Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread shows how inbred American conservative thinking has become.
Cherry pick facts to argue all sorts of misguided ideas:
1. The world is 10,000 years old.
2. Evolution is a plot.
3. Tax cuts create wealth and balance the budget.
4. Americans are exceptional and can learn from noone else.
5. Endangered species have no value.
6. We can fish, graze, mine, log to our hearts content and will self regulate.
7. The Market always knows best.
8. Global warming is a hoax!!!
9. A Libertarian Society will create wealth, freedom, and justice for all.
10. ANYONE who has different ideas is a liar!
It is depressing.
Truth be told, none of us will pay the price for this ignorance on global warming, but our great grandchildren probably will.
This thread shows how inbred American conservative thinking has become.
Cherry pick facts to argue all sorts of misguided ideas:
1. The world is 10,000 years old.
2. Evolution is a plot.
3. Tax cuts create wealth and balance the budget.
4. Americans are exceptional and can learn from noone else.
5. Endangered species have no value.
6. We can fish, graze, mine, log to our hearts content and will self regulate.
7. The Market always knows best.
8. Global warming is a hoax!!!
9. A Libertarian Society will create wealth, freedom, and justice for all.
10. ANYONE who has different ideas is a liar!
It is depressing.
Truth be told, none of us will pay the price for this ignorance on global warming, but our great grandchildren probably will.
Does it make you feel better to keep telling yourself a bunch of lies about what conservatives believe? The only things in your ridiculous list that I believe are 1/2 of #3, and #8. With regard to #10, I would say most liberals are liars or ignorant, but not all. Which category do you fall into?
No, not a logical fallacy at all .... for 450,000 years, CO2 ... man made or otherwise, was never the cause of warming ... because the CO2 levels have been proven to rise AFTER a warming period, making it IMPOSSIBLE to be the cause.
And this is exactly where your argument drowns in the water.
Yes, on the one hand, you are absolutely right that CO2 levels rise after a normal warming cycle. However, this is NOT the case now. After a period of warming, it would be possible to detect a gradual rise in the levels of CO2.
What we are seeing now is NOT a normal cycle. On a related point, scientists who suspect and believe in man-made global warming are not predicting a rise in carbon -- they already see abnormal spikes in carbon due to humans pulling out millions and millions tons of fossil fuels out of the earth and pumping them into the air. What scientists have predicted is something altogether different: a rise in mean global temperatures due to a rise in man-made carbon output. And their predictions have been accurate.
That, my friend, is the end of the debate. You cannot argue around global warming unless you can explain away this point, and you can't, because the facts are clear.
Much of what you say in the next few paragraphs is opinionated rubbish so I'll skip that and address one other point you make.
Quote:
Secondly, contrary to other fraudulent claims that current CO2 levels are the highest in thousands of years, there have been three times within the last 200 years where the CO2 levels exceeded today's level ..... those took place in 1825, 1857, and 1942. I think it's safe to say that SUV's and industrial activity had little to do with those rises in 1825 and 1857?
Let me guess, you're referring to the Beck study in 2007? As far as I know, that study has never been taken really seriously by anyone who studies climate change. One reason is the fact his measurements are not using consistent global measurements. By contrast, scientists can study carbon concentrations in Antarctic ice cores and compare pretty reliably (assuming they're doing it right) how the carbon compares over time. The concentration of carbon now is unquestionably higher today than it was even a century ago. Comparing it from one year to the next is probably not an exact science, but over longer stretches of time, the proxy data that is used is consistent and accounts for global temperatures and carbon readings, not just what is reported by human instruments at a given time.
"Tiny fraction of discussion" That statement was referring to all of the variables affecting the changing climate.
It wasn't meant to imply that CO2 is a tiny fraction or not important. It is of huge importance, but there are many things to discuss from a science standpoint alone when it come to CC. It seems that lay people, especially those who think it's bunk science, almost always focus only on CO2 and omit most everything else.
Lay people only focus on the CO2? From day one ... the entire argument coming from the AGW crowd (Climate Scientists, UN IPCC, etc.) focused solely on human generated CO2 as the cause of global warming .... later relabeled "Climate Change".
