HOME | DD
Conservatoons — Consensus Science
Published: 2009-11-06 01:56:03 +0000 UTC; Views: 1996; Favourites: 17; Downloads: 16
Redirect to original
Description
*Related content
Comments: 41
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Ah yes because climate science and climate change is a cult, just like evolutionary science is a cult. It must be easy to just call anything that you don't like a hoax.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A scientific consensus is more than merely a consensus of opinions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you suppose scientists have a vested interest in continued funding of this nonsense? Why do we only follow the money when conservatives or corporations are involved?
no hippies please.
do not skew my polls.
follow BO drawing guidelines.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is not nonsense. There is evidence for climate change. Many things remain to be discovered, of course.
I'd say it was the deniers of climate change who had ulterior motives. After all, with no problem, they wouldn't have to cut down on fuel and energy use, wouldn't have to limit the growth of their companies...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The earth has been both warmer and colder than it is today.
How did libs arrive at the optimal temp and at what pt did man become primarily responsible? Why are man's evils always exaggerated and his good downplayed? Do we let forest fires burn?
AGW is so silly even Al Gore is backing off. Also many scientists are backing off now that they see that their money is being spent on Obamacare, Unions and benefits for illegals.
no hippies please.
do not skew my polls.
follow BO drawing guidelines.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, the Earth has been both warmer and colder. However, those changes were far more gradual than the changes observed over the last few decades.
Letting forest fires burn is actually a good thing. As long as they don't rage completely unchecked, fires actually "clean" the forests.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
*Sigh* did you look at any of the information I gave you about global warming. It's not a cult. The consensus is a result of that there actually is ample evidence for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I did. Silly. Why is the planet cooling now though?
I'm not stopping you from engaging in nonsense. Just don't drag me or my wallet w/ you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
[link]
Clearly you didn't look at the information I sent you because this was one of the original links. In a blind study, statisticians examined the recent temperature data which has been used to claim that the earth is cooling. They found that there is no downward trend in temperature. The claim of cooling comes from people picking out particular points of data which gradually decrease while the overall trend in really an increase.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Amazing to me that the dispute over warm/cooling is over just a 40yr span of data on a planet 5 billion yrs old. With that sad sample of data you want to ruin our lifestyle? And even the govt guy admitted a very slight cooling. over last 9 yrs.
Thata all said I don't care about the weather. Neither do you big thinkers in the Green Lefty mvmt. It is just about money and control. They care less about the planet than most conservs because only rich nations can afford an EPA and other nonsense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The span of the warming is only 40 years but NOAA has records for 120 years. And that's only the direct observation. Dendrochronology can give us climate data going back 10,000 years. Ice Core samples give us climate information dating back 800,000. We don't need to compare this to the whole 4.6 billion year history of the earth. Because we aren't concened about "The Earth." The earth will go on regardless of climate. The concern is humans and the modern ecosystems on which we depend. These have only been around for 1-3 million years. So the only relevant data is what our current biosphere is adapted for.
Who is "the govt guy." You can't just throw around a statement like that without explaining who you're talking about or what they really said.
Do you really not understand the difference between climate and weather or do you just use them interchangeably to bother me?
Yes, of coarse. I, an 18 year old college student who works as life guard, am really just part of the "Green lefty movement" so that I can make money and control the world by exploiting third world countries without Environmental Protection Agencies. You say that environmentalists are paranoid. But you seem to think that 90% of climatologists are conspiring to change your life style.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
please. how accurate is data from before WWII? Is 120 that much better than 40? Core samples, how accurate there? We are talking about fractions of a degree.
THis is your religion. Logic and pragmatism hold no sway w/ you. Fear weather. It is your right. Just don't ask me to finance your nonsense phobia. Do you ever listen to youself? I can't believe there are actual adults taking any of this seriously. - which is why they brainwash the kids.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
While people may not have had the same technology we do now don't think of turn of the century climatologists as front porch prognosticators of weather. They were working with the most advanced measuring devices of their time. Since it is climate being studied these measurements are averaged out in ten year blocks. This reduces the effect of errors or unusual years and gives climatologist a more accurate view of the climate during that decade.
Since you specified WWII I assume your referring to the effect that the invention of radar had on meteorology. Correct me if that assumption is mistaken. If you are referring to Doppler Radars use in meteorology it is irrelevant. Doppler Radar is used to predict storms not to record temperature data, study climate, or detect trends in climate.
Regarding Core samples. They can be quite accurate as they are measurements of parts per million of various chemicals. And once again averages are taken to cancel out errors and outliers. This is the same quality of science which has built our modern world. Don't be so quick to doubt it just because you disagree.
