Forget Global Climate warmig, we're gonna freeze!

[Michael Hardner]

The poster did in this thread.

That was "huh" I think - the name of the poster was "huh"....

Read his post again, he was quoting the pro-AGW folks.

[TimG]

Read his post again, he was quoting the pro-AGW folks.

I see no quotes. There were his words intended to mean what he/she thinks it means. If this poster is like most other sceptics then the use of that phrase refers to the bait and switch rather that words themselves.

[Michael Hardner]

I see no quotes. There were his words intended to mean what he/she thinks it means. If this poster is like most other sceptics then the use of that phrase refers to the bait and switch rather that words themselves.

Ok, then that's what it was - but nobody said that here... so it's a bit of a bogeyman...

And I still don't buy the bait and switch idea. Furthermore, it's misnamed: If people think there's enough of a threat, and they're sure enough of the reasons the science doesn't have to be settled to respond....

[waldo]

It comes down to trust. The scientific establishment has repeatably shown that it cannot be trusted to be a fair and neutral party in this field which means all claims made by scientists in this field must be presumed to be biased.

again, as you've been challenged before, your McIntyre fueled obsession, at best, includes a relative handful of scientists with presumed transgressions. Even if you accepted each and every most egregious claim made against this handful of scientists... handful of scientists... your self-serving ideological driven bent isn't satisfied unless you paint/tarnish all scientists. So, of course, your completely logical decision is to, wait for it, claim all scientists are biased!

[TimG]

Furthermore, it's misnamed: If people think there's enough of a threat, and they're sure enough of the reasons the science doesn't have to be settled to respond.

If that is what they think then they should say it. But if they attempt to downplay the uncertainty by using some variation of the 'science is settled' meme then they are engaging in a bait and switch.

[Michael Hardner]

If that is what they think then they should say it. But if they attempt to downplay the uncertainty by using some variation of the 'science is settled' meme then they are engaging in a bait and switch.

We don't need to label the "science is settled" idea as a bait-and-switch. If they really believe that, then of course they believe that anything should and can be done to respond. We can just agree, as Waldo stated, that the science isn't settled and move on.

[waldo]

Ok, then that's what it was - but nobody said that here... so it's a bit of a bogeyman...

of course it is! TimG, as is his way, chomped down on the mere mentioning of the phrase by MLW member 'huh' (regardless of context), and decided to run around in a frenzy. He spiced it up my grabbing onto his personal boogeyman, Al Gore. And, of course, he went for the trifecta by trying to get me to bite by challenging me to prove the distinction of my personal views from those of Gore. Since I refused to play along with TimG's mindless pursuit, he doubled-down with his "bait & switch" idiocy!

[TimG]

We don't need to label the "science is settled" idea as a bait-and-switch.

We do because it often used by alarmists in an attempt to get people to believe things which are not true (e.g. the science is settled on all aspects of the climate question). If someone wants to argue that they want action despite the uncertainties then can argue that.

How many times has the 97% of scientists quote been raised on this forum? This is yet another example of the 'settled science' bait and switch. I will stop using the term bait and switch when alarmists stop using the technique to deceive people.

[waldo]

We do because it often used by alarmists in an attempt to get people to believe things which are not true (e.g. the science is settled on all aspects of the climate question). If someone wants to argue that they want action despite the uncertainties then can argue that.

I challenged you to state which scientists claim "the science is settled"... still waiting.

here, read it again... slowly!

the "science is settled" meme is one regularly trotted out by fake skeptics. Legitimate skeptics realize that proponents of AGW/CC do not recognize science as ever being settled. However, this 'unsettled science' does not negate confidence levels and probabilities of known/recognized understandings within science, nor does it detract from certain aspects of science that are known with near 100% certainty.

[bleeding heart]

Wow, what a crappy article....

Why talk about bogeymen in an article about science ? Really, this is beneath the NP.

Beneath the NP?

Less than zero, huh?

[bleeding heart]

Anyone who believes we caused the earth to warm has to be pretty arrogant.

Human beings have perfomed a billion stunning accomplishments, good and bad, many of them including large-scale alterations of the earth itself.

That's not arrogance.

Edited March 25, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

It's probably a good thing that Global Warming deniers don't think they have anything to prove to you or anyone

Since they have been unable to even carry out a cogent argument, it's a bloody good thing they feel they don't have anything to prove.

That is, their lack of ambition on this matter has been highly successful, rather like I've been really successful at not playing for the NHL...never having attempted it.

