The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?

So what's the motivation for the worldwide body of scientists touting the likelyhood that man's activities are the cause, if it really isn't?

As I said, and you didn't contend, all their predictions are coming true, and at an accelerated rate as industrialization accelerates.

What causes you to dismiss the worldwide body of science which says it's the near-certain cause, and favor the outlying possibility that they're wrong and it's all a coincidence?
When you say "worldwide body of scientists" are you trying to say that all the scientists, or even close to all of them, have the same opinion about the hypothesis of APW? If so, you are egregiously misinformed.

Regardless, scientists are persons and have opinions. When they have science to support the hypothesis I will be more than happy to agree with their opinions. Until then, I and many others, will continue to point out to those who come to scientific conclusions which are not based on existing science, that the science does not support the APW hypothesis. That's just how I roll.

'APW' again, is that a typo or some pejorative with which I'm unfamiliar? (as opposed to AGW)

Yes, near-complete consensus, especially among the most specialized circles (97% of climatologists, with 2% unsure).

I'm tempted to study the actual methodology some more just so I can make a more articulate argument, but the truth is I'm not a scientist. I depend on those with the most expertise.

My observation has been that almost all of the 'opposing viewpoints' have come from the American right, and always consist of either 1. Attacking the persons or organizations involved, rather than the actual scientific methods; 2. Simply stating that it's 'just a theory,' eg rejecting any level of proof as insufficient; and/or 3. Proclaiming that it's part of some biiiiiiiiiiiiiggggg smoking-man type conspiracy.

If you have something more profound to offer that might change my mind, by all means. But most of what I get here is simply second-hand employment of the above methods and lots of ad-hominem.
It's a typo.

Science is not governed by democratic principles rather it is governed by the logic of scientific discovery. So any claimed consensus is irrelevant.

As to your observations, you would be better off looking at not the political leanings of the scientist, as that is also irrelevant to actual science, rather you should be looking at the science. As to your observations about those who are not believers in AGW, there is a general political division among those who talk about the politics of it.

For those who talk about the science of it, and those who value scientific integrity over politics, you may want to pay attention to the actual science.

As I've said many times before, the state of climate science does not support ANY conclusion about the significance and magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 on any global warming. When there IS actual science showing such causation, I will change my opinion.

Until that time, I will continue to state the truth - that the current state of the science does not support the hypothesis - and I will highlight those who choose to soil science with politics.
 
Last edited:
"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic—manmade—global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

Even Wally Broecker's jest—that deniers could blame God—may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag

-------------------------------------------------------

Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.





Republicans don't want to kill kids you twit. Any more then me and my fellow Democrats wish to. What they and we wish is for sound science and scientific principles to be followed. That's all. The warmists have shown they are incapable of telling the truth and of conducting experiments with proper scientific protocols and controls.

That's why you have lost the game. Thanks for being disingenuous purveyors of junk science. The people figured out you're full of crap.
 
"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic—manmade—global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

Even Wally Broecker's jest—that deniers could blame God—may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag

-------------------------------------------------------

Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.
What you call an "allergy" most people would call one of the following:

Sanity
Rationality
Intelligence
Not Gullible
Reasonable
Lacking Foolishness

Potato - Potahto.

Fitz- If we're gullible, stupid, irrational, etc, than by extension you're suggesting that somebody is trying to trick us.

For the umpteen millionth time - What is their motivation?





They keep telling you, but you're too deaf to hear......


"German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer gave an eye-opening interview to Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated here), in which he said that “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy….This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Mr. Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland."
 
"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic—manmade—global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

Even Wally Broecker's jest—that deniers could blame God—may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag

-------------------------------------------------------

Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.

Dr Climate Change himself, the world's leading Climate "scientist" says you're full of crap

"BBC- Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones - Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
 
What you call an "allergy" most people would call one of the following:

Sanity
Rationality
Intelligence
Not Gullible
Reasonable
Lacking Foolishness

Potato - Potahto.

Fitz- If we're gullible, stupid, irrational, etc, than by extension you're suggesting that somebody is trying to trick us.

For the umpteen millionth time - What is their motivation?





They keep telling you, but you're too deaf to hear......


"German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer gave an eye-opening interview to Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated here), in which he said that “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy….This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Mr. Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland."

I ask this not to be combative at this point, but as an honest question: Is that all you've got?

Is that single Frankensteined marriage of two sentences out of a much broader interview the entire reason that you dedicate your existence here to AGW denial? :confused:

For the record, you're doing a great disservice to the man you're quoting. The conversation was about the axiom between economic growth and the production of GHG's. Mr. Edenhofer is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an AGW denier...

More on Ottmar here: Rabett Run: Ottmar Edenhofer says it again

So, while you're happy to disregard the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, you see nothing wrong with disingenuously quoting a single snippet of an interview from a guy who isn't even a denier, and touting it as proof positive that the rest of the world is lying?

No, I'm not moved by that quote. It's intellectually dishonest and the man is not even 'on your side.' Honestly, is there anything else you would like me to look at?
 
Fitz- If we're gullible, stupid, irrational, etc, than by extension you're suggesting that somebody is trying to trick us.

For the umpteen millionth time - What is their motivation?





They keep telling you, but you're too deaf to hear......


"German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer gave an eye-opening interview to Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated here), in which he said that “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy….This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Mr. Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland."

I ask this not to be combative at this point, but as an honest question: Is that all you've got?

Is that single Frankensteined marriage of two sentences out of a much broader interview the entire reason that you dedicate your existence here to AGW denial? :confused:

For the record, you're doing a great disservice to the man you're quoting. The conversation was about the axiom between economic growth and the production of GHG's. Mr. Edenhofer is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an AGW denier...

More on Ottmar here: Rabett Run: Ottmar Edenhofer says it again

So, while you're happy to disregard the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, you see nothing wrong with disingenuously quoting a single snippet of an interview from a guy who isn't even a denier, and touting it as proof positive that the rest of the world is lying?

No, I'm not moved by that quote. It's intellectually dishonest and the man is not even 'on your side.' Honestly, is there anything else you would like me to look at?





No I am dedicated to AGW denial because it is a false theory. All empirical data so far has proven that CO2 is not a driver of global temperatures no matter how loudly the AGW proponents scream about it. I base my scepticism on years of geologic research and work in the environmental field.

I am all in favour of getting mankind off of fossil fuels as that is a tremendous waste of the resource. I feel the manufacturing uses of hydrocarbons is of far greater import then their continued use as fuel. Sadly there is nothing that comes close in terms of efficiency to to replace them. That is, at this, date un-arguable.

Give mankind a fuel system that is as efficient as oil is and the world will switch over in a heartbeat. Unfortunately the IPCC and it's minions don't care about real science (if they did they would not have corrupted the peer review system nor would they persist with their incessant prevarications about what is happening) instead opting for wealth redistribution and the control of people (the ultimate socialist dreram) to the detriment of the Earth.

None of the programs put forth by the IPCC or its minions actually controls or reduces pollution. Think about that for a moment. You fancy yourself a thinker so think. The IPCC
has all sorts of programs that take your money away from you and gives it to third world dictators but nowhere is pollution actually reduced, it is merely relocated from the First World to the Third World. And you pay for it.

That is in a nutshell why I am opposed to them and you.

And for the record, he's on your side. Your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. He and others like him are using the power of the UN to take money from us and give it to them and we get nothing for it.
 
Last edited:
"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic—manmade—global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

Even Wally Broecker's jest—that deniers could blame God—may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag

-------------------------------------------------------

Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.
What you call an "allergy" most people would call one of the following:

Sanity
Rationality
Intelligence
Not Gullible
Reasonable
Lacking Foolishness

Potato - Potahto.

Fitz- If we're gullible, stupid, irrational, etc, than by extension you're suggesting that somebody is trying to trick us.

