delegitamizing science

[Si modo]

Thought this was interesting.

Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful

Also, ~90% of respondents in an online WSJ poll believe mankind is at least partly responsible for global warming.

Wall Street Journal: Science Journal Do you believe humans are responsible for climate change?

An online poll isn't exactly the most scientific of polls, but WSJ readership skews quite heavily to upper-income, conservative and Republican.

Also, simply because 90% believe it does not mean it is correct.

Science isn't decided by vote, but I bet you knew that.

true... but science does tend to be more accurately portrayed by more educated people.

But it is the press, not the scientific journals, who has you believing that the 'science is settled'. It is far from it. Read the science, not the press for the story.

It is not unprecedented at all that the press had the population believing the state of the science was something it was not.

 

[tigerbob]

Even at the height of the tobacco industries efforts to cast doubt on the scientific findings concerning tobacco, they did not try to denigrate the scientists involved in the research. Today, with trillions of dollars at stake, there is a concerted effort to cast all scientists as the enemy, as liars trying to pervert the system.

While the hacked e-mails concern only a few scientists, the coverage is as if all scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy. Even though no one has yet to show where there is any wrongdoing by the scientists involved in the hacked e-mails.

This assasination of character of a whole class of people is beginning to look like the McCarthy Era bullshit all over again.

It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.

The interesting thing is that you see it from one side only, while refusing to recognize that there are 2 sides to every coin.

No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

1. It is politically correct to kick the tobacco lobby. It is not politically correct to kick the anti tobacco lobby. So long as you show support for the group that is "saving us from ourselves" you can get away with pretty much anything.
2. One can take a strong anti tobacco stance with little understanding of the science (and tobacco science is hugely complex). Taking a pro tobacco stance means that you are going to face a barrage of criticism, so your better understand the science pretty damn well.
3. Once a critical tipping point has been reached, with public opinion predisposed to believe one view or another, we are left with the dangerous scenario that all one side has to do in order to be believed is shout their findings as loudly as possible, while muzzling those whose findings are different. In this scenario, the press (whose job was once to find stories, interrogate the proponents and present the facts in a clear and unbiased manner), are now so toothless and lazy that they will happily take a press release from the politically correct side and apply only a veneer of due diligence before publishing much of it word for word, while almost completely ignoring the rebuttals from the politically incorrect side of the argument.

Now, take that entire scenario and apply it to the climate debate. What's the difference?

Nothing.

And for you, Old Rocks, to say that the scientific community needs to start punching hard is fucking bullshit. The scientific community has been punching hard for years. The only change is that, all of a sudden, they are having to do it in self defense rather than in attack. If they don't like being called liars and manipulators then perhaps they would do well to remember that what goes around comes around.

The scientific community does not need to start punching. There has been quite sufficient of that already. The scientific community needs to start talking openly, with no agenda. It needs to build consensus, not just kill the opposition. McCarthyism refers to ANY witch-hunt, Rocks, not just to one viewpoint or another.

Only an idiot would compare something as complex as possible human caused climate change to "Two sides of a coin".

Only an idiot would give a crap about what you think.

 

[tigerbob]

So, not so much of a corporate reactionary as you might have imagined.

Unless of course you think I'm making this shit up about STS to provide a stalking horse for taking issue with the climate debate.

Unless you can change my mind about my misgivings as far as STS is concerned, you will not be able to convince me that there is not a significant degree of duplicity potentially at work in the climate debate. It is remarkable how much the one mirrors the other.

Mea culpa, I white out 'corporate reactionary,' and STS came latter and seems exaggerated, but the problem is, something that is bad for you in large doses may also be bad in small doses and people are no longer tolerant. I am an ex smoker.

As for GW physical evidence called for action and while the evidence mounted, the time since the industrial revolution has certainly changed the landscape. Again we can debate cause and consequence but there is no doubt change is happening. Personally I have never seen so much rain as we have lately not that that means much. We dealt with acid rain we need to deal with GW. Seems the sensible thing to do from a national security and a renewal energy view as well as a clean earth view.

STS legislation takes as its cornerstone the 1993 EPA report. This is the report that is still quoted by pretty much every newspaper, TV news program and politician who wants to toss out a "fact" or two to support their POV. The problem is that the EPA lied. Am I saying that STS is not harmful? No. But legislation needs to be supported by facts and logical, well founded conclusions, not propaganda.

