AGW – Hypothesis, Theory and Fact

In The Beginning Was the Word - And The Word Was AGW

We believe in one God the Global Climate Change, Destroyer of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

 

A proponent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) told me the other day that “97% of Climate Scientists know AGW is a FACT!” (his words exactly).  I called him a liar.  And I never touched Google (or Bing).

 

What has gotten lost in the latest development of AGW, the East Anglia emails and source code, and indeed it has been lost for many years, is that AGW (call it Global Warming or call it Global Climate Change – but it is neither) is not a fact.  It is not even a theory. And if 97% of a bunch of people want to call it a fact, then they may be adherents of the idea of AGW, they may be acolytes of AGW, but they are not scientists.

For in the real world, science is not religion.  And facts are very scarce.  Science recognizes very few facts (1+1=2 is a fact, Evolution is a theory, not a fact, AGW is not even a theory, just an hypothesis).  And the method to obtain “facthood” is long and complicated and also well detailed.  And any scientist knows this.

 

And in one Lord Al Gore, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of Phil Jones before all worlds, God of God, CO2 of CO2, Global Warming of Climate Change, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made;

 

But AGW has been thrown out of science. It is no longer in that realm.  It is now a religion.  You can see it whenever an article, post, comment or news story is printed about it.  The adherents do not talk of hypotheses and testing and trial and error, of proof or method.  They talk of facts.  The fact that any reasonable, sane, non-idiotic, non-moronic person has to know is true if they know anything.  There can be no doubt.

 

Kind of like Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition.  The truth is not relevant.  Dissent is squashed!  Dissenters are called names, compared to Nazis and flat earthers, ridiculed  and in some cases, threatened!  Yes, they do all that to protect their god, AGW.

 

who for us polluters, and for our pollution, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Climate Research Unit of the Hockey Stick, and was made polluter, and was crucified also for us polluters. 

 

They deny all other facts that do not fit into their creed.  They will use a source if it agrees with them, but woe to that source that turns against them!  Heretics must be made example of!

 

When the truth of the deceit was revealed by a hacker or whistle blower, the normal reaction of true scientists would have been anger and a call to clean up the morass and get the house in order!  So that integrity could be restored to the field.  Indeed, many scientists in other fields are doing just that.  Calling for a full accounting and audit to try to restore some integrity to the climate field.

 

He suffered and was de-polluted, and the third day he rose again according to the Tricks of Michael Mann, and ascended into the heavens as a non-greenhouse gas, and sitteth on the right hand of Rajendra Pachauri. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the polluters and greenies, whose kingdom shall have no CO2.

 

But what are the climatologists, that “97%”, are doing is trying to spin what “hide the decline” and “tricks” are.  Ignoring the suppression of dissenting views revealed in the emails, and the source code that shows a hockey stick in every box.  They are not concerned about being lied to (did they already know?), but trying to explain away 2 phrases.  That in the grand scheme of things are really irrelevant to the discrediting of the science.  THEY discredited their science.  They made it a religion - with willing high priests like Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri.  Neither of which know word one about science, but that does not matter to the faithful.

 

They are quick to point out that “only climatology scientists” are qualified to speak on the issue, but just as quick to cite a source from someone who is not in the field.  The drink the kool-aid of denial of those who tarnish and threaten the skeptics, because it fits with their creed, not due to any insightful revelations.

 

And we believe in East Anglia University, NASA Climate Research Unit and the Met Office, who proceedeth from the Al Gore and Michael Mann, who with the Michael Mann and Phil Jones together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

 

One of the favorite tactics I have seen is jumping on the Orwellian Newspeak bandwagon. All of a sudden, lag becomes lead.  Magically!  How?  By the wave of a climatologists written word!  Data shown to have been deficient is massaged into the realm of gospel, with no doubt allowed.  Pish Posh the idea that the data was massaged to support the message instead of being used to find the truth.

 

The sad part is that they are destroying what they want the world to believe is the second (or third) coming of the messiah.  For in suppressing dissent, hiding data, attacking skeptics, and trying to force a blind faith to their new Creed, they may be damaging the real science that could advance their dogma scientifically, instead of religiously. 

 

In the end, AGW could be a valid theory and in time a fact.  But because it is now a religion, we will probably never know if it is valid, or a hoax.  The “Chosen” have made sure that no more science can take place, only blind faith.  And that is not going to sway any more people.  Just alienate them.

