Hey, deniers, do you realize there are skeptical AGW sites that make actual rational arguments?

Question

In an effort to raise the level of discourse on these pages, I commend the following sites to your attention:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/table-of-conten.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/

The first site is written by a non-scientist, but he's clearly a smart guy and is thinking rationally about the issues. He makes some good points, although on others he's simply uninformed.

The second site is by a guy who is really looking hard at the data, trying to find flaws in methodology. He is biased: his goal is to debunk anthropogenic global warming, but he is constrained by the scientific process. He tends to a little crankiness about access to original data and algorithms, but hey, that's OK.

So I suggest you deniers read these sites, and let's have some genuinely rational discussions about real issues.

Mr Jello: I'm not being intimidating, I'm condescending. Not that I enjoy being so, it's just that the denier arguements on these pages are often so infantile, it's hard not to treat you like the children that perhaps you in fact are. The sites above raise some genuine issues, and on some of them, I think they're actually right.

Mr. Jello: Global Warming skepticism itself is not infantile---it's an important issue, and it really needs to be understood. Advocates on all sides of the issue can make a positive contribution to understanding if they are willing to engage in rational discourse. But really, are you suggesting that, e.g. the "Moose burp" assertion is a mature, fully reasoned and nuanced argument?

Answer 1

There are more than that.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=11
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

Regardless, I'll gather information from any source, even those whose prejudices are the opposite of mine, and attempt to filter the information in developing my "stand". Science is science, and the process is such that we learn from our mistakes as much as we do when we "guess" correctly...it just comes down to recognizing when we are mistaken.

And none of us has a monopoly on perfection...

Answer 2

I wonder why "warmers" try to prove their side by showing that more people believe them, or they are somehow "more educated".

To prove science, one just needs to prove the hypothesis. This can be just one person with or without a formal education.

Your post is nothing more than an attempt to "prove" science by intimidation.

Why not show us all up, prove to us what big idiots we are by calculating what the climate temps are going to be in 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years from now? Once you hit your numbers, you can brag about how smart you are.

Added Note: If you don't believe in global warming then you're infantile. That's intimidation. It's telling that this tactic is used as 'proof' global warming is caused by man. If I was passionate as you were, I would just fall back on the facts and tell you how much warmer this winter was going to be.

Added note: Yes, the moose burp comment is silly. That's why I didn't post it nor replied to it the second time it got put up. The first time it made it to the big board, I just made an off the cuff, silly comment.

Answer 3

for their very very own political reasons of direction. they are truly scraping the backside this time to come again up with In.a.hollow and his 40 adult adult males. against a consensus of over 2 hundred countries, 3000 plus scientists that proved AGW replaced into brought about by using the emission of CO2 and different pollution by using the burning of fossilised gasoline. With adult adult males like Inahole contained in the Congress or Senate, there is not any ask your self that united states of america is going down the chute.

Answer 4

Many people need to be educated but some don't because of their upbringings.