With GW, I believe the climate is changing. Like many people, my question is how much man is impacting this change, or whether it is part of a natural cycle. I have a great deal of respect for the climate scientists and others who have lined up to support the position that man is causing a change, but the level of hysteria that are apparent from some whenever anyone has the temerity to disagree or raise questions really pisses me off.

The leaked emails that have recently come to light are the first real indication that all is possibly, and in some cases probably, not what it seems. I fervently hope that the East Anglia soap opera serves to allow cooler minds to replace bigger mouths.

 

[Chris]

Even at the height of the tobacco industries efforts to cast doubt on the scientific findings concerning tobacco, they did not try to denigrate the scientists involved in the research. Today, with trillions of dollars at stake, there is a concerted effort to cast all scientists as the enemy, as liars trying to pervert the system.

While the hacked e-mails concern only a few scientists, the coverage is as if all scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy. Even though no one has yet to show where there is any wrongdoing by the scientists involved in the hacked e-mails.

This assasination of character of a whole class of people is beginning to look like the McCarthy Era bullshit all over again.

It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.

The interesting thing is that you see it from one side only, while refusing to recognize that there are 2 sides to every coin.

No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

1. It is politically correct to kick the tobacco lobby. It is not politically correct to kick the anti tobacco lobby. So long as you show support for the group that is "saving us from ourselves" you can get away with pretty much anything.
2. One can take a strong anti tobacco stance with little understanding of the science (and tobacco science is hugely complex). Taking a pro tobacco stance means that you are going to face a barrage of criticism, so your better understand the science pretty damn well.
3. Once a critical tipping point has been reached, with public opinion predisposed to believe one view or another, we are left with the dangerous scenario that all one side has to do in order to be believed is shout their findings as loudly as possible, while muzzling those whose findings are different. In this scenario, the press (whose job was once to find stories, interrogate the proponents and present the facts in a clear and unbiased manner), are now so toothless and lazy that they will happily take a press release from the politically correct side and apply only a veneer of due diligence before publishing much of it word for word, while almost completely ignoring the rebuttals from the politically incorrect side of the argument.

Now, take that entire scenario and apply it to the climate debate. What's the difference?

Nothing.

And for you, Old Rocks, to say that the scientific community needs to start punching hard is fucking bullshit. The scientific community has been punching hard for years. The only change is that, all of a sudden, they are having to do it in self defense rather than in attack. If they don't like being called liars and manipulators then perhaps they would do well to remember that what goes around comes around.

The scientific community does not need to start punching. There has been quite sufficient of that already. The scientific community needs to start talking openly, with no agenda. It needs to build consensus, not just kill the opposition. McCarthyism refers to ANY witch-hunt, Rocks, not just to one viewpoint or another.

Only an idiot would compare something as complex as possible human caused climate change to "Two sides of a coin".

This cracks me up.

There is NOTHING complex about human caused global warming.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have almost DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

 

[Sinatra]

The interesting thing is that you see it from one side only, while refusing to recognize that there are 2 sides to every coin.

No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

1. It is politically correct to kick the tobacco lobby. It is not politically correct to kick the anti tobacco lobby. So long as you show support for the group that is "saving us from ourselves" you can get away with pretty much anything.
2. One can take a strong anti tobacco stance with little understanding of the science (and tobacco science is hugely complex). Taking a pro tobacco stance means that you are going to face a barrage of criticism, so your better understand the science pretty damn well.
3. Once a critical tipping point has been reached, with public opinion predisposed to believe one view or another, we are left with the dangerous scenario that all one side has to do in order to be believed is shout their findings as loudly as possible, while muzzling those whose findings are different. In this scenario, the press (whose job was once to find stories, interrogate the proponents and present the facts in a clear and unbiased manner), are now so toothless and lazy that they will happily take a press release from the politically correct side and apply only a veneer of due diligence before publishing much of it word for word, while almost completely ignoring the rebuttals from the politically incorrect side of the argument.

Now, take that entire scenario and apply it to the climate debate. What's the difference?

Nothing.

And for you, Old Rocks, to say that the scientific community needs to start punching hard is fucking bullshit. The scientific community has been punching hard for years. The only change is that, all of a sudden, they are having to do it in self defense rather than in attack. If they don't like being called liars and manipulators then perhaps they would do well to remember that what goes around comes around.

The scientific community does not need to start punching. There has been quite sufficient of that already. The scientific community needs to start talking openly, with no agenda. It needs to build consensus, not just kill the opposition. McCarthyism refers to ANY witch-hunt, Rocks, not just to one viewpoint or another.

