Short-term Weather Patterns: They Mean Nothing. - Page 3

Stop, because that really says it all: Those who don't embrace the theory of AGW are either corrupt, or stupid.


I do not propose "doing nothing." That has never been my position.



Right, it's all the "deniers." The irony is unreal. You are in...cough...DENIAL about the fact that many left wing/liberal people are stopping some of the best solutions, such as nuclear power. Nuclear power was assaulted by the left during the 1980s and 1990s. We've not built new plants in 30 years.

As for AGW being a myth: With the evidence I'm aware of, I don't believe it is a sound theory. But let's assume that I'm wrong (that should make you happy!). After all, I'm not a climatologist. So..what should we do? Let me tell you what absolutely will not work: Cap and Trade schemes. That cat is out of the bag. Even the American Global Warming Club of America(TM)--of which you are obviously a member--knows that even slashing carbon emissions by a huge amount would not make a difference. Cap and Trade is just another control and tax scheme. Nothing more.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...postcount=2583

Supported by Tea Party polluters, incoming GOP energy chair Upton flips on threat of global warming[/quote]

Right, it's the Tea Party's fault. Man, this is getting good.

[quote]

More $$$ comes from oil companies funding the deniers than what funds climate research.

ExxonMobil Funds Global Warming Deniers

Funny, but I don't see anyone from ExxonMobile signing my checks.


Yes, I'm aware of that claim. So let me get this straight: To combat global warming, we must slash our use of fossil fuels. We must essentially become a more agrarian society. But we can't raise livestock, because their farts and poop contribute to global warming. Riiight. And you don't see how some might think that this is nothing more than the extreme left pushing it's agenda? Now we can get the vegetarians and vegans involved too!

By the way, what does "major contributor" mean?

I've noticed something among the Left that should be pointed out: They cannot accept that there are reasonable, intelligent and uncorrupted people out there with whom they just honestly disagree. You've just demonstrated this perfectly.


Uh, who is brainwashed here? There are many people that would accept it if, you know, it was actually happening. There would be many people that would accept it if, you know, it wasn't being jammed down their throats by people who clearly have a political agenda. They might accept it if some of the evidence presented by the keepers of the climate change Holy Grail--the UN IPCC--wasn't shown to be highly flawed at best and made-up at worst.

Perhaps if people presented actual unbiased evidence of C02 being linked to warming, then produced evidence of that warming? That is all that would be needed. Instead, we get propaganda, junk science and even falsified data...all to be fixed by a massive, freedom-destroying taxation scheme.


Wow, at least you come out and say it: Don't be stupid. At least you've got the guts to admit that anyone with whom you disagree must be stupid. You're attack on these unnamed, "brainwashed" and/or corrupt and/or stupid conservatives is the silliest kind of hyperbole.

The fact of the matter is that it is you, sir, who refuse to engage in discussion. It is your side that constantly clamors "the debate is over." The debate is not over. Many of the core precepts of AGW have not been proven. C02 has not been linked to warming. The temperature is WELL within historical norms, even far below them. The sea is not rising abnormally. Hurricanes and other weather events are not increasing. People don't believe it because they have not seen sufficient evidence. The case has not been proven. Not at all.

So there it is. Anyone who disagrees with the notion of AGW (the "deniers" as you put it) will never admit that it's happening. Are you reading your own posts? Do you hear yourself?

Look, I understand there may be people out there who fit the bill you're describing. Perhaps oil companies really are interested in nothing but profit, and do not care if they screw the planet. They may never admit they are wrong. But, the vast majority of skeptics simply don't believe sufficient evidence exists proving this theory.

In the same vein, we skeptics see the other side jumping around, screaming "shut the fuck up, the debate is over you stupid ignorant assholes!" We see junk science morons like Al Gore pushing highly flawed propaganda films down our throats. We see falsified and flawed evidence. We hear people crying wolf, saying that we have 5 or 10 years or even 6 months to prevent global catastrophe. We see politicians crafting schemes to redistribute wealth and limit freedom, all in the name of this supposed catastrophe. And we see scientific dissent pushed down into the gutter, in opposition to everything science stands for.

How is that you consistently question the motives of "the deniers," yet you do not question the people that are demonstrably lying, cheating and enriching themselves? Why are smart people like yourselves abandoning the scientific method, and instead pushing an unproven theory as a pseudo-religion?

That is absolutely fucking ridiculous. It's also one of the most incredibly myopic statements I've heard. You've played this game before, claiming that your positions on any given issue are based on facts, science and research, while my and other opponents' opinions are ignorant, misinformed or based on the aforementioned "tribal loyalty." I'm not sure exactly, but I suspect you have some kind of personality disorder...perhaps narcissism.


Does the existence of said Assholes (and their actions) completely disprove the theory of AGW? No. I have not said that. But it does create doubt. It creates questions, many of which I've asked already. Looking at these actions, the logical conclusion is that said Assholes have an Asshole Agenda. Surely you must see that many people, groups, corporations and governments stand to gain (and lose) from the implementation of AGW mitigation measures. It's started already, from cap and trade schemes to carbon credits one can buy. For all your lecturing on "facts, evidence and research," you seem unwilling to engage in the most basic scientific activity: Questioning.

