Stop Al Gore and the eco-taxers
Al Gore wants to create his own green “1984.” CEI hurls a sledgehammer at the eco-tax-and-spenders with a new ad campaign. Watch and spread the word:
NTU has a petition: Tell Congress to Oppose $2 Trillion Climate Tax!
Posted in: Enviro-nitwits, Tea Party
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Al Gore Global Warming Poem
- The Sham of Socialism: Save America While There’s Still Time… ‘1984′ Prophesy « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Cap and Trade: The Universal Tax | NEOAVATARA
- The Obama road to serfdom and the need for nationalized health care (and unrestricted abortion for that matter) « Jim Blazsik
- Al Gore, George Orwell, Adolf Hitler, and Barack Obama « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
- Family Favorite Cheerios under Attack: FDA, Go after “Truth in Advertising” of Global Warming Instead « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Government’s Grand Con Game: Waxman-Markey Energy Tax Bill Benefits Obama’s Tax Revenue Coffers & Nothing Else « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Aren't Greenhouse Gasses Green? | Vancouver Secrets
- Cap and Trade: It’s Hip to be Marx! | The Great Illuminator
- Michelle Malkin » The 60th anniversary of 1984
- No “Global Warming” in Arizona - Coldest June on Record Since 1913 « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Nancy Pelosi Is Trying to Do WHAT This Friday? Ram Through Energy Tax Bill with Cap and Trade without It Being Fully Reviewed Americans Knowing How High Their Taxes Will Go « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Nancy Pelosi Is Trying to Do WHAT This Friday? Ram Through Energy Tax Bill with Cap and Trade without It Being Fully Reviewed Americans Knowing How High Their Taxes Will Go « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Pelosi Pounding Drum Louder for Cap-and-Trade Vote This Friday, WSJ Exposes What Americans Will Pay for Waxman-Markey Energy Bill « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Before It’s Too Late… Mark Levin Surge: Call Congress to Vote ‘No’ Tomorrow to Cap-and-Trade Energy Bill « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Enviro-nitwits, Tea Party
Power Line
» The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
Power Line
» When In Doubt, DeletePundit & Pundette
» About last night's voteJustOneMinute
» "Unequivocal"?NewsBusters.org
» WaPo's Dana Milbank: 'The Senate Really Has 100 Blanche DuBoises'Commentary
» The End of the BeginningGay Patriot
» How John Hoeven Can Save AmericaCommentary
» Flotsam and Jetsam
Homeopathic remedies, Buddhism, and thousands of other ideas.
Overall, you’re seeing everything as much too black and white. You definitely lack the ability to accurately see in grey scale.
Never stated otherwise.
Now, there are far too many over reaching scientists in this world. That’s who you should laugh at.
Is it cumulative? You stated that as FACT yet you didn’t have the confidence to answer my question about desert versus humid areas.
If adding GG had a cumulative effect, then humid areas should have higher high temps than desert areas. Right?
I think I’m starting to understand the low threshold you use for declaring, “fact.”
But the sun’s output is not constant and neither is our distance from the sun.
corkie:
Laughed at. Do you know what they call “alternative medicine” when they find out it works?
Medicine.
Gray is one thing. Gray is 4.3 billion as opposed to 4.54 billion. 6000 is not gray, it’s stupid, plain and simple.
To be honest, I didn’t really read or pay that much attention to your question earlier. My wife and I were just turning on a movie at the time. I figured you could find the answer on your own on wiki. I am sorry to have ignored it and pretended I didn’t.
Danceswithdachshunds:
I never said it was and I am a GW skeptic.
Who is “they” and what is your definition of “works?”
Let me state that I don’t think I oppose a single FDA policy or position (including yesterday’s Cheerios issue).
Now, let me state, many drugs worked long before it was approved as medicine.
Yes. That’s one heluva greyscale you got there.
