The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The distinction between true scepticism and denial > Comments

The distinction between true scepticism and denial : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 8/9/2016

And I find myself saying, yet again, this awful, poorly argued, self-seeking paper has passed peer review? What have we come to in the journal world?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. All
Mhaze
You made the completely inane comment:

"I don't know why we're not doing something about the Arctic. After all, its going to be ice free by 2013.

Oh wait....."

The sea ice currently is broken up very close to the North Pole, you would have noticed if you had gone to the reference. The trend lines are going down for area, and extent of sea ice. Much multi year ice has been lost.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 10 September 2016 3:59:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Bazz I am not going to lower myself to your level of inane beliefs. The only Myths going on here are by Don Aitkin, anyone who is gullible enough to swallow them, and the myths resident inside your own head space.

There's good reason why there was a Separation between Church (ie Mythical Beliefs) and the State. It was the result of Science and the Enlightenment. Maybe you've never heard of it?

However if you wish to "believe" in Myths and the typical denial of science in the climate field then that's your right. Just do not expect me nor anyone else to believe the same garbage as you do, and don't expect anyone to not fight like hell to keep such lunacies out of Politics and Policy discussions/responses.

That being said, I would of course fight hard to defend your "free speech" constitutional right and your human rights to believe in whatever whacko idea you wish.

But you have no rights beyond that. No else must accept your beliefs.

So if anyone's up for a civil war or some other crazy response then I am up for that anytime. You'll lose. If you weren't stuck inside this IPA echo-chamber you'd already know that. Beliefs are powerful little critters!

Further to @ant's contribution, here's some pretty pictures to set off a bit of cognitive dissonance http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm
(while Don, Marohasy & Hazer do sophistry in pixels, reality is another thing!)

Average sea ice extent for August 2016 was 5.60 million square kilometers, the fourth lowest August extent in the satellite record.

This is 1.03 million square kilometers below the 1981 to 2010 average for the month and 890,000 square kilometers above the record low for August set in 2012.

As of September 5, sea ice extent remains below average everywhere except for a small area within the Laptev Sea.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Pretty pics
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/09/fig2b.png
and the north pole sept 8th
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/unReal-Pole-20160908.jpg

Lots of pretty pics here too http://greatwhitecon.info/blog/

Meanwhile 2016 is on track to be the 3rd year in a row to set a new Global Mean Temperature Record.

What "haitus"?
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 10 September 2016 5:31:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
excuse my sceptiicism of the academics pushing this global warming

Theyve been claiming the Barrier Reef has been dying since the early 1970's.
Hello 45years and the barrier reef is still here.

Islands are being swallowed by the ocean. Well Ive seen that on the news too,
decades ago.
The same type of supposedly, unquestional scientific academics, threw
Ienstien out of university because he challenged their proven scientific theories.

Its no accident that the left uses this global warming to attack capitalist industry.
That is the political ideaology of the hippy, communist (leftist) movement.

In reality, the biggest threat to the earth is the overpopulation of male dominated
countries. who consume and eat up all the resources,drive animals to extinction
all over the world. They are the unhappiest countries on earth and there is a
civil, tribal, war always raging in their midst. The west has been giving them
billions of dollars in aid for 50years and still they havent improved their status
but continue to starve and fight and try to overrun other peoples countries.

When I hear the scientists confront and carry on about these more threatening problems
Ill believe that their global warming science isnt a politically convienent ideaology more than a scientific fact.
Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 10 September 2016 7:27:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Don, for another informative article.
The incompetents, who wrote the paper, fall down badly in one important respect.
They do not define “denier”, without which, their paper is meaningless.
The definition would have to indicate what it is that is being “denied”.
Since there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, they cannot produce a definition, so their paper is baseless, and invalid. It is another attempt to assert the climate fraud. It even has a reference to Oreskes, the history professor who has already made a fool of herself by her false assertions in relation to “climate change”.
I notice that bigmouth O’Reilly has marred the thread with his presence. He has already displayed his low intellect and ignorance, so no one takes any notice of him.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 10 September 2016 7:45:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Leo Lane, the intellectual giant strikes again, ROTFLMAO.

Now back to reason, logic, science and evidence AKA how not to "cherry-pick" and not build "strawmen" to knock down, or use sophistry.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
"We show that contrary to Tol's claim that the results of C13 differ from earlier studies, the consensus of experts is robust across all the studies conducted by coauthors of this correspondence."
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Read it or don't.

History and future of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming
"Why is this finding important? Climate science is a highly politicized science. Not necessarily because climate scientists are advocates of a particular political mission—most climate scientists I know are in fact quite apolitical people. But the issue they are dealing with is clearly political in nature."
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/031003

Read it, or don't.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Read it, or don't.

The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists
"Those who disagree about climate change disagree over BASIC FACTS (e.g., the effects of CO2 on climate) and have different cultural and POLITICAL VALUES. These results suggest that scientists who are climate change SKEPTICS are OUTLIERS and that the majority of scientists surveyed believe in anthropogenic climate change and that climate science is CREDIBLE and MATURE."
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025

Read it, or don't.

Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability
"Despite a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), global-mean surface temperature (T) has shown no discernible warming since about 2000, in sharp contrast to model simulations, which on average project strong warming." [...] "and particularly over the so-called ‘hiatus’ period since about 2000."
http://goo.gl/Exnt3T

Read it, or don't.

Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown - John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann et al.
"It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is
unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims."
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 10 September 2016 8:13:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Thomas O'Reilly, the intellectual giant BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! strikes again.

Your docile uncritical state-worship have been disproved in this forum over and over and over and over and over and over again. You have nothing.

In particular, there are three questions that every warmist including you has FAILED to answer which completely disposes of your case, and which you deal with by running away when confronted by them, and then popping up later re-running the same religious liturty, which is all you're doing now.

Go back and read them.

Either answer them or shut up and don't come back.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 10 September 2016 10:43:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy