I could not get a cup of coffee in my NY office because the company trashed all the styrofoam cups and did not replace them. I blame Red and the rest of the kooks.
Sigh. Another war of attrition with the master of illogical debate... First of all, go here for a sampling of the counterargument that ZERO media outlets will air because it's heretical to the dogma. PhD's are not special people. They are people who have stayed in school long enough to convince other people in school that they deserve the title PhD. I know this because I'm close to being one and am around the ALL THE TIME. For a long period, I worked with them EVERY DAY. Some of the smartest and some of the dimmest people I've ever met are PhDs. Society holds them up as clergy, but really, as a group, - they're slightly above average intellects who have been trained to write with a purpose and discipline. Dissertations are largely based on pleasing the faculty advisor and contributing to the narrative of the faculty in question. In the case of this subject matter, that faculty is neary 100% Liberal world view. Ergo... No. The data is there. The hypothesis is worth exploring. But there's very little real and conclusive evidence that global temperatue cycles respond negatively to human interaction. It's all hypothesis. Just like the basis of most religions. There is no real evidence that MAN MADE global warming exists. All we have is circumspect circumstancial data of dubious validity when taken in context of the age of the planet and the microseconds we've been measuring anything with anykind of reliability and consistency. The data is overwhelming. The proof is highly subjective and unscientifically arrived at. I don't ignore it. I scoff at the notion that this is anything but an ideologically driven hypothesis with an amazing marketing plan. Besides, you've proven time and again through your very selective editing of my comments and your deflective counterarguments, that you have no idea what my politics or my "ideology" would be. Al Gore isn't a politician anymore. Al Gore is an environmentalist zealot and a leading extremist. He's the Reverand Al Sharpton of the environmental movement. I detest Al Gore - not on political grounds, because I honestly have forgotten what his real politics are, and he has too - but because of what I know, first hand, about his character, or lack thereof. You'll ask me to prove it. I can't say anymore. He's a toad. And a fraud. I can't prove it to you. But I know. Those ideas WERE the science of their times. Just like you claim man-made global warming is. I'll give you this. The religious connection then and now is consistent. Since environmentalism is a religion in and of itself. I'll give you this. That was one heinous sentence. But, there's a ton of DATA not evidence. Only the contemporary sources hold any water. All of the historical data (say 1850 and earlier) is either dubious at best or flat out extrapolations without context (guessing). Again - you confuse data with evidence. To turn data into evidence you need knowledge of context. THIS science most definitely pursues a Liberal world view. Much of it does NOT pass peer review (see link at top of post). The academic departments that contribute to this hypothesis are ideologically homogeneous. Engineering? No. Business? No. Medicine? No. Climatology, paleantology, most of geology, and the other sciences that contribute to this? Hugely Liberal. Just like English, Political Science, History, Psychology, etc. Uh. right back atcha? :huh::insane: Tough to address this criticism. Now we're getting somewhere To each his own, your Redness. We'll be hearing about the coming ice age and how man is at fault for that in about two decades. It'll be the same cast and their disciples (the same ones who've been predicting peak oil any day now since the 60s and who heralded the last ice-age scare in the 70s). They'll claim victory in the global warming crusade, but the evil non-believers actually are now causing Gaia to frown upon the coming cooling of the planet. I'll be there to scoff. You'll be there to scoff at my scoffing. We can drink Corona's. Lime?
I don't believe in all the man-made global warming hype...but for those who do, please keep riding your bicycle to work, wiping your ass with one sheet of toilet paper, and turning off all your lights at night. Your efforts mean I can enjoy lighter traffic, nice trees, and my Christmas display will really stand out when I plug in 20,000 lights! It sure has been getting cold around the country this year. It must be global warming. :dis:
And he calls himself the voice of reason . . . :insane: Say, I can send you a case of porceline Boy Scout mugs. Leave one in every place you drink coffee. It's a better coffee container, it's "green", and the fags will hate you for supporting the Scouts. Cheer you right up.
You only damage your own credibility with this . . . Come on . . . a report by a politician? Talk about an agenda. Why don't you try a scientific report by expert climatologists. IPCC True enough. But they are experts in their fields. Dissertations and a career of peer-reviewed research are two very different things. What evidence do you offer to conclude that faculty is "100% liberal". I'd like to see that. Anecdotes do not qualify. Concensus again. Most of the worlds experts agree on global warming. It just kills you doesn't it? I'm sure you can argue that Most of the worlds republicans disagree and I won't contest it at all. Neither will I take it seriously. It's political dissent, not scientific dissent. You keep repeating this but it won't make it true. Are you a climatologist? How can you rule their findings to be of "dubious validity"? What exactly is dubious about it? The climate data from ice cores goes back many thousands of years. Reliable, historic temperature data has existed for over a thousand years. Human-induced global warming started increasing over 10,000 years ago when humans began large-scale agriculture and deforestation and it rose considerably at the dawn of the industrial age. Prove it. It is published in respectable, peer reviewed, and refereed journals. Thats not subjective, nor is it unscientific. Yes, and now we all know exactly where you are coming from. Repeating yourself, offering nothing new. You mean the opinions of a politician that you linked to? Easy for you to say and you don't even attempt to document this absurd claim? I dont blame you. You're completely missing something here and it's a major point for those who say we should do nothing about global warming. If Peak Oil is a fact, and it is, it will also inevitably be a major cure for human-induced global warming. One could argue that HIGW is indeed real but we need do nothing about it because the oil will be gone in 100 years and the coal in 200 years and the planet will recover much of its natural rhythm. This is why I've never argued in favor of Kyoto, which is a band-aid. I only argue that the phenomenon itself is real and should be taken seriously. There are some things we can do to improve the situation without hurting anybody at all. No fruits in my beer.
