Winning arguments with AGW deniers/ 2011

[Sixstrings]

Et tu Brutus?

What I don't like about this thread, and others like it, is it has devolved into a "let's somehow convert SixStrings".

You're right that it shouldn't be about me, but neither is it my fault I'm the only doubter who's posting. I did a poll Mos, 41% of the membership either outright rejects or has some doubts. It's not just me.

I think SixStrings likes being on the fence because then he's the center of attention.

I'm on the fence with a lot of issues simply because I'm open minded. How can you ever know you're right if you haven't fully considered and really tried to understand the other side? More precisely, I'm just interested in the truth not being right -- when I post about globalism, several times I've stepped back and argued the other side, recognizing the benefits and how complicated the issue really is.

At the end of the day, I lean one way or another. I'm obviously an independent, and yeah I know that drives 100% partisans bonkers but you just have to deal with it -- it's the middle that decides the issues.

And no, I don't want to be the center of attention. I've sensed that developing with this climate change stuff and I don't like it. I'm going to stick to my commitment not to blow this thing up even bigger by starting any more threads. You seem to want to put me in the "troll" category, maybe you're missing Shorty or something I don't what the deal is but I refuse to play along.

This is what happens with a forum that has had a serious drop off in posters. It becomes all about the influence of one or two people driving the discussion.

I'm aware of that. That's why I'm not starting any new threads on climate (other than the poll question and the taxes thread, I stopped after that).

What I mean is, he's sitting back like someone in a batter's cage, asking us to pitch the data to him one at a time, so he can swing at it.

Well I'm genuinely undecided (though leaning one way) and yet not emotionally attached to either side. I thought well here's a good chance for discussion. You guys need to realize that even if you drive all doubters off the forum and never talk to doubters anywhere else, THOSE PEOPLE STILL VOTE. If you want governmental mitigation, you have to talk at some point. This is a democracy.

I don't think this is reasonable. Any fully functional adult can go out and find the data on their own.

Slipping in snide remarks like that NEVER helps your argument. It just pushes people away. As for finding info for oneself, you guys are undeniably very well read and have been researching this for years -- why not ask you?

With Shorty gone, Six is now assuming the role of the resident skeptic.

Again, 41% of the membership has AGW doubts. It's not just me. But don't worry, no I won't become the Oilfinder of climate change because I don't WANT to.

Maybe a more polite one, but equally short-sighted and obstinate. I can say for myself that I just don't care enough about Six to keep tilting at that windmill. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Interesting style there. First you compliment (you say I'm polite) and then you slip in the condescending remark. I can't respond other than that because then this would become a flame war and I simply don't do flame wars.

Bottom line, let's cut the BS Mos. There are lots of headstrong people on this forum, and they all want to have the last word, so that's why these feuds and arguments get out of control. At some point I'm gonna have to give you guys the last word just to get out of this toxic mess.

Having said that, please note this thread specifically invites doubters to join the discussion. With that in mind, watch the snide remarks and try to be considerate.

[Shar_Lamagne]

An unprecedented study that followed several thousand undergraduates through four years of college found that large numbers didn't learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education.

Many of the students graduated without knowing how to sift fact from opinion, make a clear written argument or objectively review conflicting reports of a situation or event, according to New York University sociologist Richard Arum, lead author of the study. The students, for example, couldn't determine the cause of an increase in neighborhood crime or how best to respond without being swayed by emotional testimony and political spin.

link

The number of people that believe or not a given proposition, has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true.

I agree with mos. You are a righty no matter how much you claim otherwise and a denier, also no matter how much you claim otherwise, and mearly use this pretense to air your denier beliefs and push your agenda.

If you really had been honestly on the fence, you would have by now grasped the facts, unless you truly lack the reasoning ability necessary. Your comment about a poll perhaps indicates the latter. At which point, informing you is a useless gesture.

So either way a waste of time. There is a big difference between open-minded and an airhead.

