We just have to point to all others that guys like you are completely and totally infective in dealing with what skeptic scientists attempted already and failed to do.
Professor Muller even got funding from the Koch brothers and still the evidence he and his skeptic scientific group measured and checked demonstrated that the climate scientists were correct all along.
But pointing that out still requires the listener to be willing to think critically and weigh evidence.
It’s useless as an approach to convincing somebody like doorhinge, who openly admits that what he wants to hear is an appealing sales pitch, not factual evidence and rational argument.
As others have already pointed out, you’ve made it rather dramatically clear for a long time that you know absolutely nothing about climate science, not even the most rudimentary basics. What you’re showing us now with equal clarity is that you’re so far removed from science that you can’t even distinguish between scientists and activists, and have no idea what scientists actually do for a living.
It appears that you’re as clueless about current events as you are about climate science. You see the world as comprised of deniers like yourself but those are in fact the few remaining ignorant dregs. The world has long since moved on. You’re apparently not aware that on November 30, the UN climate conference (formally,the UNFCCC COP21) opens in Paris with 50,000 participants of whom 25,000 are official government delegates including the heads of state of 190 countries. President Obama heads up the US delegation and energy secretary Ernest Moriz is one of the keynote speakers. The conference will formally have the goal of achieving a legally binding and universal international agreement on climate, for the first time with the specific aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.
…and are not interested in learning.
(post shortened)
COP21 will talk about what the man-made-CO2-is-evil zealots need to do in order to sell the idea of bad anthropomorphic global warming to the public. Just like COP20, COP19, COP18, COP17, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. As you imagine, COP’s have been so successful in controlling the creation of man-made CO2 that man-made-CO2-is-evil regulation is now the law of the land/planet and no new COP’s will be needed. Bwahahahaha… You guys can’t seem to close the deal.
Maybe the COP’s will insist that another failed Chicago Climate Exchange (closed in 2010) be created in order to control all manufacturing thru the sale of carbon contracts? Just because people didn’t believe they should put their money into carbon contracts, and managers refused to turn over control of their companies to carbon regulators, doesn’t mean people find this man-made-CO2-is-evil to be simple zealotry. Or does it?
As you so helpfully demonstrate with every post, fighting ignorance is Taking Longer Than We Thought[sup]TM[/sup].
I was a moderate to good salesperson. It’s not my passion though, so I stopped doing that.
The thing is, you’re not winning this argument. You’ve fixated on a point you think is ironclad, that AGW doesn’t have complete public buy-in, and think that makes AGW not real. It’s really shocking how utterly inept you are at reasoning.
You can’t think. I’m guessing you never learned.
Popularity doesn’t mean something is true or false. And you not understanding that is crippling your ability to understand even simple issues. Your parents and teachers fucked up when raising you, because the ability to understand that point is pretty much fundamental to being a fully functioning adult.
You seem to feel that “the public” doesn’t find AGW believable.
For future reference, ignorant cretins ≠ “the public”. Also ignorant cretins ≠ national governments and their expert advisers. It’s clear to everyone but you and the few remaining ignorant cretins that when COP21 convenes in less than two weeks with 50,000 attendees including the heads of 190 nations, the science is driving major international actions and concern.
They disagree with the idiotic premise that nothing changed when the industrial revolution started to spew increasingly large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and drove it with unprecedented suddenness to a level that hasn’t been seen in 15 million years.
It’s really pathetic that all you’re doing with your climate denial rants is exhibiting for all to see just how uninformed you are.
No. What it suggests is that once again you have no idea what you’re talking about. Climate science is advancing just like all fields of science, and always will, and I assume you will continue to know absoutely nothing about it. No one is “searching for conclusive proof” of AGW any more than anyone feels the need to search for conclusive proof that the earth is round. In fact there’s a good chance that the IPCC Fifth Assessment may be that last such report because there’s not a lot left to be said in terms of policy-relevant scientific overview, and future reports may take the form of specialty areas like extreme weather events and climate sensitivity. That’s where much of the research is focused.
Ah, but it does, if the only metric of “truth” you recognize is consumer appeal.
To someone like doorhinge for whom what you think is merely a matter of what you do or don’t want to “buy”, scientific validity or plausibility is irrelevant. (That’s why he can spout gobbledegook about observed recent warming being caused by Milankovitch cycles “since the end of the last ice age”, even though physicists have known for years that the Milankovitch-cycle effects don’t successfully account for it.)
doorhinge’s reply to my previous mention of Exxon’s investigation for securities fraud. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to compose a description of the quality of this post.
