# MIT professor: global warming is a religion



## daveman (Aug 30, 2013)

MIT professor: global warming is a religion
Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially meaningless claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding.  creating an Iron Triangle of poor incentives.

--

Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.

Global Warming has become a religion, writes Lindzen. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.

There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to ones life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal, he added.​


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 30, 2013)

There just some people in this world who are compelled to get behind a cause. It can be any cause but obstensibly, it provides meaning to these peoples lives. Its called the Politics of Reason. These are people who never mattered in their younger years. We all remember them in school......the oddballs......the misfits......the last persons picked for the team. Getting behind some "cause" becomes an obsession.


----------



## percysunshine (Aug 30, 2013)

In the old days, they were called Druids.


----------



## BobPlumb (Aug 30, 2013)

They tithe to Al Gore in by buying carbon credits.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2013)

MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Confronting the Climate Challenge

Science and Policy Working Together

Understanding the complex, long-term changes in our land, air and water requires breakthroughs in measurement, modeling and prediction.

Responding to these changes requires innovative policies that comprehend agriculture, energy needs, trade and finance &#8212; along with the political and communications savvy to organize a genuinely global approach.

The Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is MIT's response to these research, analysis, and public education challenges.

At the heart of much of the Program&#8217;s work lies MIT&#8217;s Integrated Global System Model (IGSM), a linked set of computer models designed to simulate the global environmental changes that arise as a result of human causes. In this way, it explores the interplay between the Earth systems and the human systems. More...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2013)

Richard Lindzen | DeSmogBlog

June, 1992

Lindzen is a signatory to the Heidelberg Appeal. The Heidelberg Appeal was created by the International Centre for Scientific Ecology, a public relations front group, during the 1992 UN World Summit. Eventually the document was endorsed by 4,000 scientists who declared that "we are worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology [man-made global warming] which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development." 

The document also says that "many essential human activities are carried out by manipulating hazardous substances, and that progress and development have always involved increasing control over hostile forces." 

Dr. Fred Singer and the International Centre for Scientific Ecology consented to the tobacco giant Philip Morris' use of the Heidelberg Appeal to draw support to its European branch of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)&#8212;TASSC Europe. 

TASSC was Philip Morris's front group initiated to question the science that showed the devastating effects of smoking on the human body.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2013)

The oceans ate my global warming!


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2013)

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch

On Tobacco

In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."[14] James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data." [15]


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2013)

Lindzen was and remains a whore for the energy corperations. Since the fasification of his 'Iris' hypothesis, he has little standing among real research scientists.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 30, 2013)

Thats 1 atmos physics prof from MIT who isnt buying it.

What I dont get is how this made it into  a MEDICAL Journal. 
Are physicians out of their  own opinions?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Richard Lindzen | DeSmogBlog
> 
> June, 1992
> 
> ...




As a character assassin          You suck..
It gets really old when you have to dig that deep to impeach speech, thoughts, and  facts.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 30, 2013)

We keep seeing shit like THIS >>>>>

Summer of 2013 among coolest on record in Alabama, continues cooling trend, climatologist says | al.com


every day.......which is why the science isn't mattering in 2013. Well.....actually, it matters to the climate crusaders, but nobody else.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Lindzen | DeSmogBlog
> ...



Lindzen is not as senile as Singer, but he is getting there.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 30, 2013)

Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism.  A SICK religion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism.  A SICK religion.



And you are simply and ignorant ass.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism.  A SICK religion.
> ...


I'm just crushed.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism.  A SICK religion.



I bet it's not as sick as yours.  No human sacrifice.  No cannibalism.  No treating women and children as chattel.  No eternal torment.

As has been said, Lindzen is a complete whore and a fool to boot.  So... what do you call someone who praises a foolish whore?  A John?  A Pimp?  Another fool?

Doesn't it ever bother you guys how many of your big names are complete idiots?


----------



## S.J. (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism.  A SICK religion.
> ...


I take it you're a global warming liberal.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

And you an ignorant ass.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 31, 2013)

Clearly, a majority of the population considers the global warming contingent rather a cult >>>>


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Clearly, a majority of the population considers the global warming contingent rather a cult



Clearly, you either cannot read or choose to simply make things up.


----------



## BobPlumb (Aug 31, 2013)

I'm currently working on a space ship capable of sending an infant to an alien world. Just before the Earth is destroyed by global warming I plan on sending my baby to the far away planet in hopes the baby will become a super hero.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> And you an ignorant ass.


I is?    That's pretty funny coming from somebody who can't put a sentence together.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism.  A SICK religion.
> ...



Yet, you and all your brethren cult members continue to post the Hockey Stick graph conjured up by the biggest fraud ever to appear on the AGW landscape, Michael Mann.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 31, 2013)

Careful, Bri. We know you cultists think it's okay to lie about reputable scientists by calling them frauds. There's no lie you all won't tell for the glory of you cult, since "The ends always justify the means for my cult" is your only guiding principle. Prior to now, there haven't been any repercussions to stop you from engaging in such despicable behavior.

Sadly for denialists, that era seems to be ending. The courts aren't part of the denialist liars' cult, so denialist conspiracy theories hold no sway with courts. Check out the latest happenings with the Mann libel case. This is from Aug. 30, where the second National Review motion-to-dismiss kind of thing is rejected.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mann-v-NR-Court-Order-2013-08-30.pdf
---
The Court clearly recognizes that some members involved in the climate-change discussions and debates employ harsh words. The NR Defendants are reputed to use this manner of speech; however there is a line between rhetorical hyperbole and defamation. In this case, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that something more than mere rhetorical hyperbole is, at least at this stage present. Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of words such as &#8220;whitewashed,&#8221; &#8220;intellectually bogus,&#8221; &#8220;ringmaster of the tree-ring circus&#8221; and &#8220;cover-up&#8221; amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. ...

The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that &#8220;actual malice&#8221; is present in the NR Defendants&#8217; conduct. ...
---

What are denialists going to do when they justifiably start getting sued for libel over and over? Since they lie about everything, they can't use truth as a defense. They'll be kind of screwed.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, a majority of the population considers the global warming contingent rather a cult
> ...




really s0n???


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Careful, Bri. We know you cultists think it's okay to lie about reputable scientists by calling them frauds. There's no lie you all won't tell for the glory of you cult, since "The ends always justify the means for my cult" is your only guiding principle. Prior to now, there haven't been any repercussions to stop you from engaging in such despicable behavior.
> 
> Sadly for denialists, that era seems to be ending. The courts aren't part of the denialist liars' cult, so denialist conspiracy theories hold no sway with courts. Check out the latest happenings with the Mann libel case. This is from Aug. 30, where the second National Review motion-to-dismiss kind of thing is rejected.
> 
> ...


Wow.  Mann's a sissy bedwetter, isn't he?  

And that IS the truth.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Careful, Bri. We know you cultists think it's okay to lie about reputable scientists by calling them frauds. There's no lie you all won't tell for the glory of you cult, since "The ends always justify the means for my cult" is your only guiding principle. Prior to now, there haven't been any repercussions to stop you from engaging in such despicable behavior.
> 
> Sadly for denialists, that era seems to be ending. The courts aren't part of the denialist liars' cult, so denialist conspiracy theories hold no sway with courts. Check out the latest happenings with the Mann libel case. This is from Aug. 30, where the second National Review motion-to-dismiss kind of thing is rejected.
> 
> ...



So the judge said Mann's critics used "harsh words?"  Oh boo hoo!  The poor boy!  

All the judge did is rule against the defendant's motion to dismiss the case.  What you fail to understand is that this lawsuit is the worst thing that could happen to Michael Mann.  You see, during a lawsuit the defendant has the right to obtain evidence from the plaintiff.  That means Mann will have to turn over all the "data" and all the files that he and the University of Pennsylvania have been trying so desperately to keep secret.  The defendants in this case couldn't be more eager for the case to proceed.

For Mann to win his case, he has to prove more than that the defendant's words were "harsh" and indicate "malice."  He has to show that they are categorically false.  That's a difficult row to hoe since even experts in Mann's own field have admitted that his Hockey Stick graph is bogus.

Let the Circus begin!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 1, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> What you fail to understand is that this lawsuit is the worst thing that could happen to Michael Mann.  You see, during a lawsuit the defendant has the right to obtain evidence from the plaintiff.  That means Mann will have to turn over all the "data" and all the files that he and the University of Pennsylvania have been trying so desperately to keep secret.  The defendants in this case couldn't be more eager for the case to proceed.



Not keeping up with current events, eh? You know, the fact that your heroes at the National Review also submitted a motion that the discovery phase be skipped. Mann's side argued otherwise, wanting all data on all sides open to discovery. Has the cult not informed its members of that? Apparently not. After all, it has to be embarrassing to the denialists, the way the smack-talkers at NR went so far as to use the WeWantDiscovery line as a fundraising ploy, and then flipflopped to begging for no discovery.

It's the way of the world. Denialist cockroaches thrive in their dark crevices, and run for cover when someone turns on the light. They do not want their behavior examined by a court, given how sleazy and dishonest that behavior is.


----------



## IanC (Sep 1, 2013)

daveman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Careful, Bri. We know you cultists think it's okay to lie about reputable scientists by calling them frauds. There's no lie you all won't tell for the glory of you cult, since "The ends always justify the means for my cult" is your only guiding principle. Prior to now, there haven't been any repercussions to stop you from engaging in such despicable behavior.
> ...



That is the truth. What pisses me off is that the climate science community hasn't publicly jumped on that megalomaniac's obvious errors and distortions. Eg. the notorious upsidedown Tiljander cores. Even when it was pointed out there was no public censure of their use. If a proxy is so meaningless that it can be used inverted and have significant impact on the findings, what is it doing in the study in the first place?


----------



## daveman (Sep 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


This simply proves that AGW is driven solely by agenda; science has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

None of us ever suggested that 100% of climate scientists accept AGW.  But what you 'denier' fellows have certainly done is to show that the 3% who do not, generally seem to have some significant competency issues.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> What pisses me off is that the climate science community hasn't publicly jumped on that megalomaniac's obvious errors and distortions.



Dr. Mann's team salivates at the thought of getting someone like McIntyre under oath and ripping them a new one. Even a dullard like McIntyre is smart enough to know that.

If the various cult-of-personality leaders of the denialists thought they were telling the truth, they'd all be charging over to volunteer as expert witnesses against Dr. Mann. It's their big chance to get in the limelight, to put their claims on record in a court of law, to prove Mann is a fraud. Instead, they're trampling each other in their rush to get far away from the case. Even the two co-defendents, NR and CEI, have adopted a legal strategy of "Toss the other guy under the bus and blame him for the libel".

That pretty much shows what's happening. Denialist leaders are aware that they're peddling crap, but at this point, they're in too deep to admit it. Not that it's dangerous, as cultists tend to stay loyal to the cult even after the leader is outed as a charlatan. It's more that people like McIntyre and Curry have gotten addicted to being worshiped.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > What pisses me off is that the climate science community hasn't publicly jumped on that megalomaniac's obvious errors and distortions.
> ...



Oh really?  What questions would they ask that he can't handle?  We're all dying to know.



mamooth said:


> If the various cult-of-personality leaders of the denialists thought they were telling the truth, they'd all be charging over to volunteer as expert witnesses against Dr. Mann. It's their big chance to get in the limelight, to put their claims on record in a court of law, to prove Mann is a fraud.



What "denialist cult-of-personality leaders?"  Mann is the one with the cult following.



mamooth said:


> Instead, they're trampling each other in their rush to get far away from the case.



Is that so?  I suppose you have some evidence to support this wild claim.



mamooth said:


> Even the two co-defendents, NR and CEI, have adopted a legal strategy of "Toss the other guy under the bus and blame him for the libel".



You've been spending too much time over at ThinkProgress and the DailyKOS.  You're starting to believe propaganda.



mamooth said:


> That pretty much shows what's happening.



What shows what's happening?  You haven't posted a thing aside from a series of totally unsubstantiated claims.



mamooth said:


> Denialist leaders are aware that they're peddling crap, but at this point, they're in too deep to admit it. Not that it's dangerous, as cultists tend to stay loyal to the cult even after the leader is outed as a charlatan. It's more that people like McIntyre and Curry have gotten addicted to being worshiped.



You have it precisely backwards from the facts.  The AGW cult members know they are peddling crap.  That's why they take their critics to court.  They are losing in the court of public opinion.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

Hahahahahahaaaaaa.  GOD! Patrick, you should be doing stand up!  Really!


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

S.J. said:


> I take it you're a global warming liberal.





Abraham3 said:


> And you an ignorant ass.





S.J. said:


> I is? That's pretty funny coming from somebody who can't put a sentence together.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism.  A SICK religion.
> ...



Oh there's human sacrifice all right... You can see it when enviro-dupes become "economic imperialists" and insist that developing regions follow their "sustainable" guidelines.. No consumption or electricity for you Mr. Native.. 

THERE'S your "treating women and children as chattel" mr holierthanthou...  

And CANNIBALISM?? The prescription for AGW is to dismantle and CONSUME the western industrialized way of life.. CANNIBALIZE it.. 

Dont' tell me you think it's fine if everyone in Botswana got a car to drive and a TV set. You're doing everything you can to see that doesn't happen..


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Hahahahahahaaaaaa.  GOD! Patrick, you should be doing stand up!  Really!



In other words, you haven't got diddly squat.


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 2, 2013)

daveman said:


> MIT professor: global warming is a religion
> 
> According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially meaningless claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and* politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. * creating an Iron Triangle of poor incentives.



Cool, can we cut funding now?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 2, 2013)

There is no energy alternative path forward more expensive than doing nothing.  None.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 2, 2013)

Fuck y'all.  I farm.  I know.  "Global warming is BS.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 2, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> Fuck y'all.  I farm.  I know.  "Global warming is BS.



Here's a compelling argument from one of the world's great scientific minds.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Sep 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck y'all.  I farm.  I know.  "Global warming is BS.
> ...



You're a "greatest scientific mind"?  I live in Alaska...go figure!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

gallantwarrior said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



I suspect that we in the lower 48 can only hope that you'll continue to migrate north as the ice melts.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Obviously you haven't been paying attention to what is happening to the ice up north in spite of rising CO2 and decades worth of predictions from AGW crazies..


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck y'all.  I farm.  I know.  "Global warming is BS.
> ...



The truth is precisely the opposite.  Every path that involves government doing something is far more expensive than doing nothing.  Government doing nothing is almost always the most desirable decision because government fucks up everything it touches.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 3, 2013)

Bri, do you ever get tired of being a delusional political cultist?

Don't answer that. We know you don't get tired of it. Just as we don't get tired of pointing and laughing.

Speaking of laughing, here's NR trying to toss CEI under the bus in the Mann case. "It wasn't us doing the libel! It was them!".

Mann v. National Review - Reconsideration Motion
---
Specifically, the Order conflates the conduct of co-defendant Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with that of National Review and Steyn, who never petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate Plaintiff or otherwise pressured the agency concerning Plaintiffs research. Similarly, National Review and Steyn did not criticize Plaintiffs scientific research for years, as CEI did 
---

More popcorn, please.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 3, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Bri, do you ever get tired of being a delusional political cultist?
> 
> Don't answer that. We know you don't get tired of it. Just as we don't get tired of pointing and laughing.
> 
> ...



Your characterization of the motion is, of course, complete and total bullshit. All they are doing is pointing out that the judge's ruling is based on "material mistakes of fact."  A ruling based on false claim is an invalid ruling.  The job of lawyers is to point out mistakes in the case against their client.

Lurkers should be aware of the fact that the original judge in this case, the one who made the ruling being disputed, was removed from the case for displaying obvious bias.  As a consequence, Steyn's lawyers have resubmitted their motion for summary dismissal to the new judge.  

The document referenced is an explanation of the reason the decision of the previous judge was bogus.  It's an interesting document.  I recommend that everyone read it.  It makes it clear that the original judge is an incompetent hack.

