Global Warming farce?

[clintjm]

More good articles:

Everyone's Favorite D-California senator, Barbara Boxer on the whistle blowers:
LINK:
Boxer Suggests Leaked E-Mails Represent 'Criminal' Hacker Conspiracy


Al to loose Oscar?!! Say it isn't so... Al: "I said Damage control people!!!" :
LINK:
Hollywood Conservatives Say Gore Should Lose Oscar Over Climate-Gate

Indeed:
Use Web 2.0 magic to sprinkle democracy on science • The Register

[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by xyzone

ah nuthing, just same old dopey oil/coal-industry powered games. if the moon landing being fact was unprofitable, there'd be more websites, lobbyists, unfounded rumors and spin trying to prove it was staged. but the climate deniers take the cake on that.

I'd just like to say that I have my own views on this topic, and I don't want to get involved. I'm keeping it myself.

However, xyzone, all I see is you ridiculing others, and mocking them, when they are the ones posting articles, and such things to back their own saying up.

You're the fool here, more than them. So either don't post, or stop being such an idiot, and start backing up your arguments instead of going "Hah. You people are idiots. I'm right, and that's that."

Learn to back up your arguments.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

However, xyzone, all I see is you ridiculing others, and mocking them, when they are the ones posting articles, and such things to back their own saying up.

Duly noted. That's your opinion. I and many others would not consider pasting articles an automatically valid argument relevant to the points in question. Example. I asked for climatologist backing of denialism, they post a list of non-climatologists. I point it out, they dismiss the whole premise as biased. So, the whole field of climatology, the entire academic field of science, is a conspiracy in their delusional rationalization. There is nothing to debate with against that. Humor is the only tolerable thing to do.

I have engaged these folks ad nauseum in the past. They don't give a damn about losing the tin foil algorealgore conspiracist hats any more than fundies wish to be challenged about jesus.

You're the fool here, more than them.

Opinion duly noted. Then sent on its way.

So either don't post, or stop being such an idiot, and start backing up your arguments instead of going "Hah. You people are idiots. I'm right, and that's that."

Learn to back up your arguments.

How about this: I say that this whole quoted block is a lot of trash according to what I write above. So "stop being such an idiot" and "start backing up your arguments"?

[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by xyzone

Duly noted. That's your opinion. I and many others would not consider pasting articles an automatically valid argument relevant to the points in question. Example. I asked for climatologist backing of denialism, they post a list of non-climatologists. I point it out, they dismiss the whole premise as biased. So, the whole field of climatology, the entire academic field of science, is a conspiracy in their delusional rationalization. There is nothing to debate with against that. Humor is the only tolerable thing to do.

I have engaged these folks ad nauseum in the past. They don't give a damn about losing the tin foil algorealgore conspiracist hats any more than fundies wish to be challenged about jesus.

How about this: I say that this whole quoted block is a lot of trash according to what I write above. So "stop being such an idiot" and "start backing up your arguments"?

I've only seen you talk with them in this thread. So this thread is what I'm basing my comments on. I don't care if you've talked about it before or not, my view, is based on this thread.

I'd just like to point out, that they have posted arguments back, and backed them up. The point of a discussion is to keep having things to counter the other person's argument. so far, you've only countered one or two with your own sources, but when they've countered with their own, you've sat down, stuck your fingers in your ears, and started calling them idiots.

I do not need to back my quotes up, my very evidence is your action in this thread.

Or perhaps it's me. Perhaps it's just me thinking that pictures of anime, with stupid quotes on them, don't count as arguments.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

I'd just like to point out, that they have posted arguments back, and backed them up.

That's your opinion. They're the same old unfounded hyperbole. The so-called backup was nothing but blog articles. Someone could spend all day throwing blogs back and forth. I could even post a bunch of material with cited references and it would get dismissed as mere youtube videos or even the sources themselves would get downplayed, no matter how scientifically authoritative.

The point of a discussion is to keep having things to counter the other person's argument. so far, you've only countered one or two with your own sources, but when they've countered with their own, you've sat down, stuck your fingers in your ears, and started calling them idiots.

If you expect me to sit here all day to acknowledge every asinine, dismissive brainfart that comes around, you are mistaken. If no one even bothers to convincingly explain the rationale behind dismissing a single reference to the entire field of climatology in favor of hyperbole and sources clearly reported to be motivated by the industry, the whole thing is equally as interesting to me as debating jesus with fundies.

I do not need to back my quotes up, my very evidence is your action in this thread.

So is mine.

Or perhaps it's me. Perhaps it's just me thinking that pictures of anime, with stupid quotes on them, don't count as arguments.

Given the claims referenced, it's sufficient argument. If somebody wants to elaborate specific, logical arguments beyond political hyperbole, I'm all for it. That is yet to show as the main point from these denialist folks and all others like them.

