Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Log In to post a reply

81 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Edited Dec 07, 2009, 11:06
Re: Hi Guys!
Dec 07, 2009, 10:53
On reflection, i find much this response to be very telling.

DarkMagus wrote:
Evolution has been demonstrated in fruit flies for fuck's sake!


It is a massive leap to to extrapolate from these tiny differences that all of life came from single-celled forms. Can it really explain all that the evolution-believing geologists claim? Can it explain the evolution of the eye, which Darwin himself declared so marvellous that it practically defies evolution theory?

DarkMagus wrote:
Where is the experiment for global warming?


Rather like the fruitflies, you can prove in a lab that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can then do the maths for what happens if you double the amount of it. You can make predictions that come to pass.

We now move into the parts of the response I find most revealing. The scattergun of ideas, the desperation to discount the evidence, facts and points already made on this thread.

DarkMagus wrote:
only theories and models based on them & suspect data


And an overwhelming amount of non-suspect data, and records of changes that correlate with the increase of greenhouse gases, and the aforementioned predictions (that you said didn't exist, then made no mention when I cited examples)

DarkMagus wrote:
which fail to make accurate picture.


Except that, as mentioned, the picture was accurate.

And, where the predictions have been inaccurate, it's largely been because they've been too conservative. Having to get great swathes of scientists to sign off on a position will tend towards conservatism. So, for example, the IPCC was predicting an ice-free Arctic summer by the end of the century, but now it's looking like it'll be within five years.

DarkMagus wrote:
Evidence points to a conclusion but does not prove it in terms of science.


Exactly, just like evolution theory and cancer from smoking. So, once again, I ask why the overwhelming agreement from scientists based on untold quantities of data but with one or two contrarians is enough for you to believe those two, but not global warming.

DarkMagus wrote:
Scientific theory states that theories are there to be disproved.


The implication you're trying to make here is that because it's a theory, it should be treated as if it *will* be disproved.

Some theories don't get disproved. Some theories are reinforced by the further evidence. At what point do we act on them?

Again, I wonder why you have a different conclusion for theories with similar levels of scientific consensus that affect policy, such as the link with HIV and AIDS, or tobacco and smoking.

DarkMagus wrote:
I see I'm wasting my time.


It's quite common among trolls for them to say something controversial and when it's countered to either move to another point, or to say 'you're all closed minded I'm leaving', then not actually leave. It's a way of avoiding responding to the patient facts and counter arguments that disprove what they said. It's the forum equivalent of fingers in the ears going lalalala.

DarkMagus wrote:
99% consensus does not make something right. Remember Galileo??


This one's incredible. It actually means that the stronger the evidence and the greater the consensus, the more the isolated position is right (and indeed righteous).

Again, do we hold that the scientists who doubt smoking and cancer are Galileos?

Of course, Galileo had evidence for his ideas, the Catholic church (as far as I am aware) did not have unanimity from almost everyone qualified in their field based on decades of research and hard fact from tens of thousands of scientists.

DarkMagus wrote:
I say again, any right thinking person should be hoping AGW is bullshit.


This non-sequitur is the most telling of all.

The 'I say again' as if the point hadn't been responded to already. The implication that the evidence is very inconclusive and those who want action on carbon emissions actually *want* climate change to be happening.

Whereas - and the throwing in of it as a final word points shows this - we're at the root of the denier mentality here. Like anyone else, they really don't want climate change to be happening. So if they can find something, anything, to put a slight doubt in then we're off the hook. Hence veering between scientific twaddle and overstating the content and importance of the leaked emails. The greater the evidence, the greater the need to deny it.

If I were in bed and the smoke alarm went off, smoke was coming under the door and I could hear the neighbours shouting from the garden, I'd really not want my conclusion to be right. Do you know how much stuff I treasure I've got in this house? Do you know how difficult it'll be to deal with the aftermath?

But I'm not going to wait until the flames are under my bed before I act as if it's true. The evidence is there and it's already past time to move.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index