If you are, then I can at least understand why you might also be a climate denialist.

Did you not even read my post at all? I stated in the first line that I'm on the same exact side you are in this issue. At-least take stock of the facts at hand before making assumptions about me.

It's not your cause I'm taking issue with on this thread, it's your attitude and methods.

Not necessarily directly on the person being addressed, *but* -- when you can back up your claims about stupid shitty beliefs with evidence, as I did with the links provided -- then it just so happens that some people on the sidelines tend to see that the frustration with stupid and shitty beliefs is justified.

This strategy assumes that people on the sidelines are even listening. Nobody cares to sit down and watch/read two people scream insults at each other. Even if you're totally right, being arrogant and uncivil about it makes you appear less intelligent and lowers the chance of anyone taking the argument seriously.

And I don't say "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot"

Not directly, but it's heavily implied by the way you refer to any viewpoint which isn't yours as "stupid and shitty". By the way, you seem to have a penchant for those two words. Are they special to you for some reason?

There are many ways to influence public perceptions.

True, but some ways aren't good ones. Being arrogant and utterly disregarding anyone who thinks differently than you does not increase positive perception. When all you do is insult the other side it just makes everyone offended and brains start shutting down while emotion takes over. All hope of intelligent debate goes out the window once one side resorts to verbally slamming the other.

Sometimes what you call 'civility' can give unwarranted credence to stupid and shitty beliefs.

What's a "stupid and shitty belief" is pretty subjective and varies highly from person to person. What might seem logical to one will seem totally illogical to another. The only way to bring different view points together and actually get something done is to sit down and listen to all sides. Immediately assuming the high ground and treating any opposing points like dirt will make everyone dig their heels in.

Question for you: Are you a creationist?

That's pretty irrelevant to this conversation. But at great risk I will answer yes. (Here comes all personal attacks and insults about how "stupid and shitty" my views are and how everything else I said suddenly doesn't matter...)

I answered this last, because I know the tendency of people to illogically disregard everything else a person says just because, "OMG! HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE EVOLUTION, NO CRIME IS GREATER!"

Denying anthropogenic climate change is *exactly* as stupid and arrogant

Once again I don`t see how denying something is stupid. Arrogant? I also fail to see that one. It seems more arrogant to think that we are able to change the climate and it isn`t cause by that massive star that has influenced life for as long as it exists.

You left out the crucial part of that quote: It is exactly as stupid and arrogant "as creationism".

Are you a creationist? If not, then can you see how believing in creationism is stupid and arrogant?

If you can see how *creationism* is stupid and arrogant, then that should give you a lens to see that climate denialism is the same kind of beast (to borrow some creationist jargon).

Denying something can be stupid if your reasons for denying it are stupid. It can be arrogant if you are denying it *in the face of* massive scientific evidence to the contrary.

"It seems more arrogant to think that we are able to change the climate"

Uhhh, why? You've heard of the hole in the ozone layer, right? Do you think it's arrogant to think that we caused that? How about acid rain?

We are regularly seeing the extinction of entire species of animal and plant life from over-hunting, over-fishing, and destruction of rain forests and other unique habitats. Do you think it's arrogant to think that humans caused that?

We burn a shit-load of carbon fuels. Like, a shit-load. That produces CO2. We know CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas; look at the planet Venus which is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is a lot closer to the sun, because Venus' atmosphere has lots of CO2 in it. We have studied this with the scientific method, the *only* effective method for knowing this kind of stuff about the physical world. We have observed global warming over many decades, and have evidence of how climate works going back way longer than that, and the *only* explanation for recent global warming that accounts for all the evidence is that the cause is the excess CO2 from human activity. And you think it's arrogant to believe that?

Do you also think it's arrogant to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, or that organisms evolve by natural selection? If not, why not? We used *exactly the same method* to determine that: the scientific method. And yet, if you ask creationists, they will say, "Oh, but there's a lot of 'debate' over that, blah blah blah." Can you not see that it is the creationists who are being arrogant there, not the scientists? It is the *exact same situation* with anthropogenic climate change. Climate denialism and creationism are exactly equivalently stupid and arrogant beliefs.

