More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[billvon 3,116]

>I should be ashamed of myself posting and denier articel because we
>all know that the consensue should not be messed with.

The consensus SHOULD be questioned; that's how science works. In the article you posted, he raises a valid question, and suggests some avenues of research.

The correct response to that study is to do the research, or (if you are politically minded) lobby to fund such research to determine what's going on.

The incorrect response is to say "Oh, well, if there's any questions, we should immediately cancel all research! Take the money away from those global warming nuts before they find out something else that's politically inconvenient!" That's the anti-science position.

> I susspect because you have framed your lifestyle around your belief that
>man is destroying the planet. To change your mind or evern think about
>differing research conclusion would upset your world viewpoint and we can't
>have that now can we?

Of course I have! Why just yesterday I bought another $10,000 in stock in the UN's illegal oil-for-food funded attempt to destroy the world via evil global warming scientists. Which is why I drive that Ford Excursion in circles all day - can't destroy the world without some CO2 panic!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I should be ashamed of myself posting and denier articel because we
>all know that the consensue should not be messed with.

The consensus SHOULD be questioned; that's how science works. In the article you posted, he raises a valid question, and suggests some avenues of research. Then why to you attack any opposing info, articles or researchers??

The correct response to that study is to do the research, or (if you are politically minded) lobby to fund such research to determine what's going on.

The incorrect response is to say "Oh, well, if there's any questions, we should immediately cancel all research! Take the money away from those global warming nuts before they find out something else that's politically inconvenient!" That's the anti-science position.Agreed! I have NEVER said take away thier money. I have said that implimenting laws to force change based on what science we have to day is political and foolish. You have attacked this statement as well!! And you say this just after you make the statement that we SHOULD question and explore other avenues! And you have stated there is a "concensuse" among researchers. Have you changed that belief today?

> I susspect because you have framed your lifestyle around your belief that
>man is destroying the planet. To change your mind or evern think about
>differing research conclusion would upset your world viewpoint and we can't
>have that now can we?

Of course I have! Why just yesterday I bought another $10,000 in stock in the UN's illegal oil-for-food funded attempt to destroy the world via evil global warming scientists. Which is why I drive that Ford Excursion in circles all day - can't destroy the world without some CO2 panic!

And I of course deserved this! I recieved a response that was match to my assurtion

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Then why to you attack any opposing info, articles or researchers??

I say conclusions should be questioned, and now you're asking me why I am questioning conclusions? Perhaps a re-read of my previous post is in order.

(BTW while I don't care much about attacking political articles, I also don't pay much attention to them; generally I ignore them in favor of the science.)

>I have said that implimenting laws to force change based on what science
>we have to day is political and foolish.

We could say the same thing about the EPA, CARB, the CAFE laws, cigarette smoking etc. If we were so foolish as to ignore the science concerning pollution, smoking and health because it's not 100% settled (and it never will be) then we'd be a lot worse off as a nation.

We are fortunate that people in the 50's, 60's and 70's did not wait to fix the problems they saw in Donora and LA. Sometimes it's better to go with what you know than to wait forever for a level of certainty that will never arrive.

>And you say this just after you make the statement that we SHOULD
>question and explore other avenues!

We should. We know cigarette smoking is bad for you - but we should also keep researching why it causes cancer, what the odds are of it causing cancer in kids and adults, what secondhand smoke does. We have a lot to learn.

And heck, it's possible that we will learn that cigarette smoking is good for you, and it's a complete coincidence that smokers are more likely to die of lung cancer. But it's unlikely, and we'd be fools to wait forever to quit smoking because the science isn't "100% settled."

>And you have stated there is a "concensuse" among researchers. Have
>you changed that belief today?

Nope. It is indeed a consensus.

>And I of course deserved this!

Glad to help then!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Then why to you attack any opposing info, articles or researchers??

I say conclusions should be questioned, and now you're asking me why I am questioning conclusions? Perhaps a re-read of my previous post is in order.

(BTW while I don't care much about attacking political articles, I also don't pay much attention to them; generally I ignore them in favor of the science.)

>I have said that implimenting laws to force change based on what science
>we have to day is political and foolish.

We could say the same thing about the EPA, CARB, the CAFE laws, cigarette smoking etc. If we were so foolish as to ignore the scienceand right here is your fatal flaw, there is no science supporting you. Only and loosly linked things along with flawed conclusion. Not much differnt then the strange analogies like those above. concerning pollution, smoking and health because it's not 100% settled (and it never will be) then we'd be a lot worse off as a nation.

