The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

[AMDScooter]

2.
What a weak argument from someone who simply chooses not to see the results or complains about jobs as if these studies don't employ people.

Chooses not to see the results? I've seen the results. Billions wasted... nothing to show for it but a bunch of shotty computer models that habitually fail to accurately predict jack and fall to sh*t when their methods are exposed to light of day.

Oh.. but wait.. a new spin. So it's about employment? Well if we are gonna fund a religion on the basis that they create jobs. On that basis I'd much rather see something like Catholic Charities getting my tax $$. Instead of tax $$ being wasted to support you cult which does little to nothing to actually help anyone outside the cult.

Better still, let's look at federal funding in total thanks to the linked pdf study and not only look at chapter 15 but all funding to put things in perspective.
Chapter 1:
So the objection is a false figure of 4 billion, one that includes more than simply climate change as science but how to deal with current climate changes, in terms of a 148 billion budget.

The figure ain't false. It simply defies your spin.

Wow, roughly 2.5% of the total federal funding budget for R&D is being complained about without acknowledging the actual results of science that point to CO2 rising, past climate change events having disastrous results both on societies and economies, as well as the funding of alternative energy sources that would take us away from ME oil.

They have proved nothing of the sort. Remember.. "climate change" is what you warmers now call "MMGW". The problem is the two are not the same. Climate change is naturally occurring and has gone on long before man came into the picture.. will be going on long after we are gone. MMGW is just that.. man-made.. as in from whole cloth. I've listed it "inventors" in this very thread.

This is what you want to talk about? Great. Let's talk science, the results, what we fund, and stop this cult crap.

I'd love to talk about the naturally occurring climate change. The problem is you cultists are dead set against that. Instead you hide behind your precious "peer review" process. Or complain that dissenters (usually people who are experts in statistical analysis who pick apart your cult leaders computer models) are not real "climate scientists". Hiding the decline... destroying data... that's more your speed.

If you want to discuss any specific point of funding, go for it. I'll take the time to research it and rebut your argument. I just won't waste my time with general illusions as you constantly post via c&p of OpEds. If you want discussion, let's do it, but you'll have to exert yourself beyond taunts.

Better still, since we are on the topic about Federal funding research, let's talk about another source of funding for our universities.

Go for it scoot. Let's talk funding.

Oh.. general illusions..

It's interesting to note that Greenpeace has requested FOIA documents from Cuccinelli, specifically his correspondence with groups and individuals seeking to discredit the consensus of science. Seems that over $200k was donated to him by big energy for his election.


Ya... otoc is far above casting dispersions about motive. Feel free to beclown yourself further. I'm enjoying it.

You want specific? How's this for specific? Until you warmers can offer up real data as to how MMGW is gonna keel us all and how we can stop it.. you fund your cults "research" on your own coin? I do not feel taxpayer $$$ should be supporting any cult.. including yours.

[SteveW]

I don't know. Did you? Or is the wish and willingness to discuss actual coherent points without insult a disease to you?

Oh my goodness!!! Let's not get our dander up here.......

[Enmore]

How about that. A scientific study takes time to actually come to a defensible position.

You don't think 10 years is a little excessive? They put a man on the moon is less time than that.

This means what? That the learning about the impact of how we study things might actually affect the outcome of the study shouldn't be done and instead the money should go to you to pay your mortgage?

It means they dragged it out to maximise their grant money. I'm sure no one else had any problem understanding what I put.

Yeah, how about that. Kinda takes the wind out of your bias sails when a peer reviewed journal simply puts out science. Just like that CO2 plant study that you posted a while back that argued against current thinking.

In the past they'd have suppressed anything questioning the cult; That's why I was surprised. I would have though that would be obvious.

I can't help but wonder if the issue of bias isn't really an issue of science finding evidence that says you are wrong in your opinion and as such science should be banned.

There's certainly many billions of taxpayers' hard-earned money being thrown around to 'prove' only one side of the argument. You'd think if there was any actual concrete proof they'd have found it by now.

