Scientists Challenge UN and Gore

[Michael Hardner]

No need, but you know when it's cold it's not warm, no matter who says it is.

It also helps if you grow some produce. You can't fool vegetation as easily as you can fool people who spend more time watching TV than they do watching nature. The vegetation doesn't listen to Al Gore or David Kawasaki.

bloodyminded, I don't think Saipan is being serious here in suggesting that casual observation is better than rigorous collection of data.

[wyly]

bloodyminded, I don't think Saipan is being serious here in suggesting that casual observation is better than rigorous collection of data.

I disagree you're giving him way too much credit, I've seen a enough of his posts to believe he means exactly what he posts... Edited December 17, 2010 by wyly

[bloodyminded]

No need, but you know when it's cold it's not warm, no matter who says it is.

It also helps if you grow some produce. You can't fool vegetation as easily as you can fool people who spend more time watching TV than they do watching nature. The vegetation doesn't listen to Al Gore or David Kawasaki.

No, the vegetation loyally watches FOX news and reads Mark Steyn.

[bloodyminded]

bloodyminded, I don't think Saipan is being serious here in suggesting that casual observation is better than rigorous collection of data.

In his next response, he goes even further, saying there's "no need" for the intricacies of thermometer reading...a person can simply ascertain that when "it's cold it's not warm."

QED, I guess.

[Saipan]

bloodyminded, I don't think Saipan is being serious here in suggesting that casual observation is better than rigorous collection of data.

Prove it.

[Saipan]

No, the vegetation loyally watches FOX news and reads Mark Steyn.

WOW! How scientific

[Saipan]

I've seen a enough of his posts to believe he means exactly what he posts...

That's right. I even have a photo evidence.

Open for anyone to disprove.

[bloodyminded]

WOW! How scientific

This from the fellow who sniffs smugly that one can navigate the climate change issue personally by discovering whether it's warm or cold outside.

[Shwa]

No, the vegetation loyally watches FOX news and reads Mark Steyn.

ZING! Nothing but net on that three-pointer!

[bloodyminded]

ZING! Nothing but net on that three-pointer!

Why, thank you my good man.

[wyly]

That's right. I even have a photo evidence.

Open for anyone to disprove.

the prosecution rests it's case...

[Michael Hardner]

Prove it.

Are you being serious in asking me to prove it ?

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree you're giving him way too much credit, I've seen a enough of his posts to believe he means exactly what he posts...

If that's so, then really none of us should respond to him maybe. I mean how many times do you really want to have to spike that silly 'ice age' thing ?

[wyly]

If that's so, then really none of us should respond to him maybe. I mean how many times do you really want to have to spike that silly 'ice age' thing ?

very few of us do...and even then only when there is a semi-legitimate question asked or point made, which is rare...

[jbg]

No one can argue that it wouldn't be good if we didn't create any waste at all in our activities.

Of course, we should minimize our "pollution".

The argument is whether or not climate change (previously global warming) is anthropogenic in nature.

Once a U.N. bureaucracy gets hold of an issue they won't let it drop. For obvious reasons.

[Slim]

If that's so, then really none of us should respond to him maybe. I mean how many times do you really want to have to spike that silly 'ice age' thing ?

This is an interesting question. On the one hand, you want intelligent and logical debate, but on the other you don't want to get drawn into the 'feed the troll' syndrome. Sometimes it's tough to draw the line, especially when the person you are discussing the issue with has formed an opinion, regardless of the established facts.

This is sounding really elitist, but bear with me.

I first started wondering about this 'debate vs. trolling' problem when I initially got interested in AGW a few years back. I had brought up climate change with my dad, who I respect, and got his opinion. He definitely falls into the 'denier' camp; he vehemently refuses to believe that there's AGW.

Now he's not an idiot or paid off by the oil lobby (har) but he would rather believe that there's a borderline global conspiracy amongst scientists to push AGW in order to secure easy funding.

So what do you do in this situation? Do you give up on any hope of debate? He's got his opinion, and its not worth the effort to try and change his mind?

[Michael Hardner]

So what do you do in this situation? Do you give up on any hope of debate? He's got his opinion, and its not worth the effort to try and change his mind?

I would try to find out how your dad forms his opinions. If he doesn't trust science, and thinks there's a shadowy conspiracy out there then there's not much you can do to convince him.

I guess he believes that if you show him temperature graphs, he would think that they're fake. If you showed him the raw data that it came from, he would think that it was falsified. If you traveled to Greenland, and took ice samples, showed him how to measure proxies, taught him how to do statistical regression... would he be convinced then ?

But your dad's position, at least, is an 'agree to disagree' type of end to the argument. He believes in a shadowy conspiracy and that's pretty much impossible to disprove.

Some on here restate opinions that are provably wrong, and they restate them again and again. That's a roadblock of a different kind - they refuse to ever concede a point and that`s anti-discussion.

