Global Warming is over.

[ethrtyiS]

[Fusion]

The question was to YOU on that: if you want to complain that people are making decisions on something that there are still deniers in existence, when is it acceptable to finally act? Does there need to be a 100% acceptance of a theory before the theory is good enough in YOUR opinion to be acted upon?

I think you might not be babbling if you actually had a basis to complain, and not therefore just randomly inserting statements that don't make any sense when strung together. You object to taking action too soon but cannot define when you think it is no longer "too soon". How much of a consensus is necessary?

Should we act on the theory that second-hand smoking causes cancer, or is it unfair to conclude as such because there are studies that deny such?

Gore's a tool and don't tell me who or what is a factor in my views, it just shows that you don't have any good reasoning to back your position so you are trying to build a strawman. I don't respect or listen to Al Gore. Plus, using ad hominem against one individual to try to invalidate all global warming science is incredibly ridiculous.

Answer the question. Don't attempt to twist it into an absurd argument.

You are asking that question with the precondition that GW is certainly man made to some extent, as are most of your Gore buddies.
Considering the fact that data on the topic is uncertain and far from displaying a positive effect (if any) of the policies that have been put in place, it would be foolish to answer when action should be taken.
Let's say there's a 10% chance of negative outcome, maybe 10-20% there won't be many outcomes, and everything else is sort of in between. What is your proposal?

[rwh11385]

You are asking that question with the precondition that GW is certainly man made to some extent, as are most of your Gore buddies.
Considering the fact that data on the topic is uncertain and far from displaying a positive effect (if any) of the policies that have been put in place, it would be foolish to answer when action should be taken.
Let's say there's a 10% chance of negative outcome, maybe 10-20% there won't be many outcomes, and everything else is sort of in between. What is your proposal?

NO. I am asking at what level of certainty is it acceptable to you to take action, not your opinion on if it is certain or not. You avoid the question by refocusing on what you think about the conclusions of others, but your problem with government spending was that it wasn't proven or certain, and in having that assertion it ought to be easy for you to define what certain enough is.

[gwb72tii]

NO. I am asking at what level of certainty is it acceptable to you to take action, not your opinion on if it is certain or not. You avoid the question by refocusing on what you think about the conclusions of others, but your problem with government spending was that it wasn't proven or certain, and in having that assertion it ought to be easy for you to define what certain enough is.

How about when you can tell the world, with certainty, what the weather will be next tuesday. Which you cannot do.

Or.......

how about when your weather models actually predict anything that actually comes true, which they have been unable to do so far.

[cale]

How about when you can tell the world, with certainty, what the weather will be next tuesday. Which you cannot do.

Or.......

how about when your weather models actually predict anything that actually comes true, which they have been unable to do so far.

Every time I check into this thread I'm astounded by the level of ignorance you parade around as intelligence, you never let me down.

[rwh11385]

Every time I check into this thread I'm astounded by the level of ignorance you parade around as intelligence, you never let me down.

I'm pretty sure you could use their posts as a basis of analysis of logical fallacies.

How about when you can tell the world, with certainty, what the weather will be next tuesday. Which you cannot do.

Or.......

how about when your weather models actually predict anything that actually comes true, which they have been unable to do so far.

Again, you seem to be as inept as Fusion in being able to respond to the question at hand.

His concern is that policy is being influenced by an uncertain science, but how certain must anything be in order for it to be used for the creation of policy?

Is denier research about the autism dangers of vaccines enough to stop the government's encouragement of them?

Is economic theory certain enough about the impacts of tax rates to be the basis of an economic plan? Heh.

The fundamental question I asked, repeatedly, if that how certain must something be in order to be acceptable as a basis for action? Does everyone have to agree on the conclusions? Even the uneducated? Or can a group of deniers or conspiracy theorists hijack the government's ability to do anything on the basis that it is wrong to take action without it "proven enough" to them. That question addresses if he would EVER be satisfied with action, or would always fight any action because it is his bias and assumption that the action is wrong or stupid, irrelevant of his lack of direct knowledge or education on the subject. It is clear that you and him seek out information that is contrarian and hold it as the truth, irregardless of your ignorance on the subject. This underlines that it is not truth or knowledge that you pursue, but fighting what you have presumed is wrong. If models were enhanced to the point where they could perfectly within an acceptable margin model the future average temperature based on current parameters and green house gases, would you ever accept that as valid? Or would you continue to deny it and beat your drum that it is all lies and conspiracy? Even if models could accurately predict the future, I think that you would still say it is a "theory" and unproven and there are still such and such less qualified scientists who object to the conclusions and would never accept anything other than your initial stance. Am I wrong about that assumption about you? And if so, at what point would you accept it then?


If the NOAA told you that a severe thunderstorm was headed for Gig Harbor, at what level of certainty in their predictions would you choose to act and cancel a golf game? And why is that?

