And of course below I meant C02 was a little over .03% not 3%. This is why I rely on the scientific consensus rather than attempting to do the science myself.
So, back to the Exxon is bad huh? By your constant ad hominem attacks on Exxon I take it your implying alarmists dont have a financial vested interest? Cuz if you are then you are dumb and if you are not then youre dumb and a hypocrite.
Well the people paid by Exxon have a direct financial interest in disputing global warming and the people who get paid by their university or grants have an interest in pursuing scientific truth. I will concede that there is always a degree of group-think in any human endeavor and one must watch out for it. Exxon gets what it pays for.
If climate change was truly affected by man then we wouldn't be having this argument. This is not science, this is dogma.
everyone with a brain knows this is bullshit. If they support it anyway they have an agenda.
anyone who actually believes that the basis of all life is a pollutant is stupid.
I don't know why you still come back gary. You confirm your idiocy every time you make a comment. You're a tool for the democrat party. You're exactly the type of person they count on to push their socialist agenda. You're a religious zealot who prays to the global warming (oops that's right the earth isn't warming)i mean the "climate change" gods.
I'm just glad i don't have to look at you because it would be so awkward. Like watching those people on american idol who argue that they really can sing and they're just making fools of themselves. It's funny but you pity them. I pity you.
Always the insults. Funny that all the major scientific bodies are full of idiots. The IPCC, the AAAS, the Royal Society, and on and on. Fools and idiots. "No one with a brain" could accept global warming. You KNOW they are all wrong and Fred Singer is right. He was wrong about tobacco, wrong about ozone and he's very probably wrong about global warming.
For the last time, why don't you answer the question. How can you be so CERTAIN that all these scientific bodies are wrong, and Fred Singer (and a few others) are right, regardless of the fact that they never do studies, never publish, and take EXXON money? You don't answer because you do not have an intelligent answer.
For me the main reason I think that you are not guided by the science is that you are 100% certain. I'm not. Maybe %90. Bertrand Russell said that fools and fanatics are always certain and the wise full of doubt. Easy to see which category you fall into.
No Gary, The IPCC, the AAAS, the Royal Society, and on and on are not idiots, its the likes of you that listen to them that are the idiots. They know exactly what theyre doing... power and money grabbing. NASA just "discovered" that the sun impacts temperature for fucks sake. They have ZERO science on their side or else you would have linked it ages ago, but they dont so you havent and why you prefer to argue the semantics of consensus peer review and make attacks on Exxon.
They have ZERO science? Then why are all the actual published studies on their side and all you've got are op-ed pieces and glossy brochures from rightwing think tanks?
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
Of course this meta-review of the literature is a bit old, 2003. There have been a lot of studies supporting anthropogenic global warming since then. But you have Fred Singer and that EPA economist.
What the fuck is that? lol. An article saying they all agree? They all agreed on the hockey stick too. You bring absolutely nothing to the table. You confuse science with facts, and you miscontrue consensus with truth.
If they all agree, then it should be very easy to show me the evidence that man's carbon is solely responsible for the recent warming cooling cycle. I have asked over and over and over again and you can not provide evidence for the the basic premise of your enitre ideology. You cant. Time to put up or shut up. Or just go away, again. Loser.
I'm not insulting you. I'm calling a spade a spade.
riddle me this tool (again not an insult just what you are)...Is consensus science?
If your answer is yes then you should just stop commenting here. You're not smart enough. If you're answer is no then you're on the way to recovery.
The earth is round. Sure there was consensus at one time that the earth was flat, but science proves that is not the case.
The earth rotates around the sun. Yes at one time there was a consensus that the opposite was true, but scientists proved other wise.
You see the difference?
Now since your reading comprehension isn't the best i'll say it again. I'm not calling algore or any of those other bodies that you mentioned stupid. I'm saying they are advancing their agenda and they count on stupid people who actually believe their bullshit to help them do it.
Do you believe in man made global warming? Do you think a cap and tax idea that just passed the house is a good idea? Do you believe that ANY of the people who voted in favor of that 1300 page bill read it?
If your answere to any of those questions is yes then you are a tool. You're being used by the statists to advance their agenda and you are submitting to slavery.
It's ok by me if that's the case. I can't relate to it but it was thoroughly explained by Eric Hoffer in The True Believer. Apparently you don't want that much control over your own life. It's fairly common, and in fact he says that MOST people feel this way. Scary.
Is consensus science? No, science is a method. Betrand Russell, not at all an idiot, said that the best a layman can do, and that would include policy makers, is to be guided by the scientific consensus, and if there is none to withhold judgement. But you're not withholding judgement, you've made up your mind and a million scientific studies would't change it.
Sometimes the consensus proves to be wrong, as in the Copernican theory. (By the way, scientists never thought the Earth was flat, that's a myth.) So yes conceivably the 1000 scientific studies could be wrong, and Fred Singer's personal opinion, not backed by any studies, could be right. Unlikely but possible. But you are sure he's right. WHY? Let him do one study, submit one paper to Science or Nature, and I'll take a look at it.
Now I understand that you don't think the scientists are idiots, you just think it's a liberal plot of some sort. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
And no I don't think anyone read the bill before Congress, just as nobody read the Patriot Act.
14 comments:
Since you like colorful fact sheets:
http://www.edf.org/documents/3943_paidskeptics.pdf
Not as colorful, sorry, but about the National Center for Policy Analysis, the source of your graphic:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55
And of course below I meant C02 was a little over .03% not 3%. This is why I rely on the scientific consensus rather than attempting to do the science myself.