I don't have a problem with science, nor do I put scientists up on a pedestal and treat them as some sort of intellectual high priesthood like you seem to do. They're just like everyone else at the end of the day; There are some great ones, some terrible ones and most are in between. All of them all doing it for a living like any other job.

These arguments-time, stupid animals, mortgage, surprise-are tough to put my fingers around because all they do is attempt to influence opinion with ridicule. Lot's of that tactic going around here I see. Good one, nicely done.

I think most people's opinion on this matter is already decided. Those that can think for themselves anyway. Ridicule of this cargo science is the natural reaction to what's been going on.

[otoc]

Chooses not to see the results? I've seen the results. Billions wasted... nothing to show for it but a bunch of shotty computer models that habitually fail to accurately predict jack and fall to sh*t when their methods are exposed to light of day.

Yes scooter, I've read your blogs and given you rebuttals that you simply ignore.

But this isn't about the results of science where the majority of of climate studies point to warming and the effects, not about all the science organizations putting out positions that endorse the science as something we need to be serious about, this is about the source article I directly rebutted that called for a funding stop because it was a "controversial" field.

As to billions wasted and nothing to show for it? Seems like the "consensus" of papers says otherwise, and since an ignorant cuss like myself can blow holes into your blogger( not a put down, just an accurate description, lol) arguments and you still can't answer basic questions of mine in those exchanges, the best thing to say is you have an opinion. I have an opinion. You call my opinions names. I rebut your opinions. We are done with this line of thought.

Oh.. but wait.. a new spin. So it's about employment? Well if we are gonna fund a religion on the basis that they create jobs. On that basis I'd much rather see something like Catholic Charities getting my tax $$. Instead of tax $$ being wasted to support you cult which does little to nothing to actually help anyone outside the cult.

lol, the point about jobs was a complaint about funding made from the author of the source article your quote came from. Calm down. All I did was make a quick comment to how ridiculous that point was and all you are doing is supporting me.

The figure ain't false. It simply defies your spin.

lol, I put a relationship of total federal r&d funding into perspective of the amount stated that was going to climate change. I stated the climate change number was inflated since funding in that area was used for other purposes. You don't rebut that. You don't rebut anything by focusing on a different point. I made specific references to where the lump of funding was a misdirection.

They have proved nothing of the sort. Remember.. "climate change" is what you warmers now call "MMGW". The problem is the two are not the same.

I guess it's time for another scooter red herring. Yes, it was called global warming, with an emphasis on man's contribution. It was later clarifies as climate change because the global effect might mean while global temps go up (which they have), local areas might see other effects like cooling, or sporadic weather changes. You objection here does nothing to discount the scientific studies.

Climate change is naturally occurring and has gone on long before man came into the picture.. will be going on long after we are gone. MMGW is just that.. man-made.. as in from whole cloth. I've listed it "inventors" in this very thread.

Scoot, I'm not going to search for past points, nor am I going to replay the arguments of natural cycles. No climate scientist denies the effect of natural cycles. The studies work hard to explain the differences. Don't be a simpleton.

I'd love to talk about the naturally occurring climate change. The problem is you cultists are dead set against that. Instead you hide behind your precious "peer review" process. Or complain that dissenters (usually people who are experts in statistical analysis who pick apart your cult leaders computer models) are not real "climate scientists". Hiding the decline... destroying data... that's more your speed.

What a feeble argument. Peer reviewed science is bad. But it's used by both sides. And I'm pretty particular with differentiating scientists in the field and talking heads with no science background. That's why I don't listen to Gore any more than Monkton. Nothing was hidden other than the use of a term, models are used by both sides with the application of statistical methods, and nothing was found to cause erroneous outcomes in the final analysis. The problem with only applying statistical analysis alone is that an understanding of all the variables needs to be Your talking points are nothing but talking points designed to cause question yet you use them as proof that all scientific studies are a complete sham. And the natural cycle thing illustrated with the cult comment. How stupid do you think people are to buy into a lie that climate scientists are "dead set against" natural cycles or that the climategate arguments did anything to cause the basic theory to be debunked.