For the umpteen millionth time - What is their motivation?
Love of money is the root of all evil. It is funny that the left claim to not love it, but it is often the foundation of all the 'good works' they try... as long as it's someone elses so they can greedily hold onto theirs, exempt from the causes they champion and demand others to obey.

Globally TRILLIONS of dollars are at stake. The failed Chicago Climate Exchange which would have traded Carbon Credits stood to make men like Franklin Raines, former head of Freddie and Fannie who bought the patent on the software to trade and gauge these credits would have been a billionaire overnight. Gore, Obama's friends, GE, and tens of thousands of government agents would have stood to have profited mightily if this fraud would have succeeded.

This is all old news. Not a grand conspiracy, but a collective bunch of useful idiots with little plans and evil hearts lusting after power and wealth for themselves at the expense of others.

GE wants to profit through corporatist (that's fascist for those who don't know your Mussolini) "cooperation" with the government to create a protected monopoly or at least control over the green equipment market. The Chicago Climate Exchange backers wanted to go all "Duke and Duke" on us with a faux product created by a non existent crisis. The scientists want to continue their days of 'Roses and Porches" where funds come for making up data to back the ecofascist industries in their inferior products to solve a problem that does not exist.

No grand conspiracy. I don't believe in them. But I do believe in small conspiracies of the individual and small groups to commit evil upon their fellow man for their own disgusting lusts for profit and power.

There is your "conspiracy" of many, frantically scurrying about. Don't pretend you didn't really see it. Pretty much everyone else who opposes it did.
 
What you call an "allergy" most people would call one of the following:

Sanity
Rationality
Intelligence
Not Gullible
Reasonable
Lacking Foolishness

Potato - Potahto.

Fitz- If we're gullible, stupid, irrational, etc, than by extension you're suggesting that somebody is trying to trick us.

For the umpteen millionth time - What is their motivation?
Love of money is the root of all evil. It is funny that the left claim to not love it, but it is often the foundation of all the 'good works' they try... as long as it's someone elses so they can greedily hold onto theirs, exempt from the causes they champion and demand others to obey.

Globally TRILLIONS of dollars are at stake. The failed Chicago Climate Exchange which would have traded Carbon Credits stood to make men like Franklin Raines, former head of Freddie and Fannie who bought the patent on the software to trade and gauge these credits would have been a billionaire overnight. Gore, Obama's friends, GE, and tens of thousands of government agents would have stood to have profited mightily if this fraud would have succeeded.

This is all old news. Not a grand conspiracy, but a collective bunch of useful idiots with little plans and evil hearts lusting after power and wealth for themselves at the expense of others.

GE wants to profit through corporatist (that's fascist for those who don't know your Mussolini) "cooperation" with the government to create a protected monopoly or at least control over the green equipment market. The Chicago Climate Exchange backers wanted to go all "Duke and Duke" on us with a faux product created by a non existent crisis. The scientists want to continue their days of 'Roses and Porches" where funds come for making up data to back the ecofascist industries in their inferior products to solve a problem that does not exist.

No grand conspiracy. I don't believe in them. But I do believe in small conspiracies of the individual and small groups to commit evil upon their fellow man for their own disgusting lusts for profit and power.

There is your "conspiracy" of many, frantically scurrying about. Don't pretend you didn't really see it. Pretty much everyone else who opposes it did.

I would think there'd be a smoking gun at this point - I honestly do.

You guys are starting to sound a little bit crazy. I don't think the overwhelming consensus of scientists have been bought off by special interests hoping to get rich and have hoodwinked the entire world (err, except American Republicans) without a single person having squealed or found concrete evidence of the same. The examples of evidence are thus far easily defeated, or in the case of the one provided to me in this thread, aren't really evidence of the intended claim at all.

