gone much further than that. I acknowledge the existing science as well. But I also question what I've outlined earlier in the thread: Who are the people presenting and manipulating the data? What is their agenda? What are the sources? Why are dissenting scientific opinions discouraged and even covered up? How can we trust the IPCC report when there are glaring errors and even outright fraud in it? Who stands to benefit and/or lose from GW mitigation efforts? Do they have ties to the people reporting the data out? Why are supposedly neutral, dispassionate officials running around screaming "the debate is over!" Why are these people mounting a full-on publicity effort to "debunk" the skeptics if the evidence is overwhelming?
Why the rebranding of AGW into "climate change?" Why didn't predictions of increased hurricanes and weather events bear out? Why didn't predictions of "lack of winter" bear out? I could go on.
Many of the answers to the above are not encouraging, and some are simply not known. But you won't even ask the questions or at least don't care about answers. And I'm the denier?
Some 'skeptical' climate scientists SHOULD be suppressed in the arena of science and only there.
You'll find people that like that in any field.
Creationists should not similarly allowed in the realm of SCIENCE - in religion, fair enough. Believe what you like.
I don't know exactly what that means. Not allowed? I think you'll probably find there aren't too many Creationists working in scientific areas anyway.
But don't take damaging and potentially disastrous beliefs into science....there are serious people there working to fix things and to try to stop them through ignorance or worse cannot be allowed to happen.
Don't you see? That's exactly
what's happening! It's been proven.
Data has been manipulated to fit pre-concieved notions of warming. The IPCC report and East Anglia fiasco are prime examples.
Look: I am not saying AGW definitely doesn't exist. I'm saying I'm not convinced by the data I've seen. And while I'm not a scientist, I've seen a lot of that data. I also know the measurement that matters
--global temperature--is not increasing at an alarming, abnormal or even statistically significant rate.