[SeaGypsy]

Shar, please go back to page 1 and read the introduction to this thread. Thanks.

But for 6Strings generousity we would not have a thread here, or a debate.

[mos6507]

I'm on the fence with a lot of issues simply because I'm open minded.

When do you see yourself forming a conclusion? A year from now? 10 years from now? Never? If you're really so curious, and you need to leave no stone unturned, go back to college and get a higher degree in climate science.

This is a democracy.

More like idiocracy.

It just pushes people away.

There's more to life than winning popularity contests.


Sixstrings likes me, he really likes me!

why not ask you?

Because the bar you've set for yourself in order for you to make up your mind will forever be beyond our ability to reach for you. You deal with your own agnosticism on your own.

[dohboi]

Again, nicely put.

I would, however, like to point out that, though the species of denialists we deal with here are particularly extreme and intractable, at some level, we all probably have to deny to ourselves the depth and severity of our predicament and our culpability in it, at least some of the time.

By the way, Shar, thanks for the link about poor critical thinking skills among college grads. I sent it around to some colleagues, and now we are discussing having some all-college discussions about it.

We have some great posters here. If only we can manage not to get endlessly involved with the cranks.

[Asterisk]

Agreed DB. What's happening is so much like science fiction that I occasionally find myself in denial about the whole thing. I find it especially strange that discussion of such staggeringly planet changing events is essentially confined to an obscure discussion forum.

I can see how a person of limited intellectual capacity may simply not be able to put together the pieces of the puzzle as we [unfortunately] have. It just seems too unbelievable.

[scas]

I find it interesting that 6s protects his skeptics argument, yet berated the video dissection i posted. In that video, they use a temperature graph with data to 1990, but label 1990 'now' to give the impression of no heating. They also try to say the heating is a result of solar variation, yet they don't show the divergence of temperature and radiation in the last few years.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/s ... 000-years/

There is no problem with the hockey stick, and there is no controversy. In the Great Swindle video which i attached earlier, they hand draw a line on the graph as if it somehow represents a smooth medieval warm period. They straight up lie. The medieval warm period was NOT warmer than now.

Peter Sinclair actually did a video on it. At 3:00 he explains the Medieval lie.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07 ... at_glo.php

It is quite obvious the type of people were dealing with. While we're on the subject of denialist shills, take a look at James Delingpole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

[Sixstrings]

I find it interesting that 6s protects his skeptics argument, yet berated the video dissection i posted. In that video, they use a temperature graph with data to 1990, but label 1990 'now' to give the impression of no heating.

The filmmaker disputes the IPCC's temp claims from 1990 to whatever date "now" was at production time. That's the whole point, the filmmaker wasn't trying to mislead -- he has a problem with the IPCC numbers.

I'm swayed enough about the heat island effect to doubt the validity of land temps. Although I grant that poor monitoring station locales ought to average out in the end, but on something this important you have to be *sure*. So I'm more interested in sea temps. Similarly, another big area of contention are paleo climatic proxies. They're using all kinds of "proxies" to estimate past temps. I can't think of them all, tree rings are one and I think they have geologic and erosion proxies too. IMHO there's a lot of room for error and fudging the more proxies you add.

Whereas ice core samples are much more straightforward -- what you're measuring there are actual captured air samples from the past. I'm going to keep an eye out, one of these days I'm bound to run across some good ice core temp charts.

I finally found a decent sea temp chart by the way:


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Ok, so there you have a graph that does NOT end in 1990. The funny thing though is that it just ended pretty much back to what is was in 1990.

To be fair, if you draw a trend line from start point to end point it would be a very tiny but gradual increase. This graph only goes to 2008 though, since even folks in the AGW camp have said "temps have leveled out the last decade" then I wonder what the sea temps were from '08-'10. Have they gone down from the '08 endpoint in that graph?

There is no problem with the hockey stick, and there is no controversy.