"Great global warming swindle" crockumentary: debunked, director unresponsive, now ignored. Solar, volcanoes, mist, clouds blamed on global warming and called natural: as debunked as creationism, including the unyielding believers. Now some unspecific email "hacking" is supposed to make all that go away along with the entire (clearly reported) motivation and sponsors behind denialism? Give me a break. I'm not going to care about 35 different copy-paste jobs about algore at some blog, nor about what anyone thinks about my response.

[Salvanas]

That's your opinion. They're the same old unfounded hyperbole. The so-called backup was nothing but blog articles. Someone could spend all day throwing blogs back and forth. I could even post a bunch of material with cited references and it would get dismissed as mere youtube videos or even the sources themselves would get downplayed, no matter how scientifically authoritative.

Please, one thing that annoys me the most out of everything someone could possibly say to me, it's "That's your opinion." Yes, I know it's my opinion. No need to state the obvious, as if I haven't thought of such a thing.

Post it, and we shall see how people comment on it. It's what a discussion is based on. Regardless if you find their back-up lacking or not, they're still posting more than you are.

If you expect me to sit here all day to acknowledge every asinine, dismissive brainfart that comes around, you are mistaken. If no one even bothers to convincingly explain the rationale behind dismissing a single reference to the entire field of climatology in favor of hyperbole and sources clearly reported to be motivated by the industry, the whole thing is equally as interesting to me as debating jesus with fundies.

Ah, you see, a good debater would have simply given up there, and ignored the whole thread. Since, you know, these guys aren't worth arguing with right? Yet, you still seem to take the time to reply back with comments that ridicule them.

I don't expect you to acknowledge every "brainfart" that comes around. But I do expect you not to take that, so called precious time of yours, to mock them repeatedly.

Given the claims referenced, it's sufficient argument. If somebody wants to elaborate specific, logical arguments beyond political hyperbole, I'm all for it. That is yet to show as the main point from these denialist folks and all others like them.

"Great global warming swindle" crockumentary: debunked, director unresponsive, now ignored. Solar, volcanoes, mist, clouds blamed on global warming and called natural: as debunked as creationism, including the unyielding believers. Now some unspecific email "hacking" is supposed to make all that go away along with the entire (clearly reported) motivation and sponsors behind denialism? Give me a break. I'm not going to care about 35 different copy-paste jobs about algore at some blog, nor about what anyone thinks about my response.

Yet, instead of arguing the point, you throw remarks at them.

Understand. I'm not saying anything about the subject. I'm talking on the subject of your immature responses toward the thread.

You seem to see yourself in such a high light, that your arrogance seems to overflow.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

[font="Garamond"][size="3"][color="Black"]
Please, one thing that annoys me the most out of everything someone could possibly say to me, it's "That's your opinion." Yes, I know it's my opinion. No need to state the obvious, as if I haven't thought of such a thing.

Well I'm saying it anyways just in case it's not clear.

Regardless if you find their back-up lacking or not, they're still posting more than you are.

Quantity over quality. Gotcha.

Ah, you see, a good debater would have simply given up there, and ignored the whole thread. Since, you know, these guys aren't worth arguing with right? Yet, you still seem to take the time to reply back with comments that ridicule them.

Stop putting words in my keyboard. "worth" is subjective. It's worth it to successfully ridicule them, as you give me credit for doing.

I don't expect you to acknowledge every "brainfart" that comes around. But I do expect you not to take that, so called precious time of yours, to mock them repeatedly.

Yet, instead of arguing the point, you throw remarks at them.

One takes a lot longer than the other, and one can actually be creative while the other needs to follow the strict rules of logic.

So I guess I'm trying to one-up their creative hyperbole about dismissing an entire authoritative field of science due to the alleged content of some emails made by individuals.

Like I said, use asbestos sheets if a biologist lies, since it means asbestos is safe. Same thinking process.

Add to that the reported and obvious economic motivation behind dismissing greenhouse emissions, and you have a very, very weak credibility in defending climate denial.

Understand. I'm not saying anything about the subject. I'm talking on the subject of your immature responses toward the thread.

You seem to see yourself in such a high light, that your arrogance seems to overflow.

Maturity can be subjective. But opinion duly noted.

[Sangetsu]

xyzone, you haven't been successfully ridiculing anyone, and if your only posting on this thread to ridicule others, then I would ask that you leave.

If you have information relevant to the discussion, either for or against it, feel free to post it.

You asked before how many "climatologists" were referenced on my list of scientists who are skeptical about global warming. What exactly is a "climatologist"? A person who hold a degree in climatology most certainly. But a climatologist does not know every detail of the weather, just as Radiologist is different than a surgeon, though they are both doctors. A climatologist takes information provided to him by experts in other fields, meteorologists, oceanographers, physicists, and the like, and uses the information provided to him by these people in his work.