The fact that Mann is suing Steyn only shows what a two-bit hack he is.  Steyn and National review pointed out the obvious fact that Mann is a worthless fraud.  Mann doesn't have the truth on his side so all he can do is press this bogus lawsuit.  That isn't how real scientists behave.  That's how hacks behave.

Mann doesn't have a chance in hell of winning this lawsuit.  For one thing, he's up against the anti-SLAPP act that imposes a high burden for libel suits initiated by public figures against the press.  The case should have been thrown out by the original judge, but wasn't only because she's a partisan hack.

I'll make you a bet, mamooth: if Mann wins his suit, I leave the forum forever.  If he loses, you leave the forum forever.  Then we'll see who's "delusional."

Whadda ya say?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Easy to see why your scalp is on Rush's belt. I'll bet he didn't break out in a sweat for that one.

Doing nothing would eventually spell the end of the civilization that liberals have built, and the re-institution of the primative society that conservatives crave and have been dragged out of by liberal progress.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 3, 2013)

I think it's amusing there are people out there who still believe in this bullshit.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I think it's amusing there are people out there who still believe in this bullshit.



You mean progress or science?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I think it's amusing there are people out there who still believe in this bullshit.



I think it's amusing that there are people as ignorant, clueless and retarded as you obviously are. You were easy meat for the brainwashing.


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 3, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> The truth is precisely the opposite.  Every path that involves government doing something is far more expensive than doing nothing.  Government doing nothing is almost always the most desirable decision because government fucks up everything it touches.



You will enjoy this then. From the recently late Nobel Prize Economist Ronald Coase;

an important reason may be that government at the present time is so large that it has reached the stage of negative marginal productivity, which means that any additional function it takes on will probably result in more harm than good. If a federal program were established to give financial assistance to Boy Scouts to enable them to help old ladies cross busy intersections, we could be sure that not all the money would go to Boy Scouts, that some of those they helped would be neither old nor ladies, that part of the program would be devoted to preventing old ladies from crossing busy intersections, and that many of them would be killed because they would now cross at places where, unsupervised, they were at least permitted to cross.



http://www.insideronline.org/archives/2006/summer/chap1.pdf


----------



## GWV5903 (Sep 3, 2013)

Hey, this big ass rock is going to melt because man discovered fossil fuels and we can't walk anywhere because we are fat and lazy, Al Gore said so, FACT...


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 3, 2013)

daveman said:


> MIT professor: global warming is a religion
> Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.​



It is hilarious, davedumb, that you accept as gospel the words of an oddball scientist who has financial ties to the fossil fuel industry because he tells you what you want to hear but you will reject the testimony of hundreds or thousands of reputable scientists who warn us about the dangers of AGW.

So...on the one hand - Lindzen and his drivel...

And on the other hand....for one example....255 prominent scientists, members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Laureates....

*CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE*

*Lead Letter Published in Science magazine, May 7, 2010 From 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences:

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well- established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences*


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's amusing there are people out there who still believe in this bullshit.
> ...



[ame=http://youtu.be/QqreRufrkxM]Python No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 3, 2013)

Ahhh, NAS letter from May, 2010.. 

What was happening back in early 2010 ??? Hmmmmm.. 
OH YEAH !!! THose emails from Univ. of E. Anglia and Mann CRU.. 

I'd say they needed to stop the bleeding and regroup.. THat's a Public Relations damage control statement TinkerBelle --- not a science statement.. 

And Tink -- last time I checked --- there were over 2000 NAS members.. They could only get 250 signatures?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism.  A SICK religion.
> ...



And you are an acolyte of a cultish religion.  Personally, I would rather be an ass....at least being an ass is a respectable pastime.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Funny, warmers claiming they don't sacrifice humans.  There are more bodies heaped up on the altar of radical environmentalism from such things as increased energy taxes, blocking hydroelectric plants in third world countries, banning DDT, and CAFE standards than from all the wars of history.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> I'll make you a bet, mamooth: if Mann wins his suit, I leave the forum forever.  If he loses, you leave the forum forever.  Then we'll see who's "delusional."
> 
> Whadda ya say?



I can't help but notice that she didn't take your bet.  Money talks, bullshit walks.

She appears to lack the courage of her convictions.


----------



## daveman (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Speaking of liberal progress, how's the War on Poverty going?


----------



## daveman (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's amusing there are people out there who still believe in this bullshit.
> ...


It's interesting you believe there's a dichotomy between progress and science.

And when it's progressive "science", there IS a dichotomy.


----------



## daveman (Sep 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MIT professor: global warming is a religion
> ...



*Bzzzzzt!! * Wrong answer, Skippy.

I'm not taking anyone's word as gospel.  You simply don't know how science is supposed to work.

NORMAL SCIENCE
Normal Scientist A:  We believe _____ is happening, and here is our data and research that led us to this conclusion.

Normal Scientist B:  I see a flaw.  Your data are incomplete, and your models are inaccurate.

Normal Scientist A:  Okay, we'll check that out and revise as necessary.  Thanks.


CLIMATE SCIENCE
Climate Scientist A:  We believe _____ is happening, and here is our data and research that led us to this conclusion.

Normal Scientist B:  I see a flaw.  Your data are incomplete, and your models are inaccurate.

Climate Scientist A:  Shut up!  All the other climate scientists agree with me,  so SHUT UP and support our political agenda!

Inarguably, this is what climate science does.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 4, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Lindzen was and remains a whore for the energy corperations. Since the fasification of his 'Iris' hypothesis, he has little standing among real research scientists.



We get it, he is an infidel to climate zealots like yourself.


----------



## editec (Sep 4, 2013)

BobPlumb said:


> They tithe to Al Gore in by buying carbon credits.



Tell ya one thing...regardless of where yoy stand on the issue of GLOBAL WARMING the CARBON CREDIT SYSTEM is a truly EVIL system.

That system alone can generate enough wealth to explain why a GLOBAL WARMING myth would have been invented.

I am NOT saying that is what is happening, but the CARBON CREDIT system is pure fucking EVIL.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

We've been waiting for years for deniers to come up with some science, any science, that explains how the earth can react to higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs other than warming. 

Nothing. Zero. Nada. 

They are a political backwater, now obsolete in the world, with nothing to offer anyone but what they wish was true. 

Do nothing dreamers. They've even flushed the little political power that they once had away by acting like jerks. 

So, whenever you meet a denier, encourage him or her to continue the approach of being nothing but opinionated.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

editec said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > They tithe to Al Gore in by buying carbon credits.
> ...



Speaking of opinionated. Notice the complete absence of anything but, this is what I wish was true and I want to impose my opinion on every one else. Learned at the knee of the great moron, Rushbo.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

We the people of the world, together, own the oceans, ice and atmosphere and some of the land. The land that individuals own, is theirs to manage. The rest is ours to manage.

The idea of a carbon tax is to actively manage what's ours. We should charge the corporations who make money dumping their waste in what we own, and use the money to fund the development of, and promote the use of, technologies that are benign rather than costly in terms of the consequences of their waste.

What could possibly make more sense than that?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




CLIMATE SCIENCE
Climate Scientist A:  We believe _____ is happening, and here is our data and research that led us to this conclusion.

Normal Conservative politician:  I see a flaw.  Your data are incomplete, and your models are inaccurate. We prefer our own truth, that's less expensive, so, without any data or models, we will merely impose our beliefs on others.

Climate Scientist A:  All the other climate scientists agree with me. The IPCC has the responsibility to advise politicians of the science determined and determinable, behind AGW. That we have done and continue to do. If your politics of doing nothing can't be sold in the political arena, don't expect that we can or would even consider lying about the science to support you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 4, 2013)

daveman said:


> Inarguably, this is what climate science does.



You fail your own argument.


----------



## daveman (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We've been waiting for years for deniers to come up with some science, any science, that explains how the earth can react to higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs other than warming.
> 
> Nothing. Zero. Nada.
> 
> ...


Oh, look -- yet another progressive who doesn't know how science is supposed to work.


----------



## daveman (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


But you're already lying about the science.


----------



## daveman (Sep 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Inarguably, this is what climate science does.
> ...



And Abraham chimes in with a resounding "Nuh-UH, you big doodyhead!!"


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 4, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



When, without justification you characterize a position as "inarguable", you have at least attempted to end any examination by the parties involved to ascertain the validity of your claim.  I quite firmly believe your position is grade A bullshit and that I could argue against  it successfully without breaking a sweat; so your attempt is a failure, but if you're going to stand up for open debate you'd best practice what you preach.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 4, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We've been waiting for years for deniers to come up with some science, any science, that explains how the earth can react to higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs other than warming.
> ...



Davedumb is a good example of the ignorant rightwingnuts who, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, imagine that they "_know how science is supposed to work_" better than all of the actual working scientists in the world.

*Dunning-Kruger Effect*
Psychology Today
by Daniel R. Hawes
June 6, 2010
(excerpts)
*The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias in which people perform poorly on a task, but lack the meta-cognitive capacity to properly evaluate their performance. As a result, such people remain unaware of their incompetence and accordingly fail to take any self-improvement measures that might rid them of their incompetence.

Dunning and Kruger often refer to a "double curse" when interpreting their findings: People fail to grasp their own incompetence, precisely because they are so incompetent. And since, overcoming their incompetence would first require the ability to distinguish competence from incompetence, people get stuck in a vicious cycle.

"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."​*


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We've been waiting for years for deniers to come up with some science, any science, that explains how the earth can react to higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs other than warming.
> ...



If I ever needed a science advisor I wouldn't choose a little boy who apparently hasn't left the cowboy fantasy behind yet.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



That's what you wish was true. It's not. Man up and stop your whining.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 5, 2013)

Who cares......climate science is an internet hobby in 2013.......nothing more. Having zero impact on public policy which is what you get when you fuck around with the data.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Yo, Skooker, no one cares what you think.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Yo, Skooker, no one cares what you think.





Well....perhaps s0n....perhaps!!! But my presence in here is all about bringing it back to real. The theory behind climate science is just that: theory. In the meantime, I continue to highlight that fact in an effort to keep everybody's electricity bills from increasing 100% if the climate nutters had their way via jackass schemes like Crap and Tax. I continue to paint a bleak picture for the k00ks in here.......and have a hoot doing it too!


s0n......stick to the study of giants. People might pay attention!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 5, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Yo, Skooker, no one cares what you think.
> ...



Actually kookles, your presence here is all about you being a retarded troll. Something that you're unfortunately far too retarded to be able to comprehend. Your fantasy world is pathetic and boring, as are you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Yo, Skooker, no one cares what you think.
> ...



Revealing your lack of science understanding subtracts from your credibility.  The reason that those engineers and investors who are actually creating our energy future also understand that your side has no credibility or relevance is that you have in total,  as well as individually,  exposed the world to the fact that you just can't grasp the big picture. 

Fine.  You don't need to. You aren't in any way part of the solution.  

We'll take it from here.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

People think of Dunning-Krugar as a psychological study,  which,  of course,  it was.  

People tend not to think of it as the business plan of extreme conservative entertainers,  which,  of course,  it also is.  

It identifies a group as easy to manipulate as we come.  Vulnerable people whose scalps can be handed over to sponsors and advertisers as easily as lambs to slaughter,  with merely constant ego stroking reinforcing that knowing little is the new knowing a lot.  

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N0R-HOA46ys&desktop_uri=/watch?v=N0R-HOA46ys


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 5, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Yo, Skooker, no one cares what you think.
> ...



Did you hear something?  Naah, just the house settling.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People think of Dunning-Krugar as a psychological study,  which,  of course, it was.



This piece, _The Authoritarians_, is by a psychology professor didn't just talk and theorize, he ran the experiments. It focuses on authoritarian followers, not authoritarian leaders. A long read, you'll have to skim a lot, but I think it's worth it.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

One thing he found about Right Wing Authoritarians (RWAs) was that if they agreed with a conclusion, they always declared the logic behind it was correct, even if the logic was absurd. Those of a more liberal bent would consistently identify the incorrect logic.

Since most denialists are RWAs, that piece confirms what we see in the threads here.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Interesting lecture.  Funny how it apparently doesn't apply to you, isn't it?

My claim is inarguable because I, and many others, have witnessed it firsthand.  And you're one of those guilty.  You seek to silence dissent, and maintain your view is the only one possible, so discussion is irrelevant.  You immediately dismiss any counter arguments without consideration.

My claim is valid, and it is inarguable.  Your refusal to accept it is immaterial.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You're as good at internet psychology as you are at climate science.

But your statement is interesting, because you seem to be claiming that ALL THE ACTUAL WORKING SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD support AGW.

I can show you that's patently false.  Would you care to retract?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Informed descent is good.  Uninformed is a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Who would you choose?  Some moron who thinks science works like a middle-school popularity contest?


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Pointing out lies is not whining.  Claiming that it is -- IS whining.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Like all other fields there are both good and bad scientists.  And there are climate scientists and many other fields.  And there are those who disagree about one detail and those who maybe disagree about two or three details.  And there are those with personal agendas independent of the truth.  What there aren't are any significant number of legitimate good objective climate scientists who disagree with the fundamental reality of AGW. 

However there are any number of politicians who don't find climate reality suitable for their personal agendas.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People think of Dunning-Krugar as a psychological study,  which,  of course,  it was.
> 
> People tend not to think of it as the business plan of extreme conservative entertainers,  which,  of course,  it also is.
> 
> ...



Speaking of knowing little:

"The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." --Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

"We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." Cincinnati, OH, Sept. 22, 2011


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

mamooth said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > People think of Dunning-Krugar as a psychological study,  which,  of course, it was.
> ...


Looks like more bad liberal science that started with the conclusion.

You guys sure are suckers for that, aren't you?  

But you ought to read it.  He's talking about people like Obama, and his followers like you:



> Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian
> leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too
> much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do
> whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and
> ...


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


"Informed descent"?  Is that knowing when to get off the down elevator?  

Tell me:  Who's more likely to be informed -- someone who declares the matter settled with no need for further discussion, or someone who's examined both sides carefully?


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Kind of stacking the deck, aren't you?

"The only good scientists agree withe me.  The rest are _baaaad_ scientists."


----------



## mamooth (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> Looks like more bad liberal science that started with the conclusion.



Double blind studies start with a conclusion?



> You guys sure are suckers for that, aren't you?



Another quality of right wing authoritarian followers is the way they declare any dissenting data is fraudulent. It's the only way they can maintain the integrity of the delusion-bubble.

Remember Dave, you can't join the reason-based community until you embrace reason. That means you need to become skeptical, like the liberals, instead of doing your thing of blindly accepting or rejecting evidence based purely on the politics of it.

Oh, you also have to stop making shit up. Lying about what liberals supposedly think doesn't make us hypocrites, it just makes you a whiny pissant liar. And yes, we know the cult hands out brownie points for that. Try to resist. Isn't your integrity worth more than a little extra status in your cult?


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like more bad liberal science that started with the conclusion.
> ...


Seriously?  You REALLY don't see that among you and the rest of the AGW cult?  

Let someone post something from Watt's Up With That.  That's EXACTLY what you guys do.

There can be no denial of that.


mamooth said:


> Remember Dave, you can't join the reason-based community until you embrace reason. That means you need to become skeptical, like the liberals, instead of doing your thing of blindly accepting or rejecting evidence based purely on the politics of it.


Oh, I get it.  This is Opposite Day, right?  

What you accuse conservatives of doing, is exactly what liberals do.


mamooth said:


> Oh, you also have to stop making shit up. Lying about what liberals supposedly think doesn't make us hypocrites, it just makes you a whiny pissant liar. And yes, we know the cult hands out brownie points for that. Try to resist. Isn't your integrity worth more than a little extra status in your cult?


More projection.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Why would any scientist who doesn't believe in science be called anything but a baaaaaad scientist?


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You're confusing climate science and good science.

The two are not the same.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



"Tell me: Who's more likely to be informed -- someone who declares the matter settled with no need for further discussion, or someone who's examined both sides carefully?"

The vast majority of science is settled. It's not open to further discussion by people who never acquired the education to understand it. It is open to further discussion by people equipped to make it more certain or to expand it to other scales and realms. 

