Posted on 02/14/2008 1:56:26 PM PST by chessplayer
80” of snow?
Have you ever considered packing and cutting it (ala igloo construction) and building “improvements” that you’ve considered (like a new fence, arbor, landscaping features or a garage extension) but never known how they would look?
The main premise for giving credence to AGW is that climactic mechanics are so complicated that no one really knows how it all works so we had better take it seriously. Just in case a fart in a hurricane does do something miraculous. And therefore those facts that can be corroborated are meaningless because there might be an unknown factor that renders those consistent findings mere anomalies.
It certainly follows the religious model well. As long as the highest premise is "Unless you know ALL that is going on all data sets are potentially invalid." the Climate Change is Evil crowd can maintain an eternal hold on climate wisdom. Man's ignorance, which is always provable because we of course are ignorant of many things, becomes the proof that both climactic disaster is possible and humans might be the cause of a disaster. We don't know enough to prove climactic disaster isn't possible which leaves the question of cause wide open in the universe of infinite possibilities. Might as well suspect ourselves since we are provably ignorant and have provably made mistakes in the past. Never mind that we can't correlate anything man has done, good or bad, to climate changes.
To answer your post at this point would just involve me repeating myself. I don’t disagree that the AGW crowd can be very heavy handed in squelching debate. Yours is obviously not a knee jerk reaction, and although I disagree with many of your conclusions you have given me things to think about. Sorry for the insults. Enjoy the weekend.
You gave my views some thought. That means you are sincere in knowing what is true and what is not. There are a few here on FR that are not. There are many other FReepers who can explain and debate the AWG issue far better than I can. Collect your thoughts and your evidence and bring your debate back to future threads on the subject. If you want to learn you will let their ad-hominems and aspersions roll off of your back and refrain from getting into a cat fight about it. I'm not saying you should take unwarranted garbage but keep in mind that you have been preceded by many dishonest and malicious supporters of AWG.
FWIW I was off base in my first post to you. You weren't casting broad aspersions just responding to someone who was. I think they were doing that somewhat tongue in cheek for the reasons I just cited. Have a great weekend yourself. I guarantee you can learn more here than anywhere else on the web or in a classroom.
If the GW cultists see July snow in Miami and no hurricanes for 10 straight years, they would still believe their GW nonsense.
Ummmmmm ... Yes, they will still do so.
bump to your post
good scientific link! (El Nino/ La Nina cycles)
Excellent point! If you go through the IPCC Assessment Reports you won't find a discussion of the infrared aspects of CO2 and H2O in any of them. One would think that the physics behind global warming would be a centerpiece of those reports. Instead there is nothing. Why do you suppose that is?
By the way, Steve McIntyre has added a discussion board to his website.
Boiling water will turn it into a clear cold solid.
Solar cooling not global warming
“No matter what the weather/climate does, it`s the fault of man-made global warming and human sin. The colder it gets, the hotter it will get, and the hotter it gets, the colder it will become. Any and every weather anamoly can now be blamed on global warming.”
Do you remember your last science class? The one where they discussed the scientific method? You construct an hypothesis and then test the hypothesis to see if it is correct. Sometimes glossed over is the fact that the hypothesis must be ‘falsifiable’, it must be capable of being proven wrong. If global climate change explains everything and nothing is consistent with it, it is a ‘non-falsifiable’ hypothesis. A ‘non-falsifiable’ hypothesis is useless for scientific inquiry. IOW, global climate change is not science. Yet we have so many ‘scientists’ that ascribe to this looney theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.