 

And we believe one holy Global Warming and apostolic Climate change. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of pollution. And we look for the resurrection of the ecology, and the life of the world without men.

 

21,808 views 24 replies
Reply #1 Top

I have to say I've seen the, if I can make up a word, "religification" of this global warming fad. I find it awe inspiring, in a train wreck sort of way, that people are so desperate to convert to this pseudo-religion with such a miss mash of "facts" floating about. I have to wonder, not being a religious person myself, what drives a person to this? What is missing from their lives that they need the comfort that only impending disaster can bring? Normally, this wouldn't bother me much, I feel each is free to believe as they wish. What gets me is now it has seeped beyond its true believers and they want me and all the other "heretics" to pay for their religion. Anyone in their way is a blasphemer (looking back at history, it's starting to sound familiar). One can look back at history of the church and find startling similarities. Folks, they didn't call them the Dark Ages because the sun wasn't out. Do people really want a return to that or something similar? Folks need to wake up quick, before this nightmare becomes a reality. Is this the reality of the post-large war world where idle hands do the work of the devil? 

Reply #2 Top

"religification"
End of quote

Sweet!  I love it!

Reply #3 Top

Good on ya, Dr Guy, and welcome back.

Reply #4 Top

"religification"

Sweet! I love it!
End of quote

Thanks Tova. There might be a better, real, word for it, but if so I haven't heard it yet.

Reply #5 Top

I have to say I've seen the, if I can make up a word, "religification" of this global warming fad. I find it awe inspiring, in a train wreck sort of way, that people are so desperate to convert to this pseudo-religion with such a miss mash of "facts" floating about. I have to wonder, not being a religious person myself, what drives a person to this?
End of quote

Geez NC, that could be a whole book in itself trying to figure that out!  I am a religious person, but I know my religion is not trying to be "science", and I also know that the only person I have to prove anything to about it is me.  That's why they call it faith.  I am not a bible thumper, so perhaps one of them would have a better answer to the question.  I practice mine and let everyone else practice their religion or their non-religion.

Quoting Tova7, reply 2

"religification"


Sweet!  I love it!
End of Tova7's quote

Gotta second Tova's comment!  I have already used it (with attribution).  Besides, if you can get "Borked", there sure is religification of this issue! ;)

Good on ya, Dr Guy, and welcome back.
End of quote

Thanks Daiwa. Glad to see some familiar faces back as well, and still posting!

Reply #6 Top

Welcome back, and an excellent article. I am constantly amazed at how people state "global warming" is a fact. They're blind, stupid, and lazy. But then it's just one of many new religions spreading around the world. Talked to any anti-toacco nuts lately? Talk about religious zealotry!

The one thing all of these religious nuts share is the refusal to have their claims muddled with actual facts.

Reply #7 Top

Gotta second Tova's comment! I have already used it (with attribution).
End of quote

I saw that Doc, thanks. Feel free to use it at your pleasure.

Reply #8 Top

Any word yet on the dollar amount of US taxpayers money that Obama wants to give away to the wise leaders of the third world for our CO2 sins? I heard Hugo Chavez got a lot of applause on his anti-capitalism speech, with his grubby hand stretched out for those very same capitalist created dollars.

Sounds like the name of a great new PC game- Sins of the CO2 Empire, only thing is if you play the US taxpayer faction you can't win. I'll have to pitch that one to Brad. ;)

Reply #9 Top

The one thing all of these religious nuts share is the refusal to have their claims muddled with actual facts.
End of quote

I dont agree totally.  Like all religions, they do use facts - facts that are convenient and fit their faith.  But those that do not, they attack the messenger, not the message.  Look at most of the "rebuttals" for the faithful and the most common theme is that the person is unqualified to speak on the subject (As an aside - in truth anyone is qualified to speak on the subject since we all experience it, but some carry more authority than others).

I have been researching this (as a break between my studies and research into HEOA) and found that there are indeed some deniers (there are still some flat earthers too), but the vast majority of skeptics are more concerned with the quality of the data.  And when that is questioned (like why was only 40% of the historical readings from Russia used?), the faithful then burn the skeptic at the stake - instead of rationally discussing the problems or questions concerning the hypothesis.

