Global Warming = A JOKE!!

shut up wrote:

Ok, but it's your job to show there IS a cause, and that, if at all, it is different than in the past. Overall, I feel confident that CO2 makes up just as much of the atmosphere, give or take a few thousandths of a percent, but if you're going to claim that it's different now, substantiate it and refute his ideas. Please do provide the citation.

Oh, and you should know as an adult (I assume you are one) that the majority does not make right? You still have to prove things. So far, you have not substantiated your claims except for saying that the scientists are on your side. That does not constitute evidence for anything. Show the evidence.

If you've read my posts, you would know that I acknowledge plain and clear that just because a majority claims something, it does not make it "true." I've said this repeatedly. Don't build a straw man and pretend I've made the claim that being on the same side as the majority makes me "right."

But just because I, outsidethebox, on a lestrun messageboard, cannot demonstrably "prove" that man has caused global warming does not make me "wrong" either. You act like just because I haven't provided irrefutable proof on a messageboard, there exists no evidence of global warming and the entire theory is bunk. If I fail to provide proof of evolution on a messageboard, would you suddenly discard that whole theory?

So go ahead, pretend that just because I - outsidethebox on a letsrun messageboard - have not "proven" mans part in global warming, no one else has. Pretend no evidence exists out there. Pretend that scientists just form opinions without proof and well-reasoned arguments. Pretend the worlds most brilliant scientists were not smart enough to think of your arguments, were too lazy to investigate the matter thoroughly, and were too stupid to demonstrate why you were wrong. Pretend that nearly the entire scientific community abandoned their long-standing standards and made up, out of the clear blue sky, that man is the cause of global warming.

[quote]Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Historically man (and nearly all other forms of life) has done better when the climate was warm instead of cold.[quote]

On 2/9/2010 2:33AM I asked you to back this up - any chance that you might, or am I to assume that you've just pulled that statement out of your arse?

So what is your assertion, then, about the vast majority of climate scientists who do think so? They are lying? Imbeciles? They just haven't thought of the objections you have thought of? Your rant above sounds EXACTLY like the logic of deniers of evolution.

How can you claim I am making straw men and then set up like 20 more in the same post? I didn't say any of that, but the fact that you are willing to use that against me only further propagates the idea that your sense of the majority is the only thing you have going for you. Do you know what a link is? Do you know what evidence is? So far, Blowing.Rock Master has shown evidence, but you have shown nothing except your belief in the majority. You may or may not believe this gives you absolute authority on the subject, but if you can't provide anything other than touting the majority, why are you here? Why is it so important to say anything if there's no way to "prove" or at least show some support for your position?

Also, the majority should never constitute evidence for anything. Should we simply accept everything the majority of scientists say and never question it? That way, there would never be truth, and no one would ever learn. The majority of scientists have been wrong before, and it's all about how they interpret the evidence. Science can never be totally neutral or objective because scientists can only base things on what they already know or believe about how things work. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the majority of scientists also believe the majority is not always right. I am not trying to convince you that the scientists are wrong or that you should never believe what a scientist says. But don't take their word for it. Show the evidence and stop acting like the world should act according to what a majority believes instead of looking at it yourself and deciding what is right.

Also, I asked you to provide that link and you never did.

The simple fact is: the majority counts for absolutely NOTHING until you've looked at the evidence. If you haven't, then you can't demonstrate that what somebody told you is actually true. The fact that there IS a minority of also very qualified and intelligent scientists questioning global warming should be enough to warrant evidence. Heck, even a lot of qualified, intelligent scientists deny evolution. That doesn't prove the majority is wrong, but it does mean evidence is required to support their standing and show what has been done, or else it's just a bunch of white coats telling you the truth about our existence. Humans make mistakes, and all scientist are humans, so we can never go just based on what other human beings tell us. Do the work for yourself and support your position with facts.

"I" haven't provided any proof here, but that doesn't mean proof doesn't exist. Why do you suppose that "I" have to be the one to prove something for it to be credible? All you have done is point out that one individual, on a messageboard no less, is incapable of proving something (when others have again and again), and you somehow equate that to the concept being incapable of proof. Explain why "I" have to prove it for it to have credibility?

I've said AGAIN and AGAIN that just because a majority accepts proposition X, it doesn not make X true. But it certainly makes it more credibile, particularly when its the holding of a majority of experts applying the relevant standards of the field. Sure, we should always maintain some skepticism and remain open to the idea that it can later be disproven. NO ONE disputes that. But why reject something and place insurmountable standards of proof for every scientific proposition; at a certain point, we have to tentatively accept certain things.

shut up wrote:

the majority counts for absolutely NOTHING until you've looked at the evidence. If you haven't, then you can't demonstrate that what somebody told you is actually true.

I personally haven't looked at the evidence. But I trust that scientists are smart, they abide by a certain set of standards, and are generally skeptical and reluctant to make bold assertions like the existence of global warming. So, for the time being, I defer to their expertise and accept it (while remaining open to the possibility of it being disproven).

What is so difficult about that?