This idea that science is defined by those least capable of understanding it is bullshit.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



They are exactly the same. Your ability to understand that is irrelevant.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> Let someone post something from Watt's Up With That.  That's EXACTLY what you guys do.



Er, no. We point out why the science of it sucks, or just how Anthony Watts lied his ass off. 

In contrast, all you can do about the good science is scream "FRAUD!" over and over. 

You also fall for every scam that comes along, like with that phony story about bird deaths from wind turbines.

Us? We don't get caught by the scams. That's because, being skeptics, we actually check stories out, instead of simply believing because we want it to be true. Most of us really wish global warming wasn't a problem, but we also know that wishing won't make it happen. That how the reality-based community works.

Plus, we don't constantly make shit up.

And we actually understand the science.

So that's how we know you're the cultist, and we're not. You're like a flat-earther, trying to prove the round-earthers are the real cultists. At this stage, repetition just ain't gonna do it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"But you ought to read it. He's talking about people like Obama, and his followers like you:"

We, the people, elected President Obama to our leadership position. People like Rush selected you, based on your inability to discriminate, to follow him. His Dunning Kruger business plan. You haven't had an independent thought since.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The Warmist cult members define a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true.  By definition, he's in the can for a predetermined outcome.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



ANyone who yammers incessantly that AGW is true because the "consensus" says it's true obviously doesn't know the difference between climate "science" and real science.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You admit, then, you're less informed, because you do not listen to conflicting views.

Meanwhile, please detail for us your education to understand climate science, and what equips you to make it more certain or to expand it to other scales and realms. 

And no, "Because I'm a liberal!!" is not admissible.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your problem is that I DO understand the scientific method.

Climate science doesn't follow the scientific method.  It follows the political method:  Establish your conclusion, then find/cherrypick/alter data to support the conclusion, ignore/suppress conflicting data.  Then gullible suckers will flock to support you.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Let someone post something from Watt's Up With That.  That's EXACTLY what you guys do.
> ...


Are you being paid to do this?


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You know the only talk radio I listen to, PMS?

NPR.  

You fail.  Yet again, you fail.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You're the one who defined "a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true."

We define a "climate scientist" as someone getting money from the government because AGW is proven. Why would anyone hire a scientist who didn't believe in science?


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 5, 2013)

Global Warming Denial is a religion.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




Anyone who thinks AGW is proven doesn't know the first thing about science.

You're engaging in circular logic and you can't even see it.  However, that is typical of warmist cult members.  They are immune to logic.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



All science that is real is held as real by a majority of scientists.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So there weren't any real geologists in 1965 when they all believed the continents were stationary?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Politics is liberal and conservative and middle of the road and extremist. 

Science is just real. Politicians appointed the leading climate scientists in the world to the IPCC to provide the most advanced science available to be input to the political process. 

That's all that you and I need to know. An amateur scientist working without resources is not going to guess at something that is more certain or insightful to the problem. Not going to happen. 

So my education is of no concern. There is nothing known to climate science that came from me. Or you. 

But, thinking that either you or I will accidentally stumble on to something before the IPCC considers and either proves or disproves it is bizarre in the extreme.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Again, all that you know are the politics issued to you by those who take advantage of Dunning Kruger victims for profit. The science is the science no thanks to you. Argue the politics all day if that floats your boat but you have zero qualifications to add to the science (as you've made perfectly clear here).


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Dumb comment of the evening. 

Science discovers truth not invents it. Continents don't behave as science says they do. Continents behave as natural forces requires them to.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Then I'm curious why you denigrate my own education, when yours is immaterial?  Are you looking to prop up your false sense of superiority?


PMZ said:


> But, thinking that either you or I will accidentally stumble on to something before the IPCC considers and either proves or disproves it is bizarre in the extreme.


You (intentionally) misunderstand my purpose.

I've never claimed to be a scientist.  Never.  

But what I do in the Enviro forum is to present science that conflicts with the supposed "settled" science of AGW.  I present science by scientists...and since it does conflict with AGW, your side routinely dismisses it due to the source, or the scientist, or with strawmen -- anything but honestly and openly consider it.

No, the Climate Scientists (Peace Be Upon Them) have spoken, and "[t]hat's all that you and I need to know".  

You take their word for it, unthinkingly and unquestioningly -- and get angry when I refuse to join you in mindless acceptance.  

THAT'S why you're uninformed.  You CHOOSE to be.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



"Anyone who thinks AGW is proven doesn't know the first thing about science"

Let's see. The largest organization staffed and equipped to advance climate knowledge in the world says it is proven. 

An individual with a GED at best guesses that they're wrong because it conflicts with his political entertainer instilled belief that mankind is entitled to cheap energy. 

Gee, that's a tough choice.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I see a little cowboy whining that his Dunning Kruger support group on the news entertainment media has instructed him to advertise for big oil. 

I must have missed the post where you wrote something scientific. Can you repeat it?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



And Fox News.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Someone who admits he unquestioningly believes what AGW scientists tell him is in no position to lecture others about issued views.


PMZ said:


> The science is the science no thanks to you.


No.  Thanks to me, and others like me, science will retain its integrity, untainted by politics masquerading as science.


PMZ said:


> Argue the politics all day if that floats your boat but you have zero qualifications to add to the science (as you've made perfectly clear here).


And you have zero qualifications to add to the science, as you've admitted.  Mindless cheerleading may make you feel important, but the rest of us are unimpressed.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Nope.  I don't watch ANY television news.  I do like the BBC News Hour on NPR, though.

I'll bet you simply can't comprehend this.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Science never lost its integrity. Politics did. You're a victim of it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You're right. I can't. You're the first non Fox News watcher that I've met that mirrors exactly what they teach, coincidently.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I see a little cowboy whining that his Dunning Kruger support group on the news entertainment media has instructed him to advertise for big oil.


I see a stuffed shirt pretending he's important because he can regurgitate the talking points programmed into him by his socialist masters.  

One of us is right.  Hint:  It isn't you.


PMZ said:


> I must have missed the post where you wrote something scientific. Can you repeat it?


What are you, stupid?  I just said I've never claimed to be a scientist.  I post the work of scientists.

That you refuse to accept it says nothing about them -- it says reams about you and your closed-mindedness.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I have absolutely no desire to impress you. In fact, if I thought that I was impressing any extreme conservative, I'd immediately launch an intense personal self investigation into my humanity.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I see a little cowboy whining that his Dunning Kruger support group on the news entertainment media has instructed him to advertise for big oil.
> ...



As I said, I personally have never seen a post from you that involved anyone's science.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


The AGW cult certainly would like me to be:
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. *But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.* Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. *One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore*, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​This from the IPCC whom you hold in such high regard.

There can be no doubt:  Climate science has lost its integrity.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I'm sure it comforts you to pretend that, but no.  

Conversely, you're indistinguishable from every other faux-superior AGW cultist I've ever run across.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


And that's a big problem you have:  To launch your bid for world socialism (which as I've just proved, climate science is all about), _you need the support of conservatives like me._  You're never going to get what you want without us.

And frankly, given what you've admitted here already, and that you're not the least bit ashamed of it, I don't believe you're capable of an intense personal self-investigation into your humanity.

You're a mindless robot, and you're PROUD of it.

Pathetic.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


So, you're ignorant and closed-minded -- and it's MY fault.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> To launch your bid for world socialism (which as I've just proved, climate science is all about),



There's your admission to being a political cultist. Like we've been saying all along. Thanks for confirming it, thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Those who can talk about the science, do. Those who can't, they babble about the vast global socialist conspiracy.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > To launch your bid for world socialism (which as I've just proved, climate science is all about),
> ...


I guess you purposefully overlooked who said that.  You know, the IPCC?  High priests of the AGW Cult?

But then, AGW cultists have to purposefully overlook a LOT.  Don't you?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 5, 2013)

One guy said that. If someone was a rather shameless liar, they could claim one guy represents the entire IPCC and the entire environmental movement.

But then, if it pushes the agenda of your political cult, there's no lie too shameless for you to tell. The only moral principle you have left is "The ends always justify the means for my side".

That's another reason why you hate us, obviously. Moral relativists usually hate moral absolutists, because we make you moral relativists look so bad. The shining light of our moral absolutism seems to cause physical pain to the relativists, like sunlight burning a vampire.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

mamooth said:


> One guy said that. If someone was a rather shameless liar, they could claim one guy represents the entire IPCC and the entire environmental movement.


So...a member of an academic society who states that AGW is real and a danger to us all is speaking the truth, but a member of an NGO charged with investigating AGW who states that it's all about world socialism is lying.

That about cover it?


mamooth said:


> But then, if it pushes the agenda of your political cult, there's no lie too shameless for you to tell. The only moral principle you have left is "The ends always justify the means for my side".


Yep, that's the way it works for the AGW cult, all right.  No question.


mamooth said:


> That's another reason why you hate us, obviously. Moral relativists usually hate moral absolutists, because we make you moral relativists look so bad. The shining light of our moral absolutism seems to cause physical pain to the relativists, like sunlight burning a vampire.




Good Gaea's gargantuan gazongas, I don't hate you -- and certainly not for any non-existent moral absolutism you allegedly possess.  

We disagree with you.  And that's why _you_ hate _us_.

Honestly, are you getting paid to do this?  Because NO ONE could so perfectly summarize the failings of his own side and project them onto the other with a straight face.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 5, 2013)

daveman said:


> So...a member of an academic society who states that AGW is real and a danger to us all is speaking the truth, but a member of an NGO charged with investigating AGW who states that it's all about world socialism is lying.



I'm guessing that made some kind of sense to you and your voices. To anyone else, not so much. You're going off the rails, and you can't see it. Your sanity graveyard spiral has begun. It's just a matter of time now.

Anyways, as you plunge downwards, we can humor you. No, you're not a cultist. Yes, you're right, it's actually the rest of planet earth which is the cult. You and that handful of extremist right wing fringe political junkies are actually the only honest people left on the globe. You've convinced everyone, by golly. That's why they all smiled and walked away, because they were so impressed.


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > So...a member of an academic society who states that AGW is real and a danger to us all is speaking the truth, but a member of an NGO charged with investigating AGW who states that it's all about world socialism is lying.
> ...


Yawn.  It makes sense because it makes sense.  Your inability to comprehend it is your failure, not mine.

What is it with progressives?  You all seem to think you're better, smarter, faster than everyone else...yet the basis for that belief seems to be nothing more than "I'm a progressive!!"

Is the unmerited arrogance a result of accepting progressive doctrine, or do arrogant people with no accomplishments to justify it naturally gravitate to progressivism?

To put it in terms you can understand:

Which came first:  The horse, or the horse's ass?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 6, 2013)

daveman said:


> You all seem to think you're better, smarter, faster than everyone else...



Not everyone. Just you. Anyone who speaks with you develops a superiority complex.

When you act like a 'tard, people correctly point out that they really are smarter than you.  Don't expect us to be all PC and considerate of your tender feewings. You're a 'tard cultist, hence we tell you so. 

Wait ... has no one actually broken the news to you before, that you're a 'tard? Why is it always up to me to stage these interventions?



> yet the basis for that belief seems to be nothing more than "I'm a progressive!!"



If you can't argue with what a liberal actually says, why not be honest and say so? Lying  about what the liberals supposedly believe makes you look even worse. People then don't just think you're a 'tard, they think you're a dishonest 'tard.


----------



## daveman (Sep 6, 2013)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You all seem to think you're better, smarter, faster than everyone else...
> ...



See, that's the issue:  I DO argue with what a liberal says -- but then the liberal lies about what I say and projects his own failings upon me.

You simply cannot counter what I say.  You never have -- because you can't.  So you concoct this elaborate fantasy.  I'm sure it's compelling in your own mind, but out here in the real world, it's really rather creepy.  If we were neighbors, I'd install a security system.  

Because you're at least partially insane.

Meanwhile, I'll let you have the last word.  I know how important it is to your fragile ego to be able to claim victory (like you've been doing all night).

You're welcome.

Nutcase.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 6, 2013)

daveman said:


> See, that's the issue:  I DO argue with what a liberal says -- but then the liberal lies about what I say and projects his own failings upon me.



And conveniently for you, the dirty liberal is _always_ lying. You seem to use your telepathic powers to inform the liberal of what he really believes (as opposed to what he says), hence the reason you know the dirty liberal is lying.

That's because you're crazy, stupid, and obsessed. Someone not crazy would understand that if everyone he talks to is somehow lying, the problem might be with himself. You don't see me screaming that every conservative I speak to is lying.



> You simply cannot counter what I say.



Bullshit. Just from today there's your birdkill crap debunked, your fudgefactor crap debunked, your socialist conspiracy debunked. Those weren't differences of opinions, that was me pointing out you were full of shit.

And since you're a cultist, it won't matter. You'll be swearing that wind turbines are slaughtering the whooping cranes, because that's what your cult source claims, even though there's zero evidence for such a thing. You can't ever admit that any source burned you, because you then might have to question all of your cult's sources, and the whole thing might tumble down. And then how would you hate the dirty liberals who always lie to you?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Humanity does not need media conservatives for anything. We expect nothing from you. We get nothing from you. The delusion that you are politically influential is a dream left over from the last decade that you killed with a display of political incompetence never rivaled. You are merely irrelevant. 

Dreamers and doers own the future. Whinners, the past. Lots of luck with that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2013)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > See, that's the issue:  I DO argue with what a liberal says -- but then the liberal lies about what I say and projects his own failings upon me.
> ...



See --- now there's the denial in the face of truth that is the HALLMARK of a true cultist... 

1) We've explained to you it's NOT about whooping cranes, or songbirds being eaten by cats. THat it's about territorial birds of prey and protected species who will be anniliated from habitat ranges by the attrition of wind kills. 

2) We've shown you arrogant hypocrisy of govt protection for wind operators when other energy companies get aggresively prosecuted for the same offenses. Special "govt black ops" carcass baggers arriving to remove the evidence at wind farms.. 

3) We've shown you a kill of a rare Kite sighting at a wind turbine in front of dozens of avid bird watchers who traveled 100s of miles just to SEE this bird while it was alive. 

4) And extended the statistics of this carnage to project the damage despite false claims that LARGER wind turbines are less of a problem.. 

And YET --- you ECO-FRAUDS claim that you've debunked us... This behaviour is WHY you are losing. Because it's so obviously devious and sociopathic... You THINK you're winning.
You are not... Because you lie and decieve and spin in order to get your way.. 

Tomorrow when MORE EVIDENCE arrives --- you will ignore it.. That's the life of religious zealot who belongs to a devious dangerous cult...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



How many birds would you sacrifice to draught and flood and habitat change to save the few rumored to be killed by wind wind energy machines? How many humans?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Massive adoption of wind turbines will NOT do a thing for draught (sic sp..) or flood or habitat change. In fact --- it's NOT an alternate energy source.. It's a SUPPLEMENTAL energy source that must be FULLY BACKED by some RELIABLE source of power..


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Building power plants does not create the consequences of AGW. Burning fossil fuel in them does. The less fuel burned, the less expensive will be the consequences. Every watt from a sustainable source is another watt free from the cost of fuel, and free from the cost of AGW consequences due to waste disposal.

Simple economics, as well as science, seems to be elusive to conservative "thinking".


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm sure you'll jump to invest in that new Nat Gas plant that has to dump it's energy to ground everytime the wind blows.. And you'll happily pay the FULL STAFF to operate and maintain it 24 hours a day even tho it's forced to cycle down for 20 minutes every 2nd hour when the wind blows.. 

By any logical fashion -- fuel is being wasted doing that --- wind OUGHT to be charged for the inefficiencies but never will --- and maintenance costs go UP due to thermal cycling of the plant. Lifetime goes down... 

What a great deal eh PMZ??? Pony up pardner.... 
Put your money where your mouth is ---- granny always said.. 
What's elusive to leftist thinking seems to be logic and reason, engineering, and basic economics.... Pretty much cover it..


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I've never met anyone with less problem solving imagination than you.  You're clearly of the mindset that all of the problems that can be solved,  have been solved.  