Thanks for the welcome, BTW.  We are about to get slammed with a snow storm, so that may allow me to catch up some of the past articles.  Yours and BFD are at the top of the list (they are some of the most enjoyable to read).

Reply #10 Top

Any word yet on the dollar amount of US taxpayers money that Obama wants to give away to the wise leaders of the third world for our CO2 sins? I heard Hugo Chavez got a lot of applause on his anti-capitalism speech, with his grubby hand stretched out for those very same capitalist created dollars.
End of quote

I have heard $10b (of the $100b) annual amount.  But even $1 is too much.  And while I am sure Chavez is going to get some, it is laughable.  After all, he is one of the ones that have been gigging the rest of the world on oil prices for years!  And will continue to do so.  Nothing that happens in Copenhagan will change the fact that the world is based on oil, and will be for some time to come at least.

Reply #11 Top

I have heard $10b (of the $100b) annual amount. But even $1 is too much.
End of quote

Thanks. I agree and will go one further. It cost to much to send people to the conference. Haven't they heard of teleconferencing? If anyone has any doubt, it should be clear now...green is a control device for the modern day peasants, not the ruling elite. Land kept the people loyal to the nobility in the past. Tomorrow it will be energy, and many of these fools are clamoring for it.

Reply #12 Top

It cost to much to send people to the conference. Haven't they heard of teleconferencing?
End of quote

They should have. Besides creating "An Inconvenient Truth", Gore also created the Internet!

Reply #13 Top

A proponent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) told me the other day that “97% of Climate Scientists know AGW is a FACT!” (his words exactly). I called him a liar. And I never touched Google (or Bing). What has gotten lost in the latest development of AGW, the East Anglia emails and source code, and indeed it has been lost for many years, is that AGW (call it Global Warming or call it Global Climate Change – but it is neither) is not a fact. It is not even a theory. And if 97% of a bunch of people want to call it a fact, then they may be adherents of the idea of AGW, they may be acolytes of AGW, but they are not scientists. For in the real world, science is not religion. And facts are very scarce. Science recognizes very few facts (1+1=2 is a fact, Evolution is a theory, not a fact, AGW is not even a theory, just an hypothesis). And the method to obtain “facthood” is long and complicated and also well detailed. And any scientist knows this.
End of quote

Who cares that this “proponent” of AGW calls it a “fact”, it has nothing to do with the scientific consensus which is still at 97% of climatologist. All that means is 97% of climatologist believe man is the best explanation of the recent observed climate changes, that qualifies AGW as a theory.  

People have a strong tendency to turn their beliefs into convictions and then their “facts”, but just because many take strong stances to ovoid coming off as wishy washy on certain subjects doesn’t religify these convictions. How the religious can call all these various convictions especially people they now dismiss as "lying to get money" a religion and not get the irony is beyond me. I think these emails show that none of them consider AGW a fact don’t you? As you said “Facthood” is not easily obtained, there’s still a heated debate as to whether glass is a liquid or a solid of course they’re still debating AGW, even if Florida disappears from the map they’ll still be a debate as to the cause.

Scientist are subject to conformational bias just like the rest of us, although there generally more aware of it’s hindrance to critical thinking, that’s why they have the peer review process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo

Will you please learn the definition of a “scientific theory”before using the term again. For the thousandth time “evolution” and the ‘theory of evolution” are two different things. evolution or common decent is a fact, it has achieved “facthood” the “theory of evolution” is an attempt to explain how this fact happened. Just like there’s the fact of gravity and the theory of what it actually is. A scientific theory can never ever become a fact or a law, it’s only a “container” for facts and observations. 

Reply #14 Top

Who cares that this “proponent” of AGW calls it a “fact”, it has nothing to do with the scientific consensus which is still at 97% of climatologist.
End of quote

point 1:  Apparently he did and he is one of the faithful

point 2: Consensus means something in Poliltics, but is useless and even counter productive in Science.

Sorry, Did I upset your faith?

How the religious can call all these various convictions especially people they now dismiss as "lying to get money" a religion and not get the irony is beyond me.
End of quote

Seems you like to use contorted sentences.  But let me clarify something for you.  The religious are the believers, not those accusing the faithful of religion.  I did not poll them to find out if they were atheist or not.  Nor did you.

I think these emails show that none of them consider AGW a fact don’t you?
End of quote

And note I did not claim that. Why are you creating your own strawman and then besting it?