Let me ask you this - Think of your favorite food; Let's say it's steak. Say 97% of urologists came out and said eating steak would make your dick fall off. Over the next couple decades, hundreds of cases were documented where avid steak eaters' dicks fell off. Would you let a handful of intellectuals and political pundits convince you that the correlation had nothing to do with eating steak? Even if you yourself were skeptical, would you continue eating steak until a definite, concrete answer was found? If you found anecdotal evidence that big wigs of the pork and chicken industries had helped along, maybe even exaggerated the claims - Would you rush to eat steak then?

I'll stipulate that people and groups have exaggerated the claims, maybe even manipulated them for their own benefit. But I'm not ready to discard an entire body of science as a big conspiracy or a series of smaller conspiracies just because a few charlatans have bent the crisis to suit their own agenda. Not to mention, there's not a single scientific body on the face of the earth who maintains a dissenting opinion to that of the IPCC.
 
I have to say publicly that I appreciate Cuyo's manner of presenting his/her opposing viewpoint in this thread.

:thup:

Thanks! And it is a 'he,' I didn't realize I was seen as androgynous here...:lol:

Now, if only it was in fact me that had the 'opposing viewpoint...':eusa_whistle:
 
Fitz- If we're gullible, stupid, irrational, etc, than by extension you're suggesting that somebody is trying to trick us.

For the umpteen millionth time - What is their motivation?
Love of money is the root of all evil. It is funny that the left claim to not love it, but it is often the foundation of all the 'good works' they try... as long as it's someone elses so they can greedily hold onto theirs, exempt from the causes they champion and demand others to obey.

Globally TRILLIONS of dollars are at stake. The failed Chicago Climate Exchange which would have traded Carbon Credits stood to make men like Franklin Raines, former head of Freddie and Fannie who bought the patent on the software to trade and gauge these credits would have been a billionaire overnight. Gore, Obama's friends, GE, and tens of thousands of government agents would have stood to have profited mightily if this fraud would have succeeded.

This is all old news. Not a grand conspiracy, but a collective bunch of useful idiots with little plans and evil hearts lusting after power and wealth for themselves at the expense of others.

GE wants to profit through corporatist (that's fascist for those who don't know your Mussolini) "cooperation" with the government to create a protected monopoly or at least control over the green equipment market. The Chicago Climate Exchange backers wanted to go all "Duke and Duke" on us with a faux product created by a non existent crisis. The scientists want to continue their days of 'Roses and Porches" where funds come for making up data to back the ecofascist industries in their inferior products to solve a problem that does not exist.

No grand conspiracy. I don't believe in them. But I do believe in small conspiracies of the individual and small groups to commit evil upon their fellow man for their own disgusting lusts for profit and power.

There is your "conspiracy" of many, frantically scurrying about. Don't pretend you didn't really see it. Pretty much everyone else who opposes it did.

I would think there'd be a smoking gun at this point - I honestly do.

You guys are starting to sound a little bit crazy. I don't think the overwhelming consensus of scientists have been bought off by special interests hoping to get rich and have hoodwinked the entire world (err, except American Republicans) without a single person having squealed or found concrete evidence of the same. The examples of evidence are thus far easily defeated, or in the case of the one provided to me in this thread, aren't really evidence of the intended claim at all.

Let me ask you this - Think of your favorite food; Let's say it's steak. Say 97% of urologists came out and said eating steak would make your dick fall off. Over the next couple decades, hundreds of cases were documented where avid steak eaters' dicks fell off. Would you let a handful of intellectuals and political pundits convince you that the correlation had nothing to do with eating steak? Even if you yourself were skeptical, would you continue eating steak until a definite, concrete answer was found? If you found anecdotal evidence that big wigs of the pork and chicken industries had helped along, maybe even exaggerated the claims - Would you rush to eat steak then?

I'll stipulate that people and groups have exaggerated the claims, maybe even manipulated them for their own benefit. But I'm not ready to discard an entire body of science as a big conspiracy or a series of smaller conspiracies just because a few charlatans have bent the crisis to suit their own agenda. Not to mention, there's not a single scientific body on the face of the earth who maintains a dissenting opinion to that of the IPCC.
Climategate wasn't the smoking gun? the IPCC admitting they never did the research but took radical activist's 'reporting' as truth, isn't a smoking gun? Admissions that it is a scheme to redistribute world wealth doesn't cut the mustard?