Just another good reason for your irrelevance. You are in no way equipped to contribute.  

If you were given responsibility,  on the day that the fossil fuels were all gone,  and the planet was as inhospitable to life as it once was,  you'd still be on your ass saying there are no solutions because you couldn't think of any.  

It's a good thing that people like you are such a minority.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Oh pleeeeeze...  Thought YOU had all the answers here.. I'm gonna go take a nap.. Tired of solving problems for unappreciative luddites like you.. Go build your own DNA replicator... 

Just get your wallet out and always carry a flashlight.. That's what all those imaginary heroes of leftist wisdom you hear in your head are leading you towards.

Tell me who is gonna fund NEW CAPACITY on the grid under the current rules for carrying wind power first.. YOU wanna invest under those rules?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





LOL......"dreamers".......coming from the guy who is convinced that solar and wind will dominate our future!!!

Or.....not     >>>>>>>>>>


more mega green energy fAiL!!!!


Indiana firm acquires MV-1 wheelchair accessible vehicle | The Detroit News



The science nerds on here might be brilliant on some level, but they cant do math for shit......but in the real world, it matters.



Green energy is beyond gay.......the pipe dream of hopeless idealists who got beat up too many times in the schoolyard.....the same assholes as those who drive around in those gay Prius cars for the expressed purpose of making a statement, "Look at me.....I care more than you about our environment and fuck you!!". Once a social oddball, always a social oddball.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 6, 2013)

yuk.....yuk......yuk.....


Global clean energy investment drops to lowest level since 2009 - Blue and Green Tomorrow


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 6, 2013)

Shale gas boom sparks EU coal revival - CNN.com



*Oooooops!!!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 6, 2013)

more losing........


Spain Admits ?Green Jobs? Program A Disaster | Questions and Observations


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 6, 2013)

Hey, Skoooker... yo!  really.  Really, man, no one cares what you think.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

Why on earth would anybody think that someone who can't even grasp that there's a problem ,  much less work on solving it,  is of any value at all? They're the slugs of society.  Parasites.


----------



## daveman (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Progressives demand power and control, but can't un-ass the couch long enough to do anything to get it.  You want someone else to do the heavy lifting for you, then expect them to hand the reins of power over to you.

You're destined to go through life bitter and disappointed, kid.


----------



## daveman (Sep 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Mamooth is a flat-out, bald-faced _liar_.  If he/she/it told me the sun rises in the east, I'd get up early with a compass.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

I get a kick out of the little cowboy issuing advice.  How bizarre is that!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



We're solving problems every day that you don't even recognize yet.  You're still waiting for someone else to find a no risk solution because you find the future so frightening and while you're pissing your pants we're implementing.  

Any questions as to why you're irrelevant?


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I get a kick out of the little cowboy issuing advice.  How bizarre is that!



I get a kick out of a progressive, who's unable to think for himself, believing he's qualified to tell me how to live my life.

Interesting delusion progressives share.  Does it have something to do with patchouli oil?


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You ain't doing _shit_, kid.  Well, aside from whining on the internet that nobody's kissing your ass in the manner to which you feel entitled.

Are you ever going to get around to accomplishing anything to merit that level of arrogance?

Meanwhile, back in reality, you don't get to wreck the economies of the entire Western world just so you can feel good about helping baby Gaea.  You want to live in a yurt and burn buffalo crap for heat, be my guest.  I like the modern world, myself.

Just burn your buffalo crap stove downwind from me, mmmkay?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Tell us again why doing nothing in the face of serious problems is so cool.  Why ignoring science is so smart.  Why hoping for the best is smarter than working for the best. Why hiding from learning is smarter than being as open as possible to it.  

Tell us what it's like to blindly follow the ignorant.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Spending trillions of dollars to solve a non problem is shear idiocy.  If anyone is ignoring science, it's the warmist cult members.  You aren't "working for the best."  You're working to destroy this country.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 7, 2013)

daveman said:


> Mamooth is a flat-out, bald-faced _liar_.  If he/she/it told me the sun rises in the east, I'd get up early with a compass.



Great. I got another obsessive stalker.

Dave, some friendly advice. Things tend to not go well for them who go obsessive about me. Look at the examples of PolarBear or Gslack. And I don't have to do a thing; my stalkers eventually self-destruct all by themselves. You might want to pull out of your sanity graveyard spiral while it's still possible.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

If I had to choose which of two behaviors: following the 97% or following the 3, constitute an act of faith, three guesses which way I'd go (and the first two don't count).


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You keep telling us there's a serious problem.

Reality seems to disagree.  

Me, I'd rather go with reality than someone with a political agenda.


PMZ said:


> Tell us what it's like to blindly follow the ignorant.


You tell me, cultist.


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Mamooth is a flat-out, bald-faced _liar_.  If he/she/it told me the sun rises in the east, I'd get up early with a compass.
> ...


Is this the part where I'm supposed to be intimidated?

Because...it's not working.  

Look, we both know you tell nothing but lies.  It explains your emotional outbursts when I point them out.  

What you're pissed off about is that I call you on them.

I don't know where you usually hang out on the internet, but they've done you no favors by blindly and unquestioningly accepting your uncorroborated statements as fact.  It hasn't prepared you at all for life outside the prog echo chamber.  

One fact you need to accept, and then you might be interesting to talk to:

No one _owes_ you agreement.  Stop insisting you're entitled to it.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 7, 2013)

Dave, you're just boring now.

You suck hard at the science. You're incapable of anything except parroting links you don't understand. Scream, pout, stamp your widdle feet, you'll still suck, and we'll be around to point it out and laugh at you.

See ya' round. For now, I'm going to do what upsets you most, which is not give you any of the attention you crave. You'll need to hit rock-bottom before you can recover.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Science says it's necessary. A few political entertainers says it's not.  

Not a tough choice for me.


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Dave, you're just boring now.
> 
> You suck hard at the science. You're incapable of anything except parroting links you don't understand. Scream, pout, stamp your widdle feet, you'll still suck, and we'll be around to point it out and laugh at you.
> 
> See ya' round. For now, I'm going to do what upsets you most, which is not give you any of the attention you crave. You'll need to hit rock-bottom before you can recover.



  The only emotional reaction you can possibly inspire in me is amusement.

But you just keep insisting you're better than me based on no evidence whatsoever.

Progs are good at that sort of thing.


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Crap science with an agenda says its necessary.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Little cowboy,  you'll never sell to anyone with a reasonably functional brain,  the idea that science has an agenda,  except for finding the truth,  and that political entertainers,  have anything but an agenda,  including obscuring the truth.


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


If you weren't a global warming cultist, you might have a point.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I don't believe that mankind can get any closer to the truth than through science,  nor any farther than through religion.  Politics is somewhere in between.  

So I'm not a global warming anything.  I'm a believer in science. If science said that atmospheric GHG concentration was benign,  I'd be very happy.  When they prove that it leads to a less stable climate,  and one different than we built civilization to accommodate,  that doesn't make me happy,  but anxious to see the problem addressed and mitigated.  

I made my living engineering solutions.  This is just another problem to solve to me.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You don't know what science says.  You don' t know what science is.  Here's a clue for you, it's not determined by majority vote.

The choices dolts make are never tough.  They just meekly follow whatever their masters tell them to believe.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Science doesn't have an agenda,  but people who call themselves scientists often do have an agenda.  Anyone who believes humans become infallible the minute the attach the word "scientist" to their resume is the ultimate fool.

Lysenko also called himself a scientists and he called what he was doing "science."


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I do know science.  Thats one of the advantages of being educated in them.  What I don't know, except second hand, are all of the propaganda points that media evangelical political entertainers are paid to deliver to their minions by businesses who profit from the status quo.  

The one intelligent thing in your post is your recognition that science isn't determined by the man in the street or media talking heads.  

In the case of AGW it's determined by the IPCC.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



It's the job of scientists to 'police'  their profession as those not educated in it are unable to.  Just like all professions. By definition. 

Allowing media evangelical political entertainers to even think that they can is idiotic.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Wrong again, dipstick.  Government bureaucrats don't determine what science is.  It's not even determined by a majority vote of scientists.  You just proved that you're a scientific ignoramus. 

I really do marvel at the way a complete ignoramus like you can be so arrogant about your understanding of global warming.  Every time you post you only prove you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's everyone's job to police the ideas that so-called "scientists" are trying to put over on us.  If recent history has shown anything, it's that so-called "climate scientists" can't be trusted.  They have rigged the peer review process to exclude any criticism of their bogus theories and they have been caught fudging the data.

If you think your "move along people.  Nothing to see here" routine is fooling anyone, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You are merely repeating what the media evangelical political entertainers are paid billions to train you to say.  That I understand.  What I don't understand is why that fact is completely obscure to you.  DK is the only,  and a sufficient, explanation.  That's the label that you put on your forehead with every post.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I don't see a reference to 'government bureaucrats' in any of my posts.  Yet you say 'You just proved that you're a scientific ignoramus'. 

Certainly one of us is.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...











bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



'It's everyone's job to police the ideas that so-called "scientists" are trying to put over on us'. 

Do you police the medical,  legal,  engineering,  agricultural,  journalism,  political,  religious,  and public safety professions too?  Who polices you? I didn't get the email that put you in charge. I certainly would have reacted to putting a DK cult member in charge of anything.  

You just have no idea how much you don't know.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The IPCC is a collection of government bureaucrats.  What could be more hilarious than your claim that they are the final arbiters of what "climate science" is?  You're a walking caricature of a scientific ignoramus.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Here's what I see you saying:


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Now you've demonstrated your ignorance of who the IPCC is.  And what their mission is.  You're running out of topics that you can demonstrate knowledge in.  

Baseball perhaps?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You've mistaken me for someone who cares what you think about anything.  That's why I was trying baseball.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Have I?  Perhaps you could explain what makes the IPCC any more qualified than my high school science teacher to issue proclamations on climate science?  Go ahead.  We're all patiently waiting.  I've already got my bowl of popcorn.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Is this where you take your ball and run home crying to mama?  BTW, your post is an example of "hear no evil."


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 7, 2013)

It makes about as much sense as any other religion.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

I do.

And AGW makes infinitely more sense than ANY religion.


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


The problem is not the one being pushed.  The problem is the bastardization of science for political ends.

Solve that one.


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Are you sure about that?
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. *But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.* Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​
For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.​I bet you won't tell us you agree with what THIS IPCC guy says...although you do agree with  his goals.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



They have access to the most qualified climate scientists in the world and almost unlimited resources.  

Especially as compared to your side which is staffed with a couple of high school dropouts who can't spell resources.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



It's not a real problem.  It's only a propaganda point sold to people who are unable to defend their minds from tampering. Propaganda from those businesses profiting from the status quo.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Cherry picking quotes is the oldest mind game in the world.

Here's the rest of the story. 

IPCC Official: ?Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World?s Wealth? | Watts Up With That?


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


...says the guy who has yet to bring a single original thought to the board.

Really, dood.  You're indistinguishable from the other cultists.  Blind devotion to your faith, dutiful and obedient repetition of your dogma, and irrational hatred of infidels.

Remind me again...why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself intelligent?


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


There are two hilarious things about your post:

1.  You believe the "rest of the story" alters what he said.

2.  You linked Anthony Watts' site.  He's just a WEATHERMAN, for Gaea's sake!!  What does he know about climate?!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I know science.  I can distinguish between news and evangelical propaganda.  I'm innovative. I'm responsible.  I'm liberal.  I'm independent.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I have found that nobody protects themselves from learning like the ignorant.  They are truly their own creation. DK squared.


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Yes, I'm sure you enjoy pretending that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



There it is.. That Stuart Smalley moment.. Do y'all remember that from Sat Night Live?? 

PMZ's superhero, the junior clown senator from Minn used to play that character.. 

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and DogGone it --- people like me".. 
Ladies and Gents --- I give you PMZ and his mirror.. 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY]Stuart Smalley's famous quote - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Indeed.  You'll do anything to avoid looking at research that casts doubt on your cult's dogma.  Most AGW cultists do.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

You guys are getting pretty desperate.  Is this really the best that you can do?  Pathetic.


----------



## daveman (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You guys are getting pretty desperate.  Is this really the best that you can do?  Pathetic.


You do know, don't you, that you've done nothing but prove our claims about cultist behavior correct?

No.  You probably don't.

And oh, hey, I'm sorry, but the vet called...your high horse needs to be put down.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When a warmist cult member accuses you of "cherry picking quotes" he must mean that you quoted something that proves your point.  The phrase is really just a magical propaganda incantation that the warmist cult member hopes will make the nasty facts go away.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Who determined they were the "most qualified," the IPCC?  Once again you going around the wheel of circular logic.  The IPCC is qualified to make proclamations on climate science because it has the most qualified climate scientists, but the IPCC determined who is the most qualified.  So the net result is that the IPCC determined it's own qualifications.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



He can mindlessly regurgitate the proclamations of self-serving money hungry bureaucrats and their hand picked stooges.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The only thing you said that's true is that you're liberal.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

The little cowboy,  and the bird flipping 2 year old are pouting today after learning that it takes education to understand science. IPCC level education.  They were hoping that they could pick it up on Sesame Street or Fox News. 

Tough lesson.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."



It's not controversial when it's supported by the evidence and accepted by 97% of the world's climate scientists.  

Controversial would be "global warming is due to changes in TSI" or "All the world's climate scientists involved in enormous conspiracy" or "Poster Daveman actually knows what he's talking about" or "Poster Daveman likes guns because he's happy with the size of his penis".  THOSE would be controversial.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The little cowboy,  and the bird flipping 2 year old are pouting today after learning that it takes education to understand science. IPCC level education.  They were hoping that they could pick it up on Sesame Street or Fox News.
> 
> Tough lesson.



Yes, it takes four years of college before you can become an expert at using logical fallacies like the_ appeal to authority_, _begging the question_ and _circular logic_.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

You and Dave have not exhibited a deep grasp of science in general or any specific topics that have been discussed here.  Even here, you don't seem to grasp the actual definitions of the logical fallacies you name.  Stating that AGW is probably correct because the vast majority of climate scientists accept it is not an appeal to authority.  The IPCC looking for the opinion of climate experts is neither circular logic nor begging the question - even if they did fail to ask you for your opinion.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You and Dave have not exhibited a deep grasp of science in general or any specific topics that have been discussed here.  Even here, you don't seem to grasp the actual definitions of the logical fallacies you name.  Stating that AGW is probably correct because the vast majority of climate scientists accept it is not an appeal to authority.  The IPCC looking for the opinion of climate experts is neither circular logic nor begging the question - even if they did fail to ask you for your opinion.



One of the things that is typically true of the science world is international cooperation devoid of politics. The IPCC is a classic example.  However the difference between climate science and other science at the present time is not the science but what they're expressly charged with staying out of,  the politics. 

People who don't like the political implications of the science, attack, blindly,  the organization. 

And of course there is no group less concerned about who gets thrown under the bus,  if it will help their cause,  than politicians.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The little cowboy,  and the bird flipping 2 year old are pouting today after learning that it takes education to understand science. IPCC level education.  They were hoping that they could pick it up on Sesame Street or Fox News.
> 
> Tough lesson.


It's funny how you pretend you're still right after all the evidence presented that shows you're not.

But, hey, if you need reality ignored, get an AGW cultist.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
> ...


I'm very happily heterosexual, thank you.  I'm not interested in dating you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

Oh be still my beating heart.

How you got that interpretation from what I wrote eludes me.  Is English your native tongue?


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One of the things that is typically true of the science world is international cooperation devoid of politics. The IPCC is a classic example.  However the difference between climate science and other science at the present time is not the science but what they're expressly charged with staying out of,  the politics.


Oh.

My.

_Gaea_.

Do you actually believe that?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The little cowboy,  and the bird flipping 2 year old are pouting today after learning that it takes education to understand science. IPCC level education.  They were hoping that they could pick it up on Sesame Street or Fox News.
> ...



You have evidence that you and Patrick have acceptable science educations?

Where?


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Oh be still my beating heart.
> 
> How you got that interpretation from what I wrote eludes me.  Is English your native tongue?