Doesn’t matter. However, I’d assume you’d ‘try to defend your definitive GG effects are cumulative’ statement in an attempt to restore your credibility to declare what is and isn’t fact – as you seem to enjoy doing quite aggressively.
corkie:
Doctors and those in the field. “Works” means it can be shown to be more effective than a placebo.
Fortunately, in modern times, we have developed actual ways of discerning these things quite easily using test groups and statistical analysis.
Oh stop playing games. Either you think YECs are patently insane or you don’t. There’s no “gray” area when it comes to the idea. It’s stupid. If you even give it the slightest bit of credence than you are horribly ignorant on the matter.
I just point at Venus. My credibility isn’t an issue. No doubt there are probably some YECs (and people that think Venus is hotter than Mercury for some other reasons than GG) on this forum that question my credibility. They are purposely deluding themselves and I do feel pity for them.
corkie said (#180):
The point of a conversation is not to convince yourself, it’s to convince other people.
Relations between physical quantities can be determined by “gedanken” (thought) experiments. There must be a relationship between emission and absorption because the two would have to be in balance in a closed system. The Einstein relations hold no matter where the atoms are.
The temperature 10 to 100 years from now.
SHoward said (#183):
Check the wikipedia article or more direct main stream scientific sources. Average temperatures are going up, on average (dumb sentence, but there are places on earth — not many — where average temperatures are expected to go down because of glbal warming changes in air circulation patterns.).
zeroangel said (#184):
Finally a question that isn’t on the entrance exam for the flat Earth society! There are no easy answers to this but a couple of partial answers. One is that the US still produces much more greenhouse gas than China. Second is that once Europe and the US are on board, it may be possible to pressure China the way it has been pressured on labor practices.
zeroangel said (#192):
The science in movies is always wrong, but movies (Chain Reaction etc.) can be fun anyway. This was a bad movie because the acting and writing were bad, and because it gave people the wrong idea about global warming.
But it was a good movie because Emmy Rossum was in it.
LGM:
Fair enough. Personally, I am more interested in nuclear power and the possibility of sci-fi-ish atmospheric processors as a solution. Dependence on fossil fuels will end one way or another. After all, there is a finite amount in the ground.
Gee, you forgot to mention statistical significance and confidence intervals.
Statistically speaking, it’s quite possible for “medicines” to be approved despite a complete lack of efficacy. Think about it. If FDA approves 100 drugs each of which showed efficacy with a p-value=1%, then you should EXPECT one to be INEFFECTIVE.
Tell me again about facts.
“Quite easily?”
Your credibility is now gone. Research the cost of your average combination of preclinical, Phase I, II, and III trails powered correctly to provide statistically significant evidence of efficacy AND statistically significant evidence of safety. Ain’t nothin’ easy about those $$$$, my friend.
That’s it? That’s all you got? You make a definitive statement as if it’s a fact and you back it up by just pointing at Venus??? OK, I now understand your threshold for determining facts.
What else do you consider a fact despite not having a preponderance of evidence?
I think it’s time for you to explain the mechanism that causes gravitational force.
corkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Revival_in_the_late_20th_Century
Are we going to argue over semantics? Look, next time you get sick, by all means go to a “homeopathic doctor.” I am not going, and neither is any of my family members. It’s stupid.
? Yes, that’s all I got. An entire planet that happens to have the thickest atmosphere in the solar system and also happens to have a higher surface temperature than the inner most planet. Shaky ground, indeed.
LOL. You first! Let us know what you find out.
ITookTheRedPill:
If that is true (and I’m skeptical) I guess it’s a good thing.
I still think we’d been better off if we went nuclear. It’s a far better source of energy.
Trust me, lgm. EVERYONE reading this is convinced that I know more about this topic than you.
Stop torturing yourself, lgm. You misapplied detailed balance to an open system.
Think about it this way. The principles of subtraction still “hold” even when multiplication is required. Admit that you incorrectly subtracted instead of multiplying.
10 years? So, why aren’t the 1999 AGW models now accurately predicting the earth’s current climate?
No, they aren’t – according to BOTH satellite and surface station temps. Use the raw data – not the data which has been adjust to show…wait for it…that temperatures are going up.
No. It won’t be possible.
Yes. It gave the wrong idea that AGW existed.
corkie:
I doubt “everyone” cares.
I was especially shocked to see that you can hold a grudge for nearly two years:
…and I thought I was a being a d|ck for carrying things over several days. Isn’t there some kind of homeopathic medicine to calm you down?
First, I obviously understand the collective weighting of scientific and clinical evidence with respect to NDAs better than you do.
Second, so the absence of evidence means that something can’t be true? If I kill someone, but the prosecutor finds no evidence, does that mean that I didn’t commit murder? Very strange logic.
1. You have a short memory. I named homeopathic remedies as something which should not be given any attention but which shouldn’t be laughed at.
2. You severely lack a sufficient range of greyscale.
3. Why should someone expend the resources (resources that you consider a mere matter of semantics) to develop evidence that supports a homeopathic remedy? They will never generate a return on those invested resources. There’s a lack of evidence partially because there’s a lack of economic incentive to develop the evidence. The remedy wouldn’t even warrant Orphan Drug status.
I don’t consider that shaky ground. I consider that a single data point.
Seriously, I was thinking about getting an advanced degree in this field, then making an overreaching claim that human activity was threatening the gravitational mechanism.
After I gained notoriety in the field by the all-knowing media, I would then control the peer-review process such that no conflicting papers could be published AND then scoff at such papers because they weren’t, in fact, published. I would quickly develop “consensus.”
I would collaborate with biologists (that know nothing about gravity) to claim that my claims are true and that all low-mass species on earth were in danger of extinction.
I would then obtain grants worth $$ billions to further conduct my research since all low-mass species on earth were in danger of extinction.
Then, I would characterize anyone skeptical about my claims as anti-science. After all, my claims would most certainly be based on a preponderance of evidence.
Is it a fact that I hold “a grudge?” If so, please explain the evidence that led you to believe that this was a fact.
corkie:
Like I said, if you want to go to a witch doctor with herbs and incense, go ahead. Just don’t expect me to take it seriously without evidence. I especially won’t pay for it.
Along with YEC. When do you start laughing? How absurd does something have to be before you laugh? Do you laugh at flat-earthers?
The rest of your post I either generally agree with, already addressed, or doesn’t need to be addressed.
corkie:
Is it?
I believe you are holding a grudge based on the idea that you drag out an ancient post that you claim embarrasses another poster.
Agreed, and thank you for replying.
DBNinKY:
My pleasure. Thank you for your gracious and polite manner.
Don’t back away from your previous statements. You stated that you will laugh at it. You would also laugh at a detective that stated Mr. A killed Mr. B until he had a collective weight of evidence to support his claim.
Very fair question. Thank-you for asking. I will address this later.
You think you agree or addressed, but I don’t think you understand some of the subtle points I was attempting to make.
But gravity is always a fun topic!
corkie:
Umm no. I will laugh at homeopathy because despite all the effort, there is no evidence. I would also laugh at some detective that continues to try and prove his theory that Mr. A killed Mr. B even though Mr. A wasn’t even in the state at the time of the murder and another detective already proved Mr. C committed the murder.
YEC and homeopathy are both laughable.
You will address whether or not you laugh at flat-earthers later? Is it that difficult a question to answer?
Pity.
OK. Now you only believe. That’s much better than your statement;
To answer your question. I don’t hold a grudge. lgm is beyond grudge worthy.
BTW, debating lgm is like debating some cocky elementary school kid. Easy to win, but it’s impossible for them to understand that they’ve been beaten.
corkie:
Quit playing stupid semantics games.
I believe I am talking to a human being via an internet blog currently. However, I can’t prove that 100%.
Personally, were I debating a cocky child I wouldn’t even bother digging up posts from 2007. I’d consider it a waste of tmie. Hell I prolly woulnd’t even spell check.
Um, what effort? The $200k NIH grants? HA!
That’s not what I asked and is a poor analogy for our discussion.
Yes.
No, but it must be qualified. The universe isn’t black and white.
Yes. It is.
This single example of uncertainty is meaningless. Surely, you agree that there are other varying degrees of uncertainty. Right?
For example. You were probably more confident that; i) you were communicating with a human; than ii) I held a grudge.
I know that I’m asking you to see ranges of grey here.
How else is he supposed to learn?
zeroangel said (#202):
LGM:
I agree. France gets most of its electricity from nuclear.
Nothing suggested so far is practical, according to the people trying to do it. Maybe something will become practical.
Does Sarah Palin know this?
corkie said (#207):
Who should we trust, an anonymous blogger who refuses to say anything scientific or a vast majority of members of the United States National Academy of Sciences?
If you’re the judge, of course you win. If other people judge, they can look at who wrote more knowledgeably about it. You refused to write anything technical.
Don’t you get it, lgm? Stop blindly trusting anyone. I think this is part of your problem. Scrutinize the situation for yourself. I doubt you blindly trust CIA so why blindly trust any other organization?
I win with any judge.
lgm, do you know why you don’t understand anything I write? Because it’s too technical for you.
Get up to speed on this debate, lgm. AGW theorists are against the ropes right now. They’re growing weaker every months and losing support FAST. By the end of 2009 this thing is over.
I just can’t let this one pass.
The inner most planet is Mercury, below is the temperature range according to NASA.
“Temperatures on Mercury’s surface can reach 430 degrees Celsius (800 degrees Fahrenheit). Because the planet has no atmosphere to retain that heat, nighttime temperatures on the surface can drop to -170 degrees Celsius (-280 degrees Fahrenheit). ”
In what fantasy world does the Surfacce temp of the Earth reach 430 degrees celsius? This is the problem with the global warming people( I use that term loosely) they repeat stupid remarks without checking the facts. Even in the face of facts the deny the facts are true, Al must be correct because,because He is AL Gore. Everyone knows Al Gore is the most respected scientist on the planet! Right? He must be everyone believes him without question, of course he refuses to be questioned by real scientists, but that’s just because he doesn’t have time. He is too bust saving the planet! *SARCASM OFF* Al Gore is no scientist, he is just another nut job selling a new religon to get rich. He doesn’t answer questions because he knows the science behind his claims is total crap. He is in it for the money. Cap and trade programs are not run by governments, they are run by corporations that are making a lot of money.
DUH!!! At any given time there is a finite amount of everything, even space in the universe. Nothing is infinite. Using your logic we should also ban breathing because ther is a finite amount of air, or ban drinking water because there is a finite supply of potable water at any given time. However when they go back to dry wells and find more oil 10 years later, doesn’t that make you question the finite supply party line. According to the scare mongers we should have run out of oil more than 10 years ago. What happened? Bad science and polotics, that’s what happened. Same as Global Warming, really bad science and really bad politics.
By the way the light bulbs the eco nuts demand we use are made in CHINA who is the biggest generater of pollution in the world. Why aren’t you jumping on them for polluting the air and oceans and causing real problems for the furure? Here is a hint, if you tried to pull the same stunts in China that you pull here you would spend the rest of your (probably very short) life in a Chineese jail. No freedom to do what you want there, now is there?
Try looking into some of the “ecologically friendly” countries in the EU where they tax fossil fuels at an outrageous rate and give people tax credits for wood burning furnaces, which (by the Eco nuts own reports) release more carmbon into the atsmosphere than any fossil fuel.
You have been suckered into asking the government to raise taxes and giving them more power. I’ll bet you are happy to do it. Sheeple are an amazing things, do anything and ask nothing.
I get really annoyed with people that just repeat “sound bites” and can’t think for themselves and refuse to read the research. But it’s still a free country, mostly. You can still think what you want, or not think at all…..
Tell you what, you give up all energy from “fossil fuels”, move up into the hills and raise alpacas. The rest of us will continue to live our lives and make well thought out changes, like developing LED lighting rather than using toxic CF bulbs……
Mostly Annoyed said (#223):
I think he/she was talking about Venus (you know, where women come from), which has a thicker atmosphere than ours and is very hot on the surface.
lgm, you completely missed his point about Mercury. Did you honestly think that he confused the two planets? Do you ever think about anything for more than a few moments?
Well, I thought this thread had petered out, but….
LGM, I have taken your advice but I don’t think the results are what you might have expected. The two sources I have had time to read are NASA and the EDF. EDF has a nifty fact vs. myth pdf, but it isn’t quite hard evidence for your side.
There are several myths that are clearly myths, and I wouldn’t insult anyone’s intelligence by arguing them, but some myths have the response that they may in fact be partly contributing.
Nasa’s temp chart actually shows a leveling off of temerature averages, as well.
Something I can’t quite get past is that if several factors are heavily suspected contributors, just how much of a contribution is CO2?
You see, CO2 may be able to absorb and retain heat, but there are much more likely suspects such as CFCs, which are no longer produced in many countrys. I know they got the blame for the Ozone weak spot, but they existed because they were excellent refridgerants. They have been replaced by others, which also can absorb a he!! of a lot more heat than CO2.
After perusing the material, it just doesn’t seem that CO2 can be much of a factor, and that is the core of the current debate: Alarmists are effectively selling us the idea that CO2 is the only bogeyman.
PS: I’d really like the available material to be more technical up front. When you ping a site about GW, the first thing they want to tell you is what you should do about it, not how it is happening. You have to dig pretty hard and be persistant to discover anything useful in debate.
At the forefront of this debate the AGWers will readily admit this.
However, they claim that the CO2 is enough of a factor in warming to cause the formation of extra water vapor. They then claim that the extra water vapor will be responsible for catastrophic warming.
Naturally, they are then pressed to explain how such an unstable climate system wouldn’t have already experienced catastrophic warming in the past. They basically claim that such warming HAS occurred in the past (and obviously humans are not to blame).
So, they admit that catastrophic global warming has occurred naturally in the past but that man is responsible for it THIS time.
Now do you see why I think they’re on the ropes?
Mostly annoyed:
I am a AGW skeptic as I have mentioned several times now.
Please read everything I had to say in the future, LGM is correct; I was talking about Venus and I was only trying to illustrate the idea that GG do indeed retain heat (this doesn’t mean I am certain that man makes enough to have any substantial effect).
I had also “jumped on China.” It’s obvious you took one portion of my post, assumed what my position was (incorrectly) and decided to jump all over me.
It’s rather rude to be honest.
Indeed. I also get really annoyed with people that only read “sound bites” and assume everything else from there.
I’ll tell you what, why don’t you read everything people have to say in the future so you don’t end up looking silly by making unfounded assumptions.
I’m fairly confident that he knew you were “talking about” Venus since…you know…you wrote “Venus.”
It also seems as if he knew why you were talking about Venus. Do you know why he was talking about Mercury? It seems as if you missed his point.
One last thing, I think this response may have been to lgm, not you.
cokrie:
Ill let him spaek for hmislef.
He might not check this thread again.
And I’ll speak for myself. lgm didn’t understand his point about Mercury.
I appologize I misread the post. However I don’t think your comparison is valid. You can’t reasonably compare the temperatures of a planet with no atsmosphere to one with an atsmosphere.
The conclusions are massivly oversimplified.
Mostly Annoyed:
There are other factors to be sure, but it is a fact that an atmosphere and GGs retain heat. That was my point.
Anyone who tries to argue against this can’t be taken seriously. A valid argument would be to question to what degree GGs emitted by human beings have any effect.
Perhaps, but until that time comes, and as there are currently few feasible alternatives to fossil fuels, would Democrats and the administration mind allowing Appalachians to continue feeding their families by directing the EPA to stop holding up the more than 100 strip-mining permits it has been sitting on for the past four months?
corkie said (#226):
ZA (#205) compared Mercury to Venus, but MA (#223) seemed to compare Mercury to Venus. I apologize to MA if I misunderstood his/her post. I hope my post about Venus wasn’t rude.
Do you ever write a post where the content is longer than the insult?
SHoward said (#227):
I really appreciate your open mind about this. I looked it up and found information that disagrees with yours. It’s true that CFC’s are better at absorbing outbound heat, but there’s more CO2. See the chart after Natural and anthropogenic (can’t cut and paste a chart here).
DBNinKY:
Sounds good to me; the libertarian in me is completely open to more or less anything as long as we are generally responsible. To me, that means no dumping of poisonous chemicals and wanton pollution.
Um. The Journal of Modern Physics disagrees with you. They reviewed and published a paper by Gerlich & Tscheuschner which addresses this very issue.
You should read something about the paper. A great quote is that G&T address the “fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects.”
So explain the problem. You’re stating that both compared Mercury to Venus. Surely you see the comparison is relavant.
Do you ever think about anything for more than a few moments?
Now lgm, does your version of AGW rely on the extra trace amounts of CO2 causing a build-up of additional water vapor in the atmosphere? Or are you insisting that the extra CO2 alone has sufficient mass, and therefore sufficient specific heat capacity, to cause catastrophic warming? BTW, it’s ok to admit that you don’t understand this issue at all.
cokrie:
Or, I coudl spned two secodns doing some resaerch and find out most scientists think it’s nonsesne.
You want to bet on this? Gentlemen’s bet if fine. $1 via paypal?
Mostly Annoyed apologzied. He thouhgt I was takling abuot Earth vs. Mercury. That shuold settle this.
corkei:
Lauhgable or not:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/
?
That sounds about right. You seem to be all about popular thought. Maybe you could form your own opinion about it. Actually, you already did – you used Venus as your single data point on the issue.
Did he? lgm seems to think he was comparing Mercury to Venus. Anyway, it doesn’t change the point made.
I don’t think it’s laughable to have such a forum. Did you check it out? It seems as if most of the “believers” don’t really believe that the earth is flat – but enjoy making amateur skeptics look like idiots for wandering on and attempting to make stupid arguments.
What’s “this?” That they’re growing weaker and losing support FAST?
corkie:
WRT Gerlich & Tscheuschner my opnion is I don’t have to waste my tmie raeding it anymre than I need to waste my time reading nonsesne from “flat-earthers.”
LGM can spaek for himself. It’s obvious what Mostly Annoyed meant as he apologized for misundersatnding. Whatever you imagined his point to be, it clearly wasn’t.
So, flat-earthers are NOT laughable? Who cares if some of the people that post on that web page aren’t COMPLETELY crazy! Flat-earth ideas are just plain stupid (weren’t you going to adddress that?).
That’s me though, all about popular thought, like the idea the earth is more than 6000 years old.
As far as betting, I will bet you that by the end of 2009 this “thing” (AGW debate) will not be over. Isn’t that what you were cliaming:
?
corkie:
Since you seem to buy this nonsesne, (or at least don’t thnk it’s luaghable) along with YEC and others:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/gerlich_and_tscheuschner_oh_my.php
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/
There’s plenty more, but Arthur P. Smith’s math should be all you need.
So let me get this straight. You found multiple pieces written by people that thought it worth their time to address G&T?
I think the AGW debate will lose a critical mass of thought leaders.
I’m sure many will believe and discuss for years to come. After all – it’s a religious belief now.
No. I stated that the forum wasn’t laughable.
Yes, I was going to describe a belief gradient to you. One which starts with struggled-faith and evolves through to solid beliefs based on concrete evidence.
Even our justice system has two levels of belief for juries to follow. One is “beyond a reasonable doubt” (for criminal cases) and the other is “preponderance of the evidence” (for civil cases).
However, the more I thought about it. The more I believed that such a sophisticated and deep discussion would probably be a waste.
You seem to have only two levels of belief – on and off.
No. Not that strawman. Tell me something you believe which goes against the grain (other than AGW).
Yes, we will let lgm speak for himself. After all – it seemed to be his post that Most Annoyed was bashing.
corkie:
I found mulitple people that considered it important to democstrate how utterly false G&T’s conclusions are; Smith used concrete math to do so. Just because someone takes the time to refute flat-earthers does not mean flat-earth “theory” deserves any credence. Smith himself pointed this out:
Anyhow, are you going to conceed that G&T were wrong or will you address Smtih’s math?
That is rather different from saying, “this thing will be over.” Backpeddling I see. Is there any objective measure you’d like to bet on? How about we bet on whether or not the NAS reverses their opinion by the end of the year?
Oh? Ok, so are flat-earther’s laughable or not?
Oh spare me. These little jibes of yours do nothing for your point. Furthermore, as demonstrated by my opinion of AGW; that is, being skeptical but still unsure due do questions about the model; I am quite capable of a range of opinions. However, when it comes to flat-earthers and YEC, I am rather compfprtable in saying it is laughable nonsense.
Are you serious? Skepticism of AGW is not enough? OK…
1) I support the Iraq war and always have before, during and after having served there.
2) I think GWB was a decent man that did a generally positive job running the country.
3) I don’t believe in God (that’s a rather big “against the grain” there).
4) I am of the opinion that MJ should be legalized.
…do I really have to go on? I realize you are trying to paint me as a follower, but the reality flies in the face of your caricature.
Yet, he was quoting me, both times.
LGM, if you’re still following this thread, I haven’t put you on ignore. I have only had time to scan the Wiki article you linked, and on the surface I am compelled to say that I am still skeptical, but the issue has a great deal of importance so I won’t just let it hang.
I do assume the article is well edited, because as I recall you mentioned a couple of months ago on another topic that you may not consider wikipedia a great source of information. And I have already read the articel on Radiative Forcing some time ago.
See ya when I see ya….
Reread my comments. I never thought G&T’s conclusions were accurate. You should know that I’ve always believed that GG retards cooling. I think that was one of my first comments on this thread. I just enjoy reading you put everything into one of two categories; i) fact, and ii) laughable.
I’m not backpeddling at all. I always meant to imply the scientific aspect of this. I never wanted to address the religion aspect. I’ll have to think about which aspect the NAS leans.
Yes, they are. Their beliefs are not credibly based on any meaningful evidence or faith. Most of their beliefs seem to be based on pure conspiracy theory and are, therefore, laughable.
Are you happy I finally answered?
Do you understand why I delayed answering?
How would you now what does something for my point. You don’t understand half the points I’m making. Your second sentence above makes that quite clear.
Wow. That’s not what I was trying to do. Why did you provide me with three (out of four) useless examples of matters with no right answer? You obviously missed my point again.
SHoward:
Wiki is generally a great first source. It’s best to follow their footnotes though if you are doing challenged research. I have noticed that wiki will sometimes paraphrase or take things out of context. For the most part though, autodidacts of the world can rejoice, wiki is a good place to learn a great deal without having to pay for it.
Corkie:
Then what was the point in bringing it up?
Are we going to bet on anything or not?
Yes, finally. I have no idea why you bothered to take it this far though. Other than, of course, trying to argue that YEC’s, flat-earthers and otherwise do not have contempt for science (they clearly do).
I am done reading your nonsense. It’s painfully obvious that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
As it should be apparent from the last sentence of #218, I think you are a child, now I’m convinced it’s not worth responding to you at all.
You are a sophist, pure and simple. The only reason one would want to respond to you is so that otherwise uneducated readers won’t be fooled. If we aren’t betting on anything there isn’t anything left to say.
Everything is pure and simple for you.
I had absolutely no reason to bring it up. None. Everything is either a fact or laughable.
Not at all. But I get that you don’t understand me.