Only an idiot would compare something as complex as possible human caused climate change to "Two sides of a coin".

This cracks me up.

There is NOTHING complex about human caused global warming.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have almost DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

____

How have WE doubled atmospheric CO2?

Please explain the proof of that "simple" statement...

 

[Toronado3800]

I think he's getting on that we've been adding an extra 2% to 5% to the non-man made level of CO2 for some time now. If its 2% I figure we doubled it in 50 years. If its 5% then 20. Maybe someplace in the middle.

 

[Si modo]

The interesting thing is that you see it from one side only, while refusing to recognize that there are 2 sides to every coin.

No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

1. It is politically correct to kick the tobacco lobby. It is not politically correct to kick the anti tobacco lobby. So long as you show support for the group that is "saving us from ourselves" you can get away with pretty much anything.
2. One can take a strong anti tobacco stance with little understanding of the science (and tobacco science is hugely complex). Taking a pro tobacco stance means that you are going to face a barrage of criticism, so your better understand the science pretty damn well.
3. Once a critical tipping point has been reached, with public opinion predisposed to believe one view or another, we are left with the dangerous scenario that all one side has to do in order to be believed is shout their findings as loudly as possible, while muzzling those whose findings are different. In this scenario, the press (whose job was once to find stories, interrogate the proponents and present the facts in a clear and unbiased manner), are now so toothless and lazy that they will happily take a press release from the politically correct side and apply only a veneer of due diligence before publishing much of it word for word, while almost completely ignoring the rebuttals from the politically incorrect side of the argument.

Now, take that entire scenario and apply it to the climate debate. What's the difference?

Nothing.

And for you, Old Rocks, to say that the scientific community needs to start punching hard is fucking bullshit. The scientific community has been punching hard for years. The only change is that, all of a sudden, they are having to do it in self defense rather than in attack. If they don't like being called liars and manipulators then perhaps they would do well to remember that what goes around comes around.

The scientific community does not need to start punching. There has been quite sufficient of that already. The scientific community needs to start talking openly, with no agenda. It needs to build consensus, not just kill the opposition. McCarthyism refers to ANY witch-hunt, Rocks, not just to one viewpoint or another.

Only an idiot would compare something as complex as possible human caused climate change to "Two sides of a coin".

This cracks me up.

There is NOTHING complex about human caused global warming.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have almost DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

Maybe in chrissyland that is a rational conclusion, but in the real world, it's a non sequitur because in the real world, correlation does not equal causation.

Seriously, you are posting some really stupid stuff. Your reasoning and this reasoning have equal strength.

 

[code1211]

Only an idiot would compare something as complex as possible human caused climate change to "Two sides of a coin".

This cracks me up.

There is NOTHING complex about human caused global warming.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have almost DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

Maybe in chrissyland that is a rational conclusion, but in the real world, it's a non sequitur because in the real world, correlation does not equal causation.

Seriously, you are posting some really stupid stuff. Your reasoning and this reasoning have equal strength.

It's the increase in postal rates? Here I thought it was the increase in cute, fuzzy kittens. Oh, well... It's not the first time I've been wrong. It's only about 5 years back that I thought it was CO2.

 

[code1211]

The interesting thing is that you see it from one side only, while refusing to recognize that there are 2 sides to every coin.

No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

1. It is politically correct to kick the tobacco lobby. It is not politically correct to kick the anti tobacco lobby. So long as you show support for the group that is "saving us from ourselves" you can get away with pretty much anything.
2. One can take a strong anti tobacco stance with little understanding of the science (and tobacco science is hugely complex). Taking a pro tobacco stance means that you are going to face a barrage of criticism, so your better understand the science pretty damn well.
3. Once a critical tipping point has been reached, with public opinion predisposed to believe one view or another, we are left with the dangerous scenario that all one side has to do in order to be believed is shout their findings as loudly as possible, while muzzling those whose findings are different. In this scenario, the press (whose job was once to find stories, interrogate the proponents and present the facts in a clear and unbiased manner), are now so toothless and lazy that they will happily take a press release from the politically correct side and apply only a veneer of due diligence before publishing much of it word for word, while almost completely ignoring the rebuttals from the politically incorrect side of the argument.

Now, take that entire scenario and apply it to the climate debate. What's the difference?

Nothing.

And for you, Old Rocks, to say that the scientific community needs to start punching hard is fucking bullshit. The scientific community has been punching hard for years. The only change is that, all of a sudden, they are having to do it in self defense rather than in attack. If they don't like being called liars and manipulators then perhaps they would do well to remember that what goes around comes around.

