Why are some so Anti GW?

[uscitizen]

Nodog.
So many are just willing tools of those profiting brom BAU that contributes to globull worming?

There are willing tools profiteering and trying to score political points on both sides.

Yep there is.

And that is a shame that humans are not intelligent enough to take an objective look at the issue and do what is needed if needed.

We as a species are pretty darned stupit sheeple. Afraid to stand alone and must be part of a larger pack.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The peer-reviewed science in incontrovertable. Climate change is happening and human activity is contributing to it.
The only serious scientific debate is on the degree (pardon the pun) to which human activity is contributing.
There has not been a single piece of peer-reviewed scientific research that has challenged this premise. Oh yes, there have been op-ed pieces by "scientists" who refuse to submit their "work" for rigorous scientific review.

The scientific debate is no debate.

The political debate rages because of the messenger issue you raise which is also undeniable. But it also rages because of the profit motive that has been raised. One one hand those who are profiteering by polluting want to protect their golden egg - those who hope to profit from new, cleaner energy sources would of course like to see regulations give their industry (and their pocketbooks) a boost.

The science does not appear to support the extremist chicken little argument that some have made in an effort to scare people into supporting regulation. It also doesn't support the "there is no real proof this is happening" argument that the extremists on the other side claim in order to protect their golden eggs.

As usual, the truth lies in between the caterwalling of the extremists.

Your asserting your belief does not make it true.... but nice try... the scientific debate is definitely debatable on all aspects of the assertions.. including the man-made aspect if somewhere PROOF is actually given that we are out of a normal cycle that the earth has never seen, and also including so actual PROOF that this is indeed an abnormal cycle (which has not been shown at all)

Not a single piece of peer-reviewed science refutes the premise. If folks want to gather their "scientific" data from political outlets and op-ed pages - that's certainly their choice. I personally demand a higher standard.

I would welcome any of the deniers to submit their work for rigorous scientific examination so the serious scientific debate can be re-opened. But as yet, none has been offered.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Nodog.
So many are just willing tools of those profiting brom BAU that contributes to globull worming?

There are willing tools profiteering and trying to score political points on both sides.

Yep there is.

And that is a shame that humans are not intelligent enough to take an objective look at the issue and do what is needed if needed.

We as a species are pretty darned stupit sheeple. Afraid to stand alone and must be part of a larger pack.

I agree that many people are far too attached to their ideology and to the banner carriers of their ideology. That blind devotion is often a stumbling block to good governance.

One the one hand - the advocates of more stringent regulation hurt their cause and their credibility by overstating the case. On the other hand, the head-in-the-sand folks damage their credibility by claiming their silly, faux-science rebuttals wipe out the real, serious scientific work that has been done on the issue.

 

[DiamondDave]

The peer-reviewed science in incontrovertable. Climate change is happening and human activity is contributing to it.
The only serious scientific debate is on the degree (pardon the pun) to which human activity is contributing.
There has not been a single piece of peer-reviewed scientific research that has challenged this premise. Oh yes, there have been op-ed pieces by "scientists" who refuse to submit their "work" for rigorous scientific review.

The scientific debate is no debate.

The political debate rages because of the messenger issue you raise which is also undeniable. But it also rages because of the profit motive that has been raised. One one hand those who are profiteering by polluting want to protect their golden egg - those who hope to profit from new, cleaner energy sources would of course like to see regulations give their industry (and their pocketbooks) a boost.

The science does not appear to support the extremist chicken little argument that some have made in an effort to scare people into supporting regulation. It also doesn't support the "there is no real proof this is happening" argument that the extremists on the other side claim in order to protect their golden eggs.

As usual, the truth lies in between the caterwalling of the extremists.

Your asserting your belief does not make it true.... but nice try... the scientific debate is definitely debatable on all aspects of the assertions.. including the man-made aspect if somewhere PROOF is actually given that we are out of a normal cycle that the earth has never seen, and also including so actual PROOF that this is indeed an abnormal cycle (which has not been shown at all)

Not a single piece of peer-reviewed science refutes the premise. If folks want to gather their "scientific" data from political outlets and op-ed pages - that's certainly their choice. I personally demand a higher standard.

I would welcome any of the deniers to submit their work for rigorous scientific examination so the serious scientific debate can be re-opened. But as yet, none has been offered.

