Thank you sir, we do not agree in all matters, but if you ever visit phoenix, your drink in a dopefest we will have to do if you come is on me.
Nice that we agree that you missed my point.
By you? Whne you cannot provide numbers for your answers?
I’m the dufous for not being responsible for others?
I’ll have the rhed.
“Willfully ignorant” for not reading the link in your link?
When you don’t give specific answers? Only linkety-linky?
Wow! You save the world and quote literature!
So, your “answers”, your full-on science answers are attack pieces that are ad hominems? Not a number, not a fact on the science?
Your answer is always “it’s a denier”, is it?
[/QUOTE]
So, that means you can’t and now you resort to goalpost moving.
How can I be disapponted about your chickening out? I expected such an answer.
That there is not a single topic in Great Debates about Global Warming, says a lot about the place. And I don’t mean a single active topic, I mean not even a topic at all. (Unless the search function is munged)
Clearly there isn’t a AGW, or climate change topic going on.
How odd.
Are you still willing to claim that I did not quote the science article that shows how misleading your CO2 “science” cite was?
Now you are even denying posts, well, if you insist on looking like an idiot I do not mind.
Meh, more whining, I’m beginning to conclude you did not even check yet the last cites of the last article from the CO2 astroturf cite you made. Once one sees that scientific article does not match what the CO2 “science” site said, one has to then follow who is behind that front, and that is what you are also denying.
Yeah I know, for some reason many assume me and others are obsessed with the subject when in reality we only appreciate science. I got into the subject only because deniers in the past had come before with so idiotic myths that they became the definition of “the stupid it burns!”. As I and many in reality are not obsessed with this (ignorance is not coming from just one subject you know) it is not strange that there is no current thread on the subject, although there was a very recent one that got sent to the happy hunting grounds when, very likely, the OP was a returning sock.
A few years back I was shooting down moon hoaxers with gusto, today is climate change deniers, when people appear with ignorance of their own, one can tolerate them, but “coming up” with pre-made ignorance and with a political agenda to boot?* It is a target rich environment. And as there are piles of good evidence on your side, it is really not a big effort, really.
*A funny common factor: FOX was involved on broadcasting both the moon hoaxers and climate change denier’s propaganda.
Calling your enemies names is always a good way to promote logic and science.
Your post just made my point. These are not claims I make. These are claims made by the experts. If you are interested enough to try to refute these claims, why are you refusing to teach yourself the fundamentals of the field (doesn’t even have to be in depth, just enough to understand the logic behind their claims)?
It’s been my experience that people mistrust things they don’t understand. Once they understand the logic behind an issue, they’ll support it (unless they’re suffering serious cognitive dissonance). You have to understand the claims of the experts before you can make a decision on whether or not to agree with the deniers/‘skeptics’ (the vast majority of whom are non-experts). GIGO provides lots of cites, some of which should take a while to digest. Yet, many of you come back with a quick response. This shows me that you are not even bothering to read explanations of the claims you’re trying to refute. Is the topic too difficult for you to understand or are you too lazy to bother with the literature?
I agree completely; that’s why I keep asking what hypothetical evidence people claim would falsify their own predictions.
Here’s the claim that you made:
I assumed that by “climate science,” you meant basically the same thing as what I mean by “CAGW.” So it did seem that you were making a claim.
Are you or are you not claiming that CAGW (as I have defined that term) has been backed up by extensive experimentation?
Who says I haven’t? In fact, I’ve studied these issues very carefully and I understand them far better than most of the warmists I engage with, perhaps all.
I’ve satisfied myself that CAGW (as I define the term) is a hoax.
If you feel there is some important evidence or argument I need to consider, please feel free to point it out, i.e. summarize it and provide cites, links and quotes. But I’m not going to do your homework for you.
I looked long and hard for a Great Debate thread about AGW, Climate Change, whatever you label the great belief that “man is causing global warming by using fossil fuels and it is going to be really bad and everybody has to stop using fossil fuels and it might already be too late and you are a bad person for destroying the world”.
The poster child for this almost religious like belief system is the pathetic Hockey stick, which illustrates clearly how batshit crazy the true believers actually are.
There is the illogical idiot crazy heart of the matter right there.
See? The idiot denier of reality is sure of everything, and it’s really simple.
People use fuel. This causes the world to warm. This is bad. People should stop using fuel. It’s all about money and profit.
How fucking nice it must be to live in an idiot world where everything is explained so easily and you are 100% right, and your enemy is 100% wrong.
Of course if you really believed that you would turn off your power, stop using fuel, and shut the fuck up about it, because every time you log in you are killing the planet.
Of course the idiot who bemoans the death of all that is good won’t do that. In fact, if you take the carbon emitted by dickbags preaching “fossil fuels are warming the planet” you would have a percentage of the greenhouse gasses just from such activity.
But to try and educate the ignorant about why this is such stupid, (which we all know is also a waste of both time as well as fossil fuels), lets just cut to the chase.
No, a graph of temperature does not mean that. If CO2 is a threat, we have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to counter the imbalance. This can be done. Your simplistic screed is ignorance at a level beyond stupid.
Measure to reduce heating can also be used. We are not helpless morons at the mercy of the world. Much less going to stop using fuel to live well. You fucking eat every day because of fuel. Deal with it.