Scientist are subject to conformational bias just like the rest of us, although there generally more aware of it’s hindrance to critical thinking, that’s why they have the peer review process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo
End of quote

AH!  Opinion!  How about this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

Or how about some FACTS: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

You like youtube?  How about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

How about the point that this article is making: http://www.politicallyincorrectfacts.com/Global_Warming/Stifling_Decent_Main.htm

You see, you are a classic religious!  You dont discuss or debate the issue at hand, you try to again turn it a strawman and then best it (like accusing me of saying the Sun does not rise in the east and then proving me wrong - sure it is esay when you get to dictate what each side says!)

Will you please learn the definition of a “scientific theory”before using the term again. For the thousandth time “evolution” and the ‘theory of evolution” are two different things. evolution or common decent is a fact, it has achieved “facthood” the “theory of evolution” is an attempt to explain how this fact happened. Just like there’s the fact of gravity and the theory of what it actually is. A scientific theory can never ever become a fact or a law, it’s only a “container” for facts and observations.
End of quote

Apparently I do know the difference, but you are woefully ignorant of it.  Evolution is not a "Fact" but a theory supported by testing and observation (which is as close to a fact that most things get to).  What you call "evolution" could be more accurately described as mutation, and the theory of evolution does explain it. 

You use the term facts, yet apparently you do not have any.  But that is ok.  I am not hear to tear down your religion - as long as you do not make me convert to it or pay for it.

 

Reply #15 Top

point 1: Apparently he did and he is one of the faithful
End of quote

Again who cares that some joe is over stating his belief to be a fact, climatologist are not that certain.

point 2: Consensus means something in Poliltics, but is useless and even counter productive in Science.
End of quote

Ya I don’t know what you’re talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Sorry, Did I upset your faith?
End of quote

I have no faith in AGW, I’m open to the possibility that these scientist are wrong in there conclusions. We’ve discussed this many times before so you should know that.

Seems you like to use contorted sentences. But let me clarify something for you. The religious are the believers, not those accusing the faithful of religion. I did not poll them to find out if they were atheist or not. Nor did you.
End of quote

When I say religious I mean god fearing folk. I don’t have your inexplicable propensity to describe strong opinions as religions. 

And note I did not claim that. Why are you creating your own strawman and then besting it?
End of quote

You claimed in your third paragraph that the field of climatology is now a religion, so 97% of them are now no longer scientist but some sort of cult whom have abandoned the scientific method for dogma.

AH! Opinion! How about this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
End of quote

I linked that video because it does a very good job of showing why every article does not get peer reviewed.

[quote]Or how about some FACTS: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html[/quote]

LOL, So peer review means an automatic fact huh. Well if that’s the case the greater number of facts are the proponents of AGW’s side.

Here’s one of the only articles listed you don’t have to pay for from John Stubbles, steel industry consultant. This is the big conspiracy trying to keep bad science and agenda driven opinion pieces of of the body of legitimate work. This is what the video I linked effectively addressed, there is no conspiracy and here’s 500 more peer reviewed articles from apparently anyone with an opinion to prove it. 

[quote]You like youtube? How about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ[/quote]

Please, John Colman in the first 2 min he proves he has no idea what climatologist are saying about the effects of GW. “it’s going to turn the planet into an oven and we’re all going to bake and die”. No climatologist has ever said anything like that, he’s as full of it as All Gore. We should let them debate maybe they’ll kill each other. Also meteorology and climatology have nothing to do with each other.

You see, you are a classic religious! You dont discuss or debate the issue at hand, you try to again turn it a strawman and then best it (like accusing me of saying the Sun does not rise in the east and then proving me wrong - sure it is esay when you get to dictate what each side says!)
End of quote

No, I have not put up a single strawman, however you have turned conformational bias into a full blown syndrome.

Apparently I do know the difference, but you are woefully ignorant of it. Evolution is not a "Fact" but a theory supported by testing and observation (which is as close to a fact that most things get to). What you call "evolution" could be more accurately described as mutation, and the theory of evolution does explain it.
End of quote

No you still have no idea. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

Reply #16 Top

Again who cares that some joe is over stating his belief to be a fact, climatologist are not that certain.
End of quote

Well, Apparently he did, as did I since he was the one that told me.  indeed, he is not the only one.  I suggest you go read the comments here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

Just because you did not say that (and no one is claiming you did or even Phil Jones did) does not make the fact that many of the faithful ARE saying it.