[Wild Bill]

I would try to find out how your dad forms his opinions. If he doesn't trust science, and thinks there's a shadowy conspiracy out there then there's not much you can do to convince him.

I guess he believes that if you show him temperature graphs, he would think that they're fake. If you showed him the raw data that it came from, he would think that it was falsified. If you traveled to Greenland, and took ice samples, showed him how to measure proxies, taught him how to do statistical regression... would he be convinced then ?

But your dad's position, at least, is an 'agree to disagree' type of end to the argument. He believes in a shadowy conspiracy and that's pretty much impossible to disprove.

Some on here restate opinions that are provably wrong, and they restate them again and again. That's a roadblock of a different kind - they refuse to ever concede a point and that`s anti-discussion.

Your argument is coloured by your own biases, Michael. Again, tie seems to go with the GW faith.

It may not be that his dad distrusts science at all! I have a great deal of respect for science. As I've said before, my first book was a science text given to me by my grade 1 teacher who was impressed by my advanced knowledge and interest for my age.

More likely, he distrusts many spokespeople of science! And it is not a "shadowy conspiracy". That is a value judgement, not a scientific one. It implies that anyone who disbelieves must be some kind of a nut. Total ad hominem.

There are a LOT of people who respect science and don't agree with the GW premise, or at least the idea that it is man-made. Some of them are very highly educated and respected people within the scientific field.

There HAS been a lot of evidence manipulation by spokespeople for GW! So there's good reason to be suspicious and any unwillingness to listen is understandable. To be fair, it is ALWAYS scientific to listen but after a while the repetition can wear your ears out!

It's a pity none of us will live long enough to see who's right in this argument.

[Michael Hardner]

Your argument is coloured by your own biases, Michael. Again, tie seems to go with the GW faith.

There's no faith there. There is a system that's set up to find answers to questions and it works across the board. Thinking that a secret conspiracy has undermined it seems to be more an act of faith.

It may not be that his dad distrusts science at all! I have a great deal of respect for science. As I've said before, my first book was a science text given to me by my grade 1 teacher who was impressed by my advanced knowledge and interest for my age.

More likely, he distrusts many spokespeople of science! And it is not a "shadowy conspiracy". That is a value judgement, not a scientific one. It implies that anyone who disbelieves must be some kind of a nut. Total ad hominem.

Distrusting the spokespersons for science makes a little more sense. One should be suspicious of spokespeople.

But - let's be specific here: the science tells us one thing, and the spokespeople say something that is different. You can believe one and not the other.

There are a LOT of people who respect science and don't agree with the GW premise, or at least the idea that it is man-made. Some of them are very highly educated and respected people within the scientific field.

True, but they are a small minority from what I've seen. Climate science is overwhelmingly behind AGW (see Namoi Oreskes' study). If you cast a wider net, including anyone with a background in science, you can find hundreds of doubters, I'm sure. But how many people in the world have backgrounds in science ? Likely millions.

There HAS been a lot of evidence manipulation by spokespeople for GW! So there's good reason to be suspicious and any unwillingness to listen is understandable. To be fair, it is ALWAYS scientific to listen but after a while the repetition can wear your ears out!

I concur that this has happened.

It's a pity none of us will live long enough to see who's right in this argument.

We're already seeing warming now, and people still don't believe it.

NASA says 2010 hootest on record.

Sadly, there are people who won't believe it until the change is so significant that analysis isn't necessary, i.e. winter starts several weeks later, etc.

[waldo]

There HAS been a lot of evidence manipulation by spokespeople for GW! So there's good reason to be suspicious and any unwillingness to listen is understandable. To be fair, it is ALWAYS scientific to listen but after a while the repetition can wear your ears out!

given your emphatic "HAS", it shouldn't be difficult for you to offer several evidence manipulation examples to allow a review of both your examples as well as their sources... equally... if they are genuine, a relative weighting of those examples could be gauged against the overwhelming scientific consensus that supports AGW. Batter up!

[bush_cheney2004]

We're already seeing warming now, and people still don't believe it.

NASA says 2010 hootest on record.

Careful now....NASA'a offical delivery address is only 3 miles from the Pentagon! Why do you believe in NASA?

[Saipan]

Are you being serious in asking me to prove it ?

Not necessarily. You can give up like wyly.

[Saipan]

Sadly, there are people who won't believe it until the change is so significant that analysis isn't necessary, i.e. winter starts several weeks later, etc.

Or earlier, like lately.

Nothing like checking it yourself, traveling to Europe and Asia. Not just in Canada.

[wyly]

Sadly, there are people who won't believe it until the change is so significant that analysis isn't necessary, i.e. winter starts several weeks later, etc.

winter does come later and summer earlier, in moderate climates it isn't that noticable as yet because we have more variation in weather but in the arctic it is more noticable as winter sea ice forms later and melts away sooner than 30 years ago...

[Michael Hardner]

Careful now....NASA'a offical delivery address is only 3 miles from the Pentagon! Why do you believe in NASA?

They landed on the moon didn't they ? Well ?