Not a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence has any PROOF of global warming being out of a earth cycle that has been seen in the past... and not a single piece of PROOF that man has created global warming

but don't let THAT get in your way



How fucking typical of a chicken little

We're still waiting for you to meet your burden of proof... the TRUTH or FACT is that nothing you believe on this matter has been proven in the least

 

[nodoginnafight]

Not a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence has any PROOF of global warming being out of a earth cycle that has been seen in the past... and not a single piece of PROOF that man has created global warming

but don't let THAT get in your way

Actually that is not true. ALL the peer-reviewed science confirms that climate change IS occuring and that human activity is contributing to it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686


Of course that is not to say that the degree to which it is occuring or the degree to which human activity is contributing has been established to the level that the "chicken littles" claim (as I said before).
So your "typical of a chicken little" line, is typical of the strawman, ad Hom., type attack that the head-in-the-sand crowd pi$$es away their credibility with

 

[DiamondDave]

Not a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence has any PROOF of global warming being out of a earth cycle that has been seen in the past... and not a single piece of PROOF that man has created global warming

but don't let THAT get in your way

Actually that is not true. ALL the peer-reviewed science confirms that climate change IS occuring and that human activity is contributing to it.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science


Of course that is not to say that the degree to which it is occuring or the degree to which human activity is contributing has been established to the level that the "chicken littles" claim (as I said before).
So your "typical of a chicken little" line, is typical of the strawman, ad Hom., type attack that the head-in-the-sand crowd pi$$es away their credibility with

No... that is not proof, #1... and #2, it is not all peer-reviewed research and 'evidence'

Though chicken littles love to make everyone believe their statement of beliefs are fact and not unproven theory

Again... research, hypothesis, and unidirectional conclusion from partial data is not PROOF... even if you would like it to be because it fits your agenda

 

[editec]

People who have a vested interest in continuing to sell hydrocarbons are motivated to lie about the fact that they are kilig the planet as we know it.

Not really all that hard to figure out, is it?

Now I do not have much confidence in Cap and Trade.

Basically its selling indulgences to the pollutors and it WILL demand that everybody but them, pays for it.

But the fact is that everybody IS going to pay...either we will pay for NOT changing our sources of energy, or we will pay to make those changes.

The only REAL question, should we find the political will to change is how will we SHARE the burden?

 

[uscitizen]

People who have a vested interest in continuing to sell hydrocarbons are motivated to lie about the fact that they are kilig the planet as we know it.

Not really all that hard to figure out, is it?

Now I do not have much confidence in Cap and Trade.

Basically its selling indulgences to the pollutors and it WILL demand that everybody but them, pays for it.

But the fact is that everybody IS going to pay...either we will pay for NOT changing our sources of energy, or we will pay to make those changes.

The only REAL question, should we find the political will to change is how will we SHARE the burden?

What you said

 

[nodoginnafight]

Not a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence has any PROOF of global warming being out of a earth cycle that has been seen in the past... and not a single piece of PROOF that man has created global warming

but don't let THAT get in your way

Actually that is not true. ALL the peer-reviewed science confirms that climate change IS occuring and that human activity is contributing to it.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science


Of course that is not to say that the degree to which it is occuring or the degree to which human activity is contributing has been established to the level that the "chicken littles" claim (as I said before).
So your "typical of a chicken little" line, is typical of the strawman, ad Hom., type attack that the head-in-the-sand crowd pi$$es away their credibility with

No... that is not proof, #1... and #2, it is not all peer-reviewed research and 'evidence'

Though chicken littles love to make everyone believe their statement of beliefs are fact and not unproven theory

Again... research, hypothesis, and unidirectional conclusion from partial data is not PROOF... even if you would like it to be because it fits your agenda

Science doesn't "PROVE" anything. Go to the philosophy department for that and try to "PROVE" - beyond any possible doubt - that the sky is blue.

You want to defend your position with silly semantics, be my guest. But don't try to pretend that the absolute best scientific data and the most rigourously reviewed scientific work is in question.

Do you want to base public policy on the absolute best data available - or in some "hey, it could be possible" fantasies?

Look at the science - not Al Gore, not Barbara Bachman, not Rush Limbaugh, and not Nancy Pelosi - look to the real science and make a truly informed decision.

 

[txlonghorn]

Many people are rabidly fixated on being anti Globull Warming.

I personally believe Globull Warming is happening.
And I believe we are contributing to it.
I do not believe in Cap and charade.
Just Cap if we are going to do anything.