So, back to the Exxon is bad huh? By your constant ad hominem attacks on Exxon I take it your implying alarmists dont have a financial vested interest? Cuz if you are then you are dumb and if you are not then youre dumb and a hypocrite.
Well the people paid by Exxon have a direct financial interest in disputing global warming and the people who get paid by their university or grants have an interest in pursuing scientific truth. I will concede that there is always a degree of group-think in any human endeavor and one must watch out for it. Exxon gets what it pays for.
If climate change was truly affected by man then we wouldn't be having this argument. This is not science, this is dogma.
everyone with a brain knows this is bullshit. If they support it anyway they have an agenda.
anyone who actually believes that the basis of all life is a pollutant is stupid.
I don't know why you still come back gary. You confirm your idiocy every time you make a comment. You're a tool for the democrat party. You're exactly the type of person they count on to push their socialist agenda. You're a religious zealot who prays to the global warming (oops that's right the earth isn't warming)i mean the "climate change" gods.
I'm just glad i don't have to look at you because it would be so awkward. Like watching those people on american idol who argue that they really can sing and they're just making fools of themselves. It's funny but you pity them. I pity you.
Always the insults. Funny that all the major scientific bodies are full of idiots. The IPCC, the AAAS, the Royal Society, and on and on. Fools and idiots. "No one with a brain" could accept global warming. You KNOW they are all wrong and Fred Singer is right. He was wrong about tobacco, wrong about ozone and he's very probably wrong about global warming.
For the last time, why don't you answer the question. How can you be so CERTAIN that all these scientific bodies are wrong, and Fred Singer (and a few others) are right, regardless of the fact that they never do studies, never publish, and take EXXON money? You don't answer because you do not have an intelligent answer.
For me the main reason I think that you are not guided by the science is that you are 100% certain. I'm not. Maybe %90. Bertrand Russell said that fools and fanatics are always certain and the wise full of doubt. Easy to see which category you fall into.
No Gary, The IPCC, the AAAS, the Royal Society, and on and on are not idiots, its the likes of you that listen to them that are the idiots. They know exactly what theyre doing... power and money grabbing. NASA just "discovered" that the sun impacts temperature for fucks sake. They have ZERO science on their side or else you would have linked it ages ago, but they dont so you havent and why you prefer to argue the semantics of consensus peer review and make attacks on Exxon.
They have ZERO science? Then why are all the actual published studies on their side and all you've got are op-ed pieces and glossy brochures from rightwing think tanks?
And since you say I never link to science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
Of course this meta-review of the literature is a bit old, 2003. There have been a lot of studies supporting anthropogenic global warming since then. But you have Fred Singer and that EPA economist.
And since you're all about the science:
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/ClimateChangeScience.pdf
What the fuck is that? lol. An article saying they all agree? They all agreed on the hockey stick too. You bring absolutely nothing to the table. You confuse science with facts, and you miscontrue consensus with truth.
If they all agree, then it should be very easy to show me the evidence that man's carbon is solely responsible for the recent warming cooling cycle. I have asked over and over and over again and you can not provide evidence for the the basic premise of your enitre ideology. You cant. Time to put up or shut up. Or just go away, again. Loser.
By the way, the IPCC at the time of that article also agreed that the sun had ZERO impact on global temperature. They have since been proven wrong.
.... by 5th graders.
Wow you really are dense.
I'm not insulting you. I'm calling a spade a spade.
riddle me this tool (again not an insult just what you are)...Is consensus science?
If your answer is yes then you should just stop commenting here. You're not smart enough. If you're answer is no then you're on the way to recovery.
The earth is round. Sure there was consensus at one time that the earth was flat, but science proves that is not the case.
The earth rotates around the sun. Yes at one time there was a consensus that the opposite was true, but scientists proved other wise.
You see the difference?
Now since your reading comprehension isn't the best i'll say it again. I'm not calling algore or any of those other bodies that you mentioned stupid. I'm saying they are advancing their agenda and they count on stupid people who actually believe their bullshit to help them do it.
Do you believe in man made global warming? Do you think a cap and tax idea that just passed the house is a good idea? Do you believe that ANY of the people who voted in favor of that 1300 page bill read it?
If your answere to any of those questions is yes then you are a tool. You're being used by the statists to advance their agenda and you are submitting to slavery.
It's ok by me if that's the case. I can't relate to it but it was thoroughly explained by Eric Hoffer in The True Believer. Apparently you don't want that much control over your own life.
It's fairly common, and in fact he says that MOST people feel this way.
Scary.
Is consensus science? No, science is a method. Betrand Russell, not at all an idiot, said that the best a layman can do, and that would include policy makers, is to be guided by the scientific consensus, and if there is none to withhold judgement. But you're not withholding judgement, you've made up your mind and a million scientific studies would't change it.
Sometimes the consensus proves to be wrong, as in the Copernican theory. (By the way, scientists never thought the Earth was flat, that's a myth.) So yes conceivably the 1000 scientific studies could be wrong, and Fred Singer's personal opinion, not backed by any studies, could be right. Unlikely but possible. But you are sure he's right. WHY? Let him do one study, submit one paper to Science or Nature, and I'll take a look at it.
Now I understand that you don't think the scientists are idiots, you just think it's a liberal plot of some sort. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
And no I don't think anyone read the bill before Congress, just as nobody read the Patriot Act.
Post a Comment