Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

wikipedia.org
google.com

I'm going to hope you're joking about wikipedia.

If not, you're an idiot.

[CampbellsTransgressions]

I'm all for cutting back on pollution emissions, regardless of whether climate change is actually a legitimate reason. Having good air quality is always a bonus.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

Lying to misrepresent someone else's position or to lend support to your own is common. I supposed it could also be misinformed, but that looks almost as bad.

I chose lying because it was such a common refrain when the email leak first came out from those that were trying to find something to work with, I'd find it improbable he didn't know of either the misrepresentation of details by some deniers at the time or the actual facts.

And I'm not too worried about my credibility, it is what it is, I just read what I can, understand what I can, and work from there.

Again what did he do that was lying or "misrepresenting" at 1:30 of the video? That is the point you said he was "lying". He was talking about the Freedom of Information Act at that point.

So far you have just name called. The usual tact of a AGW zealot.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by kirant

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...te-change.html

It actually was about man made climate science, a much more debatable fact (good and bad science exists in that field).

Not this part:

The last amendment, offered by Rep. Henry Waxman of southern California, asserted even more unassailable scientific findings. His amendment stated simply that "Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level." It was also unanimously rejected in a party-line vote with all Republicans voting no.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

I'm going to hope you're joking about wikipedia.

If not, you're an idiot.

Conservapedia more your style?

Originally Posted by calgaryred

if I don't believe it then I don't believe it exists

if you don't believe in God, then to you it doesn't exist

God's existance can't be tested by science (well, some versions of God can't). Global warming can.

I'm going to play nice: "I don't believe in X, therefore X doesn't exist". If X is Jarome Iginla, gravity, the Pope, evolution, etc., that statement is obviously false because X does exist. Therefore, the logic doesn't work. Whether something exists or not does not depend on whether or not people believe it exists. I would hope the opposite to be true, but it often isn't either.

[photon]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

I'm going to hope you're joking about wikipedia.

If not, you're an idiot.

Wikipedia is a great resource, it usually has enough info to give a general idea and the real resource is it usually have references to more substantive articles.

There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia for what it is.

Originally Posted by HOZ

Again what did he do that was lying or "misrepresenting" at 1:30 of the video? That is the point you said he was "lying". He was talking about the Freedom of Information Act at that point.

Why do you want to know? You've demonstrated your ability to reasonably discuss points like that in the past, so there's no point in going into details, is there? If I say what it is, will that result in a meaningful rational discussion? You'll have to convince me.

Originally Posted by HOZ

So far you have just name called.

No, saying someone lied is not calling them a name, it's calling the statement they made untrue.

Originally Posted by HOZ

The usual tact of a AGW zealot.

Hey look, so far you have just name called.

How many threads on AGW have I started, if I'm such a zealot? A zealot should have started far more than zero.

So you said I called someone a name, which I didn't, and then said that was the usual tact (did you mean tactic?) of an AGW zealot (which I'm not, and it isn't the usual tactic, that's just rhetoric to make an emotional point when a real one can't be made).

One might say you misrepresented things to your own ends!

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Actually, I would disagree with that. Global warming is still alive and well is most if not all scientific streams of research. What researchers are evaluating are the causes and effects of global warming.

I definitely agree, global warming is a real issue. The problem is that the general public dismisses it as fear mongering science, and changing the terms used would make your research more effective.

[HOZ]

Why do you want to know?

I want to know what exactly he lied about at 1:30 of that video which destroys his credibility. Plain and simple.

You've demonstrated your ability to reasonably discuss points like that in the past, so there's no point in going into details, is there? If I say what it is, will that result in a meaningful rational discussion? You'll have to convince me.

SO it is my fault now that you won't answer a simple question.

No, saying someone lied is not calling them a name, it's calling the statement they made untrue.

Saying that someone has lied IS calling them a liar. Like saying that someone stole something is the same as calling them a thief. It goes hand in hand.

Hey look, so far you have just name called.

How many threads on AGW have I started, if I'm such a zealot? A zealot should have started far more than zero.

So you said I called someone a name, which I didn't, and then said that was the usual tact (did you mean tactic?) of an AGW zealot (which I'm not, and it isn't the usual tactic, that's just rhetoric to make an emotional point when a real one can't be made).

One might say you misrepresented things to your own ends!

Way to obfuscate photon. You posted that he lied at 1:30 of the video and I asked you what exactly. This is now 3 posts in which you have not answered.

It would be very strange that a AGW believer would lie (on video in front of an audience) about evidence bringing the science that supports his position on AGW into disrepute. That simply defies logic.

I would really like you to explain this.

[Aegypticus]

I am also curious what he lied about. Having only heard about the issue he's addressing in passing, I'm assuming I am missing some crucial detail specific to those events that is keeping me from identifying said lie.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

I'm going to hope you're joking about wikipedia.

