I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[FXMastermind]

This has all taken a strange and oddly humorous turn

[watchwolf49]

Finally have all the branches gathered up that broke off during the ice storm … I’m going to burn them today, instead of composting … just to add CO[sub]2[/sub] to the atmosphere.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Is “Get my ass handed to me by GIGOBuster and Kimstu in Great Debates” on your bucket list FXMasturbates? That is a really sad dying wish.

Well, congratulations anyway, I guess.

[Fear_Itself]

@watchwolf49

Finally have all the branches gathered up that broke off during the ice storm … I’m going to burn them today, instead of composting … just to add CO[sub]2[/sub] to the atmosphere.

Won’t add any CO2 that wasn’t there before the tree grew. And composting would have returned that same CO2 to the atmosphere anyway.

[watchwolf49]

Composing returns much of the carbon to the biosphere.

[nachtmusick]

@watchwolf49

Composing returns much of the carbon to the biosphere.

All of it, actually. Where the hell would the rest go?

If you spent more time thinking about how carbon cycles through the biosphere it would not be time poorly spent. Most people don’t think about these things at all, so you are already thinking way more than most do.

[Fear_Itself]

@watchwolf49

Composing returns much of the carbon to the biosphere.

So does burning.

[FXMastermind]

@Subterraneanus

If only the climatologists of the world spent their days on message boards reading threads like this, learning Real Climatology from Guy On Internet.

@FXMastermind

That’s sarcasm, but far too obvious to be funny. I’m glad real scientists and people who study our planet are spending their time (and often our money) actually finding out what is happening.

Pretty much everything I know about climate is because of dedicated people who do the work.

That being said, having the data collected means anyone, expert or half baked amateur, can engage in the other side of science, which is research.

@Subterraneanus

Tell me more.

Not a problem.

I get the giggles when I point at evidence, data, actual official research, and it still makes no difference at all. The true believer can always wriggle out of anything, even a GISS data set, the NCDC data, HADCRUT, CRUTEMP, satellite data, it doesn’t matter.

The GREATdebate topic has already become a shit pile of politics, of course, and instead of evidence we get “you got pwned” or “you are still wrong”, and the fuckheads of the internet don’t get it. They seem to think it’s one punch knockout fight, rather than a long and difficult dance.

[Fear_Itself]

@FXMastermind

They seem to think it’s one punch knockout fight, rather than a long and difficult dance.

You are the Elaine Benes of climate change dancing.

[FXMastermind]

i wish i looked that good

[FXMastermind]

The sickening part is when somebody really is trying to get something across, but instead of just saying it, they use rhetoric. It’s fine in a slap fight to dance around the issues, act like a ego driven fucktard with no life, but when there is SCIENCE on the table, have some respect.

@wolfpup

Standard operating procedure again, I see.

What the fuck does that even mean? Does this complete nobody with no life and nothing but time to spend arguing, really think for a second I have a standard? Seriously? I go on and on and on and post a dozen links in single post, carefully describe how to do it yourself, explain the reasoning, the logic, the scientific reason, and that is the response? What a fuckhead. Your posts take 20 seconds to read, because there isn’t anything in them. It’s fluff and scum, it’s sickening.

@wolfpup

Claim you’d be delighted to see any examples of when you were ever wrong, and when it’s pointed out that you’ve been not only wrong recently on about a dozen significant points of science, but outrageously wrong on most of them, just ignore it and throw in another completely irrelevant digression and run away.

What the fuck does " it’s pointed out that you’ve been not only wrong recently on about a dozen significant points of science" mean? This shithead doesn’t actually counter anything, there is nothing of substance to respond to.

@wolfpup

Sure there are unknowns, but the denialist tactic of throwing in a FUD-bomb and then running away obfuscates the fact that the scope of influence of the unknowns is well bounded.

Once more, who the fuck are you talking to? And what is it you want to argue? It’s vapor posts, it’s fog and ghost shit, there is never a scientific fact to discuss. Like this obscure meaningless claim-

@wolfpup

Indeed the interest in UV cyclical variations is more to better understand and model regional climatic effects like deep tropical convection than anything to do with global surface temperature trends.

