Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions

Thanks but I never talk about my orifice with someone from Edinburgh, its a very dangerous proposition.  I hope you understand.

1. We have been warming since the little ice age; the connection to AGW is not convincing in the slightest.  EPIC FAIL, no one has denied that the earth is warming and simply stating that we have been warming since the ice age does not explain that we have in the last two decades an unprecedented shift in temperature.  The connection to AGW is not convincing in the slightest. The last two decades of data is neither unprecedented nor entirely believable.

2. I don't trust this information.   Whether you trust it is not the point and an irrelevancy, no one cares whether you trust it, we are interested in facts not your opinions.  Suck it up. So, you're taking the Dan Rather approach, "fake but accurate".  A fact should be true shouldn't it?

 3. Local conditions of course do not consider or determine the entire world's climate.  Also, as noted we have been warming since the little ice age. Another Fail, no one is saying that they do, this is simply a straw man argument, what we are actually saying is that it is symptomatic of an over all trend.  That's a worse strawman than mine; it's like you're saying it's raining so we should move to high ground to avoid the flood, even though you're not on a flood plain.

4. This is nonsense.  That is not an argument, its simply an other ill informed and rather ignorant opinion the like of which one finds spray painted on subway walls.  Please find the tone control and turn it all the way up. I know, it's not an arguement, but it's just so absurd it's funny.  I didn't think one needed to provide a refutation to - as I said - nonsense.

 5. Local conditions of course do not consider or determine  the entire world's climate.Another straw man that cannot and does not negate the facts. No one has claimed that local conditions determine the entire worlds climate, what is actually claimed is that its part of an overall trend. But, the orginal statement implies that.  And claiming that it's part of an overall trend is baseless, making the staement irrelevant.

 6. I'm unfamiliar with this.  Yes and many other things besides. As are we all, I admit the holes in my knowledge rather than just yell louder.

 7. Nonsense. Another unsubstantiated airhead opinion.  You really should read something other than Dougall and the magic roundabout. Again this is too funny.  A so-called expert makes an outrageous statement, without any proof, and I have to refute it.  Why don't you prove Mars doesn't have large deposits of gold?  LOL.  Your inability to prove that Mars is gold free, doen't make it true.

 8. I do know the amount of CO2 rise is not significant, compared to the affects alarmists claim.  Another logical fallacy,  the claim is not what is significant. The claim was that we are turning out more Co2 than the oceans and plants can absorb.  Please visit airhead anonymous. Good tactic to pick one sentence out of my statement and attack it.  You ignored the rest.  Like where I asked you to supply data for the claims.

9. Assuming this is true, I don't see a demonstrable problem. No one cares whether you see it as a problem, we have already established that you are to all intents and proposes incapable of rational thought.  Go away and learn why its problematic.. This is just a poor attack, not a counter. The original statement seems unfounded, yet as I say even if true so what?  Can you provide a reason I should be concerned about #9?

10. Your original premise is found wanting so this is irrelevant.  More tabloid journalism and unworthy of serious comment. As is your rebuttal.

 11. You're using data people use against your argument in a slap-dash way to attempt to validate your argument.  Another opinion piece. The entire article is opinion purported to be fact.  And since it's presented as fact we're supposed to believe it?

 12 Too vague to determine a response. Well thank goodness for that I had this bad dream man i was like in the middle of a Zombie apocalypse, there was like copious amounts of slobber and drool, i tried to swim against it was it was like an all consuming megalith of drool!  You're a funny man; almost as funny as your beliefs!

You're positing every item as true and asked us to (dare) deny them.  I am. You don't provide data, just statements, and when we counter, you just say we're wrong & irrational.  You're really not very convincing in what you believe, you're just trying to stifle other opinions. When the arguements stop you win, right. And since you win, your fake facts automatically become true. LOL.

@xlote

What is it about, 'I don't care what you think', that you fail to understand? Is it the language? Is it verbose? full of technical terminology? 

I have demonstrated why your opinions are more bull than a herd of Texan longhorns.  You don't provide any arguments.  You think that your opinions are some kind of self certified truths, they are not, without substantiation they are meaningless.  You commit irrelevancy, logical fallacy, straw-man arguments fabricated on values that were never claimed.  All the references and data are in the National Geographic article, not a single assertion of yours has refuted anything they have published and in many instances it never even came close to even addressing the claim that was made.