We are fortunate that people in the 50's, 60's and 70's did not wait to fix the problems they saw in Donora and LA. Sometimes it's better to go with what you know than to wait forever for a level of certainty that will never arrive.

>And you say this just after you make the statement that we SHOULD
>question and explore other avenues!

We should. We know cigarette smoking is bad for you - but we should also keep researching why it causes cancer, what the odds are of it causing cancer in kids and adults, what secondhand smoke does. We have a lot to learn.

And heck, it's possible that we will learn that cigarette smoking is good for you, and it's a complete coincidence that smokers are more likely to die of lung cancer. But it's unlikely, and we'd be fools to wait forever to quit smoking because the science isn't "100% settled."

>And you have stated there is a "concensuse" among researchers. Have
>you changed that belief today?

Nope. It is indeed a consensus.

>And I of course deserved this!

Glad to help then!

Hopefully this helped you see you use the same crap daily. And belive it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>and right here is your fatal flaw, there is no science supporting you.

Right! And cigarettes never hurt anyone. And Bush pulled off 9/11. I've seen websites that PROVE it!

> Hopefully this helped you see you use the same crap daily.

Keep spouting the attacks if they make you happy. Meanwhile we will keep increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the planet will continue to warm. You can call me every name in the book and you won't change that - and that's why the science will win out in the end. Because, unlike many people here, atmospheric physics doesn't care about political articles, heavily subsidized smear groups or novelists who write scary books.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Keep spouting the attacks if they make you happy. Meanwhile we will keep increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the planet will continue to warm.

Not that coincidence proves cause, eh?

[rushmc 23]

heavily subsidized smear groups or novelists who write scary books.

...or do movies and create a way to make money from carbon credit trading

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Keep spouting the attacks if they make you happy. Meanwhile we will keep increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the planet will continue to warm. You can call me every name in the book and you won't change that - and that's why the science will win out in the end. Because, unlike many people here, atmospheric physics doesn't care about political articles, heavily subsidized smear groups or novelists who write scary books.

My questioning you postion is attacking?????? That says volumes my friend. In the mean time, you keep supporting your heavily susidised attempt to cripple world economies for a yet to be proven scientific claim.

Don't you think the whole promise of CO2 is increasing, temps are increasing, man is the cause to the C)2 increases so, man is the SOB causing the world destroying climate change (flawed) thought process is way to simple to begin with.

Ya, I am dong the attacking. How, by simply chalenging your conculsion. Now that make sense to me.

To use the left thought process I should assert you are questioning my patriotism! How about that?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

> In the mean time, you keep supporting your heavily susidised attempt to
>cripple world economies for a yet to be proven scientific claim.

Ah yes, the big UN conspiracy to destroy the world. Keep believing that; everyone else is going to get rich while you lament how the UN wants to keep you poor. Your position reminds me of the car companies in the 1970's who believed that any attempt to regulate emissions would result in no one being able to afford cars. Why cripple the world economy for a little smog? And you think putting PLATINUM-FILLED converters on cars isn't going to bankrupt every car company on the planet?

Here we are 30 years later and a lot of people have gotten quite rich making more cars than ever before. People in That's a good picture of our future; a stronger economy made up of people creating cleaner, more efficient products. Some people will be able to make the jump and will profit immensely, as Toyota, Evergreen Solar, BP Petroleum and Outback Power have shown. Silicon Valley is looking to add 20,000 jobs over the next 10 years to deal with demand for solar panels alone.

Some people will not be able to make the jump, and will wind up poor, as happens every time there's a sea change in technology. All those buggy-whip manufacturers that didn't believe the automobile had any benefits over a horse are gone and forgotten; the people who don't think alternative energy, reduced-carbon power generation etc have any future will soon follow them.

>Don't you think the whole promise of CO2 is increasing, temps are
>increasing, man is the cause to the C)2 increases so, man is the SOB
>causing the world destroying climate change (flawed) thought process is
>way to simple to begin with.

?? That's not what I believe.

>Ya, I am dong the attacking.

That's great! Now decide who you want to attack and go to it.

>To use the left thought process I should assert you are questioning my
>patriotism! How about that?

You've already done that to me, so nothing new there.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> In the mean time, you keep supporting your heavily susidised attempt to
>cripple world economies for a yet to be proven scientific claim.