My bottom line question.. I'd like to see a graph that shows JUST ice core temps (and for recent temps you can add in sea temp). Let me look at a graph like that, and if it really shows it's warmer now than the medieval warming period then you will have made your point.

That's my big block there, I really want to know if it's warmer now than the medieval warm period -- but using undeniable data like the air samples in ice cores and the sea temps which has no heat island effect.

(by the way, I know the central argument is really the runaway chain reaction hothouse warming but I can't even get to that point until I get past my initial questions)

[scas]

Heat island effect? Jeeze

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM

And his older one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw

Do you know what graph you attached? Monthly Mean global sea surface temperature anomaly? It shows that the oceans have been warm since the 1990s, and you yourself state the oceans been warming. Thats a huge heat capacity.
I'm not sure how that relates to the 1990s atmospheric temperature anomaly...(same link)

What's your deal with ice core data? They can only be taken from Greenland and Antarctica. Ocean cores, lakebed cores, pollen measurements, petrified trees, and fossils can be taken from various locations...and they all point to warming.

[Graeme]

Climate sceptic 'misled Congress over funding from oil industry'

A leading climate sceptic patronised by the oil billionaire Koch brothers faced a potential investigation today on charges that he misled Congress on the extent of his funding from the oil industry.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a thinktank founded by Charles and David Koch to promote their libertarian, anti-government views, appeared before the house energy and commerce committee in February 2009.

At the time, the committee was headed by the California Democrat Henry Waxman and Michaels was the only one in the line-up of witnesses to cast doubt on global warming, testifying that mainstream science had exaggerated the threat posed by climate change.

Now, Waxman writes in a letter to the incoming committee chair, Fred Upton, it appears as if Michaels may have misled the committee. In 2009, Michaels said 3% of his $4.2m in financial support came from the oil and gas industry. But in an appearance on CNN in August last year, and in subsequent interviews, Michaels suggested that figure was 40%.

guardian

[Asterisk]

Yep, he is now a verifiable denier if I ever saw one.

That means this debate will continue ad nauseum if we let it.

6, you know how to use google (afterall you have certainly become an expert at googling "global warming scam" and "earth is really cooling") so I'm sure you can find the info you need (as if you are truly seeking answers, LMAO) on your own.

[Sixstrings]

Ok I think I'm ready to give up, you guys don't want to talk to anyone who has doubts. From what I gather from the comments in these threads, only half of you want to see large scale governmental mitigation anyway.. but those of you who do, surely you understand that mitigation WILL NEVER HAPPEN if you flat out refuse to talk to anyone who has doubts.

Not that it's up to you specifically, but if you're representative of the activist movement overall then any kind of mitigation is hopeless. If you won't even talk, and be polite and refrain from insults, then there's zero chance of EVER swinging conservatives and independents over to your side.

[vision-master]

Let's see,,,,,,,,, Julian Assange, ain't he the guy wanted for sex charges.....

I wonder what those secret papers have to say about global warming?

WikiLeaks memos reveal "climate change" con game

Science blogger Anthony Watts has read numerous WikiLeaks diplomatic cables related to climate change and has noticed a common theme -- an attempt by Second World nations to siphon wealth and political power from First World nations, all in the name of Third World nations assumed to be "victims" of global warming. At the same time, the US and other First World nations tried to offer aid directly to Third World nations; certainly a curious case of "better the devil you know" diplomacy.

link

[Sixstrings]

What's your deal with ice core data? They can only be taken from Greenland and Antarctica. Ocean cores, lakebed cores, pollen measurements, petrified trees, and fossils can be taken from various locations...and they all point to warming.

There are too many questions about the proxies for me to be comfortable with. For one thing, trees can grow faster if there's more CO2 in the air -- so right there, how do you know if you're measuring temp or CO2 concentration?

And going around looking at tree rings has to be error prone. So many factors there with tree growth, it's very complex.

