doublegunshop.com - home Forums Global warming

Gnomon,

criagd, much like keith, just makes up shit.

Hasn't anyone looked at the URL that cpa posted? It's terrific:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/06/the_global_warming_crisis.php

The comments following are, too.

NCA225, without disavowing any of my political viewpoints, I'll point out that I have been rather explicit in this thread about the reasons for my suspicions about the evidence of man made climate change.

And none of them are based either on religious grounds as cpa thought, or political grounds as you are suggesting. Unless you feel that lying and manipulating and suppressing data are uniquely political.

In fact what I think I have seen is a strong argument in favour of a radical political/social agenda combined with a self serving financial agenda (read Al Gore et al) that uses man made climate change as the trojan horse. Can't find another plausible rational for the scientific subterfuge. Would love to hear one.

As far as missing things go, I try not to, but, like everyone I've ever met, I'm far from perfect.

I do try to separate opinion - man is in the process of creating a climate disaster - from fact - the earth's historical record, as much as we can understand it at this point, indicates substatial changes in climate, some of which have been quite sudden and some have taken many thousands of years to become apparent.

Yup, I read it.

NCA225, in the comments section of that very article there is a discussion pointing out increase of antarctic ice mass over the last 30 years. I guess it's not quite as "settled" as you would suggest.

For the record, unlike you, I'm not saying it is or isn't decreasing. I'm just saying, like with so much else connected to man made global warming, there are widely divergent opinions, results of studies and viewpoints. Gnomon earlier made the point that sometimes the science is wrong but we do the best we can at the time. I would suggest that "the best we can" is not what the global warming hysterics are all about.

Canvas, as you have pointed out, words are important. I have not once suggested you hold your beliefs on climate changed based on your politics. I did point out that you seem to be judging me based on my posts not only on this thread but in what I have posted on threads concerning politics. I am unaware of similar behavior on my part directed towards you, here or in any other thread.

I think my point is clear and sound. As a whole, we cant even start a discussion on how to solve the issue, because an entrenched opposition to the science of climate change as manipulated by man made activities. The discussion does not even get off the ground, because of established talking points about the burden this would create on world economies and overregulation.

I will point out though that your skepticism seems to end with the IPCC science without questioning the motives of the "science" of the opposition. Who has the most to loose with addressing climate change? Its not governments, its the energy industry, whom as a whole is not beyond buying scientific results to keep their interests intact.

Canvas,

I typically care for what is in the article that is the product of a scientific institution. Not what the peanut gallery of comments has to say.

Same guys, turning everything into a political argument. so they can piss on each others legs........

I understood your comment to be directly pointed at my politics. If I misunderstood I apologize.

I have made judgements about you based on posts other than in this thread, although not as a result of any comments directed at me. And those comments I refer to involved ad hominem attacks. The person, not the message. I'm not saying you are the only one but I will say it hasn't simply been instances of defending yourself. I like these kinds of discussions, for the simple reason is they provide an opportunity to learn. However, when they go sideways, they become less interesting. This has been a pretty good one so far. Hope it stays that way.

You are right, the broader subject can't even get off the ground. But I have a different explanation for why not.

The hysteria surrounding Kyoto and the IPCC machinations have made it difficult. What's the difference you might ask? It's usually pretty easy to determine a shill for the coal and oil companies. The IPCC took the scientific subterfuge to a whole new level.

For many years now, the public face of the advocates of Kyoto and the IPCC have had a public stance of either you believe everything we say or you are dead to us. What kind of scientific examination does that allow for? What's with that? Then they get caught by irrefutable evidence of lying and information suppression and distortion.

My question to you would be why aren't you suspicious?