I've got to say; this in your face "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" attitude isn't going to help anything.


In fact that attitude makes you look stupid. I never liked people who can`t understand that not everybody believes everything.

Whew, good thing 'that attitude' doesn't describe anyone on this thread then, eh? Mischaracterizing someone's position, aka the Straw Man fallacy, can also make one look stupid.

Did you not even read my post at all? I stated in the first line that I'm on the same exact side you are in this issue. At-least take stock of the facts at hand before making assumptions about me.

At 10/31/2015 16:29:26, I edited my post to add this:

[Edit: Apologies, I may have misread your statement about global warming. At first I thought it was ambiguous, now I'm not sure. So, to clarify I'll ask, do you go by the scientific consensus that GW is anthropogenic?]

Your reply was at 10/31/2015 16:46:59, about 15 minutes later. You were probably typing your reply to my old post, but in the mean time I *had* caught my possible mis-reading. Just saying.

This strategy assumes that people on the sidelines are even listening. Nobody cares to sit down and watch/read two people scream insults at each other.

a) Where have I screamed any insults at anyone in this thread? You might want to check your facts. If you're referring to my comment about climate denialists having their brains full of stupid and shitty beliefs, that's not an insult to the person. Lots of people have stupid and shitty beliefs. Probably the vast majority of people. Probably myself included. It's the *beliefs* that are the problem here. I'm shouting at people to *call attention to that*, not to insult them. I call the beliefs stupid and shitty, not people. If people are so attached to their beliefs that they take criticism of their beliefs as a personal insult, I'm afraid they will simply have to learn to get over that (if they don't want to be constantly offended). Beliefs are beliefs, people are people. They are not the same thing.

b) Of course people on the sidelines are reading this thread. Do you really need confirmation of this?

Even if you're totally right, being arrogant and uncivil about it makes you appear less intelligent and lowers the chance of anyone taking the argument seriously.

a) how am I being arrogant? I believe you would have to be making several faulty assumptions about what I've said in order to jump to that conclusion.

b) Thinking that someone's argument is unsound because of some unrelated characteristic of the person is known as the ad hominem fallacy. Thinking someone is less intelligent because of their tone of conversation is a non-sequitur fallacy.

c) There is evidence to the contrary of your claim that a caustic tone of argument "lowers the chance of anyone taking the argument seriously": See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger#As_a_strategy

In fact, sometimes a non-violent expression of anger can be just what's needed to get bystanders motivated to take constructive action. Although this is from a fictional movie, it's iconic and serves the purpose of illustration with a classic quote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awv8dySZaHE

Not directly, but it's heavily implied by the way you refer to any viewpoint which isn't yours as "stupid and shitty".

I've pointed out before when you've mischaracterized my position. I do not "refer to any viewpoint which isn't yours as "stupid and shitty" ". How very 'uncivil' of you to keep repeating this false claim. I dare you to try quote me to back up your claim.

By the way, you seem to have a penchant for those two words. Are they special to you for some reason?

What is it with your attempts to try to read my mind? They are perfectly good words and using them to refer to beliefs which are, in fact, stupid and shitty, is quite apt, IMO. Why gloss over things? Why not call a spade a spade? Would you prefer some sort of bland euphemisms? I wouldn't.

True, but some ways aren't good ones. Being arrogant and utterly disregarding anyone who thinks differently than you does not increase positive perception.

Pro tip: You are not a convincing psychic. Back up your 'uncivil' characterization with quotes. Where do you get these wild interpretations?

When all you do is insult the other side it just makes everyone offended and brains start shutting down while emotion takes over.

a) I have not insulted anyone in this thread. My only insults have been to Nigel Lawson. If he has a problem with that he can come here and tell me himself.
b) Your mischaracterizations of my posts as "all you do is insult the other side" are intellectually dishonest straw man fallacies. You need to start backing up your claims with evidence (i.e. quotes).

All hope of intelligent debate goes out the window once one side resorts to verbally slamming the other.

Are you referring to yourself? You haven't addressed any of my arguments or references, only attempted to "verbally slam" me with straw men and ad homs.

What's a "stupid and shitty belief" is pretty subjective and varies highly from person to person.

