Hands in the cookie jar about to get slapped

[pErvinalia]

What was the explanation then, and why do you think it was wrong?

I mentioned one of my objrctions here: "In particular I am not convinced that the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere causes global warming. The ice core taken in the Antarctic indicates that warming precedes that increase by 700 to 900 years. A few years ago Macdoc tried to tell me that CO2 is a cause in so far as it has an amplifying effect on warming. It did not convince me because this claim is a scientifically untestable ad hoc modification of the original thesis that CO2 causes warming."

Huh?!? I was talking about my explanation to Seth as to why what you said is bullshit. You said you "weren't not convinced by the explanation". You are just wriggling around now.

I'll tell you now why your point about there being greater magnitude climate changes in the past being one reason to be less concerned about current changes, is idiotic. The important point isn't so much the magnitude, but the RATE of change. The current rate of change far outpaces anything in the past, and it's the rate of change that will mean natural systems will struggle to both physically and genetically adapt in time. And if we consider the magnitude of change itself, then the comparison is idiotic in terms of human technology, as in the geological past there were no roads, railways, electric (and otherwise) motors, etc to fail under the higher temperatures.

[Hermit]

Oh. Another one of your dummyspits, Macdoc. Your reaction is as predictable as rEv's regular outbursts and insults.

The claim that rising CO2 levels are generated by the warming phases of the Milankovitch cycles and then forced by human activity to amplify global warming is not testable.

This does not mean that we ought to be allowed to plunder the earth's unrenewable resources at will and pollute it to our heart's content.

[PsychoSerenity]

The claim that rising CO2 levels are generated by the warming phases of the Milankovitch cycles and then forced by human activity to amplify global warming is not testable.

In what way is it not testable? It's the mechanism which most accurately fits all the data. If we discover a whole load of new data that entirely undermines anthropogenic global warming i.e. being entirely contradictory to the concept rather than simply giving us reason to refine it, then the theory would be overthrown and we'd be looking for a new mechanism which more accurately fits all the data. But after decades of research by thousands of scientists collecting endless terabytes of new data, we are just building a more and more accurate understanding of the climate which is all still pointing to the fact that we are changing it.

[Hermit]

The claim that rising CO2 levels are generated by the warming phases of the Milankovitch cycles and then forced by human activity to amplify global warming is not testable.

In what way is it not testable?

Actually, I am wrong there. It is testable, at least in an indirect way. If evidence of, say, the Vostok or EPICA ice cores - or from anywhere else for that matter - reveals that the speed of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since the advent of the industrial revolution is unprecedented and if the speed of global warming in that period is likewise, I will not hesitate to acknowledge that human activity is a significant factor in global warming. At this stage I have yet to encounter such evidence.

[mistermack]

Ah. So no evidence. Gotcha.

The evidence that I mentioned is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Maybe you need a bit of help with it.

[pErvinalia]

Ah. So no evidence. Gotcha.

The evidence that I mentioned is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

You just scraped in!

[Animavore]

Ah. So no evidence. Gotcha.

The evidence that I mentioned is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Maybe you need a bit of help with it.

You didn't provide evidence. You provided a conspiracy theory scenario. A scenario which has another explanation anyway. That climate scientists get justifiably angry with denialist nit-wits poisoning the well with a campaign of lies and misinformation, one which looks remarkably similar to the ones exercised by the intelligent designa dn creationist crowd.

I'm not saying that is what's happening, I'm saying that fits your scenario just as much as the reason "skeptics" are shot down is because they don't tow the line, which is why you need to provide evidence to support your scenario. Otherwise it just sounds like butt-hurt that the evidence isn't going the denialist's way.

[Animavore]

This amused me today.

[mistermack]

Ah. So no evidence. Gotcha.

The evidence that I mentioned is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Maybe you need a bit of help with it.

You didn't provide evidence. You provided a conspiracy theory scenario. A scenario which has another explanation anyway. That climate scientists get justifiably angry with denialist nit-wits poisoning the well with a campaign of lies and misinformation, one which looks remarkably similar to the ones exercised by the intelligent designa dn creationist crowd.

I'm not saying that is what's happening, I'm saying that fits your scenario just as much as the reason "skeptics" are shot down is because they don't tow the line, which is why you need to provide evidence to support your scenario. Otherwise it just sounds like butt-hurt that the evidence isn't going the denialist's way.

Surely this thread is about the very fact that the ''evidence'' is collected by the faithful, charted by the faithful and interpreted by the faithful.
Notwithstanding all that, the evidence still says that the warming stopped, nearly twenty years ago.
In spite of all that, the science produces virtually no dissenting voices.
As far as I'm concerned, that's clear evidence that the science is populated by people who only want to know one side of the story.
And I've pointed out clear reasons why that should be.

You're welcome to disagree, but you can't make those facts go away.

[pErvinalia]

Ah. So no evidence. Gotcha.

The evidence that I mentioned is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Maybe you need a bit of help with it.

You didn't provide evidence. You provided a conspiracy theory scenario. A scenario which has another explanation anyway. That climate scientists get justifiably angry with denialist nit-wits poisoning the well with a campaign of lies and misinformation, one which looks remarkably similar to the ones exercised by the intelligent designa dn creationist crowd.

I'm not saying that is what's happening, I'm saying that fits your scenario just as much as the reason "skeptics" are shot down is because they don't tow the line, which is why you need to provide evidence to support your scenario. Otherwise it just sounds like butt-hurt that the evidence isn't going the denialist's way.

Surely this thread is about the very fact that the ''evidence'' is collected by the faithful, charted by the faithful and interpreted by the faithful.

Actually, it's collected by scientists, charted by scientists, and interpreted by scientists. Just as evidence for the principle of flight and electricity and medicine and industrial chemistry and genetics and geology etc etc etc was collected+ by scientists. If you think science is a big conspiracy then what are you doing on the internet, flying places, driving your car, going to the doctor, microwaving your food, drinking the tap water, turning on your lights etc etc etc??

Notwithstanding all that, the evidence still says that the warming stopped, nearly twenty years ago.

The warming didn't stop. Certain specific measures stopped, but the overall system never stopped warming.

[mistermack]

That's proper science. Proven science. Science that constantly questions it's own assumptions.

None of that applies to climate science.

[pErvinalia]

In your opinion.

Basically, your thesis is that money is distorting climate science. Then why isn't it distorting all science?!?

[Animavore]

It applies to all science equally. The same methods are applied. Anything else is pseudoscience.

[Seth]

In your opinion.

Basically, your thesis is that money is distorting climate science. Then why isn't it distorting all science?!?

Because the money and power is in climate science at the moment. Can you say "government research grant?

[Animavore]

In your opinion.

Basically, your thesis is that money is distorting climate science. Then why isn't it distorting all science?!?

Because the money and power is in climate science at the moment. Can you say "government research grant?

Lot's of science gets government research grants.

Now can you say, "Conspiracy theory"?