You can't say that anthropogenic climate change is a religion, or nonsense phobia. It is backed up by tons of scientific evidence. I'm not talking about "An inconvenient truth" or bloggers or CNN reports. I understand that climate change is represented badly by it's most vocal proponents. The media always does a terrible job representing science. But that doesn't change the evidence which has been compiled by real scientists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh you mean the myth that I researched and saw that pretty much every meteorologist laughs at? Does the Easter Bunny give you treats too?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This comment was directed conservatoons because I sent him a link to this video series. [link]
Do you think before you post? You replied to a comment that you didn't know the context of. Then you use a consensus argument "pretty much every meteorologist laughs at [climate change]" in a comic which points out that consensus does not equal truth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pardon me, I didn't realize I was supposed to care about your opinion.
Looking at the fact that those who have studied in the field laugh at global warming shows that people with credentials have made a judgment call. Their research proves more than your small-brained opinion.
By the way, YouTube isn't a source. For one who asks if I think before I post, I find that quite hilarious. I don't need convincing; obviously you do if you feel the need to prove yourself to someone. I pity your lack of self-worth. Maybe when you grow up you'll be able to be cool like the big kids. You're still young; I don't expect you to know much when you've just graduated. Kids like you usually don't find out what life's about until halfway through college. You know, since high school usually spoon feeds you, and you're gullible enough to believe what they say, such as global warming.
I'll ignore your next reply because you'll act as if I'm putting you down for being young, when it's for being a young seed-picker, then go on about how YouTube does have good videos when in reality it's a tool that allows any fool to post a video, and then blab some more. You go from putting me down for one consensus when you turned around and used another, in the form of a YouTube link.
Think before you post. Oh wait, that would require intelligence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey, I didn't say you had to care about my opinion you started this argument by replying to a comment directed at some one else. And also no opinion was actually included in any of my comments on this comic.
To address all of the points you made I'm going to break them up into three categories Ad Hominems, Bald Faced lies, and statements regarding the actual science of climatology.
Ad Hominems
You said that I must lack self worth if I want to convince people of anthropogenic climate change. First, I'm not trying to prove myself. This isn't about who I am. It's about the scientific evidence regarding climate change. Secondly, apply that to yourself or conservatoons. Do either of you argue out of self doubt? No, so why would you assume that that's what my stance stems from?
"I'll ignore your next reply..." it reflects poorly on you that you would end an argument by ignoring someone and assume that they are the predictable one dimensional character that you envision them as.
About the videos. If you'd watch them you'd see that this is not some vlogger ranting and spouting statements with no basis. He gives citations and quotes and discusses from a neutral view the evidence regarding climate change. I could have shown you all of the sources which he cites rather than give you the video but this was quicker. It still functions as a good starting point.
Also, a youtube video isn't a consensus argument. These videos have actual information regarding climate change. Even if it was just a ranting vlogger that would not be a consensus argument because it would not be claiming that the majority determines truth.
Bald Faced lies.
You claimed that most scientists doubt anthropogenic climate change. You were completely wrong. [link] Yes, THIS is a consensus argument. But I am not claiming that this proves global warming. The data does that. This just shows that you were wrong when you said that meteorologist doubt global warming.
Statements regarding science
oops looks like you didn't have anything in this category.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oops, look like I predicted you correctly. You did exactly what I knew you'd do.
And just because you're comment was directed at someone else doesn't mean I don't have the right to reply. I did, you're angry because you think you're correct and I'm not. Good for you. Does it make your lack of self-worth feel better now that you have attention? Your long-winded reply, typical of a liberal, shows you lack self-worth and are gullible enough to keep going after someone replies. I knew I'd get this out of you based on how I chose my words. It was on purpose, to show others how people like you behave. So you took it, hook, line, and sinker.
Thanks for playing; hope we can do this again some time. While you're waiting, go look up evidence of the polar ice caps actually freezing again. The solar winds actually cool the earth; they're far from melting. But since you're wanting to link to YouTube videos with no real evidence, that's your fault. But, you probably believe we're cousins to monkeys, Darwin's a hero, and Obama is Messiah. Have fun with your fairy tales, kiddy.
And yes, you do lack self-worth. Why? You feel it so important that we know about global warming. I don't need convincing. I've literally researched my beliefs in this area for years. And I used real books, not YouTube and biased news articles. You'll look up what supports your views. I look up facts. Just get over the fact that you can't stand to be told you're wrong. You're a child; it's normal for people your age to feel that way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't say you couldn't reply. Yes you have that right. My point was that you shouldn't get involved in an argument and then act like I'm forcing my views on you.
Really? You predicted exactly how I'd react? You're guess was that I would Think I'm being attacked for being young, defend you tube as a source, and "Blab some more". Close but you missed the part where I called you out on your bald faced lie, explained that I wasn't using Youtube as a source on it's own but as a starting point for looking into other outside information which was cited in the video, and criticized you for your use of ad hominems (Not including any comments on my age).
Once again this has nothing to do with my self worth. Taking me down doesn't further your argument. Also the long winded comment is another ad hominem. I'm sorry if I go long I try to keep things brief but there is a lot for me to address.