So what? If you want to know what *I* mean by it, just ask.

What might seem logical to one will seem totally illogical to another.

*Seeming* to be logical (or merely 'correct' or 'true') is different from actually *being* logical (or correct or true). It matters not if someone *thinks* their position is 'not stupid' when in fact it *is* demonstrably stupid (e.g. it goes counter to masses of evidence and scientific consensus). You can argue all day about what *exactly* the word 'stupid' means, but it's a pretty straightforward word, and the vast majority of people reading this thread will know well enough what I mean by it.

The only way to bring different view points together and actually get something done is to sit down and listen to all sides.

And what do you do when the 'sides' don't agree and one side is *simply wrong* but won't or can't admit it? Do you keep debating 'civilly' for eons while the projected damage from climate change gets worse and worse? Or do you at some point just say, "Hey, wait a sec! This is a chess game and the 'other side' thinks it's checkers. Why are we taking them seriously again?"

Question for you: Are you a creationist?

That's pretty irrelevant to this conversation. But at great risk I will answer yes. (Here comes all personal attacks and insults about how "stupid and shitty" my views are and how everything else I said suddenly doesn't matter...)

(More faulty assumptions about me, and confusion between people and beliefs, but I'm going to ignore it in this case.)

The question of whether you're a creationist is relevant to my comparison between climate denialism and creationism. The question is to gauge whether the analogy will be understandable to you or not. It's only understandable if you *don't* believe in creationism; so it's not relevant to you. Instead I would use a different belief that you *don't* hold. A non-religious example might be denial that cigarettes (i.e. nicotine) cause cancer, or the belief that vaccines can cause autism.

The point is that if an on-the-fence person can be shown a stupid and shitty belief that they *don't* hold, and if you can get them to identify *why* it's stupid and shitty, then you can use that analogy with climate denialism to show that it's *also* stupid and shitty.

BTW, just for clarification: stupid means 'clearly wrong, to the best of our scientific knowledge', and shitty means 'not harmless, but actually harmful'. Believing that cigarettes don't cause cancer is a stupid belief because it's clearly wrong, and it's also shitty because it will lead to more cancer. Scares over vaccines and autism have lead to *numerous* deaths of young children from preventable diseases such as whooping cough; that's pretty shitty. Creationism (especially in the US) is (or has been) one of the biggest anti-science influences in education, which is shitty. Etc. Climate denialism has delayed our response to climate change (shitty), and is clearly wrong, to the best of our scientific knowledge (stupid).

Edited 11/1/2015 06:26:16

@wct

Dude you don't know what you are getting into. I'm doing you a solid here, stop arguing with this guy it is a waste of time, you can't use reason or logic with Eklipse. And if you think he is strawmaning you now, you don't know what's coming to you.
And it is a chance that no-one responded to Жұқтыру's desperate attempt to get attention by using the fascist card. I guess people just stopped paying attention to his bullshit. Because believe me, once these two team up to argue against you, it will make your head explode, you wouldn't believe the kind of gibberish nonsense their brain is capable of producing.

Yes, I know who I am, and yes, it does work. Not necessarily directly on the person being addressed, *but* -- when you can back up your claims about stupid shitty beliefs with evidence, as I did with the links provided -- then it just so happens that some people on the sidelines tend to see that the frustration with stupid and shitty beliefs is justified.

And I don't say "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot", I talk about the beliefs and actions of people, not the people themselves. (Unless it's a fuckwit like Nigel Lawson, who's not even a member of this forum, so I have no reason to be kind to him.)

There are many ways to influence public perceptions. Sometimes calling a spade a spade is a very effective way of pointing out that the Emperor is naked. To mix a couple of metaphors.

Sometimes what you call 'civility' can give unwarranted credence to stupid and shitty beliefs. It's a rather situation-dependent and person-dependent question as to which conversational strategies will be effective.

Question for you: Are you a creationist? If not, do you see how believing in creationism is stupid and shitty? (If you are, then I can at least understand why you might also be a climate denialist. But then there's a whole slew of other questions that follow...) [Edit: Apologies, I may have misread your statement about global warming. At first I thought it was ambiguous, now I'm not sure. So, to clarify I'll ask, do you go by the scientific consensus that GW is anthropogenic?]