If you ever manage to actually find a refutation for anything they have published, anything other than your opinion, let me know, I'll be interested to hear it.

Now if you don't mind I have better things to do than remonstrate with a zombie apocalypse, so Ill be on my way. Vamos Munchachos!

To prove climate change, just look at all of the proponents ditching their beachfront property.  Let me estimate - 0.

Maybe no one wants to buy it.

WOW really WOW, let me ask you my erudite friend, do you know what an argumentum ad populum is? 

for example, here is an argument, 'After all ten thousand Elvis fans cannot be wrong!' Do you think that sounds a valid and logical argument?  Why does it fail? because it relies on a false premise that the sheer number of Elvis fans makes the proposition true.

Now let us apply the same principle to your assertion.  All those people who posses beach front houses have not left them and therefore global warming cannot be true. Do you see what its a logical fallacy? It relies on the same false premise that the sheer number of persons who have not left their beach houses negates global warming.  Its a nonsense, logically, rationally and empirically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

No more or less of a logical fallacy than an appeal to inappropriate authority.

Where has an appeal to an inappropriate authority been made? please cite the reference.

I've got some beachfront property for sale in Florida...and I'll throw in a certain bridge in Brooklyn.

It's a great deal...it's even closer to the ocean than it was last year.

I swear you must have Angle blood in you!

Posting a Koch-brothers founded hit piece?

How about posting NASA's site: http://climate.nasa.gov

The vast majority of arguments against anthropogenic global warming have been thoroughly debunked.  The main people opposing it are Big Oil and people like the Koch brothers who happen to be funding the top denier of global warming. So you wonder why we don't give much credit to the half-truths posted by the opponents of global warming?

So we should just risk everything and not do anything to reduce our contribution to it on the off chance that it might happen anyway?  We have probably pushed it over the tipping point because as the ice caps melt (antarctica and greenland are melting fast), it exposes frozen dead organic material that will create more CO2, so after we screwed the pooch Koch-Cons will come along and say - see, it's happening by itself.

And why is it colder in some places? Well, if you blow warm air over an ice cube, what do you get? Cold air ... and melting ice.

National Geographic

Why are the biggest deniers of global warming, funding the arguments against it the people who own and profit directly from the industries who create it, specifically Big Oil and fossile fuel industries and the billionaire Koch Brothers?

Good try, now_and_zen, but I have a feeling it's probably useless.

Btw, the Koch brothers are running a special sale on rose-colored glasses this week.

Such an idiotic rebuttal. Yeah, we know, we all do something that contributes to the problem (or most of us do). But we can vote for policies that pressure industry and leadership to improve the policy, and put forth a reasonable effort to change our behavior and reduce our carbon footprint rather than make BS  diversions like "well we do stuff wrong now, so I guess we shouldn't do anything about it"

Problem is too big for individuals to take it all on themselves to solve everything. It's a matter of creating the right priorities and goals at all the right levels and moving constructively toward them than try to figure out more reasons to drag our feet until it's too late.

I can understand how a simplistic mind like yours could only see it in unresolvable terms and not try to intelligently figure out ways to grapple with the problem.

Ad hominem attack, another logical fallacy

I know of no one, who is familiar with the climate history of the Earth over the past half-billion years (as I am), who would say the Earth's climate is not now warming, as we emerge from an Ice Age.

The question the becomes two-fold: 1) how much of the warming is associated with the action of humans, and 2) are there any deleterious effects from that warming?

Note that during much of the last half-billion years, the Earth's climate has been warmer than it is today (present day to the right):

Just looking at the last 50-million years, since the Eocene climate optimum, we can see a clear cooling trend.  Note that many of the genera that exist today, evolved during these warmer times:

You don't think that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies can measure and keep accurate records of that data? or that United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not comprised of those who are adequately qualified in their respective field? No? then don't be silly, Your assertion of appeal to an inappropriate authority makes NO SENSE and will be dismissed.

Yes you're not worthy.