Climate continues to change.

[Conager]

Pretty much shows that you haven't read a science book.

What's a "science book?"

That seems pretty broad. Do you have a particular favorite?

You do realize that the "science" blogs and memes that your fellow accolytes in the Church of Global Warming pass around are not "books," right?

Let me be perfectly frank. I would be amazed if you could actually understand even the abstract of any of the studies you allude to here, let alone the actual study itself. Browsing libtard sites still pining for the days when the carbon tax scam was thought to be in the offing does not make you the expert you style yourself to be. You are consistantly unable to field the most basic of questions about what is known and not known about past and current climates and trends.

You are the classic dillitante trying to pass yourself off as knowlegeble on a subject you have read a few opinion pieces about what "everybody knows."

There are actual, well read, smart people who could at least argue coherently with Trysail. You aren't one of them, which is why you steer clear of the things he posts. If you had any genuine enthusism for the subject, you would cheerfully wade in and refute his misconceptions.

Global warming became a merit badge for liberals. It was yet another way to pat themselves on the back for their smug, intelectual superiority. You jumped on that bandwagon and basked in the reflected glory of being on the side of "97% of scientists!!"

In the highly unlikely event that you happen to be on the side of truth and wisdom as shown in hindsight centuries from now, it will not be because you read a "science book."

There's nothing inherently wrong with parroting talking points that you sincerely believe in but there is something wrong with implying that you have some sort of a lifetime of study involved here.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Many of the papers cited do not address anything to do with anthropogenic warming. The bullshit artists that low information consumers of propaganda rags like Salon and Slate continue to cite were not themselves qualified in any way to review such papers, and the authors of some of those papers have refuted this non-study that is the basis of the oft repeated cla of consensus.

Cite?

 

[phrodeau]

What's a "science book?"

That seems pretty broad. Do you have a particular favorite?

You do realize that the "science" blogs and memes that your fellow accolytes in the Church of Global Warming pass around are not "books," right?

Let me be perfectly frank. I would be amazed if you could actually understand even the abstract of any of the studies you allude to here, let alone the actual study itself. Browsing libtard sites still pining for the days when the carbon tax scam was thought to be in the offing does not make you the expert you style yourself to be. You are consistantly unable to field the most basic of questions about what is known and not known about past and current climates and trends.

You are the classic dillitante trying to pass yourself off as knowlegeble on a subject you have read a few opinion pieces about what "everybody knows."

There are actual, well read, smart people who could at least argue coherently with Trysail. You aren't one of them, which is why you steer clear of the things he posts. If you had any genuine enthusism for the subject, you would cheerfully wade in and refute his misconceptions.

Global warming became a merit badge for liberals. It was yet another way to pat themselves on the back for their smug, intelectual superiority. You jumped on that bandwagon and basked in the reflected glory of being on the side of "97% of scientists!!"

In the highly unlikely event that you happen to be on the side of truth and wisdom as shown in hindsight centuries from now, it will not be because you read a "science book."

There's nothing inherently wrong with parroting talking points that you sincerely believe in but there is something wrong with implying that you have some sort of a lifetime of study involved here.

Have you even read this thread? Have you read any of my posts fielding questions or countering Trysail's shit?

Forget the science book. Pick up a primer.

 

[Conager]

Not sure what you're going on about. Something to do with a non-study, whatever that means? How scientific of you. Have you talked to any climate scientists?

So now you are not just reading a "science book," but attending symposiums on the subject and hob-knobbing with "climate scientists?"

Tell me about some of these "climate scientists."

What were their primary fields of study? Computer science? Meteorology? Physics? Chemistry? Botany? Hydrology? Geology? Oceanography? Glaciology? Palaeoclimatology? Applied mathematics? Mathematical modelling?

 

[Conager]

Have you even read this thread? Have you read any of my posts fielding questions or countering Trysail's shit?

Forget the science book. Pick up a primer.

In your own words, what would you say is the most egregiously stupid of Trysail's "shit," and (again in your own words), why is he wrong?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Have you even read this thread? Have you read any of my posts fielding questions or countering Trysail's shit?

Forget the science book. Pick up a primer.

The dimunitive sissyboy Connie the Tranny seems especially eager for an AJ belly rub tonight. He's all about challenging everything you say. Makes him feel all manly and stuff.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Tell me about some of these "climate scientists."

What were their primary fields of study? Computer science? Meteorology? Physics? Chemistry? Botany? Hydrology? Geology? Oceanography? Glaciology? Palaeoclimatology? Applied mathematics? Mathematical modelling?

Climatology.

 

[Conager]

Climatology.