The scientific community does not need to start punching. There has been quite sufficient of that already. The scientific community needs to start talking openly, with no agenda. It needs to build consensus, not just kill the opposition. McCarthyism refers to ANY witch-hunt, Rocks, not just to one viewpoint or another.

Only an idiot would compare something as complex as possible human caused climate change to "Two sides of a coin".

This cracks me up.

There is NOTHING complex about human caused global warming.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have almost DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

I will concede every point you make if you can explain the following:

1. Why is the increase not as great as the experts predict it should be?
2. Why has the increase stalled for 8 to 10 years despite continued increase in CO2?
3. Why was the Earth warmer 6000 years ago with lower CO2?
4. Why was there a more rapid temperature increase between the years 0 and 1000 than there was between the years 1000 and 2000?
5. Why was the peak of temperature higher in every interglacial with lower CO2 than in this intergalcial?
6. Why must so many facts be ignored to believe in AGW?
7. How can you think that the line of logic you state above makes any sense at all?

 

[rdean]

 

[The T]

Only an idiot would compare something as complex as possible human caused climate change to "Two sides of a coin".

This cracks me up.

There is NOTHING complex about human caused global warming.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have almost DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

I will concede every point you make if you can explain the following:

1. Why is the increase not as great as the experts predict it should be?
2. Why has the increase stalled for 8 to 10 years despite continued increase in CO2?
3. Why was the Earth warmer 6000 years ago with lower CO2?
4. Why was there a more rapid temperature increase between the years 0 and 1000 than there was between the years 1000 and 2000?
5. Why was the peak of temperature higher in every interglacial with lower CO2 than in this intergalcial?
6. Why must so many facts be ignored to believe in AGW?
7. How can you think that the line of logic you state above makes any sense at all?

It won't happen. You can count on Chrissy NOT intellectually addressing ANY of your list. Chrissy has shown the propensity to be intellectually dishonest. Chrissy is more hung upon and upset BY the fact that the entire AGW premise has been shown a HOAX is more for Control, and for the agrandizement of those perpetuating the great LIE of civilization, and science, which he proclaims to cherish.

In short? I do hope you have a decade or so under your belt in spare time? Because it may take that long to get it out of him an admission of the Universe of Lies he subscribes to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The interesting thing is that you see it from one side only, while refusing to recognize that there are 2 sides to every coin.

No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

1. It is politically correct to kick the tobacco lobby. It is not politically correct to kick the anti tobacco lobby. So long as you show support for the group that is "saving us from ourselves" you can get away with pretty much anything.
2. One can take a strong anti tobacco stance with little understanding of the science (and tobacco science is hugely complex). Taking a pro tobacco stance means that you are going to face a barrage of criticism, so your better understand the science pretty damn well.
3. Once a critical tipping point has been reached, with public opinion predisposed to believe one view or another, we are left with the dangerous scenario that all one side has to do in order to be believed is shout their findings as loudly as possible, while muzzling those whose findings are different. In this scenario, the press (whose job was once to find stories, interrogate the proponents and present the facts in a clear and unbiased manner), are now so toothless and lazy that they will happily take a press release from the politically correct side and apply only a veneer of due diligence before publishing much of it word for word, while almost completely ignoring the rebuttals from the politically incorrect side of the argument.

Now, take that entire scenario and apply it to the climate debate. What's the difference?

Nothing.

And for you, Old Rocks, to say that the scientific community needs to start punching hard is fucking bullshit. The scientific community has been punching hard for years. The only change is that, all of a sudden, they are having to do it in self defense rather than in attack. If they don't like being called liars and manipulators then perhaps they would do well to remember that what goes around comes around.

The scientific community does not need to start punching. There has been quite sufficient of that already. The scientific community needs to start talking openly, with no agenda. It needs to build consensus, not just kill the opposition. McCarthyism refers to ANY witch-hunt, Rocks, not just to one viewpoint or another.

Only an idiot would compare something as complex as possible human caused climate change to "Two sides of a coin".

This cracks me up.

There is NOTHING complex about human caused global warming.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have almost DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

And the ice caps are melting on Mars because...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only an idiot would compare something as complex as possible human caused climate change to "Two sides of a coin".

This cracks me up.