But ice cores.. much simpler, straightforward, and less room for question and error. With ice cores you're dealing with actual samples of the atmosphere as it existed at that time. There's no interpretation or room for BS, it's a direct sample.

EDIT: to prove I'm objective, I'll go ahead and give you the probable case against ice cores. You can't figure out global climate from just Greenland and Antarctica, and that's why they use other proxies. BUT....... on the fundamental question of warming trends IMHO Greenland and Antarctica are good enough, and you can't deny the results from actual atmospheric samples from the past (they're bubbles trapped in the ice). That's something I can trust, real air samples, I just have too much doubt about the other proxies.

[mos6507]

Ok I think I'm ready to give up.

[vision-master]

Get Up Stand Up

[Asterisk]

But if you're representative of the activist movement overall then any kind of mitigation is hopeless. If you won't even talk, and be polite and refrain from insults, then there's zero chance of EVER swinging conservatives and independents over to your side.

Put yourself in our shoes and imagine yourself debating a flat-earther (yes they do exist: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ ).

Every argument you could give would be dismissed and they would grasp at whatever straws they could find in order to prove you WRONG. They don't want the truth, they want to be RIGHT because the bible says (in their reading of it) that the earth is flat. For you to be right would mean they would have to adjust their entire world view, and they are simply not willing to do that.

You would eventually get so frustrated that surely you would begin telling them the truth: "you believe the earth is flat and there is nothing I can say...no evidence I can point to that would convince you otherwise, so what is the point of this discussion?"

I know you don't realize it, but you are essentially a flat-earther. You refuse to look objectively at the facts, but instead cling to anything that says we are wrong (even though every argument you have presented to contradict the reality of AGW has been debunked over and over).

There is no room for doubt at this point, none whatsoever. And we have dealt with deniers for years and years and they ALL post the same exact [debunked] arguments over and over and simply disregard the truth.

After awhile it REALLY gets old and over the years we have become more and more intolerant of their cookie-cutter rants. I apologize if I am rude at times, but it's just so damn frustrating to argue with someone who is incapable of rationally discussing facts.

As for conservatives, they are irrational about their beliefs as well. I could no more convince a conservative that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy (even though it is an objective fact that they DON'T) then I could convince a denier of the reality of AGW. For this reason I gave up debating politics with conservatives awhile back.

Ok, I'm rambling....but you get my drift.

If nothing else, it has been interesting watching a denier-to-be blossom into a full-fledged Meemoe_UK. It sort of gave an interesting perspective into denier thinking.

[Lore]

Usually deniers start out with some argument that has been previously dismissed many times by the science, but they hold it dear since they’ve invested in so much time in defending it. See WUWT and Anthony Watts’ surface temp fiasco as a case in point. When it finally comes down to the realization that continuing to defend their argument would put them squarely in the nitwit category, they then quickly try to find some other vagrant arguments, running pillar to post in attempting to salvage their position. Ultimately they get tangled up in conflicting facts or poorly studied and reasoned research to finally dissolve into making accusations of uncertainty, conspiracy, deceit and lies. Which is all they have left to shield their denial.

[Asterisk]

Damn Lore, well said!

[mos6507]

Ultimately they get tangled up in conflicting facts or poorly studied and reasoned research to finally dissolve into making accusations of uncertainty, conspiracy, deceit and lies. Which is all they have left to shield their denial.

There's one final stop for the denialist, and that's an acceptance along the lines of "it's too late to do anything". You see, it's not the denial that a denialist cares about the most, it's personal restraint. They may not like conceding that we're screwed, and we're responsible, but if they feel they are "off the hook" because we've passed all the tipping points, they can at least eat drink and be merry for what little time of normalcy is left.

Right now I'm clinging to the idea of doing something about AGW more to avoid being confused by the above contingent than any realistic hope that it's gonna "save us". Some things you just have to do out of principle.