Fogdog
Well-Known Member
To me, I'm boggled that anybody believes that crap. This thread helps me get an idea what their arguments are. Otherwise, I think you can apply the same thing that you said here to just about any thread in politics.Do you suppose actual climate scientists have these conversations also? I think it likely, right? Seminars and summit meetings on the topic for decades now.
So when they (the scientists) look at these things and as a consensus conclude there is global warming, are we basically second guessing the experts? We don't believe them, is the takeaway. We have more data, experience and education so as to negate the majority of scientists?
So while all of this data back and forth is pretty, what the hell is really being accomplished? Nada.
From what I've gathered in discussion with friends that are scientists (life sciences, ocean sciences and chemistry), the question regarding the validity of AGW theory within that community is completely settled. The argument for denial mostly comes from a few well funded scientists that provide cover for politicians fighting funding for climate research. Funding is something they will fight over and so it can get heated especially in public forums but not within the community of scientists. The real technical debate is done.
Until now, I've pretty much stayed away from this argument, mostly because the deniers seem to me to have no background in any of the sciences, so why bother? My current purpose is to go through their arguments and the counter arguments for my own benefit. Its actually for me. I don't think I'm going to change somebody like MNC's mind one bit. If I can annoy one or two of them then bonus to me. But I'm going to try to stick to technical stuff as best I can.
In any case, @MuyLocoNC s' post where he yucks up a reference without an example is telling. He mocks but doesn't have anything substantial to say. He might as well be professing a religious belief.