Comments on: The scientific truth about climate change
Add a Comment
- Do AGW deniers see the irony in calling those who support AGW theory religious?
It seems like DENIERS feel they have a strong case in calling those who support the theory behind AGW religious.
Yet AGW deniers, on a daily basis, deny the fundamental scientific principles that support AGW theory. They seem to base this denial off of mismatched, unsupported hyperbole and conjecture from typical right-wind pundits and politicians. While they are often able to find support for their beliefs in the myriad blogs and websites, there is rarely ever any sound scientific basis for their claims.
Religion can be defined as:
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
Based on this definition, I can see it easy for those who disagree with AGW *policy* to argue that those who support it are religious in nature, yet I can't help but notice an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting one side and not the other. Wouldn't logic dictate that "faith" be required to believe the more poorly supported viewpoint?
So do you think that maybe deniers should reconsider the magnitude of their "faith" in denying science? - Reply to this comment
- Who exactly is science-denier Steven Goddard?
One of our favorite multi-aliased and truth-challenged posters, Napoleon Snowball Rich One Big Brother, has cited his website at least a half-dozen times in "answers" of his during recent months. SG's name also cames up regularly on anthony watts' WUWT contrarian BLOG, but nobody seems to know anything about him, or whether or not he even exists! - Reply to this comment
- LOSERVILLE says: "http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com"
Who is steven goddard other than anthony watts' alter ego and pen name?
Google the bozo! - Reply to this comment
- by louiville223 November 12, 2012 3:40 PM EST
Well 150 years ago they had more skin cancer per capita ...
=====================================================
Duh, because more people worked outside. - Reply to this comment
- troutfishman says: hey loserville,
"As I have challenged you many times before, find any reputable scientific organization or govt agency that supports your denial viewpoint, and we will have something to talk about."
Or give us anthony watts' credentials in CLIMATE SCIENCE or exactly who his alter ego and pen name of steven goddard is, and his credentials.
Your silence is answer enough. - Reply to this comment
- LOSERVILLE says: "Other scientists gave senators the same grim picture of the United States.....2 million yearly cases of skin cancer."
Yeah, bubba.....they sure were off on that prediction too! LOL!
How many people get skin cancer?
Skin cancer is the most common of all cancers. It accounts for nearly half of all cancers in the United States. More than 2 million cases of basal and squamous cell skin cancer are found in this country each year.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/sunanduvexposure/skin-cancer-facts
Now that we debunked yet another loserville LIE.......NEXT! - Reply to this comment
- LOSERVILLE says: "The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today - which is what we expect later this century - sea levels were 25m higher. -- Jim Hansen, February, 2006
Actually, 3 degrees Celsius is a huge difference from today's temperatures, and predictions like that for the end of this century, might not be that far off from what we've already seen in the first decade of the century!
All the scientists interviewed for this article, including the two skeptics, were definitely worried about the future, after seeing the huge changes already this century, as CO2 steadily increases, sea level steadily increases, and the Earth's tropical zone increases.
But then, we have LOSERVILLE and his contrarian BLOGS by weathermen and their alter egos, and mathematicians -- none of which studied climatology in their lifetimes! LOL! - Reply to this comment
- louiville223 November 12, 2012 2:53 PM EST
You mean find one that doesn't know which side it's bread is buttered on and/or doesn't directly get billions for it's members by promoting a fraud???
=====================================================
Ah, I see. So you worldview is that all scientific organizations and govt agencies are so dishonest that they support AGW just to get funding????
That is kinda silly, when you consider that the fossil fuel industry has literally billions and billions of surplus dollars to POUR into some lucky institution that will support a denial position. Yet for some reason that does not happen.
But of course, this is far too logical for you to understand. - Reply to this comment
- LOSERVILLE says: "the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming.."
LOL! the KING of the "cherry-picking" DENIERS says what??????
Also, quite funny you should use anything from a Canadian mathematician and semi-retired mining consultant who runs another contrarian BLOG, instead of using REAL CLIMATOLOGISTS that know the science!
First of all, it should be made clear that McIntyre's FOI/EIR requests on the subject of Yamal are not for raw data, nor for the code or analysis methodology behind a published result, but for an analysis of publicly available data that has not been completed and has not yet been published. To be clear, these requests are for unpublished work.
Worse, McIntyre has claimed in his appeal that the length of time since the Briffa et al (2008) paper implies that the regional Yamal reconstruction has been suppressed for nefarious motives. But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU's lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases. This is actually quite funny.
McIntyre is of course free to do any analysis he wants, but he has no right to demand that other people do work for him under fear of highly public false accusations of dishonesty. We can nonetheless look forward to more of these episodes, mainly because they serve their purpose so well. - Reply to this comment
- Louis MUST be a Republicon because they have their story and they are sticking to it. Even when there is some sign of intelligent life or some ideas that they might accept some actual fact, they revert to their story. It's hopeless to argue or debate someone like that.
- Reply to this comment