Yes, it is.  I don't know why you keep talking about my penis unless you're interested in it.

Or, I suppose, it could be that you don't have facts and logic on your side, and are desperately trying to distract from your failure.

Is that it?


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Where's yours?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You and Dave have not exhibited a deep grasp of science in general or any specific topics that have been discussed here.  Even here, you don't seem to grasp the actual definitions of the logical fallacies you name.  Stating that AGW is probably correct because the vast majority of climate scientists accept it is not an appeal to authority.



Wrong.  That's practically the definition of the Appeal to Authority.  You and your sidekick PMZ are just a couple of geysers spouting one logical fallacy after another.



Abraham3 said:


> The IPCC looking for the opinion of climate experts is neither circular logic nor begging the question - even if they did fail to ask you for your opinion.



Of course it's circular logic.   You accept the authority of the IPCC because it chooses the best climate scientists.  How do you know they are the best?  Because the IPCC chose them.

You can't find better entertainment than watching you two trying to commit logic.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You and Dave have not exhibited a deep grasp of science in general or any specific topics that have been discussed here.  Even here, you don't seem to grasp the actual definitions of the logical fallacies you name.  Stating that AGW is probably correct because the vast majority of climate scientists accept it is not an appeal to authority.
> ...



Then we are both entertained.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Argument from authority* (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert

cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter

any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning
******************************************************

Are you able to follow that?  It says that accepting the viewpoint of 97% of active climate scientists is not an appeal to authority.  Published climate scientists ARE the subject matter experts, there IS a strong consensus among them and the argument is NOT deductive in structure.

The IPCC applied objective and appropriate criteria in selecting researchers.  That seems obvious from the sometimes astounding number of deniers that made the cut.  Your circular logic and begging the question charges would require that the IPCC used completely subjective and inappropriate criteria in their selection process.  So, sorry, but no.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



That's what you get when you use Wikipedia as a reference.   

There is no such thing as a valid authority in matters of absolute truth.  Authorities can be wrong, and often have been.  History is littered with the pronunciations of authorities who turned out to be dead wrong.  I suspect some warmist cult members edited the Wiki entry to make the AGW priesthood more respectable.

BTW, there is no such thing as an "Argument from Authority."  There are no valid arguments that invoke an authority as the basis for truth.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Indeed, and another editor calls them on it.

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Consensus[edit source]

There is nothing about consensus in the rules of logic! It is quite possible to argue that the consensus of acknowledged experts is wrong, and citing that a consensus exists does not constitute a logical argument! If the authority is legitimate, having a consensus cannot make it any more legitimate and if the authority is illegitimate, having a consensus cannot make it any more legitimate. I strongly suspect the authors of the passages about consensus in this article to be devotees of either climate change alarmism or overpopulation alarmism or both and to be attempting to write away the fallacious nature of their arguments. (which are fallacious regardless of whether or not the thing they are arguing for is true or not) Challenging the consensus of experts is how change happens and every great reformer does it! --BenMcLean (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)​


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Here's another pertinent comment:
_
The article states, "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."

On the contrary, that is the fallacy in a nutshell. It is fallacious to believe the assertion must be true when your only evidence is that a certain authority made it. Without corroboration through empirical evidence, you can only conditionally accept the assertion.

The quality of the authority may make it more likely that the assertion is true, but, without actual evidence (and a competent authority will provide access to the evidence), it is not logical to argue that it is true, only that it is likely to be true. Further, it is not possible to disprove a statement that the assertion is false (note: without evidence it is not possible to prove that the assertion is false, but that is not the same thing as stating that the assertion is false and having the statement disproved).

The statement quoted is therefore simply incorrect and should be omitted from the article.​_


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It sounds like this guy has been reading the posts of PMZ and Abraham
_
*For those interested in actual objective truth, there is no way to justify argument from authority in any way, shape or form. *If you know that an expert agrees, you must know why he agrees. If you know why, present the argument directly, else it is assumed you are hiding ignorance and an ulterior motive. If you do not know why the expert agrees, then perhaps you are mistaken that he actually would agree in the specific situation being addressed, or perhaps the expert would be swayed by the counter arguments. Furthermore perhaps you are mistaken that the person is in fact an expert on the matter.

The expertise of the arguers and the "authority" would be determined by the outcome of the argument. At best authoritative status means the person is likely to have something influential to say on the subject. Trying to preclude someone from making an argument based on the belief that an authoritative source will disagree and win the argument is driven by the emotional need not to be deceived that the "authority" really was just that. This behavior is destructive to the spread of ideas and truth and should be recognized for the fallacy that it is no matter how it is used.

If the best you can do is to argue that someone else agrees with your belief, you shouldn't be arguing at all. -TZK &#8212;Preceding​_


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Clearly,  in every field of endeavor,  there are authorities.  One of the biggest symptoms of DK Syndrome is the inability to recognize and accept that.  Ignorance breeds ignorance of ignorance.  To assume that the evangelical media political entertainers are equal in climate science to the real authorities of the IPCC requires ignorance of monumental proportions but was an easy sell by the cult leaders. 

Having a population that simple to manipulate could be the biggest threat that democracy has ever faced.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Clearly,  in every field of endeavor,  there are authorities.  One of the biggest symptoms of DK Syndrome is the inability to recognize and accept that.  Ignorance breeds ignorance of ignorance.  To assume that the evangelical media political entertainers are equal in climate science to the real authorities of the IPCC requires ignorance of monumental proportions but was an easy sell by the cult leaders.


You keep wrongly insisting that we're getting our information from entertainers.

I get my information from scientists.

Please stop lying.

Oh, and stop pretending to be a psychologist.  Undergoing years of therapy does NOT make you an expert.


PMZ said:


> Having a population that simple to manipulate could be the biggest threat that democracy has ever faced.


Indeed.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly,  in every field of endeavor,  there are authorities.  One of the biggest symptoms of DK Syndrome is the inability to recognize and accept that.  Ignorance breeds ignorance of ignorance.  To assume that the evangelical media political entertainers are equal in climate science to the real authorities of the IPCC requires ignorance of monumental proportions but was an easy sell by the cult leaders.
> ...



It's pretty easy to see from whom you get your science from when you post a reference, which is seldom.  Those of us who know science also can clearly see that almost all of your 'evidence' comes from political sources,  not scientific.  Lastly there is no science that even theorizes any reaction to higher atmospheric GHG concentrations other than AGW. 

So,  once again,  your lies are very apparent.  You can fool yourself,  but not those with applicable knowledge.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I cite references all the time.  

But you have a pathological need to lie.  

Run along, liar.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Notice, once again, the he appeals to authority.  He can't open his mouth without resorting to his favorite fallacy.  In fact, he doesn't even recognize it as a fallacy.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Are you still operating under the delusion that there are no authorities in the world?  

If you ever need an operation,  go see a plumber.  Or better yet,  do it yourself. Maybe you'll find something that you know how to do. Or die in the process.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One of the things that is typically true of the science world is international cooperation devoid of politics. The IPCC is a classic example.  However the difference between climate science and other science at the present time is not the science but what they're expressly charged with staying out of,  the politics.
> 
> People who don't like the political implications of the science, attack, blindly,  the organization.
> 
> And of course there is no group less concerned about who gets thrown under the bus,  if it will help their cause,  than politicians.



When the "science" becomes an excuse to spend tens of trillions, for a tiny benefit, it is no longer "devoid of politics".


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > One of the things that is typically true of the science world is international cooperation devoid of politics. The IPCC is a classic example.  However the difference between climate science and other science at the present time is not the science but what they're expressly charged with staying out of,  the politics.
> ...



You are still consumed with the conservative notion that doing nothing costs nothing.  Crazy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And you are convinced that if we let the politicians spend (or direct the spending of) tens of trillions of dollars, that we will somehow save money, avoid hot weather, avoid cold weather, avoid wet weather, avoid dry weather, avoid rough weather etc., etc., etc.
Crazy! And stupid. And really, really expensive.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The only thing that matters is the infrastructure of our civilization. Our farms,  cities,  population centers,  shore homes,  etc. 

We located all of that stuff based on climate (most importantly water availability)  and sea level. 

AGW causes ice melt which raises sea level. It also changes the distribution of precipitation. In other words,  weather. 

The IPCC is charged with the science of predicting both of those variables as a function of atmospheric green house gas concentration. 

They are certain that increased GHG concentrations warm the climate.  They do not have yet the ability to make long term weather predictions especially in a changing,  less stable climate. 

They are certain that if dumping new CO2 in the atmosphere stopped tomorrow the decline in concentration would be very slow. 

As an example of the complexity: We know we are losing ice and snow mass today,  every year.  How many decades would that continue for if the climate warmed no more? What would sea level be at that point?  What kind of urban relocation or diking would be required when and where from that sea level increase to prevent what cost storm damage? 

Science is the only avenue open for making those predictions and we have a very long way to go. 

But,  we know fossil fuel supply is limited so sustainable energy is a requirement no matter AGW. 

Bottom line.  What rate of change to sustainable energy is the lowest total cost? 

For sure it is not ignoring the problem and future.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*AGW causes ice melt which raises sea level. It also changes the distribution of precipitation. In other words, weather. *

So would natural GW.

*The IPCC is charged with the science of predicting both of those variables as a function of atmospheric green house gas concentration. *

And yet the politicians are in charge.

*They are certain that increased GHG concentrations warm the climate. *

Assume the US doesn't spend the tens of trillions you wish, what are CO2 levels in 2080?
Assume we do, what are CO2 levels in 2080?

* But,  we know fossil fuel supply is limited  *

How many years usage do we have left?

*What rate of change to sustainable energy is the lowest total cost*?

The rate the private market determines, without government mandates and tens of trillions in politically motivated spending.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You seem not to understand that the difference between natural and anthropogenic GW is we control what we do.  To whatever degree stopping causing the problem is cost effective,  we can do it. 

Whatever can be known about what we're facing will come from the IPCC,  not from Rush or Glenn Beck or the boobs and boobies on Fox.  Whatever we do will need years to accomplish so whatever insight or foresight we can have is worth a lot.  

You also are bat blind about business.  Corporations optimise only each company.  Their one rule is make more money regardless of the cost to others.  There is not the slightest chance in hell that thousands of companies optimizing themselves will fall into an optimized energy system. 

The government has a role,  private investors have a role,  companies have a role,  entrepreneurs have a role,  the International community has a role.  

No matter what Rush tells you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

It's no wonder that conservatives avoid solving problems.  They are completely ill equipped to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*You seem not to understand that the difference between natural and anthropogenic GW is we control what we do. *

Great. Since 1900, what % of the rise was us and how much was natural?
Be as precise as you can.

*To whatever degree stopping causing the problem is cost effective,  we can do it. *

Assume the US doesn't spend the tens of trillions you wish, what are CO2 levels in 2080?
Assume we do, what are CO2 levels in 2080?

*Whatever can be known about what we're facing will come from the IPCC*

The scientists who do the work, the scientists who are ignored, or the politicians who decide what to include in the report?

*not from Rush or Glenn Beck or the boobs and boobies on Fox.*

And not from Al Gore, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz or the boobs on NBC, CBS and CNN.

*There is not the slightest chance in hell that thousands of companies optimizing themselves will fall into an optimized energy system. *

Thousands of companies using the ever scarcer (LOL!) fossil fuels will do a better job than the government throwing billions of dollars at cronies.

I must have missed it when you mentioned how many years of fossil fuels remain.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

I see now.

Your recommendations are to get rid of the IPCC and government. Let big oil do what they want. Wait until fossil fuels are gone or we are, whichever comes first.

No wonder conservatives are being fired from government in droves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I see now.
> 
> Your recommendations are to get rid of the IPCC and government. Let big oil do what they want. Wait until fossil fuels are gone or we are, whichever comes first.
> 
> No wonder conservatives are being fired from government in droves.



*Your recommendations are to get rid of the IPCC and government.*

Those are my recommendations? Where did you read that?

*Wait until fossil fuels are gone *

You keep saying that but you never say when.
When will they be gone? 

Try to put your feelings aside and think. For once.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

I'm sure that conversations like today's make the problem clear to lots more people. It's not just about climate change. It's about working towards a better future. The conservative singular focus on doing nothing and hoping for the past to return would be the end of mankind's progress as we've known it. We've always had conservatives but except for rare years like the McCarthy era, and the Confederacy, we haven't had to deal with anti-American extremists. Now we do.

The power of media persuasion has been growing for decades. We thought that all that was at risk from that was to make us more materialistic. That was offset however by the ability to have what some consider a higher standard of living. 

But, opening Pandora's box had ramifications beyond materialism. Now democracy is at risk as media conservatives have been led to long for the return of the wealthy white male run plutocracy our founders desired. 

Congress has been rendered impotent. Businesses have forgotten how to grow. The concept of the same civil rights for everyone is being questioned yet again. The Bush policies have us $17T in debt instead of debt free as the CBO anticipated at the end of the Clinton era. All on top of the conservative war on government, science and knowledge and education. And the idea that we ignore climate change and dwindling fossil fuels and just suffer the consequences because we aren't, in their view, smart enough to solve problems. 

These are fundamental changes to the fabric of America. We can hope that taking back America that began in 2008 will continue to grow as it has. That our democracy will be stronger than the pull of evangelical media propagandists chipping away at government.

America has always risen to every challenge. Mostly external threats. Now we have to rise to internal threat. And we can.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I'm sure that conversations like today's make the problem clear to lots more people. It's not just about climate change. It's about working towards a better future. The conservative singular focus on doing nothing and hoping for the past to return would be the end of mankind's progress as we've known it. We've always had conservatives but except for rare years like the McCarthy era, and the Confederacy, we haven't had to deal with anti-American extremists. Now we do.
> 
> The power of media persuasion has been growing for decades. We thought that all that was at risk from that was to make us more materialistic. That was offset however by the ability to have what some consider a higher standard of living.
> 
> ...



*It's not just about climate change. It's about working towards a better future. *

Excellent! You want to spend tens of trillions of dollars, I want to spend zero.

How much better is your future?
Tell me how much lower CO2 will be in your better future, how many parts per million reduction do we get for the tens of trillions?
Show me your better future. Numbers only, not your feelings.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I see now.
> ...



Science isn't about feelings, it's about facts. Establishing the facts about our energy and climate future is what the IPCC was established to do. Everything that I've posted has been in support of the IPCC doing it's job, and using that insight to find the least cost path to a sustainable future. 

Everything you've posted is about sticking our collective heads in the nearest dark place and hoping for a happy ending. That's thinking with your feelings.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure that conversations like today's make the problem clear to lots more people. It's not just about climate change. It's about working towards a better future. The conservative singular focus on doing nothing and hoping for the past to return would be the end of mankind's progress as we've known it. We've always had conservatives but except for rare years like the McCarthy era, and the Confederacy, we haven't had to deal with anti-American extremists. Now we do.
> ...



"Excellent! You want to spend tens of trillions of dollars, I want to spend zero."

Describe for us this no cost alternative.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Tell me how much lower CO2 will be in your better future, how many parts per million reduction do we get for the tens of trillions?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Describe for us this no cost alternative.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Does the no cost alternative include free gasoline until we run out? If it does, I'm going to sell the Prius and get an old Dodge 426 hemi. WTF.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I see now.
> 
> Your recommendations are to get rid of the IPCC and government. Let big oil do what they want. Wait until fossil fuels are gone or we are, whichever comes first.
> 
> No wonder conservatives are being fired from government in droves.


You see _shit_.  He said nothing like that, you arrogant prick.  

You don't have any expertise.  You don't have any answers.  You don't have anything to merit your unmerited arrogance.

All you have is internet access and a raging case of impotence, Skippy.

And I know you can't comprehend this, but _I laugh at people like you_.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Just think. Bush spent all of those trillions and all of those lives protecting America's oil supply and I don't think that we've seen a drop of Iraqi oil since. Good conservative problem solving. 

This no cost alternative must mean that we can disband all of the military we now need to keep that liquid gold flowing for free. Right?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I see now.
> ...