Oh.. general illusions..

It's interesting to note that Greenpeace has requested FOIA documents from Cuccinelli, specifically his correspondence with groups and individuals seeking to discredit the consensus of science. Seems that over $200k was donated to him by big energy for his election.

Ya... otoc is far above casting dispersions about motive. Feel free to beclown yourself further. I'm enjoying it.

Yeah, great illusion scooter. Another thread and point you never directly answered with many points made in that post:
http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.p...87#post4480987
Look at your answer, the usual ad hominems and rants. The point about Cuccinelli was a minor one in rebuttal to your OpEd stating he should be called a hero, even after lower courts called his "fraud case" groundless and and your OpEd criticsized UV for defending themselves against fraud. Give me a break. This isn't even a red herring. It's not true that it was an illusion. And it has nothing to do with funding.

You want specific? How's this for specific? Until you warmers can offer up real data as to how MMGW is gonna keel us all and how we can stop it.. you fund your cults "research" on your own coin? I do not feel taxpayer $$$ should be supporting any cult.. including yours.

Omg, what an argument about funding science. And from where do you get "MMGW is gonna keel us all"?

And real data? Come on scoot, even this is getting to be a rather frayed argument of yours. The illusion that data isn't real. Considering the same data is used by skeptics of the theory should put that to rest.




So let's cut to the chase here. I have no time to rehash the same arguments over and over when all I did was try to address funding which I don't see you doing other than with the following argument:

You don't believe the scientific studies. You are absolutely convinced this is a sham, a lie, and has been disproved. Therefore you feel no funding should be used.

I feel the scientific studies address every point you've made, that the consensus in science has endorsed the theory as one that is a serious matter that effects the globe from both a viewpoint of society changes and economic impacts that far surpass any amount that the federal r&d budget. But more importantly, because of the valid questions that are brought up by climate scientists admitting where we need to know more, we need to fund it. If for any reason but to get better clarification to the points made by skeptics. At least the ones that actually hold water.

OK? To answer your previous taunt, I discussed funding. And I also held myself in great restraint not to return the taunts you constantly threw out in my direction.

We disagree. But at least funding was discussed. Well, at least I was willing to discuss actual funding points. But to you all funding is bad and as such nothing other than your opinion that the science is a sham is discussion.

Now unless you have something of relevance to add, I consider this exchange to be done. I don't have the time to argue the same points only to have you ignore them and bring them up again in a later post as an example of anything.

[otoc]

Oh my goodness!!! Let's not get our dander up here.......

lol, my dander is just fine. I'm neither annoyed or angry. Nor do I think of you as scurf from the coat or feathers of various animals, often of an allergenic nature. If you don't wish I answer your little quips, don't make them. Or at least come back with something a little better than this.

[otoc]

You don't think 10 years is a little excessive? They put a man on the moon is less time than that.

I have no opinion. I don't know how much they got, or how long the study had to be done to make it valid. Putting a man on the moon isn't a valid point to me. More money was spent, many more people used, and the topic wasn't how something affects a species over time, but how to beat the russians during the cold war even with the loss of life. These days, after a shuttle accident with known causes, we take how long to put up the next shuttle?

It means they dragged it out to maximise their grant money. I'm sure no one else had any problem understanding what I put.

Not by your example. As to what others have a problem doing or not, I could care less.

In the past they'd have suppressed anything questioning the cult; That's why I was surprised. I would have though that would be obvious.

This journal has? They have suppressed? It's still not obvious.

There's certainly many billions of taxpayers' hard-earned money being thrown around to 'prove' only one side of the argument. You'd think if there was any actual concrete proof they'd have found it by now.

Wow. I'd say there is enough proof to warrant more study. I'd also say you have decided on the issue.

I don't have a problem with science, nor do I put scientists up on a pedestal and treat them as some sort of intellectual high priesthood like you seem to do. They're just like everyone else at the end of the day; There are some great ones, some terrible ones and most are in between. All of them all doing it for a living like any other job.