[quote]
How is that you consistently question the motives of "the deniers," yet you do not question the people that are demonstrably lying, cheating and enriching themselves?
But on what do you base that? Just as you argue that the existence of the Assholes doesn't disprove the theory of AGW, I argue that the existence of truly committed and/or corrupt and/or stupid "deniers" doesn't mean that all skeptics--or even most--fit that bill. You can't have it both ways, sego. If you believe one, you must believe the other, lest you expose yourself to be intellectually dishonest, which I don't think you are.


I understand, but you cannot just dismiss these people as "fake" so to speak, but then embrace those on the other side as being truly representative of skeptical opinion. Here again, this is an intellectual honesty issue.


But "they" are not just profiteers. "They" are involved in some institutions that are supposedly beyond reproach. I've given examples before. "They" suppress skeptical climate scientists. Aided by the predominantly liberal media, "they" have pushed the mantra that there is a broad consensus and little to no doubt about the theory. But this is simply not the case. There is debate. Or, there should be.

I do respect the science. But, the science is not conclusive. That is the point. Now, we can can disagree on this issue. You may feel it is conclusive, but hat doesn't mean you are right, nor does it mean those with whom you disagree are stupid. As for me, what possible motivation would I have to deny overwhelming evidence and current events proving the theory of global warming? Of course, that does nothing to address your (potential) belief that I am stupid, but I would hope that in our discussions I have shown that I am not.

The point is that current data does not support the theory. C02 has not been conclusively linked to warming. And, global temperature has increased negligibly over the past 100 years. Lack of current evidence and lack of theoretical evidence does not satisfy me. To do that, I need: 1) Conclusive evidence that shows C02 causes warming. 2) Man-made carbon emissions contribute in a statistically significant way to that warming through C02 levels and 3) Actual temperature increases over recent history. Is that really an unreasonable standard?


I agree that anyone who questions those things is looney. That said, there is some nuance in those statements. Evolution may be "correct," but I also consider it possible that a superior being directed the process (intelligent design). It's not provable, but it's possible. Secondly, many Christians believe that the creation story is metaphorical. I, for one, believe that the Bible is the word of God as edited by man. Therefore, it cannot all be taken at face value. This is another discussion to be sure.


But you're not. You refuse to question the virtual raping of the scientific method and pursuit of truth that many who are in the Global Warming Club engage in. You stand by, watching them pound away. Then you slap the Republican next to you because he looked at your girlfriend.


Oh, come on. Can you provide support for that? Are you honestly saying that true skeptics can only be godless socialist-progressives? There you go again. It's not enough to strongly disagree with your opponent. He must be exposed as lying, stupid, steaming pile of shit.


Bullshit. Utter bullshit. You've gone much further than that. I acknowledge the existing science as well. But I also question what I've outlined earlier in the thread: Who are the people presenting and manipulating the data? What is their agenda? What are the sources? Why are dissenting scientific opinions discouraged and even covered up? How can we trust the IPCC report when there are glaring errors and even outright fraud in it? Who stands to benefit and/or lose from GW mitigation efforts? Do they have ties to the people reporting the data out? Why are supposedly neutral, dispassionate officials running around screaming "the debate is over!" Why are these people mounting a full-on publicity effort to "debunk" the skeptics if the evidence is overwhelming? Why the rebranding of AGW into "climate change?" Why didn't predictions of increased hurricanes and weather events bear out? Why didn't predictions of "lack of winter" bear out? I could go on.

Many of the answers to the above are not encouraging, and some are simply not known. But you won't even ask the questions or at least don't care about answers. And I'm the denier?


You'll find people that like that in any field.


I don't know exactly what that means. Not allowed? I think you'll probably find there aren't too many Creationists working in scientific areas anyway.


Don't you see? That's exactly what's happening! It's been proven. Data has been manipulated to fit pre-concieved notions of warming. The IPCC report and East Anglia fiasco are prime examples.

Look: I am not saying AGW definitely doesn't exist. I'm saying I'm not convinced by the data I've seen. And while I'm not a scientist, I've seen a lot of that data. I also know the measurement that matters--global temperature--is not increasing at an alarming, abnormal or even statistically significant rate.

I understand there is data like that out there. Such data adds some credence to the theory. But it does not provide answers to the essential questions I asked re: global temperature not increasing significantly and C02 not being proven to cause warming.

Again, I'm not saying AGW is not happening or real. I'm not saying there is no evidence. I'm saying there is nowhere near enough evidence. We have related evidence. We have theories and predictions. But the central component of C02 causing warming has not been proven, nor has temperature increased despite us pumping trillions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air for the past 100 years.

I'm also not saying we sit back and do nothing about pollution. I believe we must eventually reduce our reliance of fossil fuels significantly if not completely. But this requires short and mid-term plans as well.