What does that mean? Where did you get that from? It is made up double talk, it can’t even be responded to. It’s meaningless.

@wolfpup

So much for your latest round of diversionary BS.

And hen, ironic as hell, it all ends with whining accusations that I am not clear about things?

Goddamn dude, my huge fault certainly isn’t a lack of words and explaining shit.

Most people TEGO and they might glance at a tldr, but there is no way anyone has ever accused me of being obscure, much less running away from anything.

I would respond, but nobody knows what the fuck you are saying.

[watchwolf49]

@nachtmusick

All of it, actually. Where the hell would the rest go?

If you spent more time thinking about how carbon cycles through the biosphere it would not be time poorly spent. Most people don’t think about these things at all, so you are already thinking way more than most do.

I just like burning things, but yeah, burning wood for energy is “carbon-neutral”. I’m aware of the basics of the carbon cycle, probably more up to speed on the water cycle and the energies associated with that. Carbon doesn’t deposit under normal atmospheric conditions, whereas water does … at 2.6 J/g … this is no small difference. Ice at altitude isn’t something the “alarmists” like to talk about …

[watchwolf49]

Silly Shit

[andros]

@watchwolf49

Silly Shit

Why does it not shock me that a half-assed troll like yourself would be a fan of a fully-assed troll like Krauthammer?

To be fair, he’s considerably better at it than you. Better than FX, too. You could learn a lot from Krauthammer if you wish to really pursue trolling as an avocation.

[FXMastermind]

Shut up bitch

[andros]

Aw, really? After I complimented you, you bring that weak sauce?

[FXMastermind]

I’ve reformed since I found out I am going to die soon.

[JackieLikesVariety]

@watchwolf49

God … what a bunch of long haired freaks … but thanx for the link, it’s been quite awhile since I last listened to that song … they look like girls

what are you, eight? or in your 80s, and peeved about it. eat more fiber!

[BrainGlutton]

The Guardian: Climate-change denialism is not “skepticism,” it is "motivated reasoning.

So given the evidence is so strong against them, then why do these beliefs garner such passionate, vocal support? It’s tempting to say the problem is a simple misunderstanding, because increasing average global temperature can have paradoxical and counterintuitive repercussions, such as causing extreme cold snaps. The obvious response to this misunderstanding is to elucidate the scientific details more clearly and more often.

The problem is that the well-meaning and considered approach hinges on the presupposition that the intended audience is always rational, willing to base or change its position on the balance of evidence. However, recent investigations suggests this might be a supposition too far. A study in 2011 found that conservative white males in the US were far more likely than other Americans to deny climate change. Another study found denialism in the UK was more common among politically conservative individuals with traditional values. A series of investigations published last year by Prof Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues – including one with the fantastic title, Nasa Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science – found that while subjects subscribing to conspiracist thought tended to reject all scientific propositions they encountered, those with strong traits of conservatism or pronounced free-market world views only tended to reject scientific findings with regulatory implications.

It should be no surprise that the voters and politicians opposed to climate change tend to be of a conservative bent, keen to support free-market ideology. This is part of a phenomenon known as motivated reasoning, where instead of evidence being evaluated critically, it is deliberately interpreted in such a way as to reaffirm a pre-existing belief, demanding impossibly stringent examination of unwelcome evidence while accepting uncritically even the flimsiest information that suits one’s needs.

The great psychologist Leon Festinger observed in 1956 that “a man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” This is the essence of the problem, and sadly, Festinger’s words ring true today: the conviction of humans is all too often impervious to the very evidence in front of them.

Motivated reasoning is not solely the preserve of conservatives. While nuclear power has been recognised by the IPCC as important in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, staunch and uninformed opposition to nuclear power arises often from the liberal aisle. In the furore over the Fukushima nuclear disaster (which has claimed no lives and probably never will) many environmentalists lost sight of the fact that it was a natural disaster, very possibly exacerbated by climate change, that cost thousands of lives. Instead, they’ve rushed to condemn nuclear power plants.

[FXMastermind]

Hey go spam that some more. That would be awesome. People love being spammed with nonsense,