Well I tried to find the information about the ice caps growing. If you can give me a link I'll look but the sites I ran into when I googled it were fox news and "IloveCo2.com" both of which seemed suspect so I went to NASA and looked up recent polar ice cap data. It did thicken slightly from 2008-2009 but its still lower than any time before 2007. Here's the link [link]
So, are you a creationist then? I'd debate you on that but we should probably do it via notes. It would be kind of rude to leave a long discussion like that on conservatoons' page. For the record yes we are related to the great apes, and every other living organism. Darwin was a great scientist. Without understanding evolution we would have none of modern biology. Obama I'm not so keen on. He's fallen short of a lot of his goals. It's not that I disagree with his views its that I don't think he does enough to realize them.
Oh, and then you go on about my lack of self worth for a while as if that were relevant. I don't know why you would say that the mongo bay article is biased. If you read the footnotes they explain that the questions were very simply phrased and there was no cherry picking of participants.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So I don't believe in GW because I'm a creationist.
When you die, you'll find out the truth. Too bad it'll happen then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually I don't need to die to find out the truth about global warming or evolution. The evidence is physical accessible and undeniable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It would be nice if you fully understood what an ad hominem is. You keep using them, thinking you're clever, but really you're deflecting. You know where I see that type of argument? From liberals.
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false
You keep going on and on. I said "If you're gullible." That isn't an ad hominem, that's just an "if" statement. Therefore, this proves you don't even know the phrase you're using. If you can't use one phrase correctly, what else are you incorrect about? One can only wonder.
Don't be so quick to doubt other belief systems before you properly research them. I won't send you links because I expect you to take the initiative.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know just fine what an ad hominem is. And your statement was one. Putting "if" at the beginning doesn't make it an innocent musing. "If" in this case is an instance of using a qualifier as a weasel word. You were using that statement to cast doubt on my statement that there is ample evidence for Evolution and Global Warming by suggesting that I am gullible and that only gullible people believe science. By doing this you were not addressing my original point hence it was an ad hominem.
I have studied other belief systems. Maybe not all but here's what I have experienced. I was raised catholic. I've had lutherans and baptists try to convert me and I've had lengthy discussion with them about the nature of their religion. I've had hindu and wican friends explain their belief systems to me. And I've attended a panel discussion by a Christian preacher, Jewish Rabbi, Muslim, and Hindu each comparing and contrasting their religions.
But all of that is really irrelevant. Theists are the ones making the positive claim "There is a God." It doesn't fall on me to study their belief and disprove it. Since they are making the positive claim, they must supply the evidence.
Also, should we switch to notes? This discussion has gone far beyond the comic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
... If you're gullible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Great, you've ended this discussion with yet another ad hominem. Stay classy Melancholic stock.
This is the same science that built our modern life style and first world infrastructure. Don't be so quick to doubt it just because you disagree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Funny how consensus seems to equal fact nowadays... except for when Republican's agree on something. Then it's bigotry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Also feelings are facts. yep. attended sensitivity training that insisted this. amazing. this is our lib world. Even the prez can't call a muslim who yells allah akhbar before killing 13 and wounding 30 - a terrorist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As he stated, we shouldn't "jump to conclusions." Riiight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, show the same caution he did when he said police acted stupidly before the all-impt beer summit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks. I love me some MJ!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah. The weird thing is I actually did believe some of these rumours, due to the 'if it walks like a duck' bit. Now his kids have facebook accounts and I'm getting more of the truth, though I had learned shortly after his death that the bratling who accused him of molestation admitted later on to lying. I feel like quite the idiot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nah. The media attacks any celebrity that does something weird in their eyes. Then turns them into a freak. I remember the same shit happened with Britany Spears. She did have like a break down or whatever but look who she married! A self loathing dick head that just knocked her up to get money.
So it isn't really your fault because if you aren't a crazy fan like me and some other peoples, lol, then you only watch what is on the news. So meh. I never thought he did it because I was biased but also the last accuser if you go back and read the trial the mother was a FREAK! She kept on pleading the fifth whenever Michael's lawyer asked her about money, and then she threw a big fit whenever Michael's Lawyer proved her wrong. Gad! I honestly think that if the mother would have never gotten on the stand Michael might have been convicted. Not because he did it but a kid is more believable. I don't want you to think I think he did it because that is not the case. I just think the mother fudged everything up for them. lol And the second son did too. No ones stories matched up it was insane. It was also funny to watch. I watched the reenactments EVERY night. lol
I kind of thought Michael was way to naive, he was naive in thinking that adults of the children would not use him. Very naive. Though I do think what killed him was after the last trial he pretty much left neverland and stopped helping kids. He loved helping kids and I think to this day he died of a broken heart, and a stupid ass doctor. But you get what I mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Probably. I know what it refers to is "appealing to popularity," in other words, you're using the argument, "Something is right because more people believe in it."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Good one. Where was this consensus stuff when I was in school.
We the class have a consensus that 2+2=3.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0