Ya I don’t know what you’re talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
End of quote

The apparently you do not understand science.  Science is about observation, hypothesis, tesing, theory and finally facts.  There is no room for consensus.  Scientists can agree, but they do not go around (at least the competant ones) trying to build a consensus.  instead they try to use the scientific method to prove their hypothesis.

We’ve discussed this many times before so you should know that.
End of quote

WE have not.  I have been away for some time and only recently (see the date of this posting) returned.  You should know that.

When I say religious I mean god fearing folk. I don’t have your inexplicable propensity to describe strong opinions as religions.
End of quote

Strong Opinions are not drifting on the winds of changing facts.  First it was GW, then GCC, then AGW, then AGC.  Each time the FACTS failed to back up the dogma, the creed changed.  That is not opinion (well it is if you are as set in your opinions as a jelly fish), but attempts to explain how your religion (the your used in the royal sense) must be the correct one and that all facts support your belief system.

I have an opinion that all liberals are wrong.  That does not change just because they were elected.  GW became GCC because of changing facts.  When it did not heat up, the religion did.

You claimed in your third paragraph that the field of climatology is now a religion, so 97% of them are now no longer scientist but some sort of cult whom have abandoned the scientific method for dogma.
End of quote

Again just because an orange and an apple are fruits does not make them the same.  I stated that AGW has become a religion.  I never stated that everyone of the faithful (or even the heretical high priests who probably are just in it for the money) are stating it is a fact.  As usual, you are attempting to create a straw man and then break it down.  But alas, the written word betrays you here.

 

Reply #17 Top

LOL, So peer review means an automatic fact huh. Well if that’s the case the greater number of facts are the proponents of AGW’s side.
End of quote

Again the straw man.  FACT: There are some Peer Reviewed Papers that do not support AGW.  You made the "leap of faith" to think meant it must be a fact.  Again with the false strawman.

Please, John Colman in the first 2 min he proves he has no idea what climatologist are saying about the effects of GW. “it’s going to turn the planet into an oven and we’re all going to bake and die”. No climatologist has ever said anything like that, he’s as full of it as All Gore. We should let them debate maybe they’ll kill each other. Also meteorology and climatology have nothing to do with each other.
End of quote

Again with the strawman!  You love them! I showed you a very biased YouTube.  Just as yours was!  But where you take yours as gospel, you want to assign mine to some sort of inviolate fact, and then go so far as to say "No climatologist" as if I ever stated that the religion of AGW was limited to just a bunch of faux scientists that call themselves climatologists!  You deny the statements you try to attribute to me have never been stated by anyone?  After all, your chief spokesman and bottlewasher is Al Gore, and we do not have to look far to see the whoppers he has told.

No, I have not put up a single strawman, however you have turned conformational bias into a full blown syndrome.
End of quote

You have put up nothing but strawmen,  instead of trying to discuss what I wrote originally, or what I wrote in response to your post, you have continually tried to rephrase what was said, or even put words into my mouth.  At best that is creating strawmen, and at worst just a very poor attempt at lying.

No you still have no idea. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
End of quote

Oh, I do.  it is you that does not know science.  Consensus does not belong in science, yet you continually try to impose it.  No less than Freeman Dyson ridicules consensus in science: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html

All consensus in science does is great a religion, and any self respecting scientist would avoid it like the plague.  But the religious use it to advance their religion since it means nothing.  So why do you continue to try to use it?  clearly AGW is going to have to go through the normal (Observation, Hypothesis, Testing, Theory, Proof, Fact) process if it is to be anything other than a religion.  And that is the antithesis of what the AGW crowd wants to see.

 

(Sorry for the split post, but I noticed your quotes got messed up and I remember JU has a limit on quotes, so I broke the response into 2 parts).

Reply #18 Top

[quote]Well, Apparently he did, as did I since he was the one that told me. indeed, he is not the only one. I suggest you go read the comments here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense[/quote]

Many people are very passionate about this doesn’t make it a religion, allot of don’t like being in the test tube while running the experiment.

