Global Warming is happening...on Mars

[Meister]

Yes. And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.

And?

Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.

Your kidding, right?

 

[Trakar]

Yes. And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.

And?

Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.

Your kidding, right?

Not at all.

Science knows, has compelling evidence of, and has a pretty solid understanding of the causes of nearly all the previous geologic periods of warming and cooling on our planet.

Just as it has a very good understanding of the current warming and the causes of that warming.

 

[daveman]

Yes. And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.

And?

Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.

Yeah. Not every single adverse weather event can be blamed on American SUVs.

 

[daveman]

It was 1.8 mm per year not that long ago. And nature tends to do things in spurts, not the nice even lines you see on graphs. A 2 meter rise, which is likely by 2100 would critically damage many of the present ports.

Obviously, global socialism is the only thing that will save us!

Who, beyond the strawman above, is proposing such?

Every single "solution" to AGW ultimately boils down to advocating world socialism.

 

[daveman]

And?

Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.

Your kidding, right?

Not at all.

Science knows, has compelling evidence of, and has a pretty solid understanding of the causes of nearly all the previous geologic periods of warming and cooling on our planet.

Just as it has a very good understanding of the current warming and the causes of that warming.

No. It thinks it does.

 

[Trakar]

Your kidding, right?

Not at all.

Science knows, has compelling evidence of, and has a pretty solid understanding of the causes of nearly all the previous geologic periods of warming and cooling on our planet.

Just as it has a very good understanding of the current warming and the causes of that warming.

No. It thinks it does.

With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.

If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.

 

[daveman]

Not at all.

Science knows, has compelling evidence of, and has a pretty solid understanding of the causes of nearly all the previous geologic periods of warming and cooling on our planet.

Just as it has a very good understanding of the current warming and the causes of that warming.

No. It thinks it does.

With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.

If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.

I'm not a scientist, and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.

What I've seen calls the whole premise into question. No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents, and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.

 

[Trakar]

No. It thinks it does.

With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.

If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.

I'm not a scientist, and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.

What I've seen calls the whole premise into question. No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents, and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.

For the most part, I could care less about the people, the politics or "the movement," my primary interest and focus is on the science. Knowing and understanding much of the science involved allows me to distinguish and seperate those who are accurately portraying it and those who are not. As long as they are remaining fairly accurate and in accord with the science, I'm really uninterested in any other aspect of their political or social spin or manuevering with regards to the science.

 

[Old Rocks]

No. It thinks it does.

With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.

If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.

I'm not a scientist,

We believe you.

and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.

Nor do I, that is why I post my sources, who are, indeed, scientists.

What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.

But there is some rule against you posting what you have seen?

No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents,

Come now, all yap-yap, no specifics.

and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.

Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?

Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.

So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?

It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.

 

[Meister]

With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.

If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.

I'm not a scientist,

We believe you.

and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.

Nor do I, that is why I post my sources, who are, indeed, scientists.

What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.

But there is some rule against you posting what you have seen?

No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents,

Come now, all yap-yap, no specifics.

and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.

Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?

Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.

So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?

It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.

Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before. You will never admit that there was agenda driven science going on by the IPCC. Get over it ol' boy.

 

[daveman]

With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.

If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.

I'm not a scientist, and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.

What I've seen calls the whole premise into question. No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents, and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.

For the most part, I could care less about the people, the politics or "the movement," my primary interest and focus is on the science. Knowing and understanding much of the science involved allows me to distinguish and seperate those who are accurately portraying it and those who are not. As long as they are remaining fairly accurate and in accord with the science, I'm really uninterested in any other aspect of their political or social spin or manuevering with regards to the science.

The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.

 

[daveman]

With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.

If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.

I'm not a scientist,

We believe you.

and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.

Nor do I, that is why I post my sources, who are, indeed, scientists.

What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.

But there is some rule against you posting what you have seen?

No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents,

Come now, all yap-yap, no specifics.

and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.

Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?

Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.

So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?

It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.

There is nothing I could show you that would sway you, Old Cultist. Stop pretending you're interested in debate. Your mind is as closed as any fundamentalist's.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm not a scientist,

We believe you.

and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.

Nor do I, that is why I post my sources, who are, indeed, scientists.

What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.

But there is some rule against you posting what you have seen?

No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents,

Come now, all yap-yap, no specifics.

and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.

Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?

Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.

So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?

It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.

Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before. You will never admit that there was agenda drive science going on by the IPCC. Get over it ol' boy.

Evidence for which is?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm not a scientist, and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.

What I've seen calls the whole premise into question. No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents, and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.

For the most part, I could care less about the people, the politics or "the movement," my primary interest and focus is on the science. Knowing and understanding much of the science involved allows me to distinguish and seperate those who are accurately portraying it and those who are not. As long as they are remaining fairly accurate and in accord with the science, I'm really uninterested in any other aspect of their political or social spin or manuevering with regards to the science.

The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.

The evidence for which is?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm not a scientist,

We believe you.

and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.

Nor do I, that is why I post my sources, who are, indeed, scientists.

What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.

But there is some rule against you posting what you have seen?

No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents,

Come now, all yap-yap, no specifics.

and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.

Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?

Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.

So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?

It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.

There is nothing I could show you that would sway you, Old Cultist. Stop pretending you're interested in debate. Your mind is as closed as any fundamentalist's.

Since you have yet to show anything from a scientific source, how would you know that?

 

[Meister]

Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?

Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.

So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?

It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.

Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before. You will never admit that there was agenda drive science going on by the IPCC. Get over it ol' boy.

Evidence for which is?

Go back over all the damn threads, roxie. There has to be no less than 2 dozen of them. It still won't change your mind what the truth actually is. Your part of the cult movement, son.

 

[Old Rocks]

As are all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities. In fact, as is just about any thinking person. Of course, that excludes you.

 

[Meister]

As are all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities. In fact, as is just about any thinking person. Of course, that excludes you.

You put that broken record on again, huh?

 

[daveman]

For the most part, I could care less about the people, the politics or "the movement," my primary interest and focus is on the science. Knowing and understanding much of the science involved allows me to distinguish and seperate those who are accurately portraying it and those who are not. As long as they are remaining fairly accurate and in accord with the science, I'm really uninterested in any other aspect of their political or social spin or manuevering with regards to the science.

The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.

The evidence for which is?

According to AGW scientists, climate change has dire consequences for humanity.

Yet they refuse to share their work. FOIA requests are delayed or ignored. Methodologies are not revealed. Dissenting studies are suppressed and dissenting scientists are punished.

AGW scientists are more concerned about publication and grants than they are about humanity.

Like I said: Irresponsible.

 

[daveman]

Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?

Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.

So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?

It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.

There is nothing I could show you that would sway you, Old Cultist. Stop pretending you're interested in debate. Your mind is as closed as any fundamentalist's.

Since you have yet to show anything from a scientific source, how would you know that?

I have posted information from scientific sources. You don't even read the damn articles. Coward.