There is NOTHING complex about human caused global warming.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have almost DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

I will concede every point you make if you can explain the following:

1. Why is the increase not as great as the experts predict it should be?
2. Why has the increase stalled for 8 to 10 years despite continued increase in CO2?
3. Why was the Earth warmer 6000 years ago with lower CO2?
4. Why was there a more rapid temperature increase between the years 0 and 1000 than there was between the years 1000 and 2000?
5. Why was the peak of temperature higher in every interglacial with lower CO2 than in this intergalcial?
6. Why must so many facts be ignored to believe in AGW?
7. How can you think that the line of logic you state above makes any sense at all?

Might it have something to do with "That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky"?

 

[The T]

This cracks me up.

There is NOTHING complex about human caused global warming.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have almost DOUBLED atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

I will concede every point you make if you can explain the following:

1. Why is the increase not as great as the experts predict it should be?
2. Why has the increase stalled for 8 to 10 years despite continued increase in CO2?
3. Why was the Earth warmer 6000 years ago with lower CO2?
4. Why was there a more rapid temperature increase between the years 0 and 1000 than there was between the years 1000 and 2000?
5. Why was the peak of temperature higher in every interglacial with lower CO2 than in this intergalcial?
6. Why must so many facts be ignored to believe in AGW?
7. How can you think that the line of logic you state above makes any sense at all?

Might it have something to do with "That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky"?

Not to mention that the Earth has been and continues to be a Moving TAGRGET in the Cosmic ballet that IS our Solar System, in it's place in our Galaxy, and the Universe as a whole?

Nah...forget it...can't be that...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How Real Science Works:

Theory: Combustion of "Fossil Fuels" (sorry, that phrase always cracks me up) causes an increase in CO2 which in turn has caused an increase in temperatures on Earth.

Contra-indicators: The Ice caps on Mars are melting and there's been no observed warming these past 13 years.

Therefore, our Theory sucks and needs to be discarded

 

[The T]

How Real Science Works:

Theory: Combustion of "Fossil Fuels" (sorry, that phrase always cracks me up) causes an increase in CO2 which in turn has caused an increase in temperatures on Earth.

Contra-indicators: The Ice caps on Mars are melting and there's been no observed warming these past 13 years.

Therefore, our Theory sucks and needs to be discarded

Remember Frank? "ZERO SUM GAME"...

The ONLY WAY to ADD CARBON to what's already here is for a metor/comet HIT. How can MAN ADD to what's already ON the planet?

He cannot. It's impossible.

 

[tigerbob]

I will concede every point you make if you can explain the following:

1. Why is the increase not as great as the experts predict it should be?
2. Why has the increase stalled for 8 to 10 years despite continued increase in CO2?
3. Why was the Earth warmer 6000 years ago with lower CO2?
4. Why was there a more rapid temperature increase between the years 0 and 1000 than there was between the years 1000 and 2000?
5. Why was the peak of temperature higher in every interglacial with lower CO2 than in this intergalcial?
6. Why must so many facts be ignored to believe in AGW?
7. How can you think that the line of logic you state above makes any sense at all?

Might it have something to do with "That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky"?

Not to mention that the Earth has been and continues to be a Moving TAGRGET in the Cosmic ballet that IS our Solar System, in it's place in our Galaxy, and the Universe as a whole?

Nah...forget it...can't be that...

Oh man, this is too much! So that means that one atom in my fingernail could be one...tiny...universe....

 

[The T]

Might it have something to do with "That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky"?

Not to mention that the Earth has been and continues to be a Moving TAGRGET in the Cosmic ballet that IS our Solar System, in it's place in our Galaxy, and the Universe as a whole?

Nah...forget it...can't be that...

Oh man, this is too much! So that means that one atom in my fingernail could be one...tiny...universe....

LOL! I get the "Animal House" reference.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Might it have something to do with "That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky"?

Not to mention that the Earth has been and continues to be a Moving TAGRGET in the Cosmic ballet that IS our Solar System, in it's place in our Galaxy, and the Universe as a whole?

Nah...forget it...can't be that...

Oh man, this is too much! So that means that one atom in my fingernail could be one...tiny...universe....

Far out man

Pass it this way

 

[tigerbob]

Not to mention that the Earth has been and continues to be a Moving TAGRGET in the Cosmic ballet that IS our Solar System, in it's place in our Galaxy, and the Universe as a whole?

Nah...forget it...can't be that...

Oh man, this is too much! So that means that one atom in my fingernail could be one...tiny...universe....

LOL! I get the "Animal House" reference.

Couldn't find it on YouTube.