The real inconvenient truth

[Teal]

I will wait for the experts on both sides to hash it out and come to an undeniable conclusion. At that point I will declare it to be either the truth or a hoax.

There are no both sides when it comes to the scientific community.

There is unanimity other than a few shills, most of whom aren't even climate scientists, paid for by certain think tanks and the oil industry.

You will not find a group of scientists who deny climate change which is as large as the one represented by the IPCC reports, the USGS, the NOAA, etc.

Again, the attempt to portray climate change as being less than a scientific consensus is straight out of the Frank Luntz playbook.

I'm sorry, this is just a load of s***. Talk about conspiracy theories...sheesh...

[XXXIV]

I'm sorry, this is just a load of s***. Talk about conspiracy theories...sheesh...

Dont take this personally but ...please...stop giving this piece of s*** credibilty.

[Teal]

Quite the opposite, 34-there's no credibility to be had in the GW line of thought, so I can't give something that can't be had.

To whit:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... d-warming/

[wco81]

I will wait for the experts on both sides to hash it out and come to an undeniable conclusion. At that point I will declare it to be either the truth or a hoax.

There are no both sides when it comes to the scientific community.

There is unanimity other than a few shills, most of whom aren't even climate scientists, paid for by certain think tanks and the oil industry.

You will not find a group of scientists who deny climate change which is as large as the one represented by the IPCC reports, the USGS, the NOAA, etc.

Again, the attempt to portray climate change as being less than a scientific consensus is straight out of the Frank Luntz playbook.

I'm sorry, this is just a load of s***. Talk about conspiracy theories...sheesh...

So counter the facts, one by one, or don't, as GameSeven failed to list the "valid arguments" of the scientists opposing GW.

List the scientists denying GW is a problem who have the stature of the IPCC panelists. Or that there are as many of them.

Or prove that Luntz didn't write the memo to the Bush admin about questioning the scientific consensus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... matechange

Luntz certainly isn't denying the memo. In fact, he apparently became a believer himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to be less alarmist. Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the administration has done since that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.[6]

In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."[7]

Of course, if the administration couldn't get science on their side, they merely suppressed it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/p ... 005994.stm

The scientists claim that when Bush came to power in 2000 his administration selected advice which argued that global warming was not a result of human activities and that the phenomenon could be natural.

But one of the people who suggested the president adopt that position explains to Panorama how he has changed his point of view: "It's now 2006. I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place and that the behaviour of humans is affecting the climate. I am not the administration. What they want to do is their business. it has nothing to do with what I believe."

[Teal]

Not going to argue with an acolyte-there's no way it could be fruitful, and I'm not a fan of merry go rounds.

But...

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241

[Teal]

http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/20 ... l-warming/

[GameSeven]

So counter the facts, one by one, or don't, as GameSeven failed to list the "valid arguments" of the scientists opposing GW.

Don't bring me up in the context of failing to do *anything*. I ignored your request, there's a difference.

[XXXIV]

So counter the facts, one by one, or don't, as GameSeven failed to list the "valid arguments" of the scientists opposing GW.

Don't bring me up in the context of failing to do *anything*. I ignored your request, there's a difference.

I wouldnt worry about it. The next valid arguement the king of lies makes will be the first.

EDIT: There is a reason this "man" has never participated in any DSP event.
Look up the word disingenuous.
Hes just a f***in troll.

[wco81]

http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/20 ... l-warming/

http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent ... rming-bunk

And really, "office of the GOP ranking member?" Why does Senator Inhofe hide behind the title? His name apparently doesn't appear anywhere on the full report (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... nateReport) itself.

Could it be that he doesn't want his name closely linked to this report from his office because of the money he's gotten from the energy industry?

Then there's this hedging on the report itself:

The report's authors expect some of the scientists will recant their remarks
under intense pressure from the public and from within professional circles to
conform to the global-warming theory, a committee staffer said.

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listse ... 22465.html

Way to stick to your guns.

[wco81]

So counter the facts, one by one, or don't, as GameSeven failed to list the "valid arguments" of the scientists opposing GW.

Don't bring me up in the context of failing to do *anything*. I ignored your request, there's a difference.

Because you can't back up your "valid arguments" claim.

[Rodster]

Hes just a f***in troll.

If he were doing hit & runs and stirring the pot, then yeah guilty as charged. I've seen just the opposite. He's backing up what he believes to be factual with his facts. All he's asking for is people to do the same with their argument.

Now whether his facts are wrong is a whole different matter.

[XXXIV]

Hes just a f***in troll.

If he were doing hit & runs and stirring the pot, then yeah guilty as charged. I've seen just the opposite. He's backing up what he believes to be factual with his facts. All he's asking for is people to do the same with their argument.

Now whether his facts are wrong is a whole different matter.

yeah...yeah... well I hope the Dolphins win!

[Rodster]

Hes just a f***in troll.

If he were doing hit & runs and stirring the pot, then yeah guilty as charged. I've seen just the opposite. He's backing up what he believes to be factual with his facts. All he's asking for is people to do the same with their argument.

Now whether his facts are wrong is a whole different matter.

yeah...yeah... well I hope the Dolphins win!

OK I take it back he's a troll. I don't want the Rams jinx anywhere near my team.

[XXXIV]

If he were doing hit & runs and stirring the pot, then yeah guilty as charged. I've seen just the opposite. He's backing up what he believes to be factual with his facts. All he's asking for is people to do the same with their argument.

Now whether his facts are wrong is a whole different matter.

yeah...yeah... well I hope the Dolphins win!