[GostHacked]

The science is also 'settled', according to those who are fake proponents of AGW. Gotta out-shout the non-believers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

[bleeding heart]

The science is also 'settled', according to those who are fake proponents of AGW. Gotta out-shout the non-believers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

But the donkey is refusing to listen to a 100% verfiable fact.

So since it's your analogy, are you saying that the denier crowd is objectively, verifiably correct?

Because then you are arguing that "the science is settled." By definition.

[Michael Hardner]

The science is also 'settled', according to those who are fake proponents of AGW. Gotta out-shout the non-believers.

We're already talked about why the "science is settled" is a red herring. The science will never be settled, we know that - but there is a better than strong consensus as to the major causes of what is happening.

[TimG]

We're already talked about why the "science is settled" is a red herring. The science will never be settled, we know that - but there is a better than strong consensus as to the major causes of what is happening.

Michael, if you want to talk to people with skeptical outlook you have to accept that they use phrases like the "science is settled" to reference the bait and switch technique used by alarmists. Claiming the it is a "red herring" makes you come across as a committed alarmist rather than the neutral party that you wish to be.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, if you want to talk to people with skeptical outlook you have to accept that they use phrases like the "science is settled" to reference the bait and switch technique used by alarmists. Claiming the it is a "red herring" makes you come across as a committed alarmist rather than the neutral party that you wish to be.

That's your characterization... I don't take that to be the name of a technique, but a reference to some claim or other.

[TimG]

That's your characterization... I don't take that to be the name of a technique, but a reference to some claim or other.

You are the one who choose to criticize with GostHacked for using the term the "science is settled" by dimissing it as a red herring. If you are going to criticize with people for using words you better make sure you understand what they mean by the words they use. When skeptics talk about "settled science" they are talking about the tendency of alarmists to use a few things that are settled to argue that everything is settled. I call it the 'bait and switch' because the term accurately conveys the dishonesty inherent in the alarmist arguments. If alarmists wanted to be honest they would acknowledge that the key scientific questions are unanswered (possibly unanswerable) but they feel that the hypothetical risk is large enough to justify action. Edited March 26, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You are the one who choose to criticize with GostHacked for using the term the "science is settled" by dimissing it as a red herring. If you are going to criticize with people for using words you better make sure you understand what they mean by the words they use.

I'm sorry - do you decide what these words mean more than I do ? If "the science is settled" refers to a tactic, then one should refer to it as the "science is settled tactic" or somesuch so that it's clear - or call it 'bait and switch' or something like that. I don't buy your definition here.

[TimG]

I'm sorry - do you decide what these words mean more than I do?

The person that wrote the words decides what they were intended to mean. I am only guessing. If GostHacked comes back and disagrees with my guess then I apologize. That said, I agree that more precision in meaning is needed on both sides - i.e. I agree that a term such as "science is settled tactic" is more appropriate.

IN any case, you were aware of the of potential confusions created by these words because of previous discussions in this thread. I kind of expected you to acknowledge this rather than carrying on as if the discussion never happened.

[Michael Hardner]

The person that wrote the words decides what they were intended to mean. I am only guessing.

Correct. He wrote them and I read them. Communication. Not sure where you come into the picture, though.

If GostHacked comes back and disagrees with my guess then I apologize. That said, I agree that more precision in meaning is needed on both sides - i.e. I agree that a term such as "science is settled tactic" is more appropriate.

Even if he did mean that, it's not expected that I would pick up on what it means, or it shouldn't be expected. If I call the Maple Leafs the Maple Laffs, you might be expected to understand what I mean. Less so if I call them the Mopey Loafs, the Muppet Loaves, the Mppph Lpafhs, or the Montreal Canadians. Communication is a two way street.

If this is a commonly used term, though, let me know and I'll colour myself informed.

IN any case, you were aware of the of potential confusions created by these words because of previous discussions in this thread. I kind of expected you to acknowledge this rather than carrying on as if the discussion never happened.

I do remember that, now that you mention it. Forgive me if the term didn't stick...

[GostHacked]

But the donkey is refusing to listen to a 100% verfiable fact.

So since it's your analogy, are you saying that the denier crowd is objectively, verifiably correct?

Because then you are arguing that "the science is settled." By definition.

The denier crowd is not verifiably correct as is the proponent crowd of AGW. Atmospheric science is quite complex. Pick up any decent meteorology book and you will quickly find out for yourself how complex it is. That's not to say that something is not happening, but blaming it soley on humans with the specifity of CO2 as the driving factor seems misguided to me.

We had something a couple years back, where warming was happening on a few other planets in our solar system as well, at the same time. The only logical conclusion to that , would be that big fireball in the sky.

