Comments on: Wow, Look at that Science

By: hunter - the skeptical one

hunter - the skeptical one — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:54:17 +0000

Many responses to plain questions, or presentations of conflicting data, from many AGW believers is surprisingly similar to what we see from ‘hunter’.
I was speaking with the lead scientist and Howard Hughes foundation recipient of a research lab recently. I was able to ask questions about the work his lab was doing, and ask questions about how the concepts they work with are applied. Some of my questions were no doubt naive, and some of my assumptions were wrong. He was able to explain in sensible terms his view. Some of what is researched in this lab has radical implications for biology and neuroscience.
He was able to answer questions without resort to any of the displays our AGW hunter resorts to. He was able to answer questions in a non-circular fashion.
That is what I have come to expect from people who actually know what they believe, and actually understand what they are talking about, no matter the topic.
The typical AGW true believer, as we see displayed in AGW hunter, is exactly the opposite of what this scientist did. Our believer is typically: Defensive, argumentative, evasive, uninformative, angry, circular, self referential.
What I have learned in my life is that when I am confronted with the behavior the AGW true believer displays, they are wrong. Sometimes sincere, often cynical, but wrong none the less.
From Hansen and Gore to our own little waif, AGW is dominated by this sort of behavior.
That is one big reason I am very confident that AGW – the idea that humans are causing a climate crisis by way of CO2 emissions- is a social movement, with little or nothing to do with climate science.

By: j ferguson

j ferguson — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:14:33 +0000

“…and I agree that it is a fairly thin branch to try to deny that greenhouse gas theory is wrong.”

Is there an extra “denial” in here? sorry to have posted this comment to the first thread earlier.

John

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:08:34 +0000

“What exactly is the counter argument you are putting forth”

hunter has never put up a counter argument. The approach there seems to just be to spread vitriol. Rarely do I encounter people with actions so easily explained by a Freudian approach to psychology.

Yes, that’s right – YOUR DICK IS LITTLE :O

By: fcdman

fcdman — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:35:34 +0000

Hunter:

“Naner-naner-dooder head” is not an argument. What are you talking about with “meaningless phrase”. The argument in the post is clear and easily understood, what exactly is the counter argument you are putting forth. If its that the post author is “autistic”, then your a fucking idiot with no ability to engage in any real discussion of these issues.

By: hunter

hunter — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:44:43 +0000

“the world’s climate is dominated by positive feedbacks”

Ha ha, there we go – once again you fulfil the prediction that you’ll trot out this meaningless phrase at least once every two weeks. Your habit of saying the same thing over and over again and apparently not being capable of ever responding to any criticism strongly suggests some kind of autistic spectrum disorder.

Let’s sit back now and wait for the next time you repeat your meaningless blathering.

By: Lloyd Burt

Lloyd Burt — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:08:53 +0000

What amazes me that these “scientists” propose feedbacks driven by temperature at rates greater than the input temperature change…and yet they somehow think that these feedbacks will only react to the CO2′s forcing and not their own. I’m sorry but once feedbacks provide more forcing than the initial input energy, they’re inherently “run away” and will only stop when the feedback weakens below that 1 to 1 forcing. Since the holocene optimum and and other interglacials were significantly warmer than today, there is no reason to believe CO2 forcing (a piddly 1.2C for doubling) can ever push things that far.

By: Marc Morano

Marc Morano — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:09:18 +0000

As a former Senate Env. Public Works climate researcher, I will have full rebuttal to laughable “debunking” of 700 scientist report. I cannot belive they cited the new report that purports to discredit the Senate report. The authors cannot even do basic math.

By: commieBob

commieBob — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:57:29 +0000

CBC radio has a program called Ideas. Tonight’s program was called ‘The Deniers’ and presented Lawrence Solomon’s book of the same name. The book was compiled from columns he wrote for the National Post. (I haven’t downloaded it, but apparently the broadcast is available as a podcast.) He presents the work of prominent, credible scientists who don’t believe the climate change hysteria we are having jammed down our throats.

Solomon is now writing columns about the interests who benefit from a widespread belief in catastrophic climate change.

The thing about Lawrence Solomon is that he is an environmentalist. He is the head of Energy Probe. He would like to see us weaned from oil. He’s not a fan of coal and he’s not real keen on nuclear. It is impressive that he hasn’t drunk the climate change kool-aid.

P.S. Why do I call myself commieBob? I’m a Canadian, raised in Saskatchewan. I support universal healthcare. The name is tongue-in-cheek; I hate communists and fascists equally.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:15:38 +0000

The question is whether your comment will be allowed to remain. Once I clicked the link, I realized it wasn’t just some believer’s blog, so it’s likely your comment will remain. But if it is removed, it’s because it’s concise, and logical. It make sense. Often times, skeptics, who have no case, but are just yelling fools, often are allowed to comment, because it makes the skeptic’s argument look like only fools are skeptics.

By: AnonyMoose

AnonyMoose — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:13:02 +0000

If you must read IPCC reports, also notice how often they admit there was a lot that they didn’t know in the previous reports. Look for phrases such as “significant progress”. In each report they claim they pretend to know what is going on, although there are many unknowns they have to mention … if you must read them.