First, the argument is ongoing, it has not finished. So you can not say that their beliefs are "stupid and shitty" until the argument is over, and even then, I very much do not recommend doing that. Insults are a very low thing to do in the first place.

It's like when a loud fellow and a quiet fellow talk together. The loud folk, if not liking how quiet the quiet fellow is, will speak louder and louder; but the quiet fellow, if not liking how loud the loud fellow is, will speak quieter and quieter. It leads to nothing, just more resolve in what you believe.

There's pointing out the Emperor is naked, but there's saying "What the f*** are you doing, go put your f****** clothes on, you motherf****** arse?". Not recommended.

This is simply not true, when 99%+ scientists studying climate agree that climate change is real and anthropogenic, there is no debate.

What? You even posted yourself that 94% scientists think this. You are heavily using bandwagon fallacy.

Ahaha really? What do you mean exactly? You think NASA is lying about the data? Keep in mind, the NASA graph shows the RECORDED data for temperatures since we began recording it (1880), and the source for the datas is certainly not all owned by NASA (since NASA was created in 1958). And you think NASA is lying about it? Why? You think all the scientists at NASA are in on a big conspiracy? And have kept it secret all this time? Come on...

It's a government organization, it will most likely be ok for this instance, but don't believe everything the government says.

wich i found funny.

I doubt you did. I really do.

You left out the crucial part of that quote: It is exactly as stupid and arrogant "as creationism".

You're doing it again, pretending the argument is already won and insulting folk.

Are you a creationist? If not, then can you see how believing in creationism is stupid and arrogant?

Eclipse reluctantly agreed to answer your irrelevant frain, and you start calling his beliefs stupid and arrogant? Arrogance I see most from you.

Denying something can be stupid if your reasons for denying it are stupid. It can be arrogant if you are denying it *in the face of* massive scientific evidence to the contrary.

You being a science lover, should know this quote. Réné Descartes did loads of thinking and he came up with this.

I think, thus I am being.

Many folk don't really understand what this quote means. It means that you can't be 100% sure about anything, other than that you, your consciousness, exists.

We burn a shit-load of carbon fuels. Like, a shit-load.

This has been your most applicable use of insults so far. However, actual relative values are nice and better.

Whew, good thing 'that attitude' doesn't describe anyone on this thread then, eh? Mischaracterizing someone's position, aka the Straw Man fallacy, can also make one look stupid.

Denying anthropogenic climate change is *exactly* as stupid and arrogant as being a creationist.

If you can see how *creationism* is stupid and arrogant, then that should give you a lens to see that climate denialism is the same kind of beast (to borrow some creationist jargon).

Where have I screamed any insults at anyone in this thread? You might want to check your facts. If you're referring to my comment about climate denialists having their brains full of stupid and shitty beliefs, that's not an insult to the person. Lots of people have stupid and shitty beliefs. Probably the vast majority of people. Probably myself included. It's the *beliefs* that are the problem here. I'm shouting at people to *call attention to that*, not to insult them. I call the beliefs stupid and shitty, not people. If people are so attached to their beliefs that they take criticism of their beliefs as a personal insult, I'm afraid they will simply have to learn to get over that (if they don't want to be constantly offended). Beliefs are beliefs, people are people. They are not the same thing.

Calling someone's beliefs doltish is technically not to the man fallacy, but it is another logic fallacy: assuming a claim is true before proven/no arguments left to deny.

Thinking that someone's argument is unsound because of some unrelated characteristic of the person is known as the ad hominem fallacy. Thinking someone is less intelligent because of their tone of conversation is a non-sequitur fallacy.

This is actually a problem in Warlight. Whenever folk have beliefs that 4/5 folk reject, folk don't bother arguing, they just insult and ridicule them mostly which is what you are doing here with Eklipse being a creationist.

There is evidence to the contrary of your claim that a caustic tone of argument "lowers the chance of anyone taking the argument seriously": See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger#As_a_strategy

It's true, anger can be used as a motivator, but only if you 1: have a position of power in a negotiation (say hostage crisis) or 2: if you successfully construct a one-sided argument in a speech for your audience (this does not convince anybody; it only hardens resolve). And anger during a debate is just unacceptable, since most folk will not buy things from television or discount what folk say "since too much logic fallacy".