Face it, you're a fucking ecofascist hack and have no intentions of seeing any ugly truths about your mythological faith.
 
I have to say publicly that I appreciate Cuyo's manner of presenting his/her opposing viewpoint in this thread.

:thup:

Thanks! And it is a 'he,' I didn't realize I was seen as androgynous here...:lol:

Now, if only it was in fact me that had the 'opposing viewpoint...':eusa_whistle:
When I'm not sure on gender, I play it safe. I figured you were probably a male, but I had nothing but my hunch to go on.

Sort of like the folks who believe the hypothesis of AGW.

;)
 
Love of money is the root of all evil. It is funny that the left claim to not love it, but it is often the foundation of all the 'good works' they try... as long as it's someone elses so they can greedily hold onto theirs, exempt from the causes they champion and demand others to obey.

Globally TRILLIONS of dollars are at stake. The failed Chicago Climate Exchange which would have traded Carbon Credits stood to make men like Franklin Raines, former head of Freddie and Fannie who bought the patent on the software to trade and gauge these credits would have been a billionaire overnight. Gore, Obama's friends, GE, and tens of thousands of government agents would have stood to have profited mightily if this fraud would have succeeded.

This is all old news. Not a grand conspiracy, but a collective bunch of useful idiots with little plans and evil hearts lusting after power and wealth for themselves at the expense of others.

GE wants to profit through corporatist (that's fascist for those who don't know your Mussolini) "cooperation" with the government to create a protected monopoly or at least control over the green equipment market. The Chicago Climate Exchange backers wanted to go all "Duke and Duke" on us with a faux product created by a non existent crisis. The scientists want to continue their days of 'Roses and Porches" where funds come for making up data to back the ecofascist industries in their inferior products to solve a problem that does not exist.

No grand conspiracy. I don't believe in them. But I do believe in small conspiracies of the individual and small groups to commit evil upon their fellow man for their own disgusting lusts for profit and power.

There is your "conspiracy" of many, frantically scurrying about. Don't pretend you didn't really see it. Pretty much everyone else who opposes it did.

I would think there'd be a smoking gun at this point - I honestly do.

You guys are starting to sound a little bit crazy. I don't think the overwhelming consensus of scientists have been bought off by special interests hoping to get rich and have hoodwinked the entire world (err, except American Republicans) without a single person having squealed or found concrete evidence of the same. The examples of evidence are thus far easily defeated, or in the case of the one provided to me in this thread, aren't really evidence of the intended claim at all.

Let me ask you this - Think of your favorite food; Let's say it's steak. Say 97% of urologists came out and said eating steak would make your dick fall off. Over the next couple decades, hundreds of cases were documented where avid steak eaters' dicks fell off. Would you let a handful of intellectuals and political pundits convince you that the correlation had nothing to do with eating steak? Even if you yourself were skeptical, would you continue eating steak until a definite, concrete answer was found? If you found anecdotal evidence that big wigs of the pork and chicken industries had helped along, maybe even exaggerated the claims - Would you rush to eat steak then?

I'll stipulate that people and groups have exaggerated the claims, maybe even manipulated them for their own benefit. But I'm not ready to discard an entire body of science as a big conspiracy or a series of smaller conspiracies just because a few charlatans have bent the crisis to suit their own agenda. Not to mention, there's not a single scientific body on the face of the earth who maintains a dissenting opinion to that of the IPCC.
Climategate wasn't the smoking gun? the IPCC admitting they never did the research but took radical activist's 'reporting' as truth, isn't a smoking gun? Admissions that it is a scheme to redistribute world wealth doesn't cut the mustard?
I read about 'Climategate' when it was going on, and as I recall it was a joke. If they 'admitted they never did the research' you'll have to back that claim up.

