Re: More evidence doesn't change minds

On Jul 13, 8:13 pm, Natsman <correz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13 July, 20:49, Natsman <correz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 13 July, 20:33, Natsman <correz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 13 July, 20:17, Dawlish <pjg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 13, 3:48 pm, Natsman <correz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 13 July, 15:52, Alastair <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This article in the latest issue of "Planet Earth" explains what I had
already found out.  There is no point in arguing with global warming
sceptics because they just ignore the facts.http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=472

Cheers, Alastair.

On the contrary, it's the facts which drive the sceptics (or
"deniers").  If the facts were not there, there'd be no argument - the
IPCC and Mr. Gore would have the stage to themselves.  It is THEY that
conveniently (or mischievously) ignore the facts, for reasons best
known to themselves, and then quietly backpedal.  How dare we question
them?  Are we heretics?  Probably. Will we be burned at the stake?  I
hope not, but it is we who in the long run, will be proved correct as
the world ruminates from it's smoke filled hovel during the coming
cooling the wisdom of ceasing electricity generation from the
plentiful fuels we are no longer allowed to extract.

CK

Oh dear. The study said........"The public can be grouped into four
main categories - Engaging, Uninterested, Doubting and Denying -
according to the importance assigned to climate change and their
belief in the role attributed to humans. "

For people like you there probably needs to be a 5th category.
Fortunately for us all, it is a very small category, with very few
people in it. I'll leave it up to others to name it!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And Dawlish, it appears that you, like others of your ilk, can only
resort to personal insult towards anyone who has the temerity to take
a different stance from that of your own.  Give it a rest, it's
childish and it's not clever, but it does rather indicate how
intolerant you are of the opinion of others.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And whilst I'm at it, there's an interesting discussion going on in
the Daily Telegraph, which holds views from both camps, and I don't
appear to be alone...
... not by a long chalk, in either my opinions on AGW, or the fact
that the warmists can't abide contesting views on the subject.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/58048...

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The credibility of evidence NEEDS to be questioned, thats why there's
an adversarial justice system in most civilised countries.  Any Tom,
Dick or Harry can put forward "evidence" but it needs to be tested in
order to ascertain its veracity.  If everyone blindly accepted
everything they were told, despite there being glaring pointers to the
opposite case, we'd descend into chaos.

I say again, my opinions are based on personal experience, but also
largely on the facts presented to me.  The "warmists" have presented a
case which has been proved to be flawed by many observers, whilst
those same observers have put forward there own ideas, backed up with
a more believable set of scenarios, but with enough grace to admit
that no-one REALLY knows and that they are aware that further
investigation is required.  The warmists have lied, and been caught
out, hence the later modifications to the IPCCs original report, (for
example, expunging of the fictional "Hockey Stick"  graph), they have
ignored historical events like the Mediaeval Warming AND the Little
Ice Age, not to mention countless other criteria which are far more
responsible for the changing climate than humanity, they ignored the
Vostok Ice cores (which rather suggest that carbon dioxide increase
was driven by temperature, and not the other way round), and they
ignored submarine volcanicity.  They lied.  You call THAT evidence?
How can any sensible observer do anything BUT suspect a conspiracy.

And you can hardly compare this to moon landings, any more than you
can the flat earth brigade.  There is no comparison.  How many times
in history has the end of the world been predicted, including the
warmists alarmist scenario of runaway temperatures and rising sea
levels?  It hasn't happened yet, and when it does it's far more likely
to be as a result of geological or astronomical catastrophe than
anything we puny humans can throw at it.  And anyway, warming is good,
not bad.

I have an open mind, but so far you have failed to prove to me that
your theories are correct, and that mine are in error.  You just
resort to name calling, and pigeon-holing.  On balance, I've seen
little scientific evidence form you which can't be disputed by those
who believe AGW is a myth, and a lot of hot air and deceit from the
IPCC whch doesn't bear weight.  We shall see.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whatever, really, because of your comment that; "we WILL be proved
right". That is not a characteristic of open minded people. That is a
characteristic of the completely certain and anyone else must be wrong
brigade. You've fulfilled all the criteria for a new category 5, as
people like you will always be contrary, whatever the evidence. There
is such scope to be contrary with GW too, as the science is not proven
- there you are completely correct, but there is no scope for saying
that GW WILL not continue and you WILL be proved right. That's
senseless and that's why I'd always take arms against people like you.
Col's analogies to religious believers are spot on and you validate
them with every post you've made in this thread. .

Provide an argument rather than a whole load of rhetoric. Start with
how the present state of the Antarctic ice is showing that GW has
stopped - dear Lawrence is in desperate need of some help there,
having introduced the topic and then run away - but please come up
with something better than submarine volcanoes, the Vostock bloody ice
cores and moon landings! In addition, please don't call the many
hundreds of climate scientists who think the world is very likely to
continue to warm, (those scientists who contributed to the last IPCC
report and will do to the next) liars. That doesn't endear anyone to
you except for the minority of people who believe the same as you.
There really aren't "many" of you. There are a few, compared to the
overwhelming amount of people who believe the world is muchh more
likley to continue warming. There's also a very small minority of
scientists subscribe to your minority theories and to whom you
constantly refer to for academic support, but, as you know well, you
are being ignored by anyone in power with any sense. And those people
are absolutely right to do so.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CNN=Always Fair and Balanced
    ... If you want to call that anti-science, ... The feat over frankenfoods is nearly identical to the global warming ... No one is dismissing any evidence with respect to GMO. ... amongst the scientists in the field ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • 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: U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made G
    ... “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. ... It is global warming that triggers ... Professor at the Department of Physics at ... “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: More evidence doesnt change minds
    ... IPCC and Mr. Gore would have the stage to themselves. ... that the warmists can't abide contesting views on the subject. ... The credibility of evidence NEEDS to be questioned, ... ignored historical events like the Mediaeval Warming AND the Little ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
  • Re: Atheists: Americas most distrusted minority
    ... Krugman mentioned becomes "Ice Age Imminent, Scientists Say." ... reverse or mitigate against warming, ... I've never seen any evidence of that last. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)