I laughed out loud when I read it. Good stuff. 
Here’s the thing - maybe there’s global warming and maybe there isn’t. Maybe it’s part of the normal cycle of nature through the ages, or maybe it isn’t. If global warming actually does exist and it’s man-made, maybe we can come up with a way to reverse or minimize it or maybe we can’t. And if we can, maybe the rest of the world will join in or maybe whatever we do - even if effective - won’t make any difference anyway because everyone else finds the process too expensive, politically difficult, or they just don’t give a shit and have much more immediate problems to contend with.
So there’s way too many maybe’s involved for me to even begin to think about getting behind governmental action (i.e., more beaurocracy, more government control over our lives, and wasteful and restrictive interference with business) to try to deal with it.
I find it very interesting that the most effective human activity which has decreased AGW forcing in the last decades is the Global Financial Crisis.
That could be countered though by the political activity, mostly hot air blowing out of world capitals.
Tris
Once Starving Artist dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn’t know he was Starving Artist. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Starving Artist. But he didn’t know if he was Starving Artist who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Starving Artist. Between Starving Artist and a butterfly there must be some distinction! Maybe.
In general, Starving Artist’s philosophy is simple, arguing that to seek uncertainty is different than to recognize uncertainty. And he who leaps in despite great uncertainty lacks wisdom and may often be observed to limp back out again.
~Starving Artist the 1st, 266 B.C.
Uncertainty goes both ways, the rightists you follow just want you to pay attention only to the low estimates. A **very **unwise idea.
What rightists do you suppose I follow?
Spam from family members and information coming from like minded friends. The fact that your points are so predictable and already answered several years ago and discredited even more recently, shows that even your sources are not as original or wise as you think.
Of course, I’m open to suggestions that it could be the rightists in your head, that could explain many things…
I remember that guy, Brazil-some-number-or-another, saying that he would believe on the cathastrophical (that ain’t a word, is it? :dubious: ) proportions of AGW if and when at least 10% of the friggin’ world population would undeniably die from it.
Ten WWIIs worth of deaths seem a bit high for a threshold to start thinking about maybe doing something, but apparently YYMV.
Hahahaha…you guys, you just kill me! 
Information, just because it favors what you want to believe, is not incontroverible proof. If I had ten bucks for every time someone around here offered proof that was nothing of the sort, yet latched onto instantly by you and the other usual suspects, I’d…well, let’s just say I’d have quite a bit more dough.
Funny thing, what you have demonstrated so far is an uncanny ability to ignore the scientific papers and citations in the links and also show to other posters what a chicken you are in dealing with what the Republican scientist had to say on the matter; so yeah, this is indeed proof that you willingly ignore evidence to continue to make a fool of yourself, but do not change SA. It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others
Chicken? Chicken! I’m a chicken?
Sorry, kid. I got things to do. Check back with me when you get out of class, m’kay?
And what’s all this stuff about what the “Republican” scientist says? Do you really think that as long as some Republican somewhere says something I should automatically do a 180 embrace it?
Good grief!
Every Republican in congress could be touting global warming (or have we all switched to ‘climate change’ now?) and I’d still be skeptical for the very same reasons I outlined above. First you accuse me of being a follower of ‘rightists’ and you criticize me for that, then you suggest that I ought to be a following someone simply because he is a rightie and it’s proof that I’m a fool if I don’t.
So which is it, am I a fool for following righties or am I a fool for not following righties? You can’t have it both ways.
No. Are you?
It was better than noticing that you are branding yourself as an idiot in front of others, but I was being easy.
And also an expert of missing the point, you follow the experts that have the evidence, and on this issue the science supports the scientists,** regardless if they are republican or democrat.
**
The reality is that even now you are still avoiding touching or explaining away what the BYU professor said.
Solipsism, eh? Yes, maybe life is but a dream, but the rules of the dreamworld are remarkably consistent and we may as well pay attention while we are here.
What you are saying is like arguing that since lightning can cause forest fires naturally, maybe the fire that sprang up on a calm, cloudless day at the exact instant and location of a downed power line was actually caused by lightning.
There are natural causes of climate change. For example, variability in solar output, volcanic eruptions, and orbital variations. But they have been studied and do not account for the current global warming. On the contrary, study of natural climate change suggests that the greenhouse effect, and thus our drastic increase in production of greenhouse gases, is very powerful.
Probably not, for the most part. But did you know it’s really basically true?
People who stand to gain wealth and power from it.
Talking about global warming in the context of average annual temperatures “on record” is ridiculous when the subject is really planetary cycles over time measured in eons. Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in the Earth’s rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun’s energy output.
Seeing that a huge super majority of scientists that are experts on the issue are telling all that there is AGW and anyone with access to the internet can verify the information you are indeed the nadir of the consensus.
G.S. Calendar, the scientist that began to change the past consensus of not worrying about the issue back in the 50’s (!) was ridiculed and did not benefit from the research he made.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
And if you had bothered to check the information freely available you would had found already that your citation begins mentioning the discredited “all scientists predicted a coming ice age in the 70’s”, once again scientists already take the cyclical eccentricities into account, the ignorance is demonstrated when deniers resort to mislead people by ignoring that the cyclical eccentricities of the earth are not a reason for the current global warming.
Are there any wealthy scientists?
Science is a terrible career choice for anyone enamored of wealth or power.
Al Gore’s sure no scientist, I’ll give you that. :rolleyes:
Indeed, unfortunately for you he is more right than wrong.