Exxon’s legal woes bear revisiting IMHO link:
doorhinge, do you understand what securities fraud is? Do you understand how a corporation like Exxon could come to be accused of it?
Let me try to explain. Exxon is a vast company, with roots going back to Standard Oil’s opening day, at times run by literally the richest men in the world. They are rather efficient at meeting the mass market’s demand for fossil fuels. They really care about what their customers think re: fossil fuels, especially, in recent history, re: AGW and specifically re: rising CO2 levels due to human activity and particularly re: the consumption of Exxon’s billion-dollar product.
They have in-house scientists who study all kinds of things. You don’t think they have any climate scientists? Pshaw, they were on it as early as 1977, competitive corporation that they are. Anyway, on a basic level climate science can be a lot like a chemistry experiment. Scientists run the reaction, they weigh everything and they report the results. Then they go home, some of them have nightcap before a good night’s sleep, but probably most of them don’t.
Well, the next day their bosses are pissed. After some negotiation the scientists are bullied into repeating the tests, reporting the results. It is the same results, again and again.
Those scientists get fired and new ones are brought in. Same results. The executives come up with a plan:
We gotta lie about this.
Apparently some prosecutors think they can prove Exxon made false statements about AGW.
Do you understand, doorhinge? Exxon stands accused of deceiving the public re: human CO2 emissions’ effect on global climate while selling shares in a company that sells a product that emits massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. They may be convicted of securities fraud.
It isn’t zealots promoting AGW. It is Exxon’s in-house scientists.
Whoops that was inscrutable’s response :smack:
How is any of this a response to my question (in your link to my post) ?
I remember 1977 quite well. Do you?
Society’s attitudes were much more homogenized/unified and complacent then.
All that reactionary stuff of the ‘60’s (campus protests, anti-war, hippies, racial strife, etc.) was all but forgotten, or just ignored. Young people weren’t so eager to discard their parents’ values. Hell, a Paul McCartney song would come on the radio, and you’d see children and the middle-aged alike singing along! People still had hope.
[Caveat: I’m talking about white, middle-class suburbia here.]
And then there was inflation.
So people started looking into small, fuel-efficient cars
Had it become widely known, the concept of AGW would have probably melded with that new pop culture subject of “Ecology”.
So people would have started looking into small, fuel-efficient cars…
The things I remember well won’t matter- I was 4.
As for speculating about how things might have turned out, I think one result would have been a dramatic reduction in investment in oil and gas in favor of other technologies over the last 4 decades. Today’s green energy movement would almost certainly be much farther along than it is, and far less carbon would have been pumped into the atmosphere.
The idea isn’t that there would have been a dramatic sea change in attitudes in the year the news broke. OTOH we would not be 4 decades behind in convincing the public of the reality of this menace, and as a result I don’t think we’d have to hack through an army of denialist yokels on this issue like we do today.
Maybe, but Reagan would still have been elected in 1980, so…
You sure that didn’t have more to do with the recent oil embargo?
Of course, lumped that in under “inflation”.
(post shortened)
If you say so. 
Climate change denier? Who, me? I certainly do NOT deny “climate change”, in fact, I’m absolutely certain that the climate changes.
Global warming is occurring.
YOU want to change the status quo. YOU want man-made-CO2-is-evil laws and regulations to become the law of the land/planet. YOU need a bigger (not complete) buy-in from the public.
My position is that your side can’t seem to reach your goal. You don’t have a sufficient number of the public’s votes, you don’t have a sufficient number of the elected representatives, and you don’t seem to be able to figure out how to reach your goal.
You deny the science and pretend it’s merely part of a natural cycle. That’s a denier you chunderfuck.
I want my children to not have to work and suffer so that ignorant pricks like you can live in delusional arrogance.
That’s not a position on global warming. That’s an observation. And a flawed one, at that. Your brain’s an inchoate mess.
(post shortened)
I think your frustration is leading to a bit more than spittle on your PC screen. I find it interesting that nobody noticed your error for 2+ hours. But thanks for spelling my nom de plume correctly. 
Wow, that rant should have convinced everyone that your zealotry is the only way. :smack:
I can’t understand why more people don’t follow a sweet-talker like yourself. Follow you to the ends of the Earth, perhaps?