As far as Mr. Edenhofer's off-context quote, I believe I've thoroughly exposed the fauxrage on that one.
Big Fitz said:
Face it, you're a fucking ecofascist hack and have no intentions of seeing any ugly truths about your mythological faith.

You're flailing.
 
Fitz- If we're gullible, stupid, irrational, etc, than by extension you're suggesting that somebody is trying to trick us.

For the umpteen millionth time - What is their motivation?
Love of money is the root of all evil. It is funny that the left claim to not love it, but it is often the foundation of all the 'good works' they try... as long as it's someone elses so they can greedily hold onto theirs, exempt from the causes they champion and demand others to obey.

Globally TRILLIONS of dollars are at stake. The failed Chicago Climate Exchange which would have traded Carbon Credits stood to make men like Franklin Raines, former head of Freddie and Fannie who bought the patent on the software to trade and gauge these credits would have been a billionaire overnight. Gore, Obama's friends, GE, and tens of thousands of government agents would have stood to have profited mightily if this fraud would have succeeded.

This is all old news. Not a grand conspiracy, but a collective bunch of useful idiots with little plans and evil hearts lusting after power and wealth for themselves at the expense of others.

GE wants to profit through corporatist (that's fascist for those who don't know your Mussolini) "cooperation" with the government to create a protected monopoly or at least control over the green equipment market. The Chicago Climate Exchange backers wanted to go all "Duke and Duke" on us with a faux product created by a non existent crisis. The scientists want to continue their days of 'Roses and Porches" where funds come for making up data to back the ecofascist industries in their inferior products to solve a problem that does not exist.

No grand conspiracy. I don't believe in them. But I do believe in small conspiracies of the individual and small groups to commit evil upon their fellow man for their own disgusting lusts for profit and power.

There is your "conspiracy" of many, frantically scurrying about. Don't pretend you didn't really see it. Pretty much everyone else who opposes it did.

I would think there'd be a smoking gun at this point - I honestly do.

You guys are starting to sound a little bit crazy. I don't think the overwhelming consensus of scientists have been bought off by special interests hoping to get rich and have hoodwinked the entire world (err, except American Republicans) without a single person having squealed or found concrete evidence of the same. The examples of evidence are thus far easily defeated, or in the case of the one provided to me in this thread, aren't really evidence of the intended claim at all.

Let me ask you this - Think of your favorite food; Let's say it's steak. Say 97% of urologists came out and said eating steak would make your dick fall off. Over the next couple decades, hundreds of cases were documented where avid steak eaters' dicks fell off. Would you let a handful of intellectuals and political pundits convince you that the correlation had nothing to do with eating steak? Even if you yourself were skeptical, would you continue eating steak until a definite, concrete answer was found? If you found anecdotal evidence that big wigs of the pork and chicken industries had helped along, maybe even exaggerated the claims - Would you rush to eat steak then?

I'll stipulate that people and groups have exaggerated the claims, maybe even manipulated them for their own benefit. But I'm not ready to discard an entire body of science as a big conspiracy or a series of smaller conspiracies just because a few charlatans have bent the crisis to suit their own agenda. Not to mention, there's not a single scientific body on the face of the earth who maintains a dissenting opinion to that of the IPCC.




There are plenty of smoking guns if you would care to look at them. Here are a few for your perusal. There are PLENTY of others, but htis is just a tate of what's out there ifyou choose to actually look and stop drinking the kool aid.

What happened to the climate refugees? | Asian Correspondent

EU Referendum: And now for Africagate

Mass loss from Alaskan glaciers overestimated? Previous melt contributed a third less to sea-level rise than estimated

World Climate Report » Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%

Australian warming trend adjusted UP by 40% « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

GISS & METAR – dial “M” for missing minus signs: it’s worse than we thought | Watts Up With That?

News of Interest.TV - Coral Reefs are Not Endangered Due to Global Warming
 
"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic—manmade—global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

Even Wally Broecker's jest—that deniers could blame God—may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag

-------------------------------------------------------

Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.