Ah yes, the big UN conspiracy to destroy the world. Keep believing that; everyone else is going to get rich while you lament how the UN wants to keep you poor. Your position reminds me of the car companies in the 1970's who believed that any attempt to regulate emissions would result in no one being able to afford cars. Why cripple the world economy for a little smog? And you think putting PLATINUM-FILLED converters on cars isn't going to bankrupt every car company on the planet?

Here we are 30 years later and a lot of people have gotten quite rich making more cars than ever before. People in That's a good picture of our future; a stronger economy made up of people creating cleaner, more efficient products. Some people will be able to make the jump and will profit immensely, as Toyota, Evergreen Solar, BP Petroleum and Outback Power have shown. Silicon Valley is looking to add 20,000 jobs over the next 10 years to deal with demand for solar panels alone.

Some people will not be able to make the jump, and will wind up poor, as happens every time there's a sea change in technology. All those buggy-whip manufacturers that didn't believe the automobile had any benefits over a horse are gone and forgotten; the people who don't think alternative energy, reduced-carbon power generation etc have any future will soon follow them.

>Don't you think the whole promise of CO2 is increasing, temps are
>increasing, man is the cause to the C)2 increases so, man is the SOB
>causing the world destroying climate change (flawed) thought process is
>way to simple to begin with.

?? That's not what I believe.

>Ya, I am dong the attacking.

That's great! Now decide who you want to attack and go to it.

>To use the left thought process I should assert you are questioning my
>patriotism! How about that?

You've already done that to me, so nothing new there.

Your reply is so full of LIES I will not even take the time to answer the assertions you make. Sufice is to say I am willing to learn and change my mind. It does not appear to me you care to ever consider a position other than yours.

If I am lieing show me (to start with) where ever begin to question your patriotism??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Your reply is so full of LIES I will not even take the time to
>answer the assertions you make.

Ah, well, you capitalized the word lies, so I guess you don't need to reply to any specifics! You have shown the readers here who's thinking this stuff through.

>It does not appear to me you care to ever consider a position other than yours.

Every position I have ever taken has been my own. I assume you do the same.

I have often changed my mind in the past, and have done so because science moves on. As the science on climate change has gotten more settled, I have become more certain of its likelihood and more aware of its effects (and possible future effects.) Unfortunately, some see this science as an attack on their political party, and feel they must defend it any way they can.

>If I am lieing show me (to start with) where ever begin to question your patriotism??

You have, several times, claimed I was allied with forces trying to destroy the US and/or its economy. The post right before this one contains a claim that I am trying to destroy the whole world's economy! (Which I certainly would try, if only I had a one piece gray suit, a small clone and a "LASER BEAM." But alas . . .)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Your reply is so full of LIES I will not even take the time to
>answer the assertions you make.

Ah, well, you capitalized the word lies,You claimed (if even with sarhassam) that I have questioned your patriotism, so me where?so I guess you don't need to reply to any specifics! You have shown the readers here who's thinking this stuff through.Implying that I have not I guess

>It does not appear to me you care to ever consider a position other than yours.

Every position I have ever taken has been my own. I assume you do the same.I know I am a conservative right wing mind numbed robot that can think for myself. Your implications are insulting

I have often changed my mind in the past, and have done so because science moves on. As the science on climate change has gotten more settled, I have become more certain of its likelihood and more aware of its effects (and possible future effects.) Unfortunately, some see this science as an attack on their political party, and feel they must defend it any way they can.This is where I have the hardest time. Despite what you WANT, this science is not yet settled. Politics be damed sir, I have taken issue with the party I most align with many times on this site. Have you? I do not see my self as aligning with the current rebulican party. The spending and shit they have pulled in the last year apaul me but, that does not mean I will bow to the type of political shit that many R's have been subjected to by the left. Once again, what you imply is insulting

>If I am lieing show me (to start with) where ever begin to question your patriotism??

You have, several times, claimed I was allied with forces trying to destroy the US and/or its economy. The post right before this one contains a claim that I am trying to destroy the whole world's economy! (Which I certainly would try, if only I had a one piece gray suit, a small clone and a "LASER BEAM." But alas . . .)

I have posted what I belive is an attack on the US and the free market system. I do not believe that is where you stand by default. I have however pointed out evidence that may show this to be the case. But in any event, what is proposed by the (now dieing) Kyoto treaty (thank goodness) would have had that effect. To impose that does have the apearance of trying to remove money from the US for for UN power

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

There appears to be more common sense out there than I thought.