Are you referring to yourself? You haven't addressed any of my arguments or references, only attempted to "verbally slam" me with straw men and ad homs.

Who has been using "stupid" and "shit" to describe opposing beliefs this whole time?

And what do you do when the 'sides' don't agree and one side is *simply wrong* but won't or can't admit it? Do you keep debating 'civilly' for eons while the projected damage from climate change gets worse and worse?

There are always an argument, but this "Or do you at some point just say, "Hey, wait a sec! This is a chess game and the 'other side' thinks it's checkers. Why are we taking them seriously again?"" attitude is why it is not getting anywhere. You are strongly showing this attitude.

It's only understandable if you *don't* believe in creationism; so it's not relevant to you. Instead I would use a different belief that you *don't* hold. A non-religious example might be denial that cigarettes (i.e. nicotine) cause cancer, or the belief that vaccines can cause autism.

It's not acceptable to insult beliefs such as cigarettes are cancerbegetting, or vaccines trigger autism, either and just makes the situation harder to resolve and reach consensus.

---

Fascist attitude is when you can be killed for expressing heterodox belief. Obviously, you're not getting killed, fascism is just insult, but it is a strong bigotry.

EDIT: Before anyone says that I am cherry-picking, I have no belief on whether climate change is human-made or not. I am not arguing for or against that, I am arguing against the toxic fascism here.

Edited 11/1/2015 00:14:14

hahahahahahaha I am a visionnary

Dude you don't know what you are getting into. I'm doing you a solid here, stop arguing with this guy it is a waste of time, you can't use reason or logic with Eklipse.

Dude, I do know what I'm getting into. a) I've argued with him before. b) There are more people reading the thread than there are writing posts in it. You don't have to convince the person you're debating with to still provide useful info/arguments/ideas to the public at large.

Do you think Christopher Hitchens made public debates with the expectation that he would convince his debate opponents?

you wouldn't believe the kind of gibberish nonsense their brain is capable of producing.

I've dealt with far, far worse. These guys are writing on-topic, intelligible posts. They are not that bad, comparatively. Once you work your way past the bullshit ad homs and whatnot, it is, in fact, possible to get a good overall discussion out of most people, even entrenched ideologues.

Don't worry about me. If I get tired of it, I'll do something else. But actually, I think too many people give up on these arguments too early, leaving the general public with too much of an impression that there really is a legitimate 'debate', when the evidence is actually massively one-sided.

good luck to you sir, looks like you have a massive serie of headbanging against the wall coming up

c) There is evidence to the contrary of your claim that a caustic tone of argument "lowers the chance of anyone taking the argument seriously": See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger#As_a_strategy

If you're angrily arguing face-to-face, yes. The page you linked even says it: people observe your emotional state, draw conclusions about your limits, then alter their decision about conceding a point based on what they think your limits are. Perfectly valid conclusion... but not applicable here. Think about it, in person, I might conclude that further argument could provoke you and end in physical harm to me, so I may stop arguing. On this forum, however, my conclusions about your limits are vastly different. Your primary limit to your actions is not your emotions, as it would be in person. It is the format by which we are communicating. I have subconsciously concluded that you appear to be too rational to track me down and do anything because of my comments on Warlight. Thus, I conclude that arguing a point with you will never have physical effects on me, because my comments do not affect your limits. I am then free to conclude (not saying I do) that you are a petulant child who doesn't understand logical arguments. This leads to me dismissing you, not respecting you because of your anger.

b) Thinking that someone's argument is unsound because of some unrelated characteristic of the person is known as the ad hominem fallacy. Thinking someone is less intelligent because of their tone of conversation is a non-sequitur fallacy.

He was talking about the general public's perception of you. I assume you concede that the general public is not always perfectly logical?

Edited 11/1/2015 00:35:33

Please US citizens, vote well: I just came accross this video 10 mins ago

Ted Cruz: 'Climate Change Is Not Science, It's Religion'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhLjBYsLQvs

Edited 11/1/2015 00:56:41

There are no 'sides' to facts. Facts are facts

I guess I didn`t phrase it well. What I meant is that some think that some facts are relevant to the story and other think they aren`t as relevant to this theory. The sides use different facts that they think are relevant. The other side disregards them as facts that don`t hvae anything to do with this theory.