OK I take it back he's a troll. I don't want the Rams jinx anywhere near my team.

Ty...Much better.

The Rams were no where near as good as their record

[bdoughty]

wco81 is many things, a troll is not one of them. Inanimate objects do not have the ability to show emotions and to troll would require them. Nobody ever believed me in the past that wco81 was a computer or software code but I have proof.

I want you to do a google search for wco81. DO NOT change to the suggested wco 81 (with space). You will see forum posts littered with replies. From Madden to Audis, to home theater to flying. Almost all of these with the same formatting that you see here. All with the same emotionally detached writing style.

sentence
(space)
sentence
(space)
sentence
(space)

I smell a highly advance computer bot whose owner has a passion for Madden and Audis. Sure he could be a human but where is the fun in that. This is MY scientific proof and I posted about it on the internet and can back it up with Google links aplenty. If it is good enough for environmental wackos, it is good enough for me.

[wco81]

It's obviously good enough for right-wing tards who can only resort to attacks when they can't hold up their end of the argument.

[Jared]

Teal,

1) Your digitaljournal link talks about a document that has supposedly been signed by 17,000+ scientists, called the Oregon Petition, which has been reported to have lots of serious problems, including most of the signatories aren't scientists. Scientific American also checked on a random sample, and found that of the 21 people they contacted, only 11 still agreed with the petition, and out of those 11, only 1 was an climatologist. There are lots of links on how this petition vastly overinflates the claims regarding scientists against man-made global warming hypotheses.

2) Your digitalartpress link is to a press release by a Senate studied commissioned by the GOP ranking member. Some of the members listed in the "400 prominent scientists" aren't scientists. And it's not really a scientific document...just a collection of a bunch of opinions.

I will say that there isn't complete unanimity about man-made global warming...there is a small minority that are against it. But they are well out-numbered by those that believe in it.

As for the latter stuff in the thread; listen, for the umpteeth time: I'm fine with discussion, I'm fine with expressing opinions, etc. Calling people trolls, inanimate objects, tards, etc. when they don't agree with you is not acceptable. I've been loose on the moderation lately, but will be glad to go back to quick locks and bans if necessary.

[Teal]

Teal,



I will say that there isn't complete unanimity about man-made global warming...there is a small minority that are against it. But they are well out-numbered by those that BELIEVE in it.

Believing in something requires faith, and that's all these people have. With enough faith, no matter how ridiculous the assertion, one can believe nearly anything, and take 'data' and make it look exactly like they want it to look. From religious nuts to so-called 'science', the "DATA" can always say what someone wants it to say, the Rawshack always looks like a butterfly to someone who has a thing for butterflies, and the scientific data can make someone believe that they came from monkeys, or that belching and campfires do damage to the planet, if that is what they WANT to believe.

But it all comes down to belief, plain and simple. It isn't objective, it's subjective. And it's conjecture and opinion. Nothing more. And insofar as BELIEFS go...I believe it's a bunch of hooey. Do I have some 'science' to back it up? I'm positive it's there, but I don't need it any more than the proponents of such nonsense do.

To show that it's a political thing, and not a scientific thing, name me one real, actual conservative who believes in this bullcrap, and one real, actual liberal who doesn't. Global Warming is a hoax, else they wouldn't have clandestinely changed the moniker to 'Climate Change' when it became quite obvious that 'Global Warming' just wouldn't hold water anymore. And the lemmings just let them change the name, and nary a suspicious thought entered their minds. Because there was a butterfly in the new Rawshack, too.

[Feanor]

The opinion of the IPCC that most of the temperature increase since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, is based on scientific evidence. You can disregard that evidence and rant and rave about faith & belief all you like, but you're not any more convincing than a Young Earth acolyte who refuses to accept the scientific evidence that the planet is more than 10,000 years old.

In other countries, global warming is accepted on the right and the left for the most part. The reason global warming has become so political is due to the American rightwing who choose not to accept it, no matter the evidence, because they don't like the policy implications of dealing with it.

[matthewk]

In other countries, global warming is accepted on the right and the left for the most part. The reason global warming has become so political is due to the American rightwing who choose not to accept it, no matter the evidence, because they don't like the policy implications of dealing with it.

[matthewk]

I found this article that summarizes my thoughts on the topic pretty well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... roved.html

[davet010]

Ah, yes - the Volkischer Beobachter.....probably the only newspaper to describe the day that Adolf Hitler committed suicide as a 'black day for civilisation'. Beloved paper of retired colonels, upper-class twits and those who thought that Margaret Thatcher was a slightly suspect 'pinko'.

Your choice of that particular organ says everything that needs to be said.

[Feanor]

Teal posted that link two pages ago, but it's still funny the second time to see the dear old Telegraph popping up.

And your BS meter is malfunctioning, probably from overexposure to the content of your posts this year, because 180 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and more than a few of them were governed by parties on the right of the political spectrum. It's not even controversial to say that the American rightwing's general position on global warming is heavily influenced by the policy implications of dealing with it, they're always hyping up the likely economic costs of dealing with climate change.

[fsquid]

The Kyoto accord is a perfect example of non-workable treaties. The US understood that on the front end, and therefore didn't sign (except symbolically). Meanwhile, many other countries are non-compliant.

[Feanor]

States that haven't ratified Kyoto:

Afghanistan
Andorra
Brunei
Chad
Iraq
Kazakhstan
Palestinian Authority
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
San Marino
Somalia
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Tajikista
United States
Vatican City
Zimbabwe

Quite a group.