I think you've been reading scooter too much and have come to his conclusion. All I do is say science on both sides of the equation needs to be furthered. I've said I don't have an opinion on c&p. I haven't put anybody up on a pedestal, I've even commented on one post of yours that had interesting results that showed we have more time due to initial plant reactions. I've even criticized Hansen on several occasions on the subject of objectivity.

I think most people's opinion on this matter is already decided. Those that can think for themselves anyway. Ridicule of this cargo science is the natural reaction to what's been going on.

Yes it does show that people have concluded their opinion. Some more than others. But that's as far as I'll go with your assessment.

[Enmore]

[otoc]

wow. Yeah funny. And so indicative of this place of late. Take it down please, for you have achieved the level of personal insult I never thought anyone would stoop so low as to attempt. The humor escapes me since all I was expressing was my opinion toward yours. If this is how you counter an opposing opinion done with respect, I don't think it has anything to do with being a retard.

[SteveW]

lol, my dander is just fine. I'm neither annoyed or angry. Nor do I think of you as scurf from the coat or feathers of various animals, often of an allergenic nature. If you don't wish I answer your little quips, don't make them. Or at least come back with something a little better than this.

ROFL - please do continue on with the GrandMaster SpinDoctor "One Against the World" battle for Truth, Justice and The Liberal Way.......who knows, maybe Dutch, Scooter, Enmore, bk94, or even I will convert over some fine day.......

Keep the faith.

[SteveW]

wow. Yeah funny. And so indicative of this place of late. Take it down please, for you have achieved the level of personal insult I never thought anyone would stoop so low as to attempt. The humor escapes me since all I was expressing was my opinion toward yours. If this is how you counter an opposing opinion done with respect, I don't think it has anything to do with being a retard.

Spot on - I say leave it!!!!

[kbohip]

LMAO. I figured this out LONG ago. I don't waste my time anymore with the quoting King.

[Dutchcedar]

ROFL - please do continue on with the GrandMaster SpinDoctor "One Against the World" battle for Truth, Justice and The Liberal Way.......who knows, maybe Dutch, Scooter, Enmore, bk94, or even I will convert over some fine day.......

Keep the faith.

To be fair...

I do believe in "climate change".

C'mon Springtime. We're ready for ya.

One of the funniest thing we've gotten from pouring all of our tax dollars down this money pit is the change from the scientific term of Anthropogenic Global Warming to "climate change". Very scientific, don'tchathink?

Try telling otoc you have a problem with believing the man made global warming mantra and see how quickly he'll call you names for not believing in climate change. On that alone, the cartoon fits. Its as if a picture is worth a thousand words.

[tucker]

Never mind no sense piling on…

[SteveW]

To be fair...

I do believe in "climate change".

C'mon Springtime. We're ready for ya.

One of the funniest thing we've gotten from pouring all of our tax dollars down this money pit is the change from the scientific term of Anthropogenic Global Warming to "climate change". Very scientific, don'tchathink?

Try telling otoc you have a problem with believing the man made global warming mantra and see how quickly he'll call you names for not believing in climate change. On that alone, the cartoon fits. Its as if a picture is worth a thousand words.

Where I have the biggest problem with the whole thing isn't with the "Science" or the debate - it's what the politicians aligned with "The MMGW Cause" are proposing to do to "Punish" industry....... Nowhere does that suggest any rationale path forward or "Fix" for the problem if it indeed were factual.......they just take the scam to the next level and use it for an excuse to increase taxation on a global scale.

[AMDScooter]

I can see you need a good father-to-son lecture… Who do you prefer try to personally shame you for not living up to their highly subjective intellectual debating standards, there’s 2 or 3 excellent choices…

Boy o boy are you ever in for it now mister…

Lol.. gotta love it when one of the forum's most prolific bomb tossers gets up on his high horsie. Yet another classic that just might equal the infamous "why I parted ways with the right" post.