Can't you be against Cap and Charade and still believe Globull Warming exists?

I don't think people are rabidly against global warming----they are rabidly against the hysteria generated by those who will profit from it.

In the long term we will all profit by being greener and more saving with our energy.

Are you against economic recovery for the same reason? Many will profit from it.

I'd love to see how we will all profit from greening our society. Yeah, it's a feel good, cumbayah, thing...save the trees and all that shit. But tell me, how is it going to put more money in my pocket?

What about those who can't afford to "go green?" What happens when the government starts demanding that? Will people go to jail for that too? Honestly, I don't think you guys realize the narrow road you're choosing to travel. The power being given to our leaders is scary.

 

[uscitizen]

I don't think people are rabidly against global warming----they are rabidly against the hysteria generated by those who will profit from it.

In the long term we will all profit by being greener and more saving with our energy.

Are you against economic recovery for the same reason? Many will profit from it.

I'd love to see how we will all profit from greening our society. Yeah, it's a feel good, cumbayah, thing...save the trees and all that shit. But tell me, how is it going to put more money in my pocket?

What about those who can't afford to "go green?" What happens when the government starts demanding that? Will people go to jail for that too? Honestly, I don't think you guys realize the narrow road you're choosing to travel. The power being given to our leaders is scary.

This post reflects the main problem with humans in America. Short sighted greed.

It is not enough that I am protecting my grandchildrens future. I want my money now!

 

[txlonghorn]

In the long term we will all profit by being greener and more saving with our energy.

Are you against economic recovery for the same reason? Many will profit from it.

I'd love to see how we will all profit from greening our society. Yeah, it's a feel good, cumbayah, thing...save the trees and all that shit. But tell me, how is it going to put more money in my pocket?

What about those who can't afford to "go green?" What happens when the government starts demanding that? Will people go to jail for that too? Honestly, I don't think you guys realize the narrow road you're choosing to travel. The power being given to our leaders is scary.

This post reflects the main problem with humans in America. Short sighted greed.

It is not enough that I am protecting my grandchildrens future. I want my money now!

short sighted greed??? Seriously? Le'ts ask Al Gore about greed and going green!

Let me remind you that YOU are the one who made the claim that we will profit from it. All I want to know is HOW.

Can you stick to the subject or are you just going to divert to bashing since you don't seem to have a back up plan?

 

[Gatekeeper]

'Globull' Warming Iwould say is just what it is, BULL.

quote an article by James Delingpole from the Telegraph UK:

"Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

Who can trust these sleeze bags trying to cash in on the global warming frenzy? And we know one of the main Sleeze Bags, right?

 

[txlonghorn]

I wasn't sure about citizen's spelling attempt. I didn't know if it was an attempt at sarcasm or just a lack of knowledge. But you'd think that someone who supports a cause would know how to spell global.

 

[uscitizen]

I'd love to see how we will all profit from greening our society. Yeah, it's a feel good, cumbayah, thing...save the trees and all that shit. But tell me, how is it going to put more money in my pocket?

What about those who can't afford to "go green?" What happens when the government starts demanding that? Will people go to jail for that too? Honestly, I don't think you guys realize the narrow road you're choosing to travel. The power being given to our leaders is scary.

This post reflects the main problem with humans in America. Short sighted greed.

It is not enough that I am protecting my grandchildrens future. I want my money now!

short sighted greed??? Seriously? Le'ts ask Al Gore about greed and going green!

Let me remind you that YOU are the one who made the claim that we will profit from it. All I want to know is HOW.

Can you stick to the subject or are you just going to divert to bashing since you don't seem to have a back up plan?

Did I exmept Gore from the shortsighted greed?
I already stated I am against the Cap and Chrade bull.

I am for caps, no trades.

 

[txlonghorn]

This post reflects the main problem with humans in America. Short sighted greed.

It is not enough that I am protecting my grandchildrens future. I want my money now!

short sighted greed??? Seriously? Le'ts ask Al Gore about greed and going green!

Let me remind you that YOU are the one who made the claim that we will profit from it. All I want to know is HOW.

Can you stick to the subject or are you just going to divert to bashing since you don't seem to have a back up plan?

Did I exmept Gore from the shortsighted greed?
I already stated I am against the Cap and Chrade bull.

I am for caps, no trades.