It is simple republicans are not conservative.
To conserve our world and environment is too conservative for them.

Well that and they do not want to accept any responsibility for screwing up our planet.

They are mostly users and wasters and oppose more efficient cars, light bulbs, etc.
 
Last edited:
"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic—manmade—global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

Even Wally Broecker's jest—that deniers could blame God—may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag

-------------------------------------------------------

Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.

It is simple republicans are not conservative.
To conserve our world and environment is too conservative for them.

Well that and they do not want to accept any responsibility for screwing up our planet.

They are mostly users and wasters and oppose more efficient cars, light bulbs, etc.





Hmmmm, conservatives oppose hybrids because they are more damaging to the environment then a Ford F-150 pickup truck or a Hummer to produce. And that makes conservatives evil how?

CFD lightbulbs that cost three times as much as a conventional light bulb and are further encumbered with mercury thus making them too hazerdous for a landfill which sort of negates their appeal don't you think?

Or how about that MTBE issue in CA where environmentalists wanted MTBE to be added to gasoline to clean up the air? The problems (which were made plain to them before they MANDATED its use) were MTBE is caustic, thus destroying automobile fuel systems thus causing car fires all over the place, destruction of gas station fuel systems thus causing environmental damge through leakage and finally MTBE is a well known carcinogen and it polluted a significant quantity of the water wells in CA.

Seems to me every time the conservatives warned you that your ideas were fucked up and or stupid we've been proven correct. You have a pretty shiity track record there buckwheat, I suggest you get a better education and learn something before you shoot your ignorant mouth off.
 
the hoax has been exposed at this point, and each day, becomes even more exposed. Thats why Im not even in here much anymore. The whole argument/debate is irrelevant at this point. No different than what is going on in alot of American households these days. Family used to argue about where to go on their big vacation. Now they just dont go.

Economic realities are bringing an end to all the fantasy energy world. The environmentalists might not realize this yet.........the vast majority being real liberal thinkers, there is an inability to think on the margin.........but most people do. Most people can quickly assess necessary tradeoffs in life and move forward. Economic necessity frequently dictates what happens on the landscape of anything. The curious and slightly idealistic, suddenly become highly pragmatic without a second thought. There will always be a segment of society that encompasses hyper-idealism. And God bless them. But they are a clear minority. Green energy stuff will always have a little niche in our economy....... but thats it.

Indeed........the majority of people have concerns about the environment, but the fact is, when it comes right down to it, if going green starts hitting them in the wallet, the attitude becomes "meh". To fully understand this, one must have read "Das Capital" and "The German Ideology" by Marx, as well as a work by somebody like Thomas Sowell, "Marxism: Philosophy and Economics". It will bring into sharp focus to the readers what is possible in an economy and what is not possible.



The environmentalists might not realize this yet...........but they will.
 
Last edited:
Fitz- If we're gullible, stupid, irrational, etc, than by extension you're suggesting that somebody is trying to trick us.

For the umpteen millionth time - What is their motivation?
Love of money is the root of all evil. It is funny that the left claim to not love it, but it is often the foundation of all the 'good works' they try... as long as it's someone elses so they can greedily hold onto theirs, exempt from the causes they champion and demand others to obey.

Globally TRILLIONS of dollars are at stake. The failed Chicago Climate Exchange which would have traded Carbon Credits stood to make men like Franklin Raines, former head of Freddie and Fannie who bought the patent on the software to trade and gauge these credits would have been a billionaire overnight. Gore, Obama's friends, GE, and tens of thousands of government agents would have stood to have profited mightily if this fraud would have succeeded.

This is all old news. Not a grand conspiracy, but a collective bunch of useful idiots with little plans and evil hearts lusting after power and wealth for themselves at the expense of others.

GE wants to profit through corporatist (that's fascist for those who don't know your Mussolini) "cooperation" with the government to create a protected monopoly or at least control over the green equipment market. The Chicago Climate Exchange backers wanted to go all "Duke and Duke" on us with a faux product created by a non existent crisis. The scientists want to continue their days of 'Roses and Porches" where funds come for making up data to back the ecofascist industries in their inferior products to solve a problem that does not exist.