This is simply not true, when 99%+ scientists studying climate agree that climate change is real and anthropogenic, there is no debate

99% of scientists have agreed on things before, they weren`t always right. Numbers don`t say shit, the arguments do.

the NASA graph shows the RECORDED data for temperatures since we began recording it (1880)

Yet it shows data from the past 400.000 years?

Oh, nvm. Now I see it. You thought I was talking about your first image. I was talking about your second one. The first one isn`t exaggerated.

you just post the graph without even giving your source

http://klimaatgek.nl/wordpress/co2/
There you go, could luck decrypting dutch ;)

Your graph, from "one of those study", isn't even related to the discussion here

It was simply a reaction to the image you posted about the past 400,000 years.

not including the recent 200 years (or even 2000 years, since the datas stop at 0)

If you look very well you`ll see that is says "years ago". Thus 0 would not mean the year 0, but it would mean the year this graph was made.

Turns out this article explains exactly what i was suspecting you were doing (cherry picking the data to not include the recent years), wich i found funny:

And if I watch the documentary: "The great global warming swindle" I`ll find that your scientists have changed data and have been cherry picking as well. If both sides are insulting eachother of doing so then I personally find it hard to just accept one side.

Are you a creationist? If not, then can you see how believing in creationism is stupid and arrogant?

No I am not, and no I can`t see that.

Denying something can be stupid if your reasons for denying it are stupid.

True, if you say global warming isn`t real because apples are green then that is stupid. This is not the case right now though.

"It seems more arrogant to think that we are able to change the climate"

Uhhh, why? You've heard of the hole in the ozone layer, right? Do you think it's arrogant to think that we caused that? How about acid rain?

I never said it was arrogant, just that it sounded more arrogant than the other option. Doesn`t mean it is accually arrogant.

Do you also think it's arrogant to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, or that organisms evolve by natural selection? If not, why not? We used *exactly the same method* to determine that: the scientific method. And yet, if you ask creationists, they will say, "Oh, but there's a lot of 'debate' over that, blah blah blah." Can you not see that it is the creationists who are being arrogant there, not the scientists?

I`m starting to believe that our definition of arrogant is different.

According to the Camebridge Dictionary Arrogant means the following: "unpleasantly ​proud and ​behaving as if you are more ​important than, or ​know more than, other ​people:". I fail to see that in your scenario.
Oxford dictionaries puts it as follows: "Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities". How do creationists believe they are more important than others?

Whew, good thing 'that attitude' doesn't describe anyone on this thread then, eh? Mischaracterizing someone's position, aka the Straw Man fallacy, can also make one look stupid.

Did I every say someone like that was on this thread? I don`t believe I did.

Edited 11/1/2015 01:24:42

EM, you are assuming I'm using anger to try to convince my opponent. You're missing the point of it. It's not to intimidate my opponent, it's to express my frustration for on-lookers, and perhaps to inspire them: people who are reading this thread who are either on the fence, or who are pro-climate science, but feel discouraged about speaking out about it. Watch the video clip I linked earlier.

I am then free to conclude (not saying I do) that you are a petulant child who doesn't understand logical arguments. This leads to me dismissing you, not respecting you because of your anger.

You speak of not understanding logical arguments... while failing to make one yourself. (Not all of the arguments I make are strictly 'logical' anyway, so it's a moot point; some arguments are probabilistic in nature, for example.)

He was talking about the general public's perception of you. I assume you concede that the general public is not always perfectly logical?

I don't think he has a solid grasp on what the general public might or might not think, so his opinion on that is irrelevant to me. And in any case, no, I don't agree with your assessment that he was referring to the 'general public' in the same sense that I'm referring to the 'general public'. IMO, his "you're not convincing anybody" is a projection of his own stance of being unconvinced. His 'anybody' doesn't really refer to 'anybody', it refers to people who reason the way he reasons. But you see that this assumes I'm *only* trying to convince people who reason as he does. That is, necessarily, *not* the 'general public' as I'm referring to it.