So I'm still curious...how will we benefit from going green..other than writing books and going on speaking tours to sell this snake oil? Al Gore and his bilk are no better than those phoney evangelists out there saving souls and doing miracles just to get a big "offering". They all make me sick. Preying on the feeble minded.

 

[DiamondDave]

Actually that is not true. ALL the peer-reviewed science confirms that climate change IS occuring and that human activity is contributing to it.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science


Of course that is not to say that the degree to which it is occuring or the degree to which human activity is contributing has been established to the level that the "chicken littles" claim (as I said before).
So your "typical of a chicken little" line, is typical of the strawman, ad Hom., type attack that the head-in-the-sand crowd pi$$es away their credibility with

No... that is not proof, #1... and #2, it is not all peer-reviewed research and 'evidence'

Though chicken littles love to make everyone believe their statement of beliefs are fact and not unproven theory

Again... research, hypothesis, and unidirectional conclusion from partial data is not PROOF... even if you would like it to be because it fits your agenda

Science doesn't "PROVE" anything. Go to the philosophy department for that and try to "PROVE" - beyond any possible doubt - that the sky is blue.

You want to defend your position with silly semantics, be my guest. But don't try to pretend that the absolute best scientific data and the most rigourously reviewed scientific work is in question.

Do you want to base public policy on the absolute best data available - or in some "hey, it could be possible" fantasies?

Look at the science - not Al Gore, not Barbara Bachman, not Rush Limbaugh, and not Nancy Pelosi - look to the real science and make a truly informed decision.

Ahhh.. but philosophy is not a natural science.... and science can prove things... just as we have proven that water is indeed h2o... we have proven that causing certain conditions yields certain results in many fields.... we have proven that there were indeed things such as the asteroid hit close to the time of the dinosaur mass extinction

The funny thing is that you and ones like you love to state things like 'best data available' when in actually you mean best data available that fits with your preconceived agenda... the same type of best data that was offered as proof of global cooling, T-Rex being clod blooded and slow, Newton's Laws of motion were universal, etc

the fact is that nothing about abnormal global warming or man made global warming has been proven at all... and those that do state it as proven are frequently agenda driven or politically driven to do so

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'd love to see how we will all profit from greening our society.

As the supply of exhautable fuel sources diminishes - the cost goes up.
The use of renewable energy sources contains no "diminishing supply" cost escalations.

Our technology has not yet reached the point where were can rely completely on renewable energy sources, but if we can reach that point it will be an economic boon to every energy consumer.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Diamond Dave - science cannot prove beyond any conceivable doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet many of us still set our alarm clock every night.

The fact that science cannot prove a premise beyond any conceivable doubt, is not an indication that we should not take an action based upon the overwhelming preponderence of evidence. It simply means that humans are able to conceive of some pretty far-fetched and incredibly improbable "doubts."

And the best available data is the data that has been tested and put through the ringer with vigorous scientific review. You ask that we give equal (or even greater) weight to op-ed pieces, political statements, and oil company geologist "findings" from people who refuse to submit their work to peer review as we give to those scientists who HAVE subjected their work to serious scientific review.

Why?

Why would someone want to suspend the scientific process? Why would someone ask that we weigh psuedo science equally with real science?

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to believe that we can continue to use coal - the relatively cheap and relatively plentiful fuel source - to meet our energy demands into the forseeable future. No matter how much you would like to believe the contrary - I have no agenda. No, I've simply seen and understood the science. And I've seen and understood the attempts from both sides to manipulate public opinion.

 

[uscitizen]

short sighted greed??? Seriously? Le'ts ask Al Gore about greed and going green!

Let me remind you that YOU are the one who made the claim that we will profit from it. All I want to know is HOW.

Can you stick to the subject or are you just going to divert to bashing since you don't seem to have a back up plan?

Did I exmept Gore from the shortsighted greed?
I already stated I am against the Cap and Chrade bull.

I am for caps, no trades.

So I'm still curious...how will we benefit from going green..other than writing books and going on speaking tours to sell this snake oil? Al Gore and his bilk are no better than those phoney evangelists out there saving souls and doing miracles just to get a big "offering". They all make me sick. Preying on the feeble minded.

Reducing our dependence on foreign oil?
Reducing our fossil fuel burning emissions. Co2 aside there are a lot of other carcenogins and such produced from burning oil.
In the long run Green energy will be much cheaper. The initial investment will not be cheap. But kinda like buying a house it is cheaper than rent over the long term.