The damned REALITY is, it has been the opponents of this bogus CO2 fraud that have continued to point out the multitude of factors which may influence Earth's climate ... not your side. Your side zeroed in on CO2, ignoring all else .... to remarkably include dismissing Solar activity as a significant factor. No, no, no ... you're not going to be allowed to twist this inside out after the fact, without challenge.
Also, I have to say that after numerous debates with the AGW proponents, I've recognized a clear pattern of deception, deflection, maneuvering and obfuscation of issues to go along with outright lies. And I cannot dismiss this as just a product of ignorance any longer. It's too consistent, and I have yet to encounter one from your side who is willing to debate any element of this in an honest fashion. The tactical distortions and lies are pathological in nature.
And I say this with one piece of irrefutable evidence to support that contention .... the overt and calculated act of ignoring the inverse relationship between Temperature and CO2 which destroys the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming argument in it's own footsteps. It's so obvious at this point, it cannot be dismissed as anything other than intentional fraud.
I think I can tell the difference between someone who is perpetuating a falsehood due to being inadequately informed, and one who is overtly engaging in tactical deception such that you are clearly doing here. That's right ... you're defending an agenda masquerading as Climate Science, just as surely as the paid pimps who call themselves scientists are doing at the UN. But you aren't going to win. People are wising up, to the extent that they remain capable of actually thinking.
It was a tactical miscalculation on the part of the AGW creators to embark on such an easily refutable premise of CO2 caused global warming to start with. The "new discoveries" by such entities as NASA which contradict the claims of conventional AGW CO2 science to date, is just an effort (in my opinion) to rehabilitate the credibility of the mainstream scientific establishment that recognizes how thoroughly their fraud has been exposed. They're back tracking to regain some illusion of credibility for the next tactical assault.
Lay people only focus on the CO2? From day one ... the entire argument coming from the AGW crowd (Climate Scientists, UN IPCC, etc.) focused solely on human generated CO2 as the cause of global warming .... later relabeled "Climate Change".
The damned REALITY is, it has been the opponents of this bogus CO2 fraud that have continued to point out the multitude of factors which may influence Earth's climate ... not your side. Your side zeroed in on CO2, ignoring all else .... to remarkably include dismissing Solar activity as a significant factor. No, no, no ... you're not going to be allowed to twist this inside out after the fact, without challenge.
Also, I have to say that after numerous debates with the AGW proponents, I've recognized a clear pattern of deception, deflection, maneuvering and obfuscation of issues to go along with outright lies. And I cannot dismiss this as just a product of ignorance any longer. It's too consistent, and I have yet to encounter one from your side who is willing to debate any element of this in an honest fashion. The tactical distortions and lies are pathological in nature.
And I say this with one piece of irrefutable evidence to support that contention .... the overt and calculated act of ignoring the inverse relationship between Temperature and CO2 which destroys the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming argument in it's own footsteps. It's so obvious at this point, it cannot be dismissed as anything other than intentional fraud.
I think I can tell the difference between someone who is perpetuating a falsehood due to being inadequately informed, and one who is overtly engaging in tactical deception such that you are clearly doing here. That's right ... you're defending an agenda masquerading as Climate Science, just as surely as the paid pimps who call themselves scientists are doing at the UN. But you aren't going to win. People are wising up, to the extent that they remain capable of actually thinking.
It was a tactical miscalculation on the part of the AGW creators to embark on such an easily refutable premise of CO2 caused global warming to start with. The "new discoveries" by such entities as NASA which contradict the claims of conventional AGW CO2 science to date, is just an effort (in my opinion) to rehabilitate the credibility of the mainstream scientific establishment that recognizes how thoroughly their fraud has been exposed. They're back tracking to regain some illusion of credibility for the next tactical assault.
And this is exactly where your argument drowns in the water.
Yes, on the one hand, you are absolutely right that CO2 levels rise after a normal warming cycle. However, this is NOT the case now. After a period of warming, it would be possible to detect a gradual rise in the levels of CO2.
Oh yes .... like the perpetual cheating husband .... yes dear I did fool around with those other 100 women for 30 years, but this time is different?
