Why is ridicule the only way that non-believers challenge the FACTS about Global Climate Change ?
Or if they say that they don't believe in 'theories',then how 'bout the theory of Gravity? Works pretty good for just being a 'theory' ! Ya don't even have to believe in it either !
Answer:
They think by ridiculing things they THINK they can't do much about; it's changing the subject and people will forget.
EVERYONE of us needs to do something to help. Just one thing per person can help.
JUST CHANGING THEIR LIGHT BULBS WILL HELP A LOT. It will also reduce their electric bill. The light bulbs cost a little more but they will last for 8 years, 12,000 HOURS. You can't beat that. They don't go out; they will just get dimmer. One of my friends couldn't believe my light bill; I had to show it to her. I even keep one bulb burning all night so I won't have to walk through a dark house when I need to get up during the night.
You've got me wound up. I hate to stop.
such as the fact that Mars has seen the same amount of temperature increases that Earth has in the last 100 years? Or the fact that the Earth has been hotter than this in the past?
I don't think lies qualifies as facts, bigtalltom. Mars has not experienced the same warming as Earth. In fact, one of is polar ice caps, the one facing the Sun, is decreasing in size. The other one is increasing in size. This is a natural cycle. The warming is regional and has nothing to do with global warming on Earth.
First link: The theory of Mars warming.
Second link: What NASA says about it.
Asker: They turn to misinformation, lies, and political issues simply because that's the best they got. Sadly FunQA.com does nothing about this so this section is far from the informative, educational site that it could be.
It is their habit.
First of all, I think it’s fair to say that you’re completely wrong. Generally, sceptics use logic to challenge the claims made by the Global Warming Alarmists (GWAs), not ridicule.
Your statement is a gross generalisation and completely hypocritical. I could just as easily counter it with:
“Why is personal, ad hominem attack the only way that believers challenge the perfectly logical doubts about climate change?”
Examine, for example, the recent case of Michael Griffin, the boss of NASA (who holds a PhD in aerospace engineering, as well as five masters degrees – he’s a clever man!), who said of climate change…
“I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change”
He was attacked by the GWAs who said he is "an idiot" and "in denial." He is also "surprisingly naive" and "a fool." His own employee, GWA James Hansen called him “ignorant”. In the real world, that would have landed him with disciplinary action, but in the world of climate change it’s allowed. Why?
Within days of the uproar, Dr. Griffin decided that he should not have discussed "an issue which has become far more political than technical." So, that’s another sceptic silenced then. I’m sure the GWAs are patting themselves on the back, but this is not how science is supposed to be done. It is not supposed to be about who can scream the loudest to bully their opponents into silence; that’s how “debate” works in the playground, not in science.
:::edit:::
And, just to prove my point, I've noticed that you have done exactly the same thing in answer to this question: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind... you say…
“Don't let the idiots here on YA try to BS”
“Stupid is as stupid does”
“Science has always faced resistance from fearful ignorant folks”
So, I’m an “idiot”, “stupid” and “ignorant”, am I?
I rest my case.
:::end edit:::
Oh, and your analogy between the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming and the theory of gravity is laughable. The ToG is so robust that we can fire a probe into space (like voyager, for example) and use the gravitational effects of the planets to slingshot the probe off into space, to arrive at the planned destination in *exactly* the right place, at *exactly* the right time. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and in the case of the ToG, the pudding proved to be spot on.
In contrast, the hypothesis of AGW has serious problems. The predictions have consistently turned out to be wrong - in 1988 James Hansen predicted that temperatures would rise by 0.3°C by 2000, he was wrong, they rose by only 0.1°C. And how many forecasts predicted that temperatures would stop rising in 2002? Currently, the IPCC’s estimates for temperature rise by 2100 range from 1.1°C to 6.4°C – a 500% range! If you asked someone for an estimate of the cost of their work and they told you “Somewhere between £1,100 and £6,400”, would you go with that? Wouldn’t you insist on a more precise quote? Of course you would. But we’re supposed to go along with these draconian emission cuts, at a cost of hundreds of billions, on the basis of these vague and imprecise predictions.
So, your suggestion of comparison with the ToG actually highlights how *bad* the AGW hypothesis is!
Finally, can I point out that there are actually very few actual FACTS in global warming. Even the FACT of global warming itself is open to debate – some estimates of the 20th century’s warming are as low as 0.3°C and given that the error range is +/- 0.5°C, the actual value could be -0.2°C – i.e. a temperature *reduction*.
However, it is generally accepted that there are two FACTS in global warming…
1. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by approximately one third over the last century, and
2. The planet has warmed over the same period.
That’s it. There is no conclusive evidence that the former is actually causing the latter. We do know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, but we are not sure by how much temperatures should rise as a result of a given rise in CO2. Basically, everybody is guessing – this is *why* the estimates vary by 500%.
I don’t need to ridicule these people; the lack of FACTS supporting their wild speculation does that for me.
As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.
There have been plenty of us non-believers, scientists included, who have presented the science and the evidence to refute man-made global warming, and have done it without ridicule. There is at least an equal amount of ridicule coming from the pro-end -is-coming crowd. We've been called idiots and morons more times than I can count.
you have it wrong..it is the believers in global warming who are attacking the non believers. I have posted questions here explaining why I don't believe in global warming and I was personally attacked
It's not. I have posted several questions along with supporting data that challenge many of the assumptions on which the theory of man made global warming is based. And I did not get any serious answers. My question is why do proponents of man made global warming use vilification of those who challenge them as their response?
Dear Pantagruel, Here is a stumper. Greenland was named for it's landscape when it was discovered centuries ago. Not it is a block of ice. Where is the man made warming to it? Also why are the temps of the other planets rising at about the same rate as the earth.??
Coin of the realm, bud, coin of the realm.
What you claim to be "facts" are absurdities. Why not fight absurdity with more of the same.
I can argue fact with fact, science with science, any way you choose. Typically, whenever faced with an opposing scientific viewpoint, the average Alarmist says something like, "you don't know what you're talking about, finally devolving to a statement like, "you think you know more than a PhD climatologist?" hiding behind their favorite scientist like a trash-talking Nancy-boy behind his mother's apron straps.
As far as the Theory of Gravity, which theory would you be talking about? With all due respect to chuda's otherwise wonderful answer, we describe the gravitational phenomenon as a "law" because we can't quite explain it. There are multiple theories of gravity, Newton's theory is the most often used because it's a pretty good approximation, hence, the Law. Einstein upped the ante with his theory of general relativity, this is the theory often used by physicist, and can explain all the observations that Newton's theory does, and most of those which Newton's can't. But even Einstein's theory doesn't hold up under quantum mechanics, and we have yet to find a theory to explain gravity in that sense. But you're right about one thing, we find something that works "pretty good" and deem it a law.
The problem with global climate change theory is...there IS NO THEORY! It's a bunch of hypotheses. You would think with the claimed 100% consensus of scientists, that SOMEONE would step up to the plate and propose a theory. Have you ever wondered why no one hasn't? "It's a fact!" "The debate is over!" Wellllllll...we're waiting.
Where's the theory?
So, why don't you step up to the plate and tell us "how the climate actually works"? No, not how your models say it works. Not extrapolated or smoothed data. Give us the actual mechanics behind the whole deal. We're patient...
...take your time.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: