CDZ The American Republican Denial of Climate change.

[Toddsterpatriot]

NO ONE denies that there is climate change.

There is ZERO evidence that we have affected such change one way or the other.

/thread

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

Very convincing.
How much do we need to spend on windmills to make the warming stop?

I don't know. Hopefully less than we'd need to spend to build another planet on which to live once we ruin this one's environment.

Warmer is better for life on this planet, why would we have to leave?

Do you really see the topic that binarily and that narrowly?

Warming is either better or worse, how else would I see it?

 

[320 Years of History]

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

Very convincing.
How much do we need to spend on windmills to make the warming stop?

I don't know. Hopefully less than we'd need to spend to build another planet on which to live once we ruin this one's environment.

Warmer is better for life on this planet, why would we have to leave?

Do you really see the topic that binarily and that narrowly?

Warming is either better or worse, how else would I see it?

You would see there as being more than one dimension -- the range of temperatures in which life can exist -- to the matter of climate change, and seeing that, you'd have never asked me the question about whether warmer is better.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Very convincing.
How much do we need to spend on windmills to make the warming stop?

I don't know. Hopefully less than we'd need to spend to build another planet on which to live once we ruin this one's environment.

Warmer is better for life on this planet, why would we have to leave?

Do you really see the topic that binarily and that narrowly?

Warming is either better or worse, how else would I see it?

You would see there as being more than one dimension -- the range of temperatures in which life can exist -- to the matter of climate change, and seeing that, you'd have never asked me the question about whether warmer is better.

What is the ideal "average global temperature"?

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't know. Hopefully less than we'd need to spend to build another planet on which to live once we ruin this one's environment.

Warmer is better for life on this planet, why would we have to leave?

Do you really see the topic that binarily and that narrowly?

Warming is either better or worse, how else would I see it?

You would see there as being more than one dimension -- the range of temperatures in which life can exist -- to the matter of climate change, and seeing that, you'd have never asked me the question about whether warmer is better.

What is the ideal "average global temperature"?

I don't know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warmer is better for life on this planet, why would we have to leave?

Do you really see the topic that binarily and that narrowly?

Warming is either better or worse, how else would I see it?

You would see there as being more than one dimension -- the range of temperatures in which life can exist -- to the matter of climate change, and seeing that, you'd have never asked me the question about whether warmer is better.

What is the ideal "average global temperature"?

I don't know.

Man caused warming could be making things better.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

At this point is there really any excuse to deny mankind has brought this on itself ?

NO ONE denies that there is climate change.

There is ZERO evidence that we have affected such change one way or the other.

/thread

Complete nonsense.

Atmospheric greenhouse gases are measurable. They are increasing. Humans are the only contributor at the levels necessary to affect such an increase.
If not, then please point to the natural processes responsible.

 

[Wyatt earp]

At this point is there really any excuse to deny mankind has brought this on itself ?

NO ONE denies that there is climate change.

There is ZERO evidence that we have affected such change one way or the other.

/thread

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

With all that evidence, then why are you posting?

Is it because do what I say, but don't do as I do?

 

[320 Years of History]

At this point is there really any excuse to deny mankind has brought this on itself ?

NO ONE denies that there is climate change.

There is ZERO evidence that we have affected such change one way or the other.

/thread

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

With all that evidence, then why are you posting?

Is it because do what I say, but don't do as I do?

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

At this point is there really any excuse to deny mankind has brought this on itself ?

NO ONE denies that there is climate change.

There is ZERO evidence that we have affected such change one way or the other.

/thread

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

With all that evidence, then why are you posting?

Is it because do what I say, but don't do as I do?

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

 

[GaryDog]

At this point is there really any excuse to deny mankind has brought this on itself ?

NO ONE denies that there is climate change.

There is ZERO evidence that we have affected such change one way or the other.

/thread

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

With all that evidence, then why are you posting?

Is it because do what I say, but don't do as I do?

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

I thought it was just me, but it seems you deflect from the substance of the conversation in just about every post.

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade? Do you also have doubts about evolution and gravity?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

NO ONE denies that there is climate change.

There is ZERO evidence that we have affected such change one way or the other.

/thread

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

With all that evidence, then why are you posting?

Is it because do what I say, but don't do as I do?

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

I thought it was just me, but it seems you deflect from the substance of the conversation in just about every post.

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade? Do you also have doubts about evolution and gravity?

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade?

How much is manmade and how much is from the end of the Little Ice Age?
And how much is due to changing historical data?

 

[320 Years of History]

At this point is there really any excuse to deny mankind has brought this on itself ?

NO ONE denies that there is climate change.

There is ZERO evidence that we have affected such change one way or the other.

/thread

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

With all that evidence, then why are you posting?

Is it because do what I say, but don't do as I do?

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

Off Topic:
I'm sorry. I don't understand. Do you not see the blue highlighted text when you click on "Click to expand?" Does not seeing the blue text in conjunction with my remarks about it make it very easy to tell what I'm responding to?

FWIW, I left the the whole of the prior posts rather than using the selective text quoting feature because I didn't want the reader to have to "hop" their way back through multiple posts to find the full context of the conversational flow.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

NO ONE denies that there is climate change.

There is ZERO evidence that we have affected such change one way or the other.

/thread

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

With all that evidence, then why are you posting?

Is it because do what I say, but don't do as I do?

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

I thought it was just me, but it seems you deflect from the substance of the conversation in just about every post.

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade? Do you also have doubts about evolution and gravity?

Sure, there's evidence to suggest we probably impact the climate. Do I believe it rises to the extreme of calling it our number one problem and pushing all other issues to the side? No.

 

[320 Years of History]

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

With all that evidence, then why are you posting?

Is it because do what I say, but don't do as I do?

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

I thought it was just me, but it seems you deflect from the substance of the conversation in just about every post.

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade? Do you also have doubts about evolution and gravity?

Sure, there's evidence to suggest we probably impact the climate. Do I believe it rises to the extreme of calling it our number one problem and pushing all other issues to the side? No.

Purple:
??? What does the level to which you think it rises or doesn't have to do with whether there exists, and to what extent it does or doesn't, an "American Republican denial of climate change?" Surely you don't speak for the GOP...or maybe you do?

 

[GaryDog]

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan​

Red:
Once again, albeit twice in in the same day, you have failed to check the facts that drive what you believe.

• Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  
• The human fingerprint in global warming

There is a reason Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify." Sage advice and well worth following no matter what one hopes is so.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

With all that evidence, then why are you posting?

Is it because do what I say, but don't do as I do?

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

I thought it was just me, but it seems you deflect from the substance of the conversation in just about every post.

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade? Do you also have doubts about evolution and gravity?

Sure, there's evidence to suggest we probably impact the climate. Do I believe it rises to the extreme of calling it our number one problem and pushing all other issues to the side? No.

Luckily, your "belief" doesn't enter into the equation.

People tend to focus on the wrong things, seeing blizzards in the northeast and assuming that winters are colder (or even that the warming is only gradual) because they see weather a certain way. If you're a scientist measuring sea ice and glaciers at the north and south pole, however, you DO see this as a possible existence-threatening problem that will, at minimum, create a worldwide refugee crisis, and could at maximum fundamentally alter our way of life, worldwide.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

With all that evidence, then why are you posting?

Is it because do what I say, but don't do as I do?

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

I thought it was just me, but it seems you deflect from the substance of the conversation in just about every post.

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade? Do you also have doubts about evolution and gravity?

Sure, there's evidence to suggest we probably impact the climate. Do I believe it rises to the extreme of calling it our number one problem and pushing all other issues to the side? No.

Luckily, your "belief" doesn't enter into the equation.

People tend to focus on the wrong things, seeing blizzards in the northeast and assuming that winters are colder (or even that the warming is only gradual) because they see weather a certain way. If you're a scientist measuring sea ice and glaciers at the north and south pole, however, you DO see this as a possible existence-threatening problem that will, at minimum, create a worldwide refugee crisis, and could at maximum fundamentally alter our way of life, worldwide.

When it comes to whether or not man has some major impact on climate change, all we have is belief. There is no absolute proof either way.

 

[320 Years of History]

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

I thought it was just me, but it seems you deflect from the substance of the conversation in just about every post.

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade? Do you also have doubts about evolution and gravity?

Sure, there's evidence to suggest we probably impact the climate. Do I believe it rises to the extreme of calling it our number one problem and pushing all other issues to the side? No.

Luckily, your "belief" doesn't enter into the equation.

People tend to focus on the wrong things, seeing blizzards in the northeast and assuming that winters are colder (or even that the warming is only gradual) because they see weather a certain way. If you're a scientist measuring sea ice and glaciers at the north and south pole, however, you DO see this as a possible existence-threatening problem that will, at minimum, create a worldwide refugee crisis, and could at maximum fundamentally alter our way of life, worldwide.

When it comes to whether or not man has some major impact on climate change, all we have is belief. There is no absolute proof either way.

Are you really going to sit there and demand 100% deductive arguments? Surely you don't demand that level of certainty, as compared with and contrasted to rigorous levels of inductively derived probability, for much about which you conclude. Few of us do for re: most matters political, there simply never is a deductively valid proof.

• Abduction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Despite yours and others' attempts to make it seem so, the conclusions resulting from the study of Earth's climate and how it's changed over time do not conform to the "Hempel Paradox."

• The human impact on climate change is asserted as being instrumental to it, not 100% causal of it. Like all complex processes, the ones that affect Earth's climate are many; however, as you've observed in the content I linked to earlier, humanity's impact has risen to a level of being material. As a consequence of extent to which our deeds materially alter the climate, we need to revise the nature of our deeds, our use of the environment.

The reasons are really quite straight forward: if our actions or inaction commence a sequence of events that we cannot stem, we're likely screwed and the costs of adapting to those changes will vastly surpass those of taking action now not to catalyze any such events. What might be an example of such an event? The deposition of vast amounts of fresh water into the Gulf Stream so as to stop the flow of warm air to Northern Europe.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

I thought it was just me, but it seems you deflect from the substance of the conversation in just about every post.

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade? Do you also have doubts about evolution and gravity?

Sure, there's evidence to suggest we probably impact the climate. Do I believe it rises to the extreme of calling it our number one problem and pushing all other issues to the side? No.

Luckily, your "belief" doesn't enter into the equation.

People tend to focus on the wrong things, seeing blizzards in the northeast and assuming that winters are colder (or even that the warming is only gradual) because they see weather a certain way. If you're a scientist measuring sea ice and glaciers at the north and south pole, however, you DO see this as a possible existence-threatening problem that will, at minimum, create a worldwide refugee crisis, and could at maximum fundamentally alter our way of life, worldwide.

When it comes to whether or not man has some major impact on climate change, all we have is belief. There is no absolute proof either way.

Are you really going to sit there and demand 100% deductive arguments? Surely you don't demand that level of certainty, as compared with and contrasted to rigorous levels of inductively derived probability, for much about which you conclude. Few of us do for re: most matters political, there simply never is a deductively valid proof.

• Abduction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Despite yours and others' attempts to make it seem so, the conclusions resulting from the study of Earth's climate and how it's changed over time do not conform to the "Hempel Paradox."

• The human impact on climate change is asserted as being instrumental to it, not 100% causal of it. Like all complex processes, the ones that affect Earth's climate are many; however, as you've observed in the content I linked to earlier, humanity's impact has risen to a level of being material. As a consequence of extent that our deeds materially alter the climate,

Where have I demanded anything? I am for sensible regulations which protect the Earth, because obviously just doing whatever is going to cause harm.

 

[320 Years of History]

I thought it was just me, but it seems you deflect from the substance of the conversation in just about every post.

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade? Do you also have doubts about evolution and gravity?

Sure, there's evidence to suggest we probably impact the climate. Do I believe it rises to the extreme of calling it our number one problem and pushing all other issues to the side? No.

Luckily, your "belief" doesn't enter into the equation.

People tend to focus on the wrong things, seeing blizzards in the northeast and assuming that winters are colder (or even that the warming is only gradual) because they see weather a certain way. If you're a scientist measuring sea ice and glaciers at the north and south pole, however, you DO see this as a possible existence-threatening problem that will, at minimum, create a worldwide refugee crisis, and could at maximum fundamentally alter our way of life, worldwide.

When it comes to whether or not man has some major impact on climate change, all we have is belief. There is no absolute proof either way.

Are you really going to sit there and demand 100% deductive arguments? Surely you don't demand that level of certainty, as compared with and contrasted to rigorous levels of inductively derived probability, for much about which you conclude. Few of us do for re: most matters political, there simply never is a deductively valid proof.

• Abduction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Despite yours and others' attempts to make it seem so, the conclusions resulting from the study of Earth's climate and how it's changed over time do not conform to the "Hempel Paradox."

• The human impact on climate change is asserted as being instrumental to it, not 100% causal of it. Like all complex processes, the ones that affect Earth's climate are many; however, as you've observed in the content I linked to earlier, humanity's impact has risen to a level of being material. As a consequence of extent that our deeds materially alter the climate,

Where have I demanded anything? I am for sensible regulations which protect the Earth, because obviously just doing whatever is going to cause harm.

Red:
Okay...my patience with you has come to it's limit. That you cannot see that your remark "When it comes to whether or not man has some major impact on climate change, all we have is belief" is a tacit demand for a level of proof that transcends that given by inductive reasoning is final confirmation for me that you and I just don't need to converse.

 

[GaryDog]

Blue:
??? What? The purpose of the post was to show that there is more than "zero" evidence that humanity has had an impact on climate change.

Your method of responding is strange indeed. Wouldn't it be easier to just cut an paste just the portion of the response you wish to respond to? I know it would be easier to read.

I thought it was just me, but it seems you deflect from the substance of the conversation in just about every post.

You REALLY think there's zero evidence that the current rate of global warming is manmade? Do you also have doubts about evolution and gravity?

Sure, there's evidence to suggest we probably impact the climate. Do I believe it rises to the extreme of calling it our number one problem and pushing all other issues to the side? No.

Luckily, your "belief" doesn't enter into the equation.

People tend to focus on the wrong things, seeing blizzards in the northeast and assuming that winters are colder (or even that the warming is only gradual) because they see weather a certain way. If you're a scientist measuring sea ice and glaciers at the north and south pole, however, you DO see this as a possible existence-threatening problem that will, at minimum, create a worldwide refugee crisis, and could at maximum fundamentally alter our way of life, worldwide.

When it comes to whether or not man has some major impact on climate change, all we have is belief. There is no absolute proof either way.

Sorry, but you're absolutely, 100% wrong. I have no clue who's feeding you information, but it certainly isn't the bulk of experts.