Oh look. The little cowboy is all tough and stuff.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's all about cost/benefit.
You want to spend tens of trillions, show me the benefit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Does the no cost alternative include free gasoline until we run out? If it does, I'm going to sell the Prius and get an old Dodge 426 hemi. WTF.



Free gasoline? That's something a liberal would push for, conservatives are all about the market.

When are we going to run of of hydrocarbons again?

Shocking that you drive a Prius. What fossil fuel generates your electrons?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> show me the benefit.



Your children's children won't have to move away from the coast on foot... with a shopping cart for their belongings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Just think. Bush spent all of those trillions and all of those lives protecting America's oil supply and I don't think that we've seen a drop of Iraqi oil since. Good conservative problem solving.
> 
> This no cost alternative must mean that we can disband all of the military we now need to keep that liquid gold flowing for free. Right?



Obama doesn't even want to build a pipeline to keep Canadian oil flowing.
I guess we don't need jobs or oil in Obama's world.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I'm sure that conversations like today's make the problem clear to lots more people. It's not just about climate change. It's about working towards a better future. The conservative singular focus on doing nothing and hoping for the past to return would be the end of mankind's progress as we've known it. We've always had conservatives but except for rare years like the McCarthy era, and the Confederacy, we haven't had to deal with anti-American extremists. Now we do.
> 
> The power of media persuasion has been growing for decades. We thought that all that was at risk from that was to make us more materialistic. That was offset however by the ability to have what some consider a higher standard of living.
> 
> ...


And there it is, folks -- PMS's "solution" to global warming:  Democrat totalitarianism.  

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching "It's for the children!!"

What's your solution to conservatism, PMS?  Is it a Final one?

I expect so.  Progressivism _always_ winds up bathed in lakes of blood.

_Always_.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > show me the benefit.
> ...



Maybe you can help with some actual numbers?

After we spend tens of trillions on all the green wish list, how much lower will CO2 be in 2080 compared to the level if we give the greens nothing?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I see now.
> ...



This is the best description that I've seen of the emotional basis of conservatism. Whenever anyone is tempted to risk everything that America is and stands for by voting one of these into government, think of this post.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You don't have to write a book describing the no cost alternative. Just give us a few paragraphs.

I imagine to be no cost we'll have to let wildfires burn themselves out. Do you think that will spell the end to all North American trees?


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I've proven to you conclusively that the purpose of the IPCC is to establish world socialism.

But you've stuck your head in a dark place and are hoping for a happy ending.  

You're thinking with your feelings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



*You don't have to write a book describing the no cost alternative. Just give us a few paragraphs.*

End all "green" subsidies and mandates.
End the ethanol mandate.
Don't spend a dime of taxpayer funds to subsidize "green" vehicles or "green" power generation. Clear enough even for you to understand?

Now, if we take your direction and spend tens of trillions, how much lower is CO2 in 2080?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Does the no cost alternative include free gasoline until we run out? If it does, I'm going to sell the Prius and get an old Dodge 426 hemi. WTF.
> ...



How can the no cost alternative be no cost if we have to pay for gas?

Again you miss the profound chemistry that says that owning a car doesn't create AGW, burning gas does. Less gas, less AGW. Ask your teacher tomorrow to show you the math.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Just think. Bush spent all of those trillions and all of those lives protecting America's oil supply and I don't think that we've seen a drop of Iraqi oil since. Good conservative problem solving.
> 
> This no cost alternative must mean that we can disband all of the military we now need to keep that liquid gold flowing for free. Right?


Bush never said he was protecting America's oil supply.  That was progressives, who can't comprehend anything bigger than a protest sign slogan.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Just think. Bush spent all of those trillions and all of those lives protecting America's oil supply and I don't think that we've seen a drop of Iraqi oil since. Good conservative problem solving.
> ...



Show me the spherical trig that says the shortest route from Canada to China goes through Louisiana.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure that conversations like today's make the problem clear to lots more people. It's not just about climate change. It's about working towards a better future. The conservative singular focus on doing nothing and hoping for the past to return would be the end of mankind's progress as we've known it. We've always had conservatives but except for rare years like the McCarthy era, and the Confederacy, we haven't had to deal with anti-American extremists. Now we do.
> ...



The little cowboy is one of those longing for the freedom to impose his will on others.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're not liberal so math should be easy for you and on top of that zero cost requires no math. Everything is free. 

But I'm anxious to hear your vision of a free future anyway.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*How can the no cost alternative be no cost if we have to pay for gas?*

Who said anything about a no cost alternative? 

*Again you miss the profound chemistry that says that owning a car doesn't create AGW, burning gas does. *

Yes, burning natural gas and coal generates CO2.
Which is burned to generate your electrons?
Maybe an adult can help you understand the question?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



*Everything is free. *

Is your imagination fueled by alcohol tonight?

I don't want to waste money on your CO2 reduction schemes.
You don't get free gasoline, comrade.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
> ...



If only you had made the argument about what "IT" is and that 97% of climate scientists actually DO --- support "IT".. 

Haven't really succeeded at that. Nor have you succeeded in degrading the importance of NATURAL cycles and events like Ocean Thermal and TSI. In fact --- these are on the list of NEW REVELATIONS to that imaginary 97% of scientists that lead a very cloistered life looking for ONLY man-caused reasons for the tiny 0.5 degree of warming during your lifetime...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No question that world socialism is bad. 

But, perhaps world ignorance is worse. That seems to be the consensus from the previous dark ages. 

Once we get rid of climate science we need to start on the others. A good old fashioned book burning. 

We can learn from Mao's Cultural Revolution! Look how effectively that stamped out knowledge.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Nope, I don't have to pretend to be anything, Skippy.  What you see is what you get.

But your facade is wearing thin, kid.  Probably because it's been passed around among so many of you.

Dood, you're like something out of a movie.  "Hello, Central Casting?  Yeah, I need a progressive...right...arrogant, superior, no resume to speak of...uh huh.  Self-proclaimed expert in climate science.  What?  No, no education in climate science.  Look, I know you got a thousand of 'em.  Look through the files, pick one at random...you got one?  'PMZ', his name is?  Perfect!  Send him over!!"

_Laughing_ at you, Skippy.  I know that makes your blood boil.

Too bad.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > show me the benefit.
> ...



Ooooh.  Fear-mongering.  

If you had the science on your side, you wouldn't have to rely on emotional appeals.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It is true that without a pipeline to the US, the oil will flow to China instead.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's your no cost alternative? Really?

Increase our demand for foriegn oil? 

Were you Bush's Energy Czar or something? CEO of Big Oil Inc perhaps?


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


What America is and stands for?

America ISN'T a progressive shit-hole.  But you sure do want it to be.

You laughably claim to be taking back America.  America was never yours to begin with.

The USSR, however, was.  You can have that back.  Oh, wait -- no, you can't.  My America made it collapse.  

Dum de dum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I want to know why my grandkids need to move away from the coast of Lake Michigan?

Maybe when the Cubs finally win the World Series, the lake will engulf the city?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Just think. Bush spent all of those trillions and all of those lives protecting America's oil supply and I don't think that we've seen a drop of Iraqi oil since. Good conservative problem solving.
> ...



You didn't realize that Bush lied?


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Sheer projection.  I want the maximum amount of personal liberty conducive to civilized society.  And I want it for everybody.

YOU want to tell people what kind of cars they can drive and what kind of light bulbs they can buy -- "for their own good".


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



What's your theory about what happens when a body in space lowers it's outgoing radiation by increasing atmospheric GHG concentration?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

*That's your no cost alternative? Really?*

Still making shit up? Really?


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Yes, Mao, a good progressive.  You've learned your lesson well...not how to avoid it, but how to implement it.

The Climategate emails showed how the AGW cult bastardized the peer-review process.  Unauthorized knowledge is stamped out.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


What are you yapping about?  The left has opposed every proposal to get us away from foreign oil.  We have all kinds of resources...but you don't want us using them.

You WANT us dependent on foreign oil.  Gaea knows why.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



To tell you the truth it's awfully hard to take seriously a presumed adult posing as a scary gun slinger. It's like a 50 year old trick or treater.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I realize progressives SAID Bush lied.

But progressives lie about everything themselves.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



A 180. Now you're all for science. Make up your so called mind.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Yes, I'd expect you to believe that.  It's because I know how to read.  My avatar and sigline are an homage to an author and his greatest work.

Maybe if you tried reading something besides DailyKOS and DU, you'd realize reading can be fun.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


I've never been against science.

I am, however, against junk science.  Fake science.  Politics masquerading as science.

That's why I don't support climate science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Ask the teach tomorrow to explain global commodity supply and demand.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Add American history to the list of things that you don't know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Or you could explain why sending Canadian oil to China is better for national security than sending it to Louisiana?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Well, little cowboy. You're about 100 years too late. Too many people now and too few caves for them to live in.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Progressives are people who support progress. Mao was a Communist conservative. He hated progress.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Because we understand the concept of global commodity supply and demand. We want to get off all oil. We can't afford any other alternative. How much are you willing to pay for a gallon of gas?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You're really hooked on those Fox boobs and boobies, aren't you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Global supply and demand little Toddster. Don't forget to ask tomorrow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*We want to get off all oil. We can't afford any other alternative.*

And you'll give us (well, force us) those less efficient, more expensive alternatives, even if they cost trillions. Hell, tens of trillions.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I have seen zero evidence that you are in a position to judge science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When you pull your head out, be sure to show me the post where I said anything about free gasoline or no cost gasoline.

Thanks!


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I'm quite familiar with American history.  I'm also familiar with progressive revisionist history.

Howard Zinn lied to you.  The best use for his books is bird cage liner.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Not at all. Here's the deal. We use science to get us facts. Based on that science we evaluate all of the costs associated with all alternatives. We pick the alternative and rate of progress towards it that minimizes total cost.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When we spend tens of trillions on the science based, progressive recommendations, how much lower will CO2 be compared to levels if we ignore your progressive, science based recommendations?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Don't know Howard, little cowboy. Do know American history. The only time that the country had as serious an extremist conservative contingent as today was the Confederacy and the McCarthy era. We solved those problems just like we'll solve this one. Democracy.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I don't want people to live in caves.  

Progressives, however, do...by insisting we stop using fossil fuels before there are any scalable, economical, and sustainable alternatives in place.

Coal provides approximately 50% of the electricity in America.  I'd like you to go to your electrical service panel and turn off every other breaker.  Then you wait for wind and solar to provide enough power to turn them back on.

Then you may...MAY...begin to understand what you're proposing.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Just when I think you can't possibly get any stupider...you do.



Quotations from Mao Tse Tung &#8212; Chapter 5

The world is progressing, the future is bright and no one can change this general trend of history. We should carry on constant propaganda among the people on the facts of world progress and the bright future ahead so that they will build their confidence in victory.

"On the Chungking Negotiations" (October 17, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. IV. p. 59.​
You really should just stop talking.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't know or care. What I care for is a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress. 

To tell you the truth, I'm sick of saying it. If your reading retention is that bad, you remedy it.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I'll pay whatever I have to for gas until an economical, practical alternative is available.

So far, there are none.

Wait, is this you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*I don't know or care. *

Finally! That's awesome!

We should spend tens of trillions, but you don't know, *or care*, what the benefit will be.

Perfect!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I see that you don't recognize Mao's lies any better than Bush's. 

Are you really going to tell us that you believe Mao and the Cultural Revolution was progress?


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I don't watch TV news, except for the local stuff, and that only rarely.  

And the only talk radio I listen to is NPR.  

So, it looks like you're letting your bigotry against conservatives do your thinking for you...and it SUCKS at it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You add reading to the list of things that you don't know.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Odd...I was going to say the same thing about you.

Given your unhealthy worship of the IPCC, I'd say you wouldn't know science if it jumped out of a bush in front of you, slapped you on the face, and yelled "Hey, doofus!  I'm SCIENCE!!"


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Ahhh.  So when a Democat is elected, it's the willathapeepul.

When a Republican is elected, it's a subversion of the political process.

Well, it's easier than thinking, I suppose.

And you'd love Zinn.  America is always the bad guy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I can read your stupidity just fine.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I don't.  Mao did.

Mao was a progressive.  You little revisionist foot-stamping has no effect on reality.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Are you saying that we ought to base the largest project in mankind's history on the opinions of the average man in the street? You know, like we build rockets to the moon?


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Dood.  _It's right there_.

"[H]ow much lower will CO2 be compared to levels if we ignore your progressive, science based recommendations?"

"I don't know or care."

There's absolutely NOTHING there to misinterpret.  You want to spend trillions of dollars (that we don't have)...and you don't care about what the result might be.

Ignorant.  _Profoundly_ ignorant.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Tell us little cowboy about the progress in China during the Cultural Revolution. Wikipedia might be a good starting point.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Neither Beavis nor Butthead can read and comprehend.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Remember the title of this thread Daveman.. For a dedicated leftist -- it's all about "faith, perception, and belief"..  Can I get an Amen???


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You mean that you're this stupid without coaching?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Where's your science homework? Your theory of how GHGs don't act like GHGs.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I'm saying until you prove conclusively the NEED for this largest project, we shouldn't waste money on it.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I feel no obligation to prove a claim I haven't made.

Like all progressives, you're simply not very bright.  You think calling yourself a progressive means you're for progress.

Progressivism itself is about suppression of individual liberties by a strong central government.  

And you call that "progress".


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


So, you fucked up...and it's OUR fault.



Run along, Cupcake.  My metaphorical foot is getting tired from metaphorically kicking your ass all over the place.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Amen.  Emotion, not logic.  Beliefs, not facts.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



"Progressivism itself is about suppression of individual liberties by a strong central government"

God you're stupid.

Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Progressivism is a general political philosophy based on the idea of progress that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition. Progressivism originated in the Age of the Enlightenment in Europe out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread from Europe to across the world.[2]"


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The people who will solve the problem are already satisfied that it's both needed and an opportunity. The whiners like you, always whine, never contribute. That's why you've chosen to be irrelevant. Whining takes no knowledge, avoids all responsibility, and contributes nothing. The perfect job for failures.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You go girl.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"What I care for is a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

This is what conservatives fear most. Objectivity. Fact and evidence based action. 

Why? They want to impose what they want on everybody. Do nothing and hope for the best. 

This is the "freedom" that they prize. The freedom to impose what they want on others. Not what facts show, but what they want. 

Join me in saying "fuck you". We don't need you to tell us what your media cultmeisters told you. We think for ourselves and go with the objective truth of science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*"What I care for is a science based evaluation of all alternatives"*

Excellent! 
Two alternatives, spending tens of trillions, what is CO2 in 2080?
Spending zero on green energy, what is CO2 in 2080?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What is the addition of GHGs between now and 2080?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Don't your IPCC scientists have those numbers?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Toddster just gave you $10Trill to lower emissions according to that brilliant plan you're telling us that you have.. You tell US what CO2 emissions are gonna be in 2080 after you blow that wad of money.. 

And for my share of the 10Trill --- I want to know what the temperature anomaly is gonna be in 2080 when you're done saving the world.. 

See how that works??? Of course not. You're a progressive. Essentially economically and logically braindead..


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Here's what I see.  I see people with no data,  no science,  no theories even,  trying to impose their political will on the country by pointing out that the data,  science,  and theories that we have are unable to make multi decade weather forecasts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's what I see.  I see people with no data,  no science,  no theories even,  trying to impose their political will on the country by pointing out that the data,  science,  and theories that we have are unable to make multi decade weather forecasts.



*Here's what I see. I see people with no data*

Here's what I see. I see people with no data about the reduction in CO2, after we spend trillions, insisting we spend trillions to prevent a disaster.

Sorry, no data, no trillions.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what I see.  I see people with no data,  no science,  no theories even,  trying to impose their political will on the country by pointing out that the data,  science,  and theories that we have are unable to make multi decade weather forecasts.
> ...



Nobody expects anything from conservatives. You've made it perfectly clear that you have no problem solving ability and the limit of what you can do is whining.  