Yes, because people depend on fuel to fucking live. Just like you are doing right now. Your crybaby bullshit is hypocritical in the extreme. Grow the fuck up.
Only in some lalaland fantasy is anything that simple.
And there is the depth of the ignorance of it all. It’s impossible to even imagine that such a statement is made in earnest. It appears to be trolling. It has to be.
Nobody can actually be that stupid.
Now before you vent your spleen, I too think fossil fuels are polluting the world. I know soot from carbon fuels is fucking with the arctic, that fossil fuels are altering the balance, I hate the fucking pollution and idiocy of oil and coal companies.
I despise the waste and profit that surround dirty power generation, the corrupt influence of money and politics on the world, the massive oil spills, the deaths from coal power plants, the disease from car and truck exhaust, the filth that covers the world from dirty engines and massive waste.
I loath those who try to stop clean energy and solar power. I fucking hate dickbags who try to convince us that coal is the only way, that electric vehicles can’t work, that things have to go on as they are. I spit on those who stop wind power, who preach that renewables can’t work, every fucking self interested piece of shit in the world can suck the cock of Satan.
But I am not going to sacrifice reason and logic and buy this bullshit doom and gloom crap about global warming/
Feel better?
I’m perfectly willing to agree that some people go into Irrational True Believer mode on this, but complaining that the “they deny because of money” argument negates their point because it’s overly simplistic is comic when one notes that this also is the primary argument of climate change deniers - that the people who say that AGW is happening are just doing so for the big, big money involved.
Idiots abound everywhere.
I also tend to think that some global warming scientists and activists do tend to be a bit “doom and gloom” which is dissapointing.
But for the most part, I think concerned scientists and activists simply want more government research and funding to go toward alternative energy sources, stop cutting special deals with oil companies, and put some limited sanctions on CO2 emissions to try to curb the problem a little. I haven’t heard or seen any prominent scientists or politicians who are actively out there telling people that we should pass a law to ban burning oil and coal, or something like that.
Yes, there is a bit of hyperbolic arguing going on… but it seems to me that the actual legislation and lobbying is pretty reasonable considering the scope of the possible problems. Of course, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Germany actually passed laws to put some reality into solar power. And Germans installed a shit ton of solar panels. They still are. I saw one solar installation (by the power company) that allowed them to increase the base load on hot sunny days for 10,000 homes, just by building a small solar powered sub station.
The peak loads for power are hot sunny days. Perfect time for solar to increase the peak energy, which is why power plants are built so fucking huge, to be able to meet the peak load.
It’s cheaper to spend the money on local power than to build a giant nuclear plant, but the profit is in building the giant structure, not painting roofs white, installing insulation, solar hot water heaters, and solar panels for juice.
Yeah, the world runs on money and profit, but blinding yourself to reality and preaching some global doom isn’t helping. Better to install a solar tube than to tell everybody they have to stop burning fuel.
Put up some solar panels rather than tell everybody else what they have to do.
Oh yeah, I do actually feel better. Nothing like a good rant to start the day off.
Feel free to join in, or tell me why I’m wrong. It’s a big Universe, enjoy the fuck out of it.
Trust me, if you don’t enjoy your life, nobody else will.
Live fast, die young, leave behind a charred rock for your grandkids! <funnels beer> <BELCH>
You forgot to release some deliciously destructive methane. <FARTS> there we go!
Those who think that AGW is happening – hate solar panels? What kind of universe do you live in?
Did you try the politics forum? The AGW “debate” is mostly politics. There’s a reason it’s so acrimonious. Liberal AGW proponents want to tax the hell out of carbon and energy and some conservative wingnuts don’t even believe the earth has warmed in the last hundred years, and certainly don’t want to be taxed because of it.
The biggest problem of all is that leading climate scienticians like Dr. James Hansen have open political agendas about what should be done. Hmm, on second thought, maybe the open agendas are better than closed ones, since at least we know where the bias lies.
The bolded part is one reason I don’t go along with your argument. You seem to be saying, “Let’s use everything now, because we have it, and let the future generations (whether 10 years from now or 100) fend for themselves. What do I care? I won’t be around in 100 years anyway.” I don’t buy that.
I like the philosophy of walking in the woods – leave things cleaner than you found them, so the next person (ie generation) can enjoy it too. Why perpetrate a sort of slash and burn mentality? It’s as if you’re enjoying a picnic in the park, and you leave your litter there for the next person to clean up. Your attitude seems to be, “I don’t care if they have to clean up my trash. I enjoyed my picnic, let them deal with the mess. I’m outta here!”
Such is the problem with scant posts, internet and the foibles of assumptions. I mean enjoy your Universe, don’t bemoan that other people are destroying the world. Do something about it.
I’ve been working on erosion control for a decade, my work is fucking visible from space. I could be bitching about the idiots that I am directly countering with my work, but that would waste time.
Fuck em.
I despise people who trash a place, I will fuck them up. No really, I will. I plant trees, I recycle everything, I burn ethanol and methanol rather than fossil fuels. I use solar power, I depend on wind and tide energy to live.
The doom and gloom attitude won’t change a thing. I know, I used to be one of them. I’ve lived for 5 years off the grid, zero electricity from fossil fuels.
I grow my own food, I eat organic, I would shit in a hole and grow a tree on it if I could.
I despise bad science, politics and big money, and I don’t give a fuck what you think.
Life is tough, wear a helmet.