Stephen W Gordon Oh and yeah I do know more than you on this topic. The proof is that you are in the climate denial camp.
I had to teach a climate change unit in science class. So I had to stay current on this stuff.
So on this topic you are just flat wrong. The debate is over. From here on you just look silly. (No insult)
John when we would actually talk in person there were plenty of topics I would gladly listen and learn from you on. Climate change wasn't one of them.
I had to teach a climate change unit in science class. So I had to stay current on this stuff.
So on this topic you are just flat wrong. The debate is over. From here on you just look silly. (No insult)
John when we would actually talk in person there were plenty of topics I would gladly listen and learn from you on. Climate change wasn't one of them.
John Coffey "The proof is that you are in the climate denial camp. " So you won't address any of my arguments and just declare me wrong and say that the debate is over and that I look silly. Nice way to win an argument. So the idea of man made disastrous warming is a religion intolerant of dissent , hugh? Where is the evidence that we are going to get 5 degree celsius warming? I just don't see it. Maybe in another 400 years, but by then we would have figured something out.
John Coffey We are not climate deniers as I see it. We are climate skeptics. Give me evidence that the gloom and doom predictions will come true, and I will believe it. When someone says that the earth has warmed and there is a 95% chance that this is caused by man, there is no disagreement. The issue is how much has the earth warmed up and how much will it warm up in the future? Then the next question is does this warrant government action that will kill our prosperity and cause more people to die from weather related deaths? The final question is if this will even make a difference?
John Coffey http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Winter-death-toll-to...
Steve Kusaba "Oh and yeah I do know more than you on this topic. The proof is that you are in the climate denial camp.
I had to teach a climate change unit in science class. So I had to stay current on this stuff.
So on this topic you are just flat wrong. The debate is over. From here on you just look silly. (No insult)
John when we would actually talk in person there were plenty of topics I would gladly listen and learn from you on. Climate change wasn't one of them."
I'm not taking a side in this but it appears to me that John actually talked about the science and you have just made your position "Really smart people think this so why do you oppose it?"
Since it is a question of science, why don't you talk about the science?
I had to teach a climate change unit in science class. So I had to stay current on this stuff.
So on this topic you are just flat wrong. The debate is over. From here on you just look silly. (No insult)
John when we would actually talk in person there were plenty of topics I would gladly listen and learn from you on. Climate change wasn't one of them."
I'm not taking a side in this but it appears to me that John actually talked about the science and you have just made your position "Really smart people think this so why do you oppose it?"
Since it is a question of science, why don't you talk about the science?
Stephen W Gordon Same reason I don't get into debates on the existence of Santa Claus.
Steve Kusaba " Same reason I don't get into debates on the existence of Santa Claus."
Either A. You don't understand the science or B. You don't understand the science.
If someone tells me that the accelerated dragon has been busted I take up the other side to see if there is something to it. When someone tells me very absurd stuff like birther stuff or truther stuff, I take it head on and tell them they are full of it, where's your facts.
For being on the side of something that you claim is *so obviously true* it is remarkable that you come up with literally not even one sentence that is addressed to the issue.
You may be right. But you'll never advance the case for this the way you deal with it.
Either A. You don't understand the science or B. You don't understand the science.
If someone tells me that the accelerated dragon has been busted I take up the other side to see if there is something to it. When someone tells me very absurd stuff like birther stuff or truther stuff, I take it head on and tell them they are full of it, where's your facts.
For being on the side of something that you claim is *so obviously true* it is remarkable that you come up with literally not even one sentence that is addressed to the issue.
You may be right. But you'll never advance the case for this the way you deal with it.
Steve Kusaba Whether I troll or not doesn't seem related to this issue.
You can't shut someone down about their position without offering some form of evidence or rebuttal. John is saying that the argument is about the degree in which certain events will happen. I've read articles in Time many many years ago where claims about the degree in which California's beaches would be lost to rising water. Of course it never happened. No one called that falsification. So the issue isn't even what climatologists are thinking. Its the hubris that non-climatologists display when they talk about a subject that they know absolutely nothing about.
I mean, for hell sake. Can you even state what the actual premise of global warming is and what evidence would refute it? What does it specifically mean? Do you think it is 100% absolute? Or do you hold a 2% window that it could be wrong? (whatever *it* is)
Its really popular these days for people who are not climatologists to declare things with absolute certainty.
Of course its OK to declare things but would it be such a burden to discuss it?
You can't shut someone down about their position without offering some form of evidence or rebuttal. John is saying that the argument is about the degree in which certain events will happen. I've read articles in Time many many years ago where claims about the degree in which California's beaches would be lost to rising water. Of course it never happened. No one called that falsification. So the issue isn't even what climatologists are thinking. Its the hubris that non-climatologists display when they talk about a subject that they know absolutely nothing about.
I mean, for hell sake. Can you even state what the actual premise of global warming is and what evidence would refute it? What does it specifically mean? Do you think it is 100% absolute? Or do you hold a 2% window that it could be wrong? (whatever *it* is)
Its really popular these days for people who are not climatologists to declare things with absolute certainty.
Of course its OK to declare things but would it be such a burden to discuss it?
Toly Zharkikh On the topic of climate hysterics, they point to data that goes back just 400,000 years and point to the "catastrophic" heating on the chart. The folks that I argued with seem to think a 50 million year timeframe is irrelevant. We used to have about 5 ...See More
John Coffey Stephen W Gordon If you are such an expert, what do you think that the Climate Sensitivity is to a doubling of CO2? If you say between 2 and 12 degrees Celsius, then you agree with one of the myriad models. However, since 1880 we are three quarters of the way there and the temperature has only gone up .85 degrees. How do you reconcile this?
John Coffey Stephen W Gordon What is really starting to look silly is all the failed predictions by the chicken little alarmists. This is so obviously politically driven drivel. It is an excuse to tax and control us. This is why nobody takes it seriously anymore. Of all the issues that voters were polled about in the 2016 election, global warming was the least of their concerns.
John Coffey Stephen W Gordon The real disaster is not global warming, but following this policy of phasing out fossil fuels or making them too expensive to afford by taxing ourselves to death. I hear stories of people freezing to death because they can't afford energy. England had 40,000 winter related deaths. It is freezing in Indiana today . Fossil fuels are for the moment what separate us from death, and are critical to our prosperity. The alternatives are still too expensive and not plentiful enough. Maybe we can change that over time. We are likely within 20 years of having viable nuclear fusion.
John Coffey Stephen W Gordon If the temperature data were to change to support a much higher Climate Sensitivity, then I would be more than happy to change my position. However, people make assertions today that are clearly not supported by the data, but nobody seems to care. The reason for this is that the politics and the money are driving the issue. The real disaster is government pushing an agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment