quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Seriously. It's not a dig. You are firmly in your own world of misperception.

Lets review shall we....

I always was of the opinion that there was a hidden agenda behind the global warming 'science.' I always thought that Al Gore was in it for the money and prestige and his actions were, if nothing else, hypocritical. I thought that the followers who believed in global warming and refused to consider any gray area, at least until now, were religious in their faith based refusal to consider any alternative.

All that has now be disclosed at fact. You are now believing in, if not those same things, the possibility of it not being so "black & white".

You don't provide any contrary argument but are focused on me, stopping for a peek at our profile again just this morning. Your envy of 'Mercland' is flattering, although a bit childish, considering your response links to a child's program it may reflect your intellectual abilities, and silly. Maybe if you watched or read adult programs and news, you'd be better at keeping up.

Yet I am living in a dreamland.

Who's delusional?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

If your point is that Al isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, you'll get no argument from me. My only interest in him ever was that he wasn't Bush. (I still remember the Tipper Gore tiff with the recording industry..)

If your point was to question my views, see the Climategate thread for the actual views.

quote:

Amazing! Now he world isn't "all black & white simplicity"; when until now the message coming from the global warming religion and its messiah was quite different.

quote:

Your need to now back away from the advocacy of Al Gore is a you problem, as is the idea that if I thought your views concerning this religion's demise in another thread would affect that position.

quote:

I made no claims. Only used you in this thread as an appropriate example of the position you advocate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

A position folks should keep open is that presenting this as either/or, on either side, is likely a distortion. We know climate change is periodic. We also know greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere. We know corporate scientists are going to serve the interests of the corporation. And what the Times and other articles have found is disturbing. All that doesn't mean that corporate scientists or independent scientists haven't done good studies. Or poor ones. It does mean we've got a mess.

One problem (I'll get to this in the news bias thread, if not this weekend, then next week) is people looking only at a study's conclusions. More important than the conclusions are how they were reached. Even a perfectly good study can be misapplied by people misunderstanding what it does and doesn't say. Plenty of studies are flawed, as the wealth of contradictory studies would indicate even without examining them. Refuting a study doesn't constitute proof of the opposite. The world is more complicated than this or that, period. And researchers are human, driven by ego, job requirements, competition, personal flaws, and more.

The rationale given later in the article by the scientists seems pretty flimsy. I'll be interested in what further investigation uncovers.

Thanks, Firm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Feel better? Good for your MM.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MichiganHeadmast

No point discussing until we settle on terms.  "Climate change" is an absolute.  It happens, has happened and will happen, with or without our debate.  Anthropogenic global warming is most certainly a faith and a pretty absurd one as far as faiths go.  I would compare it roughly to anthropogenic (dance-induced) rain.

So if we want to talk about AGW, let's talk about AGW.  "Climate change" is the fall-back weasel term the AGW adherents run to when it gets cold out.  Pick one or the other, but don't confuse the terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Here is a question i often ask when people start discussing climate changes.

As i was taught in biology, the earth goes through a cooling and heating cycle naturally. When watching the weather channel.. lol... i hate being caught in the rain without an umbrella... its quite obvious lows and highs are still not being met.

The question is this.... how do we know what we are experiencing isnt a natural occurance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Here is a question i often ask when people start discussing climate changes.

As i was taught in biology, the earth goes through a cooling and heating cycle naturally. When watching the weather channel.. lol... i hate being caught in the rain without an umbrella... its quite obvious lows and highs are still not being met.

The question is this.... how do we know what we are experiencing isnt a natural occurance?

We don't, but there is some circumstantial evidence that it isn't. It isn't as clear cut as some make out, but it doesn't appear to be completely negligible as the other faction insists, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Here is a question i often ask when people start discussing climate changes.

As i was taught in biology, the earth goes through a cooling and heating cycle naturally. When watching the weather channel.. lol... i hate being caught in the rain without an umbrella... its quite obvious lows and highs are still not being met.

The question is this.... how do we know what we are experiencing isnt a natural occurance?

We don't, but there is some circumstantial evidence that it isn't. It isn't as clear cut as some make out, but it doesn't appear to be completely negligible as the other faction insists, either.

But there is more evidence that it ISNT CO2 than there is evidence that it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Most of that evidence has been published by researchers who are bankrolled by the oil industry, so their objectivity is questionable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Here is a question i often ask when people start discussing climate changes.

As i was taught in biology, the earth goes through a cooling and heating cycle naturally. When watching the weather channel.. lol... i hate being caught in the rain without an umbrella... its quite obvious lows and highs are still not being met.

The question is this.... how do we know what we are experiencing isnt a natural occurance?

We don't, but there is some circumstantial evidence that it isn't. It isn't as clear cut as some make out, but it doesn't appear to be completely negligible as the other faction insists, either.

But there is more evidence that it ISNT CO2 than there is evidence that it is.

Then, according to the evidence, what is it willbe? and im not being snarky. its an interesting topic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I wonder what would happen if we told the warmers, "Ok, you can have your "global warming religion" but,.....NO TAX DOLLARS!"
They remind me of the kids who noone wanted to pick to be on "their team."
There shouldn't be any Taxdollars involved in something like this anyway! It's just too "cult-like" to be legitimate.
And now we're starting to see the corruption surfacing with the "insiders." Funny, all the nerds who believe in this crap are being used as "usefull idiots" by the insiders who are buying shares of companies they think might benefit. "Yeah, give 'em hell, and go find some of your geeky friends to give 'em hell too, Daddy needs a new Mercedes "S" class!"
"Good Boy! You keep saying all that now and "our cause" will prosper....I mean "prevail!"
"That's it, make up some signs and go have a "protest!" "What's that?" "Oh SURE we'll give you a nice six figure job in Washington when we "win!"
In Yiddish there's a great word for people like that, "SCHMUCKS."

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Here is a question i often ask when people start discussing climate changes.

As i was taught in biology, the earth goes through a cooling and heating cycle naturally. When watching the weather channel.. lol... i hate being caught in the rain without an umbrella... its quite obvious lows and highs are still not being met.

The question is this.... how do we know what we are experiencing isnt a natural occurance?

We don't, but there is some circumstantial evidence that it isn't. It isn't as clear cut as some make out, but it doesn't appear to be completely negligible as the other faction insists, either.

But there is more evidence that it ISNT CO2 than there is evidence that it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Here is a question i often ask when people start discussing climate changes.

As i was taught in biology, the earth goes through a cooling and heating cycle naturally. When watching the weather channel.. lol... i hate being caught in the rain without an umbrella... its quite obvious lows and highs are still not being met.

The question is this.... how do we know what we are experiencing isnt a natural occurance?

We don't, but there is some circumstantial evidence that it isn't. It isn't as clear cut as some make out, but it doesn't appear to be completely negligible as the other faction insists, either.

But there is more evidence that it ISNT CO2 than there is evidence that it is.

Wilbeur, it doesn't matter, they'll just say; "Oh! Did we say "CO2?" We meant CO3! Sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

and it will be peer reviewed and confirmed!
Ed Begleys interview on Fox (Mark Steyn I think?) was atrocious. Begley chanted the "peer review" mantra half a dozen times, and all the interviewer had to do was pull out the emails on rigging the peer review process to turn his hair even whiter.

My lg said she saw a pre-hacker interview on some MSM show with a Princeton scientist that was highly critical of the AGW. I wont get a chance to watch it until Thursday.