Re: Christians, climate & smurfing.

In message <W8ydnXYznslqWUPanZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ralph <nt_consulting64@xxxxxxxxx> writes

"noctiluca" <robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44186959-8837-4e5a-b274-ec43183d54df@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 17, 10:33 am, "Ralph" <nt_consultin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "noctiluca" <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
>
news:fb4a7557-ac56-4c0f-b253-fff4eed81e37@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mar 16, 9:41 pm, "Ralph" <nt_consultin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
>
news:253a86f9-da03-4d7a-83bb-c2c4a7045361@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> > > > On Mar 16, 7:40 pm, "Ralph" <nt_consultin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > <snipped>
>
> > > > This will come as a surprise to the climatologists who disagree
with
> > > > you. Perhaps you could link to some evidence supporting your
claim,
> > > > and I can pass it along.
>
> > > > Kermit
>
> > > Anyone that believes in AGW is either a fool or disingenuous. In
either
> case
> > > no amount of evidence would sway them one way or the other.
>
> > It's obvious you are quite confused. Let's consider just a few of the
> > problems with the above statements.
>
> > First of all, the highest percentage of "believers" in climate change
> > in any collection of people would have to exist among climatologists,
> > the group demonstrably most knowledgeable on this subject, and one
> > most people would be willing to agree is not composed entirely of
> > fools and liars. Of course one might claim there is a huge conspiracy
> > among them or they're all just looking for grant money, but those
> > arguments would just make someone look pathetic and paranoid.
>
> > Additionally, as there has developed over time a virtually complete
> > consensus on climate change/anthropogenic forcing among these
> > scientists it is clearly the case that the evidence is what has swayed
> > their opinions. The opinions of those who are not climate scientists
> > but have studied the evidenced have, for the most part, followed suit.
>
> > Next time you are challenged to present support for your claims try
> > not to take the low road, just admit you don't know what you're
> > talking about.
>
> > > Besides - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If
you
> > > think there is any you might like to pass that on.
>
> > Why don't you start with this -
>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
>
> > - it's the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers and it's just chock full of
> > that evidence stuff. Of course, if reading all 18 pages hurts too
> > much, go chew on the graph on page 11, the one called "Global and
> > Continental Temperature Change." Then come back here and tell us fools
> > and liars what we need to know to set us straight.
>
> > RLC
>
> I'm sorry you don't like the reference.
>
> I'm a geologist, have review the evidence and found it seriously short
of
> supporting AGW on the most elementary level. I can not help but believe
that
> those with far more letters behind their name know more than me. So that
> leads to a question - the same one I often ask of a creationist for the
same
> reason - are you just a fool or disingenuous? You have to pick one or
the
> other because there ain't no evidence for AGW.

Either you have serious problems with logic or you have composed the
above too hastily. Those with the "letters behind their names" which
indicate expertise in climate science are those you are calling fools
and liars. Could you please clarify whether you think they know more
than you, or not?

It is another indication of your problems with this issue that you
bring up creationism to support your case. The "controversy" among
climate scientists (i.e., virtually none) regarding whether the earth
is warming and the role of humans is precisely analogous to the
purported "scientific" controversy regarding creationism. It is, at
best, breathtakingly ignorant to claim that there is controversy
within the climate community over these issues. That talking point is
a tool of political persuasion, as is the suggestion of a "scientific"
controversy over biological evolution.

> As for your "Summary" I suggest you take another look yourself. Take a
black
> marker to the rhetoric - and see what you have left. Or better, play
along
> and put a pencil to any of the proposals - does any of them actually
make
> any sense to you????

The above is conspicuous in its absence of details. Twice now you have
been asked to support your claims. You have failed to produce
evidence, and now you fail to document the purported problems with
evidence that you have been spoon fed. Want to try again? Tell me what
the problems are with the graphs on global temperature changes.

Or you could stop wasting everyone's time and take my previous advice:
admit that yours is a position of faith, not one derived from a
familiarity with the evidence.

> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There's no way to
> avoid it.

No, there is no way to avoid that obligation. And despite your empty
protests to the contrary, the evidence is there and will remain
powerfully convincing, regardless of how many more ways of avoiding
actual evaluation of it you employ.

> Either someone produces the evidence, or they can go preach
> somewhere else. Frankly I don't care, because as a Geologist - time will
> tell.

You cared enough to declare everyone who disagrees with you a fool or
a liar. Not caring when you are challenged to support your claims
appears to be rather convenient.

RLC

> -ralph


There is no evidence for AGW. There is no reason to carry on a debate with
an irrational person. That's all there is to this tale.

-ralph

Some creationists tell us that there's no evidence for evolution. We don't believe them either.
--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lord Moncton Declares Sarah Palin To Be The Greatest Authority On Climate In The World
    ... Don't be fooled about climate science. ... executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, ... this time about global climate change. ... Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: OT - More Possible GW Indicators
    ... Climate Prediction Center in Camp Springs, ... Even with global warming we can't keep the Pacific from ... Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Global Warming, the Science is Settled!
    ... The evidence is being collected even as we speak. ... Top Australian scientists on climate change: ... Australia?s high-quality annual temperature dataset [AMM; ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Conservative condemnation of science and scientists
    ... no evidence there is planet warming on Mars. ... Mars Recent Climate Change ... This is not the case for more recent climate change on Mars. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Cosmic rays and global warming
    ... Some are genuine scientists with real doubts about AGW. ... unambiguous evidence from unbiased sources. ... and do affect climate that it is very ... standards, YEC standards, usual scientific standards? ...
    (talk.origins)