No grand conspiracy. I don't believe in them. But I do believe in small conspiracies of the individual and small groups to commit evil upon their fellow man for their own disgusting lusts for profit and power.

There is your "conspiracy" of many, frantically scurrying about. Don't pretend you didn't really see it. Pretty much everyone else who opposes it did.

I would think there'd be a smoking gun at this point - I honestly do.

You guys are starting to sound a little bit crazy. I don't think the overwhelming consensus of scientists have been bought off by special interests hoping to get rich and have hoodwinked the entire world (err, except American Republicans) without a single person having squealed or found concrete evidence of the same. The examples of evidence are thus far easily defeated, or in the case of the one provided to me in this thread, aren't really evidence of the intended claim at all.

Let me ask you this - Think of your favorite food; Let's say it's steak. Say 97% of urologists came out and said eating steak would make your dick fall off. Over the next couple decades, hundreds of cases were documented where avid steak eaters' dicks fell off. Would you let a handful of intellectuals and political pundits convince you that the correlation had nothing to do with eating steak? Even if you yourself were skeptical, would you continue eating steak until a definite, concrete answer was found? If you found anecdotal evidence that big wigs of the pork and chicken industries had helped along, maybe even exaggerated the claims - Would you rush to eat steak then?

I'll stipulate that people and groups have exaggerated the claims, maybe even manipulated them for their own benefit. But I'm not ready to discard an entire body of science as a big conspiracy or a series of smaller conspiracies just because a few charlatans have bent the crisis to suit their own agenda. Not to mention, there's not a single scientific body on the face of the earth who maintains a dissenting opinion to that of the IPCC.

My wife's cousin did some research and was published recently (last few years). She is clearly in the AGW group. When she and I discussed the UEA CRU emails, she had the same general opinion. She said her own research confirmed the warming trend and man's contribution to it. After some further debate, she presented her information and I found out her research was all done with data pulled from other published papers and from the GISS (before the Y2K fix).

She's not part of the "conspiracy" as you call it, she just accepts the data as presented and trusts the peer-review process. Does her scientific opinion matter when she's never really explored any option other than AGW?
 
Last edited:
OK. Research done on a personal basis, observation period, 65 years.

Glaciers in the Rockies, Sierras, Cascades. All but a few in rapid recession. Observation period since 1963.

Winters ending sooner, starting later, and, overall, warmer. Observation period since 1947.

Of course, these observations only include an area from Yellowknife to the Mexican border, and from the West Coast to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.

But they also agree with what other people from other continents are observing. And the agree with what the Geological community is observing.

Then we have the physicists who have given us a clear explanation of how the GHGs warm the earth. Of course, we always have the internet cranks with us who believe that they are far more knowledgable than the physicists from all the nations of the earth.
 
OK. Research done on a personal basis, observation period, 65 years.

Glaciers in the Rockies, Sierras, Cascades. All but a few in rapid recession. Observation period since 1963.

Winters ending sooner, starting later, and, overall, warmer. Observation period since 1947.

Of course, these observations only include an area from Yellowknife to the Mexican border, and from the West Coast to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.

But they also agree with what other people from other continents are observing. And the agree with what the Geological community is observing.

Then we have the physicists who have given us a clear explanation of how the GHGs warm the earth. Of course, we always have the internet cranks with us who believe that they are far more knowledgable than the physicists from all the nations of the earth.

Proving conclusively that AGW as a "Science" falls somewhere above phrenology but far below astrology

Horoscope.Com Daily

THURSDAY, SEPT 29, 2011 - PLANETARY INDEX: 4/5

Mercury, the mental planet, aspects Mars, eager to propel thoughts and words with fiery energy and desire. You're compelled to great achievement. Tonight Venus and Saturn make a peaceful pair in your union with your significant other and manmade CO2 is still not melting the glaciers
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top