Countries always have had to survive with both doers and draggers,  winners and whiners,  the knowledgeable and the ignorant.  The only difference today is that the draggers,  whiners,  and ignorant have been organized by media into a cult because they are so easy to make huge profits from. 

So,  carry on.  As I've said countless times,  you are irrelevant,  unnecessary, parasitic.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.  Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily,  sometimes more subtle means are required. 

Often those subtleties start with information control.  Exposing citizens to what the powerful want them to believe,  obscuring what they don't want them to know. 

The IPCC is the world's source of knowledge on AGW.  Very dangerous when you feel entitled to power.  Who knows if the facts that they uncover will support the agenda of the power mongers or not? 

Actually,  a problem easy for those skilled in propaganda to solve.  Discredit the source.  Concentrate on what can't be known.  Confound the data.  

Don't mistake what's going on here as a scientific debate.  The science is clear and unequivocal. This is power politics.  Mind control. Propaganda,  not news. 

The Internet has probably put an end to old fashioned book burning as knowledge control.  But the Internet and other media can be used to accomplish what book burning used to.  

Thought policing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Here's what I see. I see people with no data about the reduction in CO2, after we spend trillions, insisting we spend trillions to prevent a disaster.

Sorry, no data, no trillions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.  Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily,  sometimes more subtle means are required.
> 
> Often those subtleties start with information control.  Exposing citizens to what the powerful want them to believe,  obscuring what they don't want them to know.
> 
> ...



*World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.*

You're right. Liberals want control over the fuels we use, for the children.
Based on their feelings, and lust for power, not the data.
Sorry, no sale.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.  Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily,  sometimes more subtle means are required.
> ...



Here,  for instance,  is a prime example, rendered unable to think for himself.  What he knows is only what they want him to know.  They tell him what's right and what's wrong.  

And they certainly don't want him informed on AGW. No science for him. 

They know what answer is best for them and so,  that's what he's been issued.  Doing nothing is free.  

He has no choice but to repeat what he's been issued.  We do.  Let's leave him here and go on without him.  He'll never know unless they want him to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Let me know if you ever discover the CO2 levels in 2080, if we waste trillions on "green" energy.
Until then, I'll be here, laughing at your ignorance.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

This is what Toddster has been instructed to resist.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"

The question of course is, would any rational person facing a multi trillion dollar investment with high risk no matter the alternative do anything less? The answer is no. Absolutely not!

Yet his programmed reflex says yes. Knowledge is bad, ignorance is good.

That means he's either dumber than a box of rocks (I don't think so) or programmed to respond without thought (which is the scarier possibility).

You decide.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> This is what Toddster has been instructed to resist.
> 
> "a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"
> 
> ...



It's hilarious that you want to spend tens of trillions of dollars and don't know, or care, about the benefit we'll supposedly get from that spending.

You never did tell me what fossil fuel is burned to create the electricity that powers your smug little automobile.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > This is what Toddster has been instructed to resist.
> ...



What do these words mean to you? You can call a friend if you need to.

"a science based evaluation of all alternatives as fully costed as the science allows, and the selection of the least cost end and rate of progress"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Those words mean you still can't tell me the CO2 levels in 2080. LOL!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You tell me how many tons of CO2 will be dumped into the atmosphere between now and 2080 Toddbot.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Oh. Don't forget to show your work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We're paying IPCC big bucks, they haven't come up with those numbers?

Are they just relying on feelings?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

*But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis? *

I agree, following your liberal spending ideas with no basis is a bad idea.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis? *
> 
> I agree, following your liberal spending ideas with no basis is a bad idea.



We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. The most advanced that there is. 

What you have is what the Fox boobs and boobies are paid by big oil to instruct you to believe. 

That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.


----------



## Vox (Sep 9, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Clearly, a majority of the population considers the global warming contingent rather a cult >>>>
> 
> 
> Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns



GOOD.

This ignorant hysteria is getting boring


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis? *
> ...



*We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. *

That's awesome! What do they say CO2 levels will be in 2080?

*Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example.*

What are you whining about?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That depends on your ingenious plan to save the planet, doesn't it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis? *
> ...



It's only the most "advance" propaganda there is. 



PMZ said:


> What you have is what the Fox boobs and boobies are paid by big oil to instruct you to believe.



Other than advertising revenue, FOX doesn't get any money from "Big Oil."  Neither does Rush or Sean Hannity.  So-called "climate scientists" on the other hand, get $billions from the federal government every year.  IF you believe the positions people take are influenced by money, then you should be far more skeptical of the motives and integrity of "climate scientists" than FOX news or Rush Limbaugh.



PMZ said:


> That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.



Warmist cult members have yet to provide any hard evidence that there will be any costs with ignoring the hysterical Chicken Little rants of the warmist priesthood.  Even the IPCC admits that sea level will increase less than a foot over the next century.  What's the cost of that?  They have recently admitted that their hysterical claims about hurricanes and tornadoes are unfounded.  Where's the cost there?

Can you please enumerate these exorbitant costs you keep referring to?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You tell me how many tons of CO2 will be dumped into the atmosphere between now and 2080 Toddbot.
> ...



Skeptics don't propose $trillions.  We propose to spend nothing at all.  You want to spend the money, so it's incumbent on you to make your case for it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Vox said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, a majority of the population considers the global warming contingent rather a cult >>>>
> ...



Your post certainly added a lot.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Still waiting for you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Not mine.  Ours.  That is everyone but conservatives who are incapable of even the smallest contribution to problem solving.  The worst kind of Parasite


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter. 

How much did we spend on super storm Sandy?  How often will that bill come due? 

You know those firefighters in Colorado that gave it all doing their job?  We going to just write them off? 

Drought.  Where to you propose that we grow things when the Ogallala Aquifer dries up. 

I'm sure that we can do for our port cities what we did for the Big Easy when they get below sea level.  Not for free though. 

The US is lucky because we have a small population compared to our resources.  Not China or India though.  They might get fiesty when the people start dropping. 

Remember how much Bush spent on protecting our oil supply?  Big part of the $17T in unpaid bills his policies got us. 

Yeah,  I  don't blame you for sticking your head in the sand.  The real world is a scarry place. We won't leave you behind though until we have to.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



All of Fox's revenue is advertising revenue.  







bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Oh boy.  Another believer with an unlimited source of free energy.  Can't wait to hear the details. Did you get them from the Fox boobs and boobies too?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The person in favor of spending tens of trillions need to show we'll get our moneys worth.
Don't be a typical lazy liberal, get to work!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter. *

Excellent idea!

How many years supply of oil is available?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We're going to spend tens of trillions no matter what.  The question is only sooner or later.  Sooner, will allow us to spend it on sustainable energy.  Later, we'll spend it on adapting to a new climate,  then spend it again on sustainable energy.  

You have zero science to make that decision on.  You want to let Fox News guess at it.  

The real world will have IPCC science to base it on. 

These don't seem like tough concepts.  I'm amazed that they're beyond anybody.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Depends on how much we're willing to pay for obsolete fuel.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*We're going to spend tens of trillions no matter what. *

Assume we spend it on the green wish list, how much lower is CO2 in 2080?
10 ppm? Less?

*Sooner, will allow us to spend it on sustainable energy. *

If we do, how much CO2 do we keep out of the atmosphere?
I need to know if spending money on less reliable, more expensive energy has an upside.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Which obsolete fuel powers your Prius?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Gasoline.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Which one generates the electricity for your Prius?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

The Toddbot is fixated on a nonsensical issue to avoid getting involved in real issues. 

Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years.  There is nothing to make them come down. 

They are not the problem however.  They are the cause of the problem. 

The problems are rising sea levels from melting snow and ice,  and a changing distribution of rainfall,  and a less stable climate.  All very costly consequences.  Some of those costs are unavoidable now.  Action on our part can avoid cost growth beyond what's unavoidable now. 

The two choices are to put all of the carbon that fossil fuels have sequestered for millions of years back in the atmosphere while we're replacing them with sustainable energy,  or only some of what's not yet released,  and save some on adapting to a new climate. The cost of the change to sustainable energy is unavoidable. 

The only way to know the least expensive choice is by using IPCC climate science.  The Toddbot would rather just guess.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Gasoline.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The Toddbot is fixated on a nonsensical issue to avoid getting involved in real issues.
> 
> Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years.  There is nothing to make them come down.
> 
> ...



*Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years. There is nothing to make them come down. *

Then we shouldn't waste tens of trillions to make them rise more slowly.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


PMZ wants trillions, but cannot tell you how much or little reduction there will be at the end of the 6 decades of financing the hoax.

Naughty, naughty!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The Toddbot is fixated on a nonsensical issue to avoid getting involved in real issues.
> ...



The cost of sustainable energy is a given.  The cost of adapting to a new climate is a given.  The only decision requiring IPCC science is, can we avoid some of the cost of adapting by moving forward in time some of the cost of sustainable energy. 

This really is beyond you,  isn't it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Reduction in what? There will be no reduction. We're talking about the amount of increase. Please try to keep up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*The cost of sustainable energy is a given. *

Yes, "green" energy is more costly and less reliable.

*The cost of adapting to a new climate is a given. *

Why waste trillions on your silly CO2 schemes, if a new climate is a better area to spend?

*The only decision requiring IPCC science is, can we avoid some of the cost of adapting by moving forward in time some of the cost of sustainable energy. *

You just said we can't reduce CO2 levels, so what else do you need from the IPCC?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



_I hope that you're just playing stupid._


*The cost of sustainable energy is a given. *

Yes, "green" energy is more costly and less reliable. 

_Sustainable energy will get cheaper over time. Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand. You do the math._

*The cost of adapting to a new climate is a given. *

Why waste trillions on your silly CO2 schemes, if a new climate is a better area to spend?

_I have no idea what this question even means._

*The only decision requiring IPCC science is, can we avoid some of the cost of adapting by moving forward in time some of the cost of sustainable energy. *

You just said we can't reduce CO2 levels, so what else do you need from the IPCC?[/QUOTE]

_What I said I needed. The least cost path forward. _


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Keep up with what? That you can't answer the questions about the benefit from this scatterbrained schema to reduce something that nature puts in the air through volcanic activity and takes out again through increases in forestation?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I have answered every question asked of me here.

Except, why are so many conservatives unable to think?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

*Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand. *

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

*I have no idea what this question even means.*

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

*What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.*

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand. *
> 
> Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!
> 
> ...



Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand. 

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

_No, like gasoline has gotten more expensive._ 

I have no idea what this question even means.

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

_Science and math were._ 

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2

_Obviously you don't read my posts._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand. *
> ...



I read the posts where you couldn't quantify the reduction in CO2 we'll pay tens of trillions for. No thanks!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You've conclusively demonstrated your inability to solve even simple problems so there is not the slightest expectation that you, or any conservative really, will make any contribution to our energy path forward. We don't need or value your input. We are doing and will continue to do what needs to be done. 

Carry on.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually, no you won't because the public is no longer falling for your scam.

The game is over, boys.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your "solution" is to spend tens of trillions of dollars.
And you don't know, or care, how large a reduction in CO2 that spending will buy.
At least we'll have more expensive, less reliable energy.......


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How many new coal fired power plants are under construction? Oil refineries? 

Follow the new capacity investments. Follow where auto manufacturers are going with the new CAFE standards. Hear those footsteps? Cap and trade is coming. 

You have no game. No science. No resources. No organization. No plan. No support except for big oil and the conservative media political entertainers. 

And, of course, the sheep.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And yet my solution is cheaper than yours.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Tens of trillions for zero benefit is cheaper?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Why Is Germany's Greenest City Building a Coal-Fired Power Plant? | InsideClimate News

Why Is Germany's Greenest City Building a Coal-Fired Power Plant?

If you look east or south, however, Moorburg becomes something else entirely. Just a stone's throw from the church, towering smokestacks and boxy buildings mark the site of a new power plant that next year will begin converting enormous amounts of coal, one of the world's dirtiest fuels, into electricity. Some of that coal may come from the United States.

*Follow where auto manufacturers are going with the new CAFE standards. *

Bankruptcy.


----------



## boedicca (Sep 9, 2013)

Maybe the Germans are getting tired of electricity being a Luxury Good.

_ Germany's agressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty pricetag for consumers, and the costs often fall disproportionately on the poor. Government advisors are calling for a completely new start.

If you want to do something big, you have to start small. That's something German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier knows all too well. The politician, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has put together a manual of practical tips on how everyone can make small, everyday contributions to the shift away from nuclear power and toward green energy. The so-called Energiewende -- literally "energy turnaround" -- is Chancellor Angela Merkel's project of the century.

"Join in and start today," Altmaier writes in the introduction. He then turns to such everyday activities as baking and cooking. "Avoid preheating and utilize residual heat," Altmaier advises. TV viewers can also save a lot of electricity, albeit at the expense of picture quality. "For instance, you can reduce brightness and contrast," his booklet suggests. ..._

How Electricity Became a Luxury Good - ABC News


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes. Show us the science that says otherwise. Not the politics. The science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I asked you for the science backing up your spending wishes.

What is the reduction in CO2 in ppm after we waste tens of trillions?

You said you don't know and don't care.

Sounds like zero benefit to me. If you get any facts proving otherwise, come back y'all.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 9, 2013)

I'd rather spend the money on terraforming mars


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Maybe the Germans are getting tired of electricity being a Luxury Good.
> 
> _ Germany's agressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty pricetag for consumers, and the costs often fall disproportionately on the poor. Government advisors are calling for a completely new start.
> 
> ...



As usual, here's the rest of the story.

"One of the topics in this election season is the price of electricity. There is a lot of confusion around. Many people dont understand that the renewable revolution caused by the German feed-in tariff model*has lowered prices."

"This is also a season to discuss the surcharge, which will be fixed for next year on October 15. Spiegel has*an article*on the topic, and*Craig Morris has discussed that article here."

"Morris links to an interesting*study done by Brainpool*(PDF) for the German Green Party, which looks at the next surcharge decision in some detail."

"We learn (page 1) that German wholesale electricity prices are down from 5.115 cents estimated in 2012 to around 3.9 cents. Lets just note that*renewable energy has reduced wholesale prices* by 1.2 cents per kWh.*Multiply that by the 482 TWh they expect Germany to consume next year (page 21) , and we see that*renewable energy will reduce wholesale prices by EUR 5.784 billion*next year."

"Of course these lower prices will lead to a higher surcharge next year, since the surcharge is calculated by the difference between the feed-in tariff and the wholesale price.*But thats only a temporary effect. It will be gone after a decade or two."

"In contrast, the lower prices from a higher renewable share are here to stay. Those solar panels are not going anywhere."

"Even if renewable energy did not reduce prices, as it already does, it would add to Germanys price stability as a hedge against higher fossil fuel prices in the future.*But it does.*Renewable energy reduces electricity prices in Germany.*And this is still only the beginning. Over the next couple of decades, electricity will reach at least 80 percent renewable share*(Article 1 of the Law on Priority for Renewable Energy)."

"Of course there is also that global warming problem we seem to have. The analysis above doesnt even mention that phasing out fossil fuels will reduce the costs from global warming damages."

"We also learn from the Brainpool study mentioned above (page 21) that the surcharges are expected to go up by 0.07 cents for another 4 GW of solar over the year. Thats a killer number (007) that should lay to rest forever the outdated idea that solar is expensive.*And trying to slow down new solar in Germany right as costs have come down and we can finally reap the benefits from introducing it rock bottom prices is a very stupid idea. If it was the right thing to build the worlds biggest solar infrastructure back when prices were really high (and it was the right thing to do) then it doesnt make any sense at all to stop now."


Read more at Renewable Reducing Electricity Prices In Germany | CleanTechnica


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Toddbot, we'll never know if your acting stupid is an act or for real. 

There is no zero cost option. What the science from the IPCC will give us is the lowest cost option. The reason that you don't want that, is that you want to impose your solution on the country. Your solution not based on what is, but what you wish was.

We don't care what you want to be. We care about what is. And you're not smart enough to find that. We will follow expertise, not ignorance. You lose.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 9, 2013)

The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....

 Of course promote wind, solar and wave but you're not serious unless you do above. 