The apparently you do not understand science. Science is about observation, hypothesis, tesing, theory and finally facts. There is no room for consensus. Scientists can agree, but they do not go around (at least the competant ones) trying to build a consensus. instead they try to use the scientific method to prove their hypothesis.
End of quote

No kidding a consensus is not useful in science I never said it was, it’s usefulness is in helping the public decide a course of action. Say 97% of astronomers and astrophysicists  say that a meteor is going to hit us in a few weeks but 3% say not to worry these guys just want more money, Yea I’m going with the consensus, cause I don’t have access to a big telescope or the ability to determine if what I saw was going to hit us or not.

WE have not. I have been away for some time and only recently (see the date of this posting) returned. You should know that.
End of quote

There’s no time limit on “before” we’ve discussed this before, WTF.

Strong Opinions are not drifting on the winds of changing facts. First it was GW, then GCC, then AGW, then AGC. Each time the FACTS failed to back up the dogma, the creed changed. That is not opinion (well it is if you are as set in your opinions as a jelly fish), but attempts to explain how your religion (the your used in the royal sense) must be the correct one and that all facts support your belief system. I have an opinion that all liberals are wrong. That does not change just because they were elected. GW became GCC because of changing facts. When it did not heat up, the religion did.
End of quote

Science changes with new information, it’s not a weakness. Eventually we get a pretty good bead on what the natural world is telling us.

Freeman Dyson is about as liberal as they come so he must be wrong.

Again just because an orange and an apple are fruits does not make them the same. I stated that AGW has become a religion. I never stated that everyone of the faithful (or even the heretical high priests who probably are just in it for the money) are stating it is a fact. As usual, you are attempting to create a straw man and then break it down. But alas, the written word betrays you here.
End of quote

There’s no strawman, you’ve claimed that AGW is junk science and become a religion and that the scientist are complacent in this. There motivation just like in a real church is irrelevant.

 

Reply #19 Top

Again the straw man. FACT: There are some Peer Reviewed Papers that do not support AGW. You made the "leap of faith" to think meant it must be a fact. Again with the false strawman.
End of quote

You wrote, “AH! Opinion” in response to a video making a logical argument against the contentions that AGW decent was being suppressed. Then you write “OR” as in the alternative to opinion, “how about some FACTS”. FACTS as in plural then link to a collection of 500 articles and I’m supposed to believe that what you meant was that you were just pointing out the single FACT that someone bothered to make a list of 500 articles submitted for peer review arguing against AGW and you understand that they were all just opinions as well? Then you accuse me of putting up a strawman, B f’n S.

Again with the strawman! You love them! I showed you a very biased YouTube. Just as yours was! But where you take yours as gospel, you want to assign mine to some sort of inviolate fact, and then go so far as to say "No climatologist" as if I ever stated that the religion of AGW was limited to just a bunch of faux scientists that call themselves climatologists! You deny the statements you try to attribute to me have never been stated by anyone? After all, your chief spokesman and bottlewasher is Al Gore, and we do not have to look far to see the whoppers he has told.
End of quote

There’s no comparison the video I linked was not opinion, you can fact check everything he said, he even shows you how to. Not once in this discussion have I linked to any propaganda or anyone saying that AGW was an immutable fact. They have all been direct rebuttals to specific claims that can be easily fact checked by anyone.

Talk about a strawman, what I quoted was from the video my response was limited to what John Coleman said in that video, I attributed nothing to you. Your response to me saying “All Gore is full of it”, is to tell me he’s my chief spokesman and bottlewasher, WTH.

You have put up nothing but strawmen, instead of trying to discuss what I wrote originally, or what I wrote in response to your post, you have continually tried to rephrase what was said, or even put words into my mouth. At best that is creating strawmen, and at worst just a very poor attempt at lying.
End of quote

I have responded to your conjecture that AGW is some sort of religion even though you’ve offered nothing but ambiguously worded unsupported conjecture to support it. Not understanding it is not putting up a strawman. 

Your final response to you not understanding what a theory is has nothing to do with that and I already addressed what you do say there.

