Climate Change (1 Viewer)

[pman]

Sources : can't rember the guys name but he's doing antarctic research with ansto + has phd

 

[Kwayera]

Sources : can't rember the guys name but he's doing antarctic research with ansto + has phd

That's helpful

 

[pman]

soz, but i only talked to him for ten minutes whilst i was there on tuesday, you cancheck that bit if you like, cazbah phys classes went to ansto on tuesday.

 

[Kwayera]

soz, but i only talked to him for ten minutes whilst i was there on tuesday, you cancheck that bit if you like, cazbah phys classes went to ansto on tuesday.

That's kind of your job, isn't it? Back up your own statements with more than "oh this guy I know told me."

Peer-reviewed journal piece would be nice. Go find, or retract your statement.

 

[pman]

Will try

 

[pman]

ANSTO | Fink, David

this is the guy

 

[Kwayera]

Okay, great, so cite your source. Name ain't enough, dude, it's like me telling you "Oh PZ Myers said to me that evolution is a lie". Published data?

 

[pman]

Still searching

 

[Uncle]

hey hey hey

eye am a skeptic

jsut because u can find correlation between factory pollutants and other factors you grpah and plot
(coefficient of determination r² almost equal to 1) doesnt mean ITS THE TURTH.

ther e is degree of uncertanty.

like the quamtum physics one where u not know exact momentum and position at same time.

or whether i should punch that cunt 4 stealin my propty

 

[pman]

Ok, I've missintepreted what he said, read this article tho
Antarctic ice and rocks

 

[Planck]

Ok, I've missintepreted what he said, read this article tho
Antarctic ice and rocks

You've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand how a scientific discussion works.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

hey hey hey

eye am a skeptic

jsut because u can find correlation between factory pollutants and other factors you grpah and plot
(coefficient of determination r² almost equal to 1) doesnt mean ITS THE TURTH.

ther e is degree of uncertanty.

like the quamtum physics one where u not know exact momentum and position at same time.

or whether i should punch that cunt 4 stealin my propty

I agree with this sentiment

 

[ComingUpForAir]

That's the whole point. He's not trying to dictate policy. That's not the point of the site - it's to defuse common arguments by climate change skeptics.


As Planck said, it's for laypersons, because people like you refuse to actually read the papers involved. You also refuse to read the full IPCC documents on the matter.

Haha..
None of us here are in a position to judge whether 'the science' is adequate, and reading IPCC reports would establish nothing because none could comprehend the crucial information....thus, as laypersons, all we can do is accept the academic consensus,
If you actually read whats on the website..the guy goes alot further than appealing to this consensus, as if he actually understands the nuanced complexities of climate change.
He only provides suffiient grounds to 'defuse' the most intellectually unsophisticated skeptic, i.e the one who flat out denies the climate is changing (for whatever reasons), he barely makes an effort to differentiate, let alone combat, the more refined skeptics who demand tangible evidence for the claim 'humankind in causing dangerous climate change, and the optimal policy is to cut carbon emmisons'.
This logical faux pas is regretable, but understandable, givin its obvious the site is more interested in promoting it's 'green' baby clothes and such.
Kwayera, I have to same views regarding climate change as you..but you, nor I, nor this guy, are in any better position to judge the merits of human induced climate change than 'skeptics', all we can do is adopt the current scientific consensus on faith (and hope the actual theorists do the opposite)

 

[Kwayera]

Haha..
None of us here are in a position to judge whether 'the science' is adequate, and reading IPCC reports would establish nothing because none could comprehend the crucial information....thus, as laypersons, all we can do is accept the academic consensus,

Speak for yourself.

If you actually read whats on the website..the guy goes alot further than appealing to this consensus, as if he actually understands the nuanced complexities of climate change.
He only provides suffiient grounds to 'defuse' the most intellectually unsophisticated skeptic, i.e the one who flat out denies the climate is changing (for whatever reasons), he barely makes an effort to differentiate, let alone combat, the more refined skeptics who demand tangible evidence for the claim 'humankind in causing dangerous climate change, and the optimal policy is to cut carbon emmisons'.

Which is the point of the site.

This logical faux pas is regretable, but understandable, givin its obvious the site is more interested in promoting it's 'green' baby clothes and such.

It's an independent article on a site. I could have posted the Scienceblogs link to, but preferred this one. Don't judge independent content by where it's hosted.

Kwayera, I have to same views regarding climate change as you..but you, nor I, nor this guy, are in any better position to judge the merits of human induced climate change than 'skeptics', all we can do is adopt the current scientific consensus on faith (and hope the actual theorists do the opposite)

Sure we are. And I certainly don't adopt the scientific consensus "on faith". Hence, speak for yourself.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

well then you have to submit tangible evidence (i.e not modeling) that supports the statement "human induced carbon dioxide emissions are not just correlated, but directly causing dangerous temperature increases" without appealing to any scientific/academic consensus/reports.

 

[Kwayera]

well then you have to submit tangible evidence (i.e not modeling) that supports the statement "human induced carbon dioxide emissions are not just correlated, but directly causing dangerous temperature increases" without appealing to any scientific/academic consensus/reports.

Yeah because that wouldn't be pulling something out of my arse now wouldn't it?

You're confabulating ability to understand the science involved, and actually doing it yourself.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

wow I didnt expect such a blantant evasion..but yea..thanks for just proving my point..
so much for 'speak for urself'
btw do u know what confabulating means..? because ur sentence makes no sense what so ever.

 

[hectic_lowie]

omg i fink dat ur all stupid if u fink dat global warming isnt happening coz it iz and if u dnt fink it iz then u must h8 the enviroenmant or sumfink

 

[Kwayera]

wow I didnt expect such a blantant evasion..but yea..thanks for just proving my point..
so much for 'speak for urself'

Your point was that "show me some science you have done proving anthropogenic climate change", (which is the only way I'd be able to do it "without appealing to any scientific/academic consensus/reports") which obviously I can't do as I am not a climate scientist. However, that does not preclude me from reading and understanding what other scientists have done, which I am perfectly equipped to do.

So unless I misunderstood you because you haven't bothered to explain yourself properly, you've done me a disservice by setting a Herculean task.

 

[Cookie182]

Is it not the same far-right conservative energy-hungry nutjobs who spit in the face of GW evidence who also blatantly deny the evidence for evolution?

Seriously...I never imagined that the world would split into those who rationally accept the life-work of the majority of peer-reviewed, evidenced based scientists or those who just go...hmm I DON"T BELIEVE it nur-nur

If i ever could advocate capital punishment...