No .... the fundamental operation of the Earth's climate mechanisms aren't just going to change at your convenience. The well established Cause & Effect relationship between rising global temperatures and the increased release of CO2 into the atmosphere from the oceans didn't abruptly reverse itself in the 20th Century, after Hundreds of Thousands of years of operating precisely in that sequence. To suggest it did is a contrivance of either fools or liars.
Furthermore, increasing temperatures of the other planets in our Solar System (documented by NASA) which coincide with increased temperatures measured here on Earth would tend to point to one of only two conclusions ... either we have industrial activity and carbon fuels being used on those other planets, or there is a an external cause (like the Sun and cosmic radiation) that accounts for these observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
What we are seeing now is NOT a normal cycle. On a related point, scientists who suspect and believe in man-made global warming are not predicting a rise in carbon -- they already see abnormal spikes in carbon due to humans pulling out millions and millions tons of fossil fuels out of the earth and pumping them into the air. What scientists have predicted is something altogether different: a rise in mean global temperatures due to a rise in man-made carbon output. And their predictions have been accurate.
That, my friend, is the end of the debate. You cannot argue around global warming unless you can explain away this point, and you can't, because the facts are clear.
No, what is clear is that you are slightly behind the curve relative to facts, to include the fact that it has been the AGW "science" which has continued to engage in one blatant lie after another .... beginning with CO2 causing global warming. When the data showed an actual decrease in global temperature between 2000 and 2010, that's when "Global Warming" was re-branded "Climate Change" .. that way, no matter what the temperature does ... rise or fall ... it can still be attributed to those filthy humans who are overpopulating mother earth. It was a classic ... "heads we win, tails you lose" scenario created.
And you all are really "one trick ponies" with this "The Debate is Over" nonsense. Clear facts? What could you possibly know about that? Your side would choke to death if an honest fact sneaked it's way into the stream of constant lies.
Let me familiarize you with the "clear facts".
Fact 1) the overall temperature increase measured over the past century is absolutely consistent with normal fluctuations in global temperature records.
Fact 2) Past global temperatures and CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today, and those times ... like the Medieval Warm Period marked a precipitous increase in prosperity, with expansion of agricultural regions and growth in production beneficial to human, animal and plant life .... and did not result in the doom for which Al "the snake oil salesman" Gore claims will happen, i.e. ... the meltdown of polar ice and 25 foot rises in Sea levels.
Fact 3) Climate Scientists were caught fabricating data on one hand, and excluding inconvenient data on the other, to support their Global Warming fraud, and this is a FACT, despite the efforts to sweep it under the psuedo-scientific carpet.
Fact 4) Climate Change computer models have been proven to have be pre-programmed to support Global Warming by filtering data. The exclusion of water vapor (which makes up what ... 95% of all greenhouse gasses) was totally excluded in the models .... with the lame explanation that those specific varieties of radiation that contribute to global warming pass through water vapor molecules, but not through others ... so it was a valid exclusion. NONSENSE. Pseudo-scientific double talk to explain a purposeful deception.
Fact 5) Artificially high urban temperature readings were used, while excluding rural temperature readings (which everyone knows is much lower) for use in climate modeling and predictions. A blatant fraud on the surface.
Fact 6) Documented strong armed tactics to marginalize and ridicule anyone presenting contrary opinion or data which refutes the AGW theory. This included falsely using the names of those scientists who did not agree with IPCC conclusions .... fraudulently claiming that these scientists did in fact agree. Several of these individuals had to file suit against the IPCC just to have their names removed from the reports ... all the while, the con men from the IPCC continued to declare that there was unanimous consensus of the scientists.
These are just some of the "Clear Facts" that you are conveniently "overlooking" in your argument that the "Debate is over".
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Much of what you say in the next few paragraphs is opinionated rubbish so I'll skip that and address one other point you make.
Cherry picking is a natural consequence of supporting AGW. Forgive my lack of surprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Let me guess, you're referring to the Beck study in 2007? As far as I know, that study has never been taken really seriously by anyone who studies climate change.
Let's be honest here for 5 seconds? Any contradicting data that challenges the AGW hypothesis is not going to receive endorsement by those pushing AGW conclusions. Come on .... it's like saying "I know no one at Merck Pharmaceutical that takes the vaccine-autism link seriously". I don't know anyone in the Catholic Church that takes "atheism" seriously either.