That is not a primary field of study. Without some training in one or more of the above fields, a "scientist" would have nothing to contribute to the generalized heading of climate science. You have to be qualified to study or analyze results of some portion of the physical world or how could you possibly have anything to contribute?

 

[KingOrfeo]

To form a "consensus" you would have to solicit input from those you intend to build an alleged consensus with. Looking through scientific papers with the scientific acumen of, say, a Phrodeau, and ascribing the authors of those papers a position on anthropogenic global warming is not how you do that.

And it is not how the climatologists formed their consensus. They formed it by studying the problem, publishing papers, reading each others' papers, discussing AGW at conferences, and finding themselves all in agreement.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That is not a primary field of study.

That is like saying biology is not a primary field of study because it depends on chemistry, it's nonsense.

 

[Conager]

And it is not how the climatologists formed their consensus. They formed it by studying the problem, publishing papers, reading each others' papers, discussing AGW at conferences, and finding themselves all in agreement.

That never happened.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That never happened.

Yes, it happened.

 

[Conager]

No the analogy would environmental science, not biology. You also can't be an environmental scientist unless you have a specialty of some sort enables you to study something in the environment.

You could be a biologist with nothing more than some time on your hands and some animals to watch. Darwin did. Maybe you have heard of him? He wrote a "science book."

 

[KingOrfeo]

No the analogy would environmental science, not biology. You also can't be an environmental scientist unless you have a specialty of some sort enables you to study something in the environment.

No, you don't need to have such a specialty. You can learn the other stuff as an undergrad and then go to grad school in environmental science and then you're an environmental scientist. No one gets a graduate degree in climatology without to some such degree learning the sciences that underly it.

 

[phrodeau]

No the analogy would environmental science, not biology. You also can't be an environmental scientist unless you have a specialty of some sort enables you to study something in the environment.

You could be a biologist with nothing more than some time on your hands and some animals to watch. Darwin did. Maybe you have heard of him? He wrote a "science book."

How would you know? Did you read it?

 

[Conager]

How would you know? Did you read it?

As it happens, yes. Why do you ask?

 

[Conager]

As far as "how would I know" what he studied and how he came to be interested in the field would come more from reading "Recollections of the Development of my Mind and Character."

I've always been a fan of biographies and autobiographies I found hat I learned a lot between the historical part of the narratives.

In my formative years, Edison was my hero. I'm fairly certain that I've read every biography ever written about him.

"Science books" do seem to be above your cognative level, but maybe you could feel involved with your love of the idea of science by reading about some famous scientists?

At least it would make it easier for you to bluff the next time I ask you who your favorite climate scientist is and what his scope of expertise entails.

 

[phrodeau]

As it happens, yes. Why do you ask?

Does it have calligraphy and hand-colored saints?

 

[KingOrfeo]

What's a "science book?"

It's a stack of sheets of paper, usually bound together at one edge, with words and numbers and shapes printed on them that say sciencey things.

 

[Conager]

Does it have calligraphy and hand-colored saints?

Are you equating the theory of natural selection to a religion?

 

[Conager]

It's a stack of sheets of paper, usually bound together at one edge, with words and numbers and shapes printed on them that say sciencey things.

Other than required textbooks in the course of primary education, do you honestly believe that Frodo has ever read such a tome?

 

[phrodeau]

Are you equating the theory of natural selection to a religion?

So now you value my opinion? OK.

Have you found any facts to support your arguments yet?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Other than required textbooks in the course of primary education, do you honestly believe that Frodo has ever read such a tome?

He knows enough about science to suggest that. A "science book" is not necessarily a grad-course textbook, it could be a popular-science book written for the general public.

 

[Disgustipated]

So now you value my opinion? OK.

Have you found any facts to support your arguments yet?

That reply could be used for every Q-#### pist.

 

[phrodeau]

In 1989, Carl Sagan provided updates to his TV series Cosmos (1980). Here is what he added to episode 4:

Since this series was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil fuels, like coal and gas and petroleum, putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the Earth.

The hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched croplands, the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees, widespread disasters in the next century unless we change our ways.

What do we have to do? Four things.
One: much more efficient use of fossil fuels. Why not cars that get 70 miles a gallon instead of 25?
Two: research and development on safe, alternative energy sources, especially solar power.
Three: reforestation on a grand scale.
And four: helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self-sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.
Every one of these steps makes sense apart from greenhouse warming.

Now, no one has proposed that the trouble with Venus is that there once was Venusians who drove fuel-inefficient cars. But our nearest neighbor, nevertheless, is a stark warning on the possible fate of an Earth-like world.