[LBJefferies]

The fundamental question I asked, repeatedly, if that how certain must something be in order to be acceptable as a basis for action? Does everyone have to agree on the conclusions? Even the uneducated? Or can a group of deniers or conspiracy theorists hijack the government's ability to do anything on the basis that it is wrong to take action without it "proven enough" to them. That question addresses if he would EVER be satisfied with action, or would always fight any action because it is his bias and assumption that the action is wrong or stupid, irrelevant of his lack of direct knowledge or education on the subject. It is clear that you and him seek out information that is contrarian and hold it as the truth, irregardless of your ignorance on the subject. This underlines that it is not truth or knowledge that you pursue, but fighting what you have presumed is wrong. If models were enhanced to the point where they could perfectly within an acceptable margin model the future average temperature based on current parameters and green house gases, would you ever accept that as valid? Or would you continue to deny it and beat your drum that it is all lies and conspiracy? Even if models could accurately predict the future, I think that you would still say it is a "theory" and unproven and there are still such and such less qualified scientists who object to the conclusions and would never accept anything other than your initial stance. Am I wrong about that assumption about you? And if so, at what point would you accept it then?


If the NOAA told you that a severe thunderstorm was headed for Gig Harbor, at what level of certainty in their predictions would you choose to act and cancel a golf game? And why is that?

This is a really good point. I am a skeptic, not just in regards to climate change but in regards to most things. One thing that I have come to realize in my years of naysaying is that everything can be questioned, and truth is extremely hard to come by. If you're good enough, you can frame an argument that will shoot down any claim of truth. Yes, ANY claim. And while this is certainly useful for debunking certain false viewpoints, some real truths are going to be overlooked in the process. Cue climate change.

At some point you need to take all of the information you have in front of you, you need to weigh the pros and cons, and you need to make a decision. If any government or corporation or individual acted only with complete certainty, nothing would happen and nothing would exist. No great inventions, no life changing events, no discovering America or man on the Moon, nothing.

Risk is uncertainty and uncertainty is a part of life. The skeptics should cede an argument for once, for the sake of science and humanity. Because the climate and the science behind it doesn't give a shit about you winning your high school debate tournament. It's going to happen whether you believe or not.

[ck_taft325is]

End of the world? What is happening again? I spaced out and stopped listening awhile back.

[herbivor]

Just a reminder. This PBS documentary is airing tonight. I would be curious what everyone's opinion is of it afterward, especially the deniers.

Well no surprises for me, nothing new I didn't already know, except for "Donors Trust". That's pretty screwed up. Just wondering what the deniers thought about the documentary.

[gwb72tii]

Well no surprises for me, nothing new I didn't already know, except for "Donors Trust". That's pretty screwed up. Just wondering what the deniers thought about the documentary.

had to record it as it came on too late for me

[gwb72tii]

The Hockey Stick goes to trial

Well it looks like the courts may actually be able to force Dr Mann to expose his data and algo's for all to see. Could it be the NRO actually baited Mann to sue?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/breaking-mann-has-filed-suit-against-nro/#more-72909

and this

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/michael-mann-never-fully-investigated-thus-never-exonerated/

[herbivor]

^Good for Mann. If he loses, the deniers will have a field day, and if he wins, it will be difficult to find anyone reporting it.

[rwh11385]

This is a really good point. I am a skeptic, not just in regards to climate change but in regards to most things. One thing that I have come to realize in my years of naysaying is that everything can be questioned, and truth is extremely hard to come by. If you're good enough, you can frame an argument that will shoot down any claim of truth. Yes, ANY claim. And while this is certainly useful for debunking certain false viewpoints, some real truths are going to be overlooked in the process. Cue climate change.

At some point you need to take all of the information you have in front of you, you need to weigh the pros and cons, and you need to make a decision. If any government or corporation or individual acted only with complete certainty, nothing would happen and nothing would exist. No great inventions, no life changing events, no discovering America or man on the Moon, nothing.

Risk is uncertainty and uncertainty is a part of life. The skeptics should cede an argument for once, for the sake of science and humanity. Because the climate and the science behind it doesn't give a shit about you winning your high school debate tournament. It's going to happen whether you believe or not.

At least even as a skeptic, you see the danger of some people simply putting their fingers in their ears. There's a difference between being critical of what people are saying versus choosing to disregard it completely based on an initial assumption.

Obviously both of them (gwb72tii, Fusion) have ignored the fundamental question of if there is any point in which they will assess the information instead of denying it absolutely.

The rise of more biased media and logically flawed arguments on both sides have depreciated our society's ability to reason and think critically, with fewer people really considering data instead of accepting and repeating opinion. The country would be a better place if more people were skeptical of what they were told, expecting it to be backed with hard data and proper logic. The rise of the blogger as a source of information hasn't been great for this issue, with people carrying bias and likely little formal education on a subject framing themselves as experts while spreading opinion that gets repeated. However valuable people being skeptical and taking it upon themselves to educate themselves so they are not mislead, simply ignoring one side entirely and accepting the contrarian one as fact does nothing but leave us with a nation of division with no way to bridge the gap with meaningful discussion since any debate wouldn't be based on fact but opinion-based assertions.

[gwb72tii]

ok here's a serious question
someone post a link to the broad poll that was taken that shows the 97% consensus among scientists

[rwh11385]

ok here's a serious question
someone post a link to the broad poll that was taken that shows the 97% consensus among scientists

So avoiding the question yet again?