It's Official: 2000s Were the Hottest Decade on Record January 29, 2010 : 6:34 PMOver the past few weeks, climate deniers have tried to promote a number of pseudo-scandals as evidence that the Earth is not warming. However, once again their assertions are contradicted by the facts:

“NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) released its final report on 2009 surface temperatures Thursday, concluding:”

“2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880….”

“January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade.”

There is no doubt the planet is warming. Those trying to make the case that the climate crisis is not happening simply do not have the facts on their side.

outsidethebox wrote:

"I" haven't provided any proof here, but that doesn't mean proof doesn't exist. Why do you suppose that "I" have to be the one to prove something for it to be credible? All you have done is point out that one individual, on a messageboard no less, is incapable of proving something (when others have again and again), and you somehow equate that to the concept being incapable of proof. Explain why "I" have to prove it for it to have credibility?

Easy. Because the burden of proof is on you. You make the claim, you back it up. If you don't know how to gives links and evidence, then I'll assume you are not capable of knowing what these are.

outsidethebox wrote:

I've said AGAIN and AGAIN that just because a majority accepts proposition X, it doesn not make X true. But it certainly makes it more credibile, particularly when its the holding of a majority of experts applying the relevant standards of the field. Sure, we should always maintain some skepticism and remain open to the idea that it can later be disproven. NO ONE disputes that. But why reject something and place insurmountable standards of proof for every scientific proposition; at a certain point, we have to tentatively accept certain things.

This is not one of those things. We don't just act like major policy changes that cost millions should just be blindly applied and wait for the science to disprove it later. If everyone just waited for stuff to be disproven, then it would never GET disproven because no one would be doing research. These are not insurmountable. I'm not asking you for absolute proof, just a few supporting facts and evidence to back up what you say.

outsidethebox wrote:

shut up wrote:

the majority counts for absolutely NOTHING until you've looked at the evidence. If you haven't, then you can't demonstrate that what somebody told you is actually true.

I personally haven't looked at the evidence. But I trust that scientists are smart, they abide by a certain set of standards, and are generally skeptical and reluctant to make bold assertions like the existence of global warming. So, for the time being, I defer to their expertise and accept it (while remaining open to the possibility of it being disproven).

What is so difficult about that?

You can do that if you want, but don't come here and claim that global warming is absolutely right because you trust the scientists. If you're just going to submit and not be the one actually doing some research, then you have nothing to say, and you cannot assert anything.

outsidethebox, have you heard about this whole "Climategate" fiasco? Have you read any of the emails? Your blind belief that scientists (or at least the "majority" of them) have these admirable traits that you attribute to them should be somewhat shaken by what the emails reveal. I'm not saying that humans are causing global warming (or climate change, or whatever it's going by these days) or that it's completely natural. All I'm saying is that it's easy to create a false consensus when you are in charge of what gets published, when you take liberties with the peer review process, and when you "massage" the data that don't quite fit into your hypothesis (all of which were done by those smart, ethical climate scientists, as shown in their emails).

Finally, when it comes to science, the best thing that a new theory can do in order to be widely accepted is to predict something (measurable) that no other theory has predicted. Climate models have not been able to do that to this point. If climatologists can predict exactly what the rise in temperature of a certain area of the world will be in the next year (or next month, or week, or whatever), I will be much more likely to believe that their models are accurate and can take all the factors that affect climate into account. Until then, everybody is basically guessing.

shut up wrote:

Easy. Because the burden of proof is on you. You make the claim, you back it up. If you don't know how to gives links and evidence, then I'll assume you are not capable of knowing what these are.

Must I, outsidethebox of letsrun, be the one that must prove it? What is wrong with the thousands of other scientists that have provided years of research, evidence, and well-reasoned inferences?

You can do that if you want, but don't come here and claim that global warming is absolutely right because you trust the scientists.

I never claimed it is absolutely true, beyond question. Stop speaking in absolutes; there's no absolute proof of anything. I'm only suggesting the argument for global warming is more credible than the argument against global warming.

Suppose you were on a jury and 20 experts gave testimony on something really complicated and complex (lets say price collusion in the airline industry, something difficult to prove). 18 said "they're liable, because of X and Y reasons" and 2 said "they're innocent, because of A and B reasons". Then the plaintiff should you that every major economics academy from everywhere across the globe (and remember, economics is far far less scientific than climatology) has analyzed the data and concluded that the defendant is guilty. What would you decide?

Sure, there exists evidence on both side. Sure, some intelligent economists concluded no price collusion. But the weight of the evidence suggests price conclusion.

What should the Earth's temperature be?

This is really enjoyable. This is complete and utter obliteration. Nice job outsidethebox. Very nice indeed.

ra ra ra rawr wrote:

You are an idiot. Yes you do BELIEVE. You can't KNOW for certain if evolution is true or if global warming is real. The world is round? I'll give you that one, but you just can't know for certain, so stop claiming all this stuff to be out of the realm of question.

Way to argue semantics like a concrete thinking knuckle-dragger.

We can't KNOW ANYTHING for certain. When a certain threshold of evidence is reached, we stop saying BELIEVE and start saying KNOW.

For examle, I KNOW you are an insecure 14 year old douche bag.