Or we can drop a few more tens of billion into a large fusion like system.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*There is no zero cost option. *

Who claimed there was a zero cost option for something?

You want to spend tens of trillions for something that reduces CO2 levels by some tiny amount. 

*The reason that you don't want that, is that you want to impose your solution on the country. *

What do you imagine I want to impose? Link?

*Your solution not based on what is, but what you wish was.*

You're projecting. That's your wish for less reliable, more expensive energy.

*What the science from the IPCC will give us is the lowest cost option. *

Lowest cost option for what? Spell it out. Be as precise as you can.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

Matthew said:


> The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....
> 
> Of course promote wind, solar and wave but you're not serious unless you do above.
> 
> Or we can drop a few more tens of billion into a large fusion like system.



*The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....*

Exactly! When you suggest that, the greens suddenly show that they really don't think CO2 is the worst thing ever.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....
> ...



Typical conservative problem avoidance. Lets all think of the worst thing ever.  That way avoiding the problem will seem smart. 

We really would return to the caves if it weren't for liberal visionaries and investors and problem solvers.


----------



## Dante (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> MIT professor: global warming is a religion
> Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
> 
> Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
> ...



Throughout history, there have been scientists that have gone against the scientific consensus. Think tobacco science. 

Poor little Davey, using a single scientist to refute the scientific consensus.


----------



## Dante (Sep 10, 2013)

> According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[61] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[61]


 Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Should we build more nukes to reduce CO2?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes. Preferably TWRs that help, not add to, our inability to effectively handle nuclear waste.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You're not totally hopeless.

We can handle the waste we have now. 
Some idiot decided we shouldn't reprocess the waste, and another idiot decided we shouldn't move it to Yucca Mountain, so now it sits.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.  Making more available is very risky.  

Finding a suitable burial ground is an improvement but comes down to States rights. NIMBY.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.*

It does? Since when?

*Making more available is very risky. * 

Reprocessing spent fuel in the US makes fissile material more available to terrorists? 
How do you figure that?

*Finding a suitable burial ground is an improvement*

Burying perfectly good uranium and plutonium fuel would be a massive waste.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm not as stupid as you.

You listen to what progressives say.

I watch what they do.  

And the two are always at odds.

Progressivism ALWAYS ends in lakes of blood.  If you can't get people to voluntarily accept your policies...you eliminate them.  First, politically; then...mass graves.  

This is what history shows.  REAL history; not your Wikipedia version.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Good Gaea, but your _faux_ superiority is getting tiresome.

Kid, get off your ass and DO something.  EARN that level of arrogance.

Pfffft.  Like _that'll_ ever happen...


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Whereas you want to spend trillions that we don't have -- and you don't even know or care what the result will be.

The standard leftist response to any problem:  Throw someone else's money at it.

Oh, and you don't want anyone to have a say in it, either.  You want to impose your will on others...because you KNOW what's best for them.

And the pathetic thing is, progressives can't even run their own lives.  You sissies are always whining that the government should make your decisions for you.  

Pathetic.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.  Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily,  sometimes more subtle means are required.
> 
> Often those subtleties start with information control.  Exposing citizens to what the powerful want them to believe,  obscuring what they don't want them to know.
> 
> ...


Unsurprisingly, you have that ass-backwards.

The internet has been a massive thorn in the side of the left.  It allows people to see and discuss things the left would rather have hidden from view.  

The liberal media used to be the final word.  The left had a stranglehold on what was seen and what wasn't.  You had the thought control you love.

But then the internet happened, and now we can see the bullshit you're trying to force on us...and MAN, you hate that!  You would gladly do away with all dissenting voices.  It's that progressives do...because people don't always choose the way you insist they should.  More information = more informed choices = disaster to progressivism.  

You compare the internet to book-burning?  That's _amazingly_ stupid.  The internet is like unlocking the library and letting everyone in to read.

You're just pissed off that they're reading things you have no control over.  

It SUCKS to be you.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You'd have more credibility if you hadn't insisted we unquestioningly and unthinkingly accept everything the IPCC says.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MIT professor: global warming is a religion
> ...


Read the thread.  You'll see PMZ and Abraham proving the OP right.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So, in your world, science is not credible. If that is what you believe what are you doing here? This forum is about science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > World history is replete with those who see themselves entitled to power over others.  Sometimes those ends can be achieved militarily,  sometimes more subtle means are required.
> ...



If you believe that everything on the Internet is right, no wonder you were so easy to lead astray.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


SCIENCE is credible -- if it's done correctly.

Climate science is not credible.  Nor is the IPCC...as I'm sure you've seen in the thread I started a little while ago.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Your problem is...you're just so damn stupid.

Nowhere did I say that everything on the internet is right.

Did I?  Be honest for two whole seconds back to back.

No, you hate the internet because it allows unapproved ideas to be exposed to the public. 

That's very dangerous to progressives.  Can't have people thinking for themselves, oh no!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



What science can you offer that is a more credible explanation of the impact of GHGs on climate?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I can't decide which I find more incredulous. That you feel that you need to check on the IPCC, or that you think that you can. 

How do you know that all the Internet stuff that you base your hatred of science on isn't the BS half of what's on the Internet?


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Perhaps you're having trouble finding the thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312288-is-this-sop-at-the-ipcc.html

Now tell me why I must believe the IPCC.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So much for you to learn.

Nuclear reprocessing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The voices in your head need to be replaced by a good dose of world history.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



"EARN that level of arrogance."

Already have. Just like you have earned here the description of a pathetic whiner.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I can't decide which I find more incredulous. That you feel that you need to check on the IPCC, or that you think that you can.


Wow.  Just..._wow._ 

And YOU claim I'M a blind follower?  You claim I can't think for myself?

You are living proof that the OP is correct.  You unthinkingly and slavishly believe the dogma handed down to you from the high priests, the IPCC.

You can not credibly deny this.


PMZ said:


> How do you know that all the Internet stuff that you base your hatred of science on isn't the BS half of what's on the Internet?


Once again, for the stupid lying bastards among us:

I don't hate science.  Science is great.  It's fascinating.  It's the key to survival for mankind.

What I DON'T like is crap science.  Science with an agenda.  Science that hides and distorts and manipulates data.  Science that isn't open for all to see.

In other words, I don't like AGW science.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I've got a good grasp on history.  And it disagrees with your fake version.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I hate to gut your CV, kid, but "being a liberal" is NOT an accomplishment.  It's NOT something other people will oooh and aaaah over.  It doesn't give your opinions the weight of fact.

So no, you have in fact earned nothing.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Because they have education, resources, background, integrity, data, academic connections, and intelligence nearly infinitely beyond yours.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I didn't see anything in there that backed your claims.
Try again?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The accomplishment of liberals are very well known. The failures of conservatives are legion.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you didn't see anything, you either didn't read it or are unable to understand it.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Go post that in my IPCC thread.  You know -- the one you're avoiding.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Then you don't have a good grasp on history.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Kid, you don't get to take credit for what other people have done.

YOU have to do something.  And stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue on the internet because people won't validate your vastly overblown sense of self-worth is NOT doing something.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



More foot-stamping.

Kid, you bore me.  No matter how much you insist I should, I'm not going to declare you the smartest guy in the room -- mostly because you're one of the dumbest.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I can't decide which I find more incredulous. That you feel that you need to check on the IPCC, or that you think that you can.
> ...



There is no such thing as AGW science. It's your standard physics, chemistry, biology, geology, meterology, mechanical, electrical and chemical engineering, statistics and mathematics, all brought to bear on the effect of GHGs on the climate.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And yet my solution is less expensive than yours. Thinking that ignoring problems will make them go away is the stuff of conservative wet dreams.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Still no conservative science that explains what they wish was true about GHGs. Not a single thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.*

Maybe you didn't read it or are unable to understand it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*And yet my solution is less expensive than yours.*

Spending tens of trillions gives us what solution again?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The necessary transition to sustainable energy with minimum investment in adapting to whatever new climate we end up with during the process. 

Tell us what your plan accomplishes.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I've got to tell you Toddbot that you are painfully slow on the cognitive uptake here. 

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates fissionable plutonium. That's the main ingredient in nuclear bombs. And, the hardest ingredient to refine. 

The more there is, the harder it is to keep away from the bad guys.

Perhaps more caffeine would help you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Still no conservative science that explains what they wish was true about GHGs. Not a single thing.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 10, 2013)

Dr. Lindzen is my new hero. I hope he runs for political office and exposes all those criminal frauds in the "scientific" community.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Why does the government have to force us to make the transition to more expensive less reliable energy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You said, *The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.*

Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?

Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor, instead of leaving it sitting in pools of water at dozens of reactors around the country?

Is that simple enough for you to understand?
Or do I need to use smaller words?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



"Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?"

Nobody can.

"Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor"

Do you understand the differences between power plants and bombs? Power plants are controllable. Bombs go boom. Plutonium is for bombs.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Because there is no way that it will happen otherwise.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Still no conservative science that explains what they wish was true about GHGs. Not a single thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"Can you list the number of times up until today that terrorists have acquired fissile material?"

*Nobody can.*

So when you said.....

*The world has trouble today keeping fissionable materials away from terrorists.*

You were wrong, lying or just stupid?

* Plutonium is for bombs.*

Maybe you should catch up on your reading?

MOX fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Really? Did the government have to force the transition from wood to coal?
From whale oil to petroleum?
From coal to diesel?

Typical liberal, can't imagine something will get done without government force.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



EXACTLY.. As in the news last spring that the US had cut it's CO2 emissions to about 1998 levels.. But this was accomplished WITHOUT the voices of the "doers" in PMZ's head and IN SPITE of every conceivable govt roadblock from Washington.. Imagine that.. 

To a leftist -- it's must be like voodoo...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The stupid act just makes losing worse Toddster.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Live and learn numb nuts.

What?s Behind the ?Good News? Declines in U.S. CO2 Emissions? | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

Just for the record, slowing down the rate that we are adding to GHG concentrations is what energy policy is all about. And energy policy is based on IPCC science. Evidence that common sense is winning over politics.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The government has to force us to drive at a reasonable speed! With a population containing lazy, irresponsible, anti country, gun toting, misogynistic, self centered, every man for himself, cultist, anti progress, conservatives the governments job is even more essential.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The government has to force us to drive at a reasonable speed! 

With a population containing lazy, irresponsible, anti country, gun toting, misogynistic, self centered, every man for himself, cultist, anti progress, conservatives, the government's job is even more essential.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Are you saying that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel does not produce materials that can be used by terrorists for bombs?


----------



## kiwina (Sep 10, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming IS a religion, and so is liberalism.  A SICK religion.
> ...


 Climate is defined as "the prevailing or average weather conditions" (webster's New World Dictionary ) Therefore, any one who thinks that he can change the climate thinnks that he can change the weather. any one who thinks that he can change the weather is eather a fool or is not in his right mind _iecrazy. 

any one who resorts to calling people who disagree with him an "ignorant ass" is simply projecting and can not hold a resonable debate._


----------



## kiwina (Sep 10, 2013)

The idea that people who don't know enough also don't know enough to realise that they don't know enough ("Dunning-Kruger effect" is so much simpler to get your tongue around) isn't particularly new. Bertrand Russell in The Triumph of Stupidity in the mid 1930s said that "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Even earlier, Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man in 1871, stated "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
In his 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, Al Franken described the phenomenon of "pseudo-certainty" which was rampantly being displayed by pundits and politicians such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who would use "common sense" as the basis for their confidently-made assertions, but without actually backing them up with time-consuming research or pesky facts. Franken prefers the term "being a fucking moron." Quote 
 In fairness I do not care for some of the people quoted here but I must acknowalge the truth of wht they are saying. IN many places in this world it is bad news to admitt that you don't know, How ever there is no excuse to contuine in ingerance or to check out what someone's statment. Right or left seem to make no difference.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

kiwina said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


_

No individual can change the weather. It took all 7B of us to that. And we did it the same way that nature did it. Atmospheric greenhouse gases. 

We can't bring back the climate that we built civilization around. It's gone for at least a very long time. We can, however, or at least some of us can, learn from our mistakes and not make things worse. Or, at least, very much worse._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You think reprocessing produces Pu-239 or U-235?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I hope that if I keep this up long enough some day you will actually answer a question.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Are you saying that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel does not produce materials that can be used by terrorists for bombs?*

No, you moron, reprocessing does not produce Pu-239 or U-235.
What traumatic brain injury did you suffer that made you think that?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



FISSILE MATERIALS

Fissile materials consist of isotopes whose nuclei fission after capturing a neutron of any energy. Fissionable isotopes fission only after the capture of neutrons with energies above some threshold value. Many heavy isotopes are fissionable, but many fewer of them are also fissile, and almost all of these are isotopes of uranium or plutonium. All fissile materials and some fissionable materials are usable in weapons. It is the odd-numbered isotopes of uranium and plutonium that are fissile: U-233,235 and Pu-239,241. U-235 and Pu-239 are the most common and are the best weapon materials.

From   Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy | Loose Nukes | FRONTLINE | PBS

I swear, you are the best that I've seen at avoiding learning.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There WAS NO "energy policy" that led investors to FRACKING and techniques that made extracting oil and gas more profitable. In FACT --- the leftist eco-nuts OPPOSED the idea of fracking and shale oil as viciously as they could. And there was no "GOVT POLICY" to ENCOURAGE the abundance of natural gas that made the CO2 reductions possible. 

Seems like you want to take credit for stuff that your "annointed" opposed.. While they dumped BILLIONS into gimmicks like wind --- the market and OUR doers reduced emissions WITHOUT $Trill UN MANDATED CO2 abatement farce.. 

What mental midget doesn't understand how that news item just snuck up on us WITHOUT MASSIVE LEFTIST micromanagement and govt intervention ??? 

The kind of midget that posts an article with THIS STATEMENT in it? 


> *U.S. carbon emissions have declined at an impressive rate given the absence of any cohesive federal climate change policy*.


 
And in a desparate effort to understate the importance of increased nat gas production, the authors MANGLE the contribution of wind to that reduction by stating the INSTALLED wind capacity and NOT ACTUAL PRODUCTION.. Actual production is about 25% of installed capacity. Wind played NO SIGNIFICANT part in the reduction..


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



This is the essence of conservative energy and climate policy. Do nothing and hope for the best. Perhaps something that we don't know about will miraculously appear and solve the problems that we do know about. 

I imagine that's the way it is with lesser primates. Doing nothing might work. 

What could possibly go wrong?

Acting stupid is a hard sell to liberals. We believe that our large brains contributed to our dominant species status. Thinking and planning and learning and working together got us here. 

Can you give us some examples where doing nothing solved some critical problems?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Now use that tiny brain of yours and tell me how reprocessing used fuel produces fissile materials.
I could use a laugh.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually, having government do nothing is always a better policy than having government do something.  It's for the same reason that having an unpainted house is better than letting a chimpanzee paint your house.



PMZ said:


> Acting stupid is a hard sell to liberals. We believe that our large brains contributed to our dominant species status. Thinking and planning and learning and working together got us here.
> 
> Can you give us some examples where doing nothing solved some critical problems?



Having Congress do the "thinking and planning" is the same as letting a chimpanzee paint your house.  Congress was elected by the bottom 51% of the population.  That's hardly a good resume for the position of planning America's future.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Lemme remind you why you are constantly on ignore.. It's because WE GIVE examples and facts and backup and you simply IGNORE IT and post CRAP like you just did. 

Can we give you some examples?? 

Toddster and I just did --- and you are IMPERVIOUS to knowledge. 
In the case of lowered CO2 emissions -- not only was NOTHING DONE (by political dictate) to affect that change, but YOUR primeval minions of monkeys fought AGAINST the policies that largely EFFECTED those good changes.. 

Got news for you.. I don't WANT to "work with you".. Thank GOD I don't HAVE to.. I still have some freedom of action and choice that you leftist tyrants haven't been able to pry from me... 

Back on ignore --- "lesser primate"....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Acting stupid is a hard sell to liberals. *

But you're so good at it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Still claiming that reprocessing used fuel produces fissile materials? Moron.


----------