Reply #20 Top

Many people are very passionate about this doesn’t make it a religion, allot of don’t like being in the test tube while running the experiment.
End of quote

This is true.  Religion requires an additional element - blind faith.  And of course the final element, the priesthood.  AGW has both.  Only the faithful would deny that Gore has become the next Peter for this church, especially in his own mind.  He is a useful tool for the rest of the "men behind the curtain".  And lest we forget, the attack dogs that attack, both physically and professionally, all those that do not believe in the new god.  I think I made a compelling, if brief, case for the new religion with this article.  But the faithful will only see that as an attack on their faith, not a dispassionate critique of the messengers (for a change, yes I am attacking the messengers).

it’s usefulness is in helping the public decide a course of action.
End of quote

You see your problem?   You are internalizing all taht is said.  It is all "I,I,I,I,....".  Which is fine.  But in so doing, you are missing what others are doing.  They are not building a course of action with consensus, they are trying to silence the skeptics (AL Gore, Jimmy Carter - need I post their quotes of Nazis, and the other trashing of skeptics?).  As YOU say, consensus is good when deciding upon a course of action.  It is useless in science, and that is my criticism.

There’s no time limit on “before” we’ve discussed this before, WTF.
End of quote

So Post it.  Post where we have discussed this before.  WHile my views have changed on AGW as my knowledge of the issue has increased, I do not recall posting about this on JU before (or anywhere else other than in informal conversations).

I know I did comment on an article of Brads (that I do remember) about Pirates and Global Warming.  Perhaps that was the reference?

Science changes with new information, it’s not a weakness. Eventually we get a pretty good bead on what the natural world is telling us.

Freeman Dyson is about as liberal as they come so he must be wrong.

End of quote

Science does not change, but perhaps you were talking about the hypothesis?  If so, you are correct.  But unfortunately, the Hypothesis has not been changing to fit the changing facts, only the "massaged" data that is changing.  The "facts" are such inconvenient things such as CO2 has increased over the past 10 years, but the temperature has not (hence the reason it went from warming to change).  The Hypothesis did not change, the facts did, and so the fix had to as well.  That again is not science, it is faith.

There’s no strawman, you’ve claimed that AGW is junk science and become a religion and that the scientist are complacent in this. There motivation just like in a real church is irrelevant.
End of quote

Again with the strawman!  NO, I never claimed anything about AGW, only the PROPONENTS of AGW.  SO I will not bite on your strawman.  AGW is a valid scientific hypothesis that has been hijacked by a bunch of jihadists in the name of their religion.  As such, the science is being subverted by the high priests in order to protect the faith.  That is where the science is being killed.  Not by any skeptics, but by the faithful of AGW.

Reply #21 Top

Duplicate

Reply #22 Top

You wrote, “AH! Opinion” in response to a video making a logical argument against the contentions that AGW decent was being suppressed.
End of quote

Yes, and that is the author's OPINION.  I then offered others, and then facts and such.  YOu do realize what an OPINION is, correct?  There is nothing wrong with having one, but having one does not make one right.

There’s no comparison the video I linked was not opinion, you can fact check everything he said, he even shows you how to.
End of quote

I did, and can show you the confirmation, refutation of the "facts" and disagreements with his opinions - which is what I did.  Most of the Video was not facts  but his OPINION.  YOu really need to learn the difference between the 2.  That is probably why you cannot see the corpus christi for the science.

 

I have responded to your conjecture that AGW is some sort of religion even though you’ve offered nothing but ambiguously worded unsupported conjecture to support it. Not understanding it is not putting up a strawman.
End of quote

No, you have attempted to change my article to one that is easily disproven, and then proceed to disprove the changed article.  I never stated that AGW was bogus or religion, I have clearly stated that the adherants of AGW are the religious and the faithful.  YOu keep trying to change the thesis and the debunk it.  I have not let you.  There is a reason I continually mention Al Gore (proven a liar now over a dozen times - publicly), Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Pachauri.  I have not really talked at all about how CO2 increases temperatures or about positive and negative reinforcers now have I?  But then neither have you.  YOu have tried to change the debate, but not offered any facts, just a bunch of opinions that I do not bite on.

Sorry, I know I am a heretic and skeptic (I am not a denier - that is a faithful word for those who are lobotomized believers).  But then I do know the difference between the science of AGW and the believers of the religion of AGW.  One is a valid scientific study that has been coopted by a bunch of religion zealots belonging to the second.

Reply #23 Top

Welcome back!  Glad you have only been busy, and didn't fall prey to an unwelcome demise.  :)

 (Other than that, I have nothing to add to the conversation.)

Reply #24 Top

Welcome back! Glad you have only been busy, and didn't fall prey to an unwelcome demise.
End of quote

Thank you.  I hope you have been doing well.  Happy New year!