Re: Christians, climate & smurfing.

On Mar 17, 1:33 pm, "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.

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????

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There's no way to
avoid it. Either someone produces the evidence, or they can go preach
somewhere else. Frankly I don't care, because as a Geologist - time will
tell.

-ralph- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is it about geologist's and global warming? It's like engineers
and evolution. Where the hell do you get the idea that global warming
is an extraordinary claim? We've observed both the effect and the
claimed cause and the connection between the two is based on basic
known principles. The models have done a fairly good job of predicting
the effect. I would suggest you have the equivalent of Morton's demon
functioning in you to blind you to the overwhelming evidence.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aliens
    ... posted by Bob Casanova: ... Note that you present zero evidence in support of these ... Argument based on conjecture is not evidence. ... You have presented *no* evidence supporting your claims. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Aliens
    ... Note that you present zero evidence in support of these ... Argument based on conjecture is not evidence. ... environment favoring intelligence. ... You have presented *no* evidence supporting your claims. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sarah Palin - hot or not?
    ... John Larkin wrote: ... I just see no evidence supporting the claim. ... It posits a designer that must be more complicated than the thing designed. ... About the same probability (given the evidence) that a weightless, invisible, completely undetectable elephant follows you around everywhere you go. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Atlantis found
    ... On 3/12/11 2:36 PM, Ray Martinez wrote: ... More evidence supporting the Genesis Flood. ... a inland city covered by a tsunami doesn't support the Genesis flood stories. ... Nor, does it coincide with where European eels go to spawn, which you earlier claimed was evidence of Atlantis. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sarah Palin - hot or not?
    ... But I don't deny the possibility. ... I just see no evidence supporting the claim. ... It posits a designer that must be more ...
    (sci.electronics.design)