If not, you're an idiot.

Wikipedia is a great source for basic information. Additionally, most sources cited are completely usable for good research reports.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

I'm going to hope you're joking about wikipedia.

If not, you're an idiot.

This a like an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia is a good place to start on many topics, but is no substitute for seeking out the original sources. If you think an entry is inaccurate, you are welcome to update it.

[MacGruber]

Originally Posted by troutman

This a like an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia is a good place to start on many topics, but is no substitute for seeking out the original sources. If you think an entry is innaccurate, your are welcome to update it.

I can't stand when people trash wikipedia. I always ask them to go show me something on that site that isn't correct, or, cite an example of it being incorrect. I'm sure there's been examples here or there but people treat it like it's the personal encyclopedia of the iraqi information minister.

[Thor]

Uggh I forgot to save the link, does anyone have the video of a democratic politician (not sure state/federal), who does a 2 min mocking of an anti-climate change bill by republicans, he even makes a Schrodinger's cat joke.

[Tinordi]

Still waiting for that research showing that this recent warming trend is related to solar activity there Hack&Lube.

I agree with you that there are very complex feedback mechanisms built into the biosphere and that those are the dominant climate altering mechanisms. I don't think any climate scientist would argue otherwise. What they are point out is the role of 'forcing' that GHGs play. The most sophisticated models and historical research of course tries to account for the natural feedback mechanisms. They then overlay that with the current conditions and find the forcing from GHGs.

So my point is that you're just side stepping the difficult points. Infact, what you're saying is mostly platitudes designed to obfuscate the debate. The earth is very old, we are only observing a very small part of the climate timelines, we are too small to have big impacts, all of your arguments have been summarily addressed in the literature. It's you who has the onus of proof to show me that this literature is, in fact, untrue.

Then the other conjecture you throw out, climate scientists have bias, there's momentum to climate research is just plain old conservative blog garbage. The science stands on its own merit. The broad conspiracy theories are just mind bogglingly stupid. Who has a vested interest in climate change? Who stands to gain? Where's the motive? It's not there.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

SO it is my fault now that you won't answer a simple question.

Well, I can only predict your future actions based on your past ones, and given your posts in response to mine on this exact issue back when the emails first came out, there's no point in answering is there?

Originally Posted by HOZ

Saying that someone has lied IS calling them a liar. Like saying that someone stole something is the same as calling them a thief. It goes hand in hand.

Not really no, the word liar could refer to someone who's told one lie (in that case everyone is a liar), or it could refer to someone who habitually tells lies. Because it's ambiguous (I don't know if this guy is a habitual lair or not, likely not) I chose to refer to the statement itself rather than the individual.

See, this is the kind of nonsense that makes a reasonable discussion impossible. Here's the chain of reasoning: Saying that a statement is a lie is apparently name calling, supposedly a common tactic among AGW zealots, implying that name calling is negative and shouldn't be done. So what do you do when someone DOES lie? You can't say so because it's name calling!

Originally Posted by HOZ

Way to obfuscate photon.

Not really no, it wasn't obfuscation it was misrepresentation. You don't like when it happens to you, but seem unable to refrain from doing it yourself.

Originally Posted by HOZ

You posted that he lied at 1:30 of the video and I asked you what exactly. This is now 3 posts in which you have not answered.

So?

Originally Posted by HOZ

It would be very strange that a AGW believer would lie (on video in front of an audience) about evidence bringing the science that supports his position on AGW into disrepute. That simply defies logic.

I would really like you to explain this.[/QUOTE]

I watched the rest of the video and the whole thing is a lie or a misunderstanding of what data was used and why. You are right it does defy logic, all his claims about what data is used and why are explained fully in the sources. Maybe he just didn't read the papers and listened to too many people who thought the emails were a smoking gun? Who knows, ask him, I can't explain someone else's motivations.

[Zee]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Some good information.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Do you believe in facts?

Here's the amount of green house gasses in our atmosphere over the past 2000 years in ppm and ppb

How do they know what green house gases were 2000 years ago? Are they sure those numbers are accurate? Could they have changed in the 2000 years it took for us to actually be able to test it?

Personally I think we are giving man kind way too much credit to think we could destroy this planet.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Personally I think we are giving man kind way too much credit to think we could destroy this planet.

A large scale nuclear war would destroy the ecosystem in no time at all.

[Tinordi]

We're destroying biodiversity really effectively as well.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by troutman

A large scale nuclear war would destroy the ecosystem in no time at all.

You don't think the Earth could recycle itself in a 100,000+ years to be liveable again?

I'm not saying humans would be around to see it but isn't it possible?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Zee

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Some good information.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/

How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere..._a_sceptic.php

Below is a listing of all the articles to be found in the "How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic" guide, presented as a handy one-stop shop for all the material you should need to rebut the more common anti-global warming science arguments constantly echoed across the internet.