Although the same bs about "most sceinetists" is in the post it seems most people are smarter than that....

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=AY2638954S&news_headline=three_quarters_believe_global_warming_a_natural_occurrence

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Gee 65% of the sheeple polled BELIEVE..... uh huh right.. common.. indeed



Personaly I trust the people with the OBSERVED data rather than the people who FEEL that it is just natural.

So the geologic period we have lived in so far as a civilization while the Pleistocene Glaciers receded is called the Holocene....soon to be replaced where the world will finally be living in the WeShouldHaveSeen.

Have fun

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070405_southwest_drought.html

[kallend 2,148]

June 15, 1997

(CNN) -- Nearly 50 years since an alleged UFO was sighted at Roswell, New Mexico, a new CNN/Time poll released Sunday shows that 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Personaly I trust the people with the OBSERVED data rather than the people who FEEL that it is just natural.

When in comes to politics (at least around here), it seems you're pretty comfortable with a less objective approach.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

June 15, 1997

(CNN) -- Nearly 50 years since an alleged UFO was sighted at Roswell, New Mexico, a new CNN/Time poll released Sunday shows that 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.

the sun is shinning today, calling for storms later......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

When in comes to politics (at least around here), it seems you're pretty comfortable with a less objective approach.

With the politics of the far right that is championed so frequently .. I PERSONALLY can observe the detrimental effects it has had on our country...... a large percentage of Americans agree with that.... based on the numbers the administration has in every poll out there.

[billvon 3,116]

>I know I am a conservative right wing mind numbed robot that can
>think for myself. Your implications are insulting.

I said I take my own positions, and I assume you do the same. Was I wrong? Do you in fact take someone else's positions regularly?

I think you may be befuddling yourself in your attempts to attack me.

>This is where I have the hardest time. Despite what you WANT, this science
>is not yet settled.

I didn't say it was. I said that as it has gotten MORE settled, I have refined my position on it.

>Politics be damed sir, I have taken issue with the party I most align with
>many times on this site. Have you?

I can't answer the question, as I don't align myself with a party. I determine my support of politicians by what they do, not by what letter is after their name.

>but, that does not mean I will bow to the type of political shit that many
>R's have been subjected to by the left. Once again, what you imply is insulting.

I am sorry I implied that you have your own positions on things.

>I have posted what I belive is an attack on the US and the free
>market system. I do not believe that is where you stand by default.

RushMC: "In the mean time, you keep supporting your heavily susidised attempt to cripple world economies for a yet to be proven scientific claim."

[rushmc 23]

>RushMC: "In the mean time, you keep supporting your heavily susidised attempt to cripple world economies for a yet to be proven scientific claim.

Quote

I am not sure what you are trying to say here but what I do support is a common sense, science backed moves, in either direction. I still am not convinced completely in my beliefs. what I do know is that the man made side wants this to happen fast perdicting gloom and doom (some of which you do not agree with to be fair). This in and of itself is telling. We will have to wait and see I guess.

Oh, and if I took some of your posts comments in a way you did not mean please forgive me. Context can get lost in here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

When in comes to politics (at least around here), it seems you're pretty comfortable with a less objective approach.

With the politics of the far right that is championed so frequently..

What politics of "the far right" that ARE championed so frequently?

You frequently bring up the threat of martial law becoming a reality and all of our constitutional rights being taken away. Do you have anything other that an out of context quote from 2003 to back it up?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When in comes to politics (at least around here), it seems you're pretty comfortable with a less objective approach.

With the politics of the far right that is championed so frequently..

What politics of "the far right" that ARE championed so frequently?

You frequently bring up the threat of martial law becoming a reality and all of our constitutional rights being taken away. Do you have anything other that an out of context quote from 2003 to back it up?

How about it, amazon?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

When in comes to politics (at least around here), it seems you're pretty comfortable with a less objective approach.

With the politics of the far right that is championed so frequently..

What politics of "the far right" that ARE championed so frequently?

You frequently bring up the threat of martial law becoming a reality and all of our constitutional rights being taken away. Do you have anything other that an out of context quote from 2003 to back it up?

How about it, amazon?

One last time.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

One last time.

Troll troll troll your boat.. gently up some other stream....

Merrily merrily merrily lifeis just a right wing dream.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

One last time.

Troll troll troll your boat.. gently up some other stream....

Merrily merrily merrily lifeis just a right wing dream.

What was that Jack Nicholson line from "A Few Good Men"?

Something about handling the truth???