I recently posted the changes made to the 1996 IPCC Report on Global Warming report which, without authorization of the reviewing scientists, was changed from saying that there was no proof that global warming was man-made to the opposite. Even the authors of the report and the IPCC itself have admitted to this change. Many of the scientists on the list I posted worked as reviewers of this and other IPCC reports, and they signed a declaration as a means of protesting the changes.

The reason this is all relevant is that the person who changed the report, Dr Benjamin Santer, earned his degree at East Anglia University, which is the center of the current scandal.

The UN and IPCC no longer say that global warming is occurring at this moment, because, no matter how they read the tea leaves, it isn't. This is why global warming is now called "climate change". The climatological models developed by Dr Santer and his associates have proven to be wrong. According to their models (which are shown in the IPCC reports), temperatures should have increased markedly over the last decade, but, in fact, the opposite has happened. This alone, without all of the other scandal going on, is enough to question the validity of the global warming phenomena.

I am all for keeping the environment clean. I almost never drive (I own 4 bicycles), I separate and recycle, I don't use unnecessary electricity or gas, and, as I mentioned earlier, my home in America is completely solar-powered. Few people I know leave as little a "carbon footprint" as myself.

What I have a problem with is being lied to. If the UN wants to do something about pollution, then they should use an honest argument. Instead, they try to scare us, or use guilt in order to get us to do something. They should try inspiring us. It's all well and good to preach to us to cut back on using natural resources whilst they themselves travel hundreds of thousands of miles a year by chartered jet, live in multiple places, and work from multiple offices. One of Al Gore's overseas trips will generate more carbon dioxide than 5 American families make in a year.

The money spent each year on global warming research is enough to provide clean drinking water to all of the world's poor. The money projected to be spent to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the future is more than what would be required to end hunger on earth.

But the UN is an organization of politicians; selfish prostitutes interested only in helping the world so far as it enriches themselves. As they have nothing to gain materially from providing the poor with clean water or food, it's not a priority for them. The money spent in developing countries to reduce carbon admissions would be administered by the UN, and companies contracted by the UN. Their profit would enormous.

The argument that climate change skeptics are paid by industry sounds viable at first, we are taught by movies that industry is greedy and profit-motivated, and will stop at nothing to increase those profits. But when you think objectively, you come to realize that industry is no different from politics. The only difference is that the governments have much more money and power than private companies. Many scientists who have been skeptical of global warming have found that work can be hard to find. Many have had their research funding cut or eliminated, and they find that they can't publish their work in scientific journals. Since these scientists can no longer be funded by universities, they have no choice but to work for industry. They have to eat, don't they? And, the amount of money industry spends in support of these scientists is a minute fraction of the money spent by governments in support of global warming research. If these scientists were truly dishonest, wouldn't they actually rather say global warming was indeed occurring, and continue to receive nearly unlimited research funds?

[Ryzorian]

The real issue here is that the "global warming" crowd was just as biased and motivated for their own agenda as much as anyone else was. Then when they get called on it, they throw a hissy fit, like a two year old who is told he can't have any candy.

Fact is, Global warming HASN'T been happening for the past decade, at all. Their own evidence supports that, that's why they were trying to find ways around haveing to actually tell anyone the real truth.

Besides, Global Warming happens, big wup. It's happened in the past, and it will happen in the future, wether man is here or not. Guess what? Ice ages happen too...ooooo, ahhhhh....

If we want to talk about how the US and Industrialized nations in general should ween themselves off fossil fuels? Hey I agree with that, useing renewable fuel sources and trying to safeguard the ecology, is a no brainer. I'm just apposed to the "Chicken Little" aspect trying to force some sort of global government on me that tells me what I can drive and what I can't, or what tempature I can leave my house at...the hell with that.

[clintjm]

But what about the green jobs? If climate change goes the way of Al Gore's Tofu burger, then what will become of Green Jobs?

I swear if I hear green jobs one more time...
And more so "Shovel Ready Jobs".... to spend money immediately just to spend money.

Even at 10% estimated (more like 20 or 25% in all reality as the ones not claiming unemployement or part time employment ) that have the idiocy to continue to push ridiculous green jobs which is just spinning wheels. The US and other places in the world suffering economic down as a result of the US are not going to pull out by green jobs and demonizing private industry and freaking out small and large industry with this sweeping health care/insurance bills.

Its time the US fire up the factories again, get people back to work in the US, and stop all this nonsense that the climate change scare and regulation that is hendering private industry and innovation!

Jake Tapper on Jobs Numbers - ABC News
Time index -0:51
Last Friday in the US