Another thing they are going to get you on is the weather of the past couple years. Early last year, there was a major magnetic pole shift. So much shift that some air ports had to adjust the runway numbers because planes depend on GPS for navigation. Since the magnetic structure of the earth changed a lot more than usuall, the magnetic poles are always moving, last time it was quite significant. The magnetosphere has a huge impact on our weather. Without the magnetosphere, we would not be protected against the sun's solar flares, or any cosmic radiation in general.

The shift was large, and when the magnetosphere moves, you will have weather patterns change. It's been snowing in places that never ever get snow, and warm weather when it should be really cold. It seems to have a big effect on the jet streams, altering their course around the planet. The axis of Earth I suspect, may have changed slightly as well. Even large earth quakes have an effect on the rotational speed of the planet.

There are a lot of other possible factors that could contribute to this 'climate change'. Some not even entertained by the AWG supporters. Like I said to Waldo before, about deliberate and constant weather modification by humans. We have been experimenting with weather modification in one way or another for over 150 years. This is one thing the US military is heavily interested in. Control the weather, control the battlefield. If the military is interested in it, you can bet there is a lot of money involved to test the capability of this new type of 'weapon system'. If you can use the weather againts your enemy to create havoc, you'll never have to fire a shot, and since people don't think this happens, ... plausible deniability.

[Michael Hardner]

We had something a couple years back, where warming was happening on a few other planets in our solar system as well, at the same time. The only logical conclusion to that , would be that big fireball in the sky.

Also, it was never proven... it was a suggestion.

There are a lot of other possible factors that could contribute to this 'climate change'. Some not even entertained by the AWG supporters. Like I said to Waldo before, about deliberate and constant weather modification by humans.

They understand pretty well how CO2 traps in heat. There is more and more CO2... and you're looking to secret government experiments as the cause ?

[waldo]

Atmospheric science is quite complex. Pick up any decent meteorology book and you will quickly find out for yourself how complex it is. That's not to say that something is not happening, but blaming it soley on humans with the specifity of CO2 as the driving factor seems misguided to me.

even though you are continually reminded, let me again state that causal ties are not limiting solely to anthropogenic sourced CO2... it is most certainly the principal causal link, but it is not claimed to be, as you state, the "sole" cause.

We had something a couple years back, where warming was happening on a few other planets in our solar system as well, at the same time. The only logical conclusion to that , would be that big fireball in the sky.

a ridiculous statement that has no bearing on earth's condition. It is idiocy to make statements about earth's relatively recent warming, based on conditions found on, say... Venus.

Another thing they are going to get you on is the weather of the past couple years. Early last year, there was a major magnetic pole shift. So much shift that some air ports had to adjust the runway numbers because planes depend on GPS for navigation. Since the magnetic structure of the earth changed a lot more than usuall, the magnetic poles are always moving, last time it was quite significant. The magnetosphere has a huge impact on our weather. Without the magnetosphere, we would not be protected against the sun's solar flares, or any cosmic radiation in general.

The shift was large, and when the magnetosphere moves, you will have weather patterns change. It's been snowing in places that never ever get snow, and warm weather when it should be really cold. It seems to have a big effect on the jet streams, altering their course around the planet. The axis of Earth I suspect, may have changed slightly as well. Even large earth quakes have an effect on the rotational speed of the planet.

and this is simply a nothing statement without applied attachments... you could provide relevant reference by showing examples of how extreme weather events are being improperly attributed to increased warming... over and above say... your emphasis on "shifting magnetic poles".

There are a lot of other possible factors that could contribute to this 'climate change'. Some not even entertained by the AWG supporters. Like I said to Waldo before, about deliberate and constant weather modification by humans. We have been experimenting with weather modification in one way or another for over 150 years. This is one thing the US military is heavily interested in. Control the weather, control the battlefield. If the military is interested in it, you can bet there is a lot of money involved to test the capability of this new type of 'weapon system'. If you can use the weather againts your enemy to create havoc, you'll never have to fire a shot, and since people don't think this happens, ... plausible deniability.

this conspiracy theme doesn't stand up too well when countered with known military statements/programs on the effect of climate change to security, military operations, etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

...a ridiculous statement that has no bearing on earth's condition. It is idiocy to make statements about earth's relatively recent warming, based on conditions found on, say... Venus.

Oh really? Let's just see what your American NASA hero had to say:

The top-rated climate scientist in the world, James Hansen from NASA stated, “If we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the run-away greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus Syndrome is a dead certainty.”