Nevertheless, Beck's measurements were "direct measurements" rather than "reconstructions". Could he be wrong? Sure. Could the reconstructions be wrong? Sure. This in and of itself proves nothing. One data set from either side doesn't tell the whole story ... and ... as is well established in principles of law, it is the "preponderance" of evidence that helps to distinguish the credible from the incredible. But let me ask you this .... would you be more inclined to believe Satellite data that says you you are 5' 11'' tall, or the Doctor's office scale that measures you 5' 10 and 11/16ths ? Or would you prefer a complex measurement of the depth of your footprint in the earth, taking into account several factors of density, moisture content, temperature, and grain size, rather than a digital scale when calculating your exact weight? Get my drift?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
One reason is the fact his measurements are not using consistent global measurements. By contrast, scientists can study carbon concentrations in Antarctic ice cores and compare pretty reliably (assuming they're doing it right) how the carbon compares over time. The concentration of carbon now is unquestionably higher today than it was even a century ago. Comparing it from one year to the next is probably not an exact science, but over longer stretches of time, the proxy data that is used is consistent and accounts for global temperatures and carbon readings, not just what is reported by human instruments at a given time.
Other than the obvious end around of the inverse relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels, negating the argument altogether, I would also suggest that "science" has far from a perfect record in matters relating to the accuracy of techniques in measurements, both from a technical standpoint, as well as an integrity standpoint. One of the sacred cows of modern science ... "Carbon Dating" has come under increasing pressure insofar as it's accuracy is concerned. And this is a foundation of anthropological science.
Moreover, conventional, mainstream science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be as corrupt as the politics which now drives all of the various sciences through funding mechanisms. Far beyond the AGW debate, science relative to all of the disciplines, be it Biological Life Sciences (especially as it pertains to medicine), to Anthropology has been caught red handed, over and over again, fabricating, creating, manufacturing and massaging data to support predetermined conclusions and the promotion of agendas ... which is a subject for a thread of it's own, but just as a "teaser" .... the foundation of Life Sciences today, be it medicine, evolution theory, or what have you would be flipped upside down if true facts were ever to make the center stage. What am I referring to? Genetic Control. It's a total fraud, yet thoroughly accepted as indisputable fact. This was proven false over 40 years ago in experiments which showed that genetic code was not the fixed immutable controller of biological development, but an environmentally programmable element that can be changed through outside stimulus ... to the extent that the code itself can be totally rewritten to the extent of actual species change. Funny, such a monumental discovery like that should have made it to the textbooks by now, no? So, for all of you aspiring doctors or relatively new members of the medical community .... that $250,000 education left out a few pertinent details that were discovered before you entered kindergarten.
So much for the honesty and integrity of the White Lab Coats of modern science. Money talks, and science walks. In the midst of unprecedented levels of corruption in government and our financial system ... mainstream science is no different than mainstream anything else .... it is a partner to corruption, not an exception.
This thread shows how inbred American conservative thinking has become.
Cherry pick facts to argue all sorts of misguided ideas:
1. The world is 10,000 years old.
2. Evolution is a plot.
3. Tax cuts create wealth and balance the budget.
4. Americans are exceptional and can learn from noone else.
5. Endangered species have no value.
6. We can fish, graze, mine, log to our hearts content and will self regulate.
7. The Market always knows best.
8. Global warming is a hoax!!!
9. A Libertarian Society will create wealth, freedom, and justice for all.
10. ANYONE who has different ideas is a liar!
It is depressing.
Truth be told, none of us will pay the price for this ignorance on global warming, but our great grandchildren probably will.
There is no "probably" about it.
A by product of conservatism is selfishness, and many of those in denial of science are as much motivated by that as they are paranoia or ignorance.
A by product of conservatism is selfishness, and many of those in denial of science are as much motivated by that as they are paranoia or ignorance.
A by product of liberalism is selfishness, and many of those who have drunk the AGW Koolaid are as much motivated by that as they are paranoia or ignorance.
...
Let's be honest here for 5 seconds? Any contradicting data that challenges the AGW hypothesis is not going to receive endorsement by those pushing AGW conclusions. .
Or they just hide the data or lose the data or cherry pick the data.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
