The Skeptical Environmentalist on Global warming

I dont know why you are all taking time to argue with someone who believes that they're ( dont know who 'they' are) using commercial aircraft to spray toxins over cities...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055194839

I linked to that post in order to show that you believe in some stuff that most people would find far-fetched.

casey212 wrote: »

You are still willing to take their funds?? What does that say for your moral viewpoint

I was being facetious. You implied that scientists are afraid to speak out against their "masters", the government. I'm telling you that is nonsense - I would be amazed if any TD has ever read anything I have written.

casey212 wrote: »

How could you possibly review all papers, don't be ridiculous.

Of course it's ridiculous, but you are the one refuting the man-made global warming theory, when it seems that, based on this statement, that you have not considered all the scientific evidence.

casey212 wrote: »

Referenced to whom.

Whoever produced the work.

casey212 wrote: »

I could write a paper and refernce my dog, whats wrong with that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Now you are being facetious. You can write a paper if you want, but if you're going to reference domesticated animals, or any other animals for that matter, you are unlikely to have it published in a peer-reviewed journal (or any other journal for that matter). You could try the Daily Mail...

Anyway, a scientific paper is far more than an "opinion".

casey212 wrote: »

How do you know? Just because something is widely accepted does not make is correct.

It's quite easy to prove. In fact, you could do it yourself if you have the time.

casey212 wrote: »

There a countless cases of people being ejected from both the medical and scientific community of heresy.

Give me one.

casey212 wrote: »

We know that CO2 acts as an insulator. We know that more CO2 == more insulation

How do you know? Just because something is widely accepted does not make is correct.

I know because of my understanding of science.

Similarly, it is my understanding of mathematics that allows me to know that 1+1 = 2 (and yes, I have gone through the rigorous proof of that apparently simple statement).

It is not because something is widely accepted, no more than it was because someone in a white coat told it to me in an authoritative voice.

The beauty of science is that by its very nature it is falsifiable. If you disagree with an established scientific claim, then it should be trivial to show how it is false.

If you want to establish that CO2 is not, as science says it should be, an insulator, then the onus is on you to show how established scientific theory is incorrect. Alternately, you can abandon science, and make an emotional appeal about who we trust.

Is that what you're asking us to do...abandon science in favour of emotion? Or can you actually show that CO2 is not an insulator?

So does Pollack only stand up for some truth?

Define truth.

It was you who claimed he was standing up for it in the first place. It is not my place to define what you meant.

Are you not even slightly perturbed that the argument you take is 100% in agreement with the stance taken by Big Oil and related industries?

I assume you have solar panels that provide electricity and ride a bicycle.

Very glib...but I notice that you're not answering the question.

Lets not even go into the fact that your portrayal of government being a driving force behind all of this is almost entirely at odds with the actions of (say) the American government, who have spent the last 7 years denying global warming occurs, then accepting it occurs but refusing to accept its man-made (a bit like you). Lets ignore that they've suppressed reports and tried to gag scientists to prevent them publically supporting the theory of human-drive global warming.

You argued that research is ultimately government funded, which makes it fundamentally dodgy. Pollack is "standing up for the truth" you say, and you make hints that people like him could lose his funding because they don't toe the government line.

Of course, this would all be a lot stronger if hte US government actually accepted the scientific consensus regarding global warming, instead of being one of its most outspoken critics. They have suppressed reports which support the idea that human-driven CO2 emissions are responsible. They have attempted to silence scientists from speaking in favour of the idea that human-driven CO2 emissions are responsible.

In the first 4 years of the Bush administration, they refused to accept that it was established that global warming was happening at all. In the second term, they've accepted that its happening, but dispute that its caused by CO2, and equally dispute any suggestion that man-made emissions have caused CO2 levels to rise.

So in effect, you want us to believe that the American government secretly support the very thing that the evidence says they have tried to suppress. Meanwhile, Big OIl, who make the same nature of argument as the current American Administration, should be trusted...apparently because our world is dependant on their products.

Who are the US you refer too.

Those reading your arguments, of which I am one. Hence "us" rather than "me".

There a countless cases of people being ejected from both the medical and scientific community of heresy.

Can you tell us who they were, or establish that their "heresy" was truth as you claim with Pollack?

casey212 wrote: »

You are taking things I have said out of context.

No I have not. You said:

"I can assure you none of my opinions are formulated without extensive research into all areas of the specific topic."

This would imply that you have read, in detail, several scientific papers on the subject. Given that you have dismissed man-made global warming as a hoax, then, as bonkey says, you should have no trouble picking holes in the data presented in said papers.

casey212 wrote: »

All information used must be independent......

....... told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton(New Zealand) this week.

You're funny

casey212 wrote: »

You are running around in circles here, arguing a point created by yourself. Where have I mentioned the number of papers I have researched??

So you have not considered any scientific papers in your "extensive research"?

casey212 wrote: »

Your understanding of science??

Do you have a problem with that idea?

What research have you personally conducted into this matter, where do you get your facts/figures. All information used must be independent.

And once again, casey212 attacks science by abandoning the scientific method.

You are taking the stance that science is wrong. You have offered no reason, other than an appeal to distrust. You have, interestingly, offered no reason why you should be trusted.

You have certainly offered no reason why science is wrong. YOu insist that it is, question why we should trust it, but cannot offer a single scientific explanation to back up your theory.

I have no intention of going into detail regarding my scientific knowledge when your very question makes it clear that you are dealing with this on a scientific level.

"Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton(New Zealand) this week. Man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn’t change the climate if we tried, he maintained. “We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years,” he said. A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it"

I note that this opinion supports the notion of greenhouse gases. What do you think they may be, given that dismiss the very idea that CO2 plays such a role?

I'm getting a headache.

fits wrote: »

I'm getting a headache.

I agree. This guy is a dingbat. It's like arguing with a drunk. What's the point?

casey212 wrote: »

You refer to science yet you cannot provide your own independent source, or any other for that matter.

Can you clear up where the disagreement is here.

Do you :

a) disagree that science even claims that CO2 is an insulator,
b) agree that science claims CO2 is an insulator, but disagree with science, because you believe CO2 is not an insulator.

If its the former, I'll be more than happy to supply you with references to improve your scientific knowledge.

If its the latter, then we both agree that science makes the claim that CO2 acts as an insulator. What we disagree on is whether or not that estabilshed scientific theory is correct in this regard. In this case, I need supply no reference until you offer a credible, scientific challenge to the established theory....unless you believe we should abandon the scientific method when dealing with scientific issues.

casey212 wrote: »

You people are indoctrinated and house trained.

look in the mirror honey