As far as the OP goes, and brightly ignoring the fact there are people who don’t think global warming is occurring, it nearly broke my heart when I realised that modern oil companies had rejected the painful rectitude of the founders of the industry, and instead chose to act in a scoundrelly manner for mere profit.
Portraits of the fine old face of John D. should be dripping tears all over the boardrooms at this betrayal of his standards.
Actually, it is widely accepted that some climate effects of AGW are probably inevitable at this point.
But why would anybody think that “it’s too late” to do anything at all about AGW? Anthropogenic climate change isn’t a one-shot deal, where we either cause it or don’t cause it and the outcome is settled for good either way.
Rather, it’s an ongoing process of human impacts on climate. As long as we keep altering the composition of our atmosphere with ever-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, we will be altering the consequences for global climate in the future (at least, as far as we can tell from the current state of the science).
AFAIK, there’s no scientifically valid reason to think that we’re anywhere near an “impacts plateau”, where what we do doesn’t matter anymore because the damage, whatever it is, has already been done. Why would you want such an idea to be “more accepted” than the science justifies?
You brought up something in your last post that I meant to address earlier:
I don’t have a major problem with any of those conclusions in particular. But those conclusions aren’t the half of it–they aren’t even the tenth of it.
Mainstream AGW theory in the US right now adds a lot more to that, which I do find objectionable. The added parts are as follows: the rise in atmospheric carbon levels will have catastrophic effects, humans can stop those catastrophic effects from happening by reducing carbon emissions, and the US should act to mandate reduced carbon emissions.
Each of these additional parts adds enormous complexity to the problem. And the fact that the policy changes AGW proponents want to enact just so happen to line up with usual liberal bugaboos casts a huge :dubious: over the whole exercise.
Nobody drunk poor kool aid man, just looked at him funny…
Looks at Rand Rover… :dubious: 
Here are better videos for people who want to check the truth:
First, lets check the sources that Rand Rover likely uses:
No, global warming was not invented by AL gore or the liberals:
And finally, how no faith is used by the scientists to tell us why AGW is happening:
Here’s the main source that I use and that you are incapable of using:
Ah, the old I’m not really denying the science after several pages of doing so gambit.
Cite? From where are you pulling these ratios?
Lets see what Barry Brickmore, Republican, Scientist from BYU says about this being a liberal bugaboo:
You know what Gigo? If you stripped out the quotes and links to articles in every single post you’ve ever made, the result would be complete gibberish. Like stripping the nouns and verbs out of a sentence. Maybe try to think for yourself for once.
And thank you, for showing to all once again, that you are just a coward for not dealing with the cites that are the quotes and links.
And thank you for continuing to show that you can’t consider what people actually are saying and craft a response yourself–you just reflexively post a link to something vaguely related to the general subject.
And that is worse than being a coward? 
Will wonders ever cease in Rand Rover land?
Your point here is another demonstrated lie, there are several posts on previous treads where I do explain in my own words how AWG makes more sense than the alternatives.
Even on the Paleoclimate front and the Hockey Stick. That was one of the reasons why I got suck into discussions of Climate Change, the stupid was so bad coming from deniers that it burned.
Back then I posted this:
"For me in reality the interest to this issue came thanks to “The stupid! It burns!”
It was not you, but there was a doper in a very early thread on this subject that made a very stupid mistake: He confused proxy temperatures with the instrumental temperature record. Then he compounded the stupid by pointing to a graph from an early IPCC report, and ignored that it came from one of the earliest IPCC reports, new data and information had rendered that graph obsolete (You know, thanks to something silly called more data gathered and records) by the 2007 IPCC report more up to date reconstructions and graphs were used that showed the now familiar hockey stick shape.
Yet, deniers still claimed that the obsolete graph gathered by the same group was the “beesnees” as it showed a big medieval warm period and no hockey stick; however, a simple reading of the evidence showed to me that the denier was incredible stupid by using the same organization’s graph that was later dismissed/corrected as not being more accurate than the new ones gathered by the same organization.
It was clear to me then: “Corrections made by the IPCC are even denied by these guys!”.
It was clear that that denier was never aware of the old saying: “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away” new and more samples of three rings, boreholes and corals showed that the medieval period was not as huge or global as previously thought.
So yeah, you may attach religious reasons to others, as for myself I go for being biased in favor of science and against stupid ideas.
Video showing how it is an article of faith among deniers that the graph that showed the medieval warm period is still the good one and not the latest ones:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/22/vrKfz8NjEzU "
I don’t expect much from you learning anyway, suffice to say is that even other conservative dopers said that guys like you are just full of hot air.
I’ll just respond to this before renewing my vow to not engage you on this issue (since you are incapable of actually thinking about it): the list of things I agreed with T2BC on does not include the concept that humans are the cause of global warming. So I didn’t undeny something I’ve previously denied.
I’m not a coward, I’m a realist. I realize that you don’t want to discuss facts–you have made up your mind. I’ll repeat my challenge to you: what facts would demonstrate that your beliefs about AGW are wrong?
Already mentioned before, but you also continue to demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension. And once again you are projecting, it is clear to all that you are the one who is not willing to discuss the facts or cites.
Each one of them can be demonstrated to be false with experimentation and then the main items of the AGW theory are wrong.
Of course it is not that simple as even more evidence has piled up. Once again, all the indicators can be demonstrated to be false with experiments and then the theory goes up in smoke.
Unfortunately the indicators and evidence has accumulated for more than 60 years, and the basics of AGW were understood from the 1950’s as the Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass showed back then.
Currently there are more than 10 indicators that point to AGW as the most likely reason why the planet is warming during the last century.
So, good luck on finding evidence that discredits all of those indicators. And this is because:
Actually, that seems to be exactly what you did. Here’s the exchange from your 11:08 PM post on 2/20:
If you’re not willing to agree with the mainstream scientific consensus that human activity is the chief cause of global warming, then yes, you’re contradicting your earlier claim not to have a problem with the science on the basic facts of the subject.
:dubious: By that reasoning, you could use liberal support for speed limits and seatbelt laws to justify casting doubt on Newtonian physics.
You can’t use political ideology as a proxy for scientific understanding.
Unintentional Irony of the Week Award. You are offered facts and research, you answer with a stubborn refusal to accept them and insist that you are right, regardless. If that’s realism, take more drugs.
You are confused. All T2BC said was that humans are responsible for increasing carbon emissions, not global warming.
You are still confused. You aren’t taking into account how neatly the science on AGW fits into liberal policy goals–i.e., that humans are causing AGW, quick-fixes don’t work, and that a reduction in carbon emissions by the US would work. A better analogy would be if liberals were saying that seatbelts only work to prevent injury if they are made out of sustainably grown hemp, and neither synthetic hemp or hemp grown using pesticides work in seatbelts for some reason or another.
Exactly–which is why I haven’t swallowed mainstream AGW theory–it’s just political ideology dressed in scientific clothes.
Nope. I answer with critical analysis of the facts and research that looks behind them for their reasons for existence, how they were derived, etc. and etc. I don’t just uncritically accept them.
I bet you don’t uncritically accept the conclusions of Hernstein and Murray (and others) regarding the link between race and IQ. Why not? There’s lots of science on this point–study after study shows a link. But you are a race/IQ link denier. Why?
Well, since you are clearly losing this argument, changing the subject might work. It’ll work for you, at any rate.
Keep denying, denier.