scepticeye - 16 March 2010 09:41 AM

  I have spend several decades in science and research. I have read extensively on AGW. 

Then, why not open a thread that contains a short concise point by point listing of specifics that inform your convictions?
I know, I know, you keep saying you have, but you never link me to it and I can’t find any posts where you list a rational point by point underpinning of your strong opinion.

scepticeye - 16 March 2010 09:36 AM

It is not a battle of contradicting data, but of interpretation of data.

And you think your “interpretation of data” is superior to thousands of highly trained and skilled professionals who are in total agreement? Either they are all wrong or you are. I’m betting that it’s you.

> ...abuse and smearing by the anti-sceptics.

I don’t know what an “anti-sceptic” is, but I do know that me and many others have little respect for pseudo-sceptic deniers who pollute the conversation.

> You clearly have not read any of the threads and my posts where I have done just that. You should try to do some research before you throw around accusations.

No, I haven’t read all 433 of your posts on this forum. I am simply responding to what you wrote in this thread.

> On what basis do you make that assertion? 

What?! You admitted yourself that you refused to listen to this podcast while claiming to be a ‘sceptic’! That’s not scepticism, that’s sticking your fingers in your ears and going, “La la la la la - I can’t hear you!”.

> I have spend several decades in science and research.

So you’ll be aware of something called fallacious argument from authority? Which is distinct from valid argument from authority.

> I have read extensively on AGW. I read all of the threads on this forum.

And I have read the IPCC AR4. I have read numerous papers and articles by climate scientists. Their arguments are compelling, those from the Deniers are not.

> ...a critical element of science includes debate.

Done via the peer reviewed literature - not comment threads on the internet by people who are not qualified to ‘debate’ it. The science is clear: humans are heating up the planet. There is no credible argument against that.

100 aero engineers are stood next to an aeroplane. 97 tell you that it will likely crash after take off. 3 tell you it won’t or that the crash won’t be “too bad”. From your output here it seems you would board the plane. Unfortunately, with climate change, we all get dragged along. Some of us don’t like that so you should expect much more “abuse and smearing” when you deny established science.

P.S. It’s much easier for people to read and respond if you don’t spread your replies over multiple comments.

scepticeye - 16 March 2010 09:37 AM

DavidC - 16 March 2010 05:59 AM

Scientists are sceptics by definition. Those who refuse to accept the science without a coherent, evidence-based response are Deniers. You define yourself by your actions - not by how you describe yourself.

You clearly have not read any of the threads and my posts where I have done just that. You should try to do some research before you throw around accusations.

You’re a blow hard SE

Instead of bragging about your attempts to educate…..

Do some!

we do have this wonderful new dimension of discourse called the LINK
to further and hopefully authoritative information that supports your opinions

DavidC - 18 March 2010 01:43 PM

And I have read the IPCC AR4. I have read numerous papers and articles by climate scientists. Their arguments are compelling, those from the Deniers are not.

I’ll admit earlier I skimmed your post, but was caught up in my own trajectory at the time.
I just reread your post with a clear head.  Impressive, what a clear explanation.

Thanks for contributing, please stick around.

citizenschallenge - 18 March 2010 06:44 PM

You’re a blow hard SE

Instead of bragging about your attempts to educate…..

Do some!

we do have this wonderful new dimension of discourse called the LINK
to further and hopefully authoritative information that supports your opinions

I am tired of responding to your posting-diarrhea all over every single category section on this Forum. If you are unable to recall my posts, to which you responded in your usual manner, I have more interesting to do with my life that go trawling through the forum looking for the links to correct your laziness. Your constant arrogant smearing of views that don’t agree with you is tiresome and boring. You are without humour or humility. Do your own research.

Now there’s the rational mind at work….......

citizenschallenge - 18 March 2010 08:36 PM

I just reread your post with a clear head.  Impressive, what a clear explanation.

Thanks for contributing, please stick around.

Thank you. I’ll try and pop by once in a while.