Edited 11/1/2015 01:22:10

I'll revisit this thread to answer earlier comments later, but just want to respond quickly to this:

How do creationists believe they are more important than others?

Well, when you phrase it that way, then it's an easy question to answer, although I explained that what I meant by 'arrogant' was along the lines of 'denial in the face of massive scientific evidence to the contrary'.

But how do creationists think they are more important than others? Well, it depends on the creationist, but I'll give you a common example off the top of my head: Many literally believe that an omnipowerful god created the entire universe as a mere backdrop to planet Earth, and that Earth itself was created with *them* in mind, including their salvation to a utopian paradise after they die; a paradise which they are entitled to, while non-believers will be sent to a hell of eternal torment, which is their rightly-deserved punishment for not believing in this ludicrous mythology.

@min34

Thanks for the link source, i was able to find the original study here:
http://www.jerome-chappellaz.com/files/publications/climate-and-atmospheric-history-of-the-past-420-000-years-from-the-vostok-ice-core-antarctica-38.pdf

and more here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html


Now i'm able to say with certainty that the graph you showed had nothing to do with the point you were trying to make (actually it contradict your point), and you used it in an intellectualy dishonest and fallacious manner.
Probably not knowingly though, i suppose you copy/pasted from a fallacious article, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is the reason why you should always check your sources.

The period of record for the data is: 417,160 - 2,342 years BP

and here is an abstract of the summary from the paper:

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

So the the conclusion of this paper was that indeed, the level of greenhouse gases we have today is unprecedented in the atmosphere history, as far back as 420,000 years ago. So you used their study to argue the opposite, that the level of greenhouse gases we see today is perfectly normal and coherent with the history of the atmosphere, it doesn't get more fucked up than that does it?

99% of scientists have agreed on things before, they weren`t always right. Numbers don`t say shit, the arguments do.

I don't think that there is an example of such a scientific concensus turning out to be wrong actually, what example do you have in mind?
I do think numbers matter when it comes to scientific consensus, but if it is arguments you want to judge, then look at the fact that 99,998% of the recent studies on climate have found that anthropologic climate change is happening. Or does that mean shit too??

edit:

If you look very well you`ll see that is says "years ago". Thus 0 would not mean the year 0, but it would mean the year this graph was made.

In science, when dealing with very big time frame, the mention BP (before present) can mean anywhere from today to 5000 years ago. I made up that number, but it is just a way to make you understand that a few thousand years means nothing when you study time frame as big as 400,000 years. This is certainly the case in the context of this study. In the 2nd link i posted, they even mention that the age difference between air and ice may be ~6000 years during the coldest periods instead of ~4000 years, as previously assumed, wich gives you a hint about the degree of uncertainty we are dealing with here. In any case, it is obvious here that the recent couple centuries are not uncluded in the datas.

Edited 11/1/2015 14:02:26

Neil deGrasse Tyson on climate change:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0leiwOx6w0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJhbQIlu4mk

Edited 11/1/2015 03:29:50

Climat Change Explained - and the myths debunked (serie of video by potholer54)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

28 - The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=31

4 - debuking An Inconvenient Truth & The Great Global Warming Swindle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM&index=4&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Edited 11/2/2015 00:36:37

TL:DR?

@min34

your graph doesn't show the same thing as 125ch209's 2nd graph

also i'm gonna question your graph that you posted on pg 2 cause it shows change in temp, then claims that change in temp has been at -2 to -8 degrees celsius (per some random amount of time) for 100,000 years ending 25000 years or so ago. idk the units on your graph, but it appears to change around at least 50 times in that period. so I will assume that the change in temp is from the last data point. that means temperature dropped 250 degrees celsius in total recently? that confuses the hell out of me.

Edited 11/2/2015 04:15:23

Read Proof Of Cosmic Ray Theory:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/consensus-what-consensus-2/
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=34
Read Henrik Svensmark, Cosmic Ray Theory
My Essay:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SNmCMAzq1W-tQ-cO4mp4KrCWDJCPW61BdA09S5QvB2Y/edit

Edited 11/3/2015 20:06:59