One thing that irritates me in this ‘debate’ - beyond the denial of science which predicts very bad things happening if we do not act now - is the devaluation of the word ‘sceptic’. The climate deniers are not sceptics, they have hijacked and devalued the word. scepticeye here is a great example. He’s not sceptical of the science, he simply refuses to accept it.

The real sceptics are the scientists who have been researching our planet’s climate for the past 150 years since John Tyndall documented the greenhouse effect. There is probably no other scientific discipline that has received such scrutiny from so many scientists - and ‘armchair scientists’ - in the past ~50 years. And all of that research has produced near-total consensus from the planet’s experts. It’s amazing how many people are so arrogant and ignorant that they think they know better after reading a few blogs!

scepticeye - 19 March 2010 11:24 AM

If you are unable to recall my posts, to which you responded in your usual manner, I have more interesting to do with my life that go trawling through the forum looking for the links to correct your laziness.

ps.  “my usual manner” was to introduce arguments and information that highlighted “weakness” in your claims, which you decided to ignore.

I would think if you believed in something strongly ~ you’d be willing to defend it with all the information at your disposal.
You’ve never done that. 
You just reply with hostility although I would think your opening salvos in this thread would make you ‘fair game.’

I enjoyed this interview, and I think it’s a shame that the focus of this, like so many threads lately, so quickly shifted away from the original idea to being yet another battle between the usual players in the AGW argument. Granted, the subject was a part of the content of this interview, but I wish we could try to keep the subject from overwhelming every thread in which it is even tangentially relevant.

Again, I for one am very grateful to have science and public policy issues take a larger role in POI. DJ was an awesome interviewer, but he also had his own personal interests, and these tended to dominate the content of the podcast. The conflict between theism and non-theism (whatever label you choose for it) isn’t the only interesting set of issues relevant to CFI’s mission, and the new format for POI gives a needed broader scope to the content of the show.

DavidC - 18 March 2010 01:43 PM

.....
And I have read the IPCC AR4. I have read numerous papers and articles by climate scientists. Their arguments are compelling, those from the Deniers are not.
.....

There is an enormous amount of material in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) (AR4)—

Is there a separate blog/website just devoted to this one report, documenting answers to questions and documenting updated info?
[ PDF version]

Jackson - 23 March 2010 02:58 AM

Is there a separate blog/website just devoted to this one report, documenting answers to questions and documenting updated info?

The only comprehensive site that I know of is the IPCC one. There’s the three working group sections:

1. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
2. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm
3. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm

Also available in HTML: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

And there was a semi-official update to the AR4 prior to Copenhagen: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/executive_summary.html

AR5 will not be out until 2012 (?).

HTH.

mckenzievmd - 22 March 2010 02:02 PM

I enjoyed this interview, and I think it’s a shame that the focus of this, like so many threads lately, so quickly shifted away from the original idea to being yet another battle between the usual players in the AGW argument. Granted, the subject was a part of the content of this interview, but I wish we could try to keep the subject from overwhelming every thread in which it is even tangentially relevant.

True, despite my own keen interest in the debate

Perhaps these threads should be broken off? Admin - a good idea?

Mike from Oz - 23 March 2010 04:03 PM

mckenzievmd - 22 March 2010 02:02 PM

I enjoyed this interview, and I think it’s a shame that the focus of this, like so many threads lately, so quickly shifted away from the original idea to being yet another battle between the usual players in the AGW argument. Granted, the subject was a part of the content of this interview, but I wish we could try to keep the subject from overwhelming every thread in which it is even tangentially relevant.

True, despite my own keen interest in the debate

Perhaps these threads should be broken off? Admin - a good idea?

All roads lead to AGW!!

mckenzievmd - 22 March 2010 02:02 PM

I enjoyed this interview, and I think it’s a shame that the focus of this, like so many threads lately, so quickly shifted away from the original idea ...

I made some comments on modern science writing—I don’t think it is as bleak as these guys describe, but I’m not trying to make my living in this area
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/7274/P15/#88747

Do you think “Science Writing” is becoming rarer?