Global warming has as much evidence as Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Darwin has only Darwin and Gore has only Gore. As for Manhattan? Well, we wouldn't want anything bad happen to the staff now would we?

Please don't quote me out of context.

Quote:
So, maybe the reason so many "conservatives" are heads-in-the-sand global-warming deniers of the worst sort is pretty simple.

They know it's happening, and they are licking their chops, waiting for Manhattan to flood.

What 'cha think?

Wow, they should make a movie about that!

I think you're a fucking limp dick little liar. That's what I think....

Quote:

Quote:
Global warming has as much evidence as Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Yep, they are both absolutely proven beyond even a possible consideration of doubt.

No doubt about that.

Quote:
If you doubt that, you are either mentally ill or gullible beyond imagination.

To be more charitable, those who are not convinced by either tend to place more credence in faith than in education. As a result, they tend to be confused about the strict meaning of the word "theory" and unfamiliar with the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

John (ex-high-school science teacher) Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Yeah, I put as much faith into Darwin and Global Warming as some of your reviews. There is no evidence in the fossil record to support Darwin. There is no real evidence to support the Bible either. And I have yet to see any real evidence that global warming exists outside of mother nature. If global warming is a new trend than we are just going to have to suck on it. As for man, it is just another industry for corporate America to make money on. So, recycle all you want. I'm tearing the emission controls out of my vehicles so they run better. I personally don't give a shit one way or the other.

Quote:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

Quote:

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

So, what is your fucking major malfunction, Jim? Which is which? And where is the theory or hypothesis of "Global Warming"? I found it once on the label of a new and improved bottle of Windex, which I didn't buy because it doesn't clean glass. But knock yourself out. Considering of course morons like you complain about terror alert phenomenons in light of established facts merely because you don't like the messenger. The only shit that proves is you sleep in your own feces.

Show the evidence in the fossil record or I'm going to assume that Darwin is your God.

You can't find anything?

I have written before on the astounding relationship between the Global Warming faith and religion...My argument is pretty simple...the issue is simply too vast and covers too many disciplines for 99.9999% of the folk who speak of it from having any real understand of the science. It is like a HS Math teacher trying to explain Hawking's latest theorems...He simply repeats the talking points as the basis of the science is beyond him.

Today we might have a score of folk world wide who have a solid grounding in the fields sufficient to really say they understand the science, and they are not unanimous in their views. We also have tens of thousands of folk a few academic tiers down who repeat what are in essence simply talking points from that first group, and after that we get down to the folk who parrot those first folk and simply do not have the backgrounds to really understand even the basics of the science...the acolytes.

This is in no way different than the Parish Priest delving into the philosophy of Aquinas as though they understand it. In reality they simply believe.

Global Warming is full of simple believers who can regurgitate a few talking points as though they were divine revelation. That is Faith, not science.

No one on this forum understands the science making us all, believers and heretics, simply practitioners of the new pop religion, or its doubters.

When folk say the science is settled, they mean someone they respect told them the science was settled and in making the argument, they use a false appeal to authority, a millennium old logic fallacy.

As an Edit...here is what the Goracle has to say....Talk about a Pseudo Scientist! Good for a chuckle anyway.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/18/video-the-goracle-on-geothermal-temperatures/

Global warming shouldn't be so controversial.

We've likely been in a warming cycle for a hundred years.

In the last 50-60 years, the government has been providing planting data for which latitudes in America will support certain plantings, and the zones have uncontroversially been moving north since before Fox news told JIMV what to think.

Not "believing" the data, at this point, is an act of being manipulated by the strange marriage between Republicanism and global warming denial.

Now, I can fully understand the controversy between the parties regarding whether or not man is affecting the change or rate thereof. However, reducing the argument to an economic fear by the right is pretty damn stupid - "It can't be real because if we address the possibility, it will slow the economy!"

Geez, Shrub did that without global warming!

I will take the Jamesian angle on the problem....and invoke our devine command to be good shepherds of the domain God has given us. Is spewing pollution into our air and water what God told the fine Christians to do in keeping care of His planet? I think not.

Global warming or not, a good Christian should endeavor to take the best care of his planet - don't you think? God judges you on how you treat your things, you know.

I was not clear...I am not saying the earth's climate does not change. I am saying the pretense that man is either the cause or can do anything serious to change it is simply hubris and that the folk who post loudly on the issue are simply spouting religious dogma as science.

Quote:
I was not clear...I am not saying the earth's climate does not change. I am saying the pretense that man is either the cause or can do anything serious to change it is simply hubris and that the folk who post loudly on the issue are simply spouting religious dogma as science.

Mankind has readily affected climatic conditions.

Overgrazing and poor land use has created desertification in Africa. We've actually enhanced the aridity of a portion of a continent.

We destroyed the Colorado River delta and grown a desert right here in the lower Colorado River basin.

Heck, look at the epic effect the dust bowl conditions had on the climate of a relatively large part of America. Then look at the example of man remediating the phenomenon.

We are about to finish off many stocks of fish, with who knows what effect on the total ecosystem, and our trash in the oceanic gyres may have global implications on ocean climate.

Everywhere you look, there is evidence the we should be trying to a better job - with evidence of our ability to repair alot of the damage we may do, as well!

Quote:

Quote:
I was not clear...I am not saying the earth's climate does not change. I am saying the pretense that man is either the cause or can do anything serious to change it is simply hubris and that the folk who post loudly on the issue are simply spouting religious dogma as science.

So, then, you deny the testable, measurable results of the known absorbtion and reflection behavior of CO2?

One can test anything and use the result to reach any conclusion...the folk who pretend to science do not understand the science they cite. They rely on other folk or sources that they often agree with politically to provide the 'science'...

No one understands this and pretending otherwise is hubris, faith and not science.

Quote:
No one understands this and pretending otherwise is hubris, faith and not science.

Yet, the teabag global warming deniers say they KNOW it can't be occurring and they KNOW it can't be affected by humans.

If 'no one understands this,' why are you opposed to those who think we should be cautious about it and take the net safest position of trying to minimize our impact on the phenomenon.

Actually, most say the evidence is simply a leap of faith and we are reluctant to destroy the economy over someone else's pop religion.

Every bit of your last post was emotionally driven suppositional logic. Not one word had even a lick of sense in it.

Please take a hard look at what you just said. I'm not arguing one way or another, JIMV, but.. man. Watch out for that kind of thinking and expression. That one (post) looks like it came straight out of the egoic mirror.

This is a very complex subject at best, and it cannot be simplified. Therefore, there is plenty of room in any camp to make solid efforts to change perception of the public through the jostling and positioning of chains of 'logic'.

Quote:
Actually, most say the evidence is simply a leap of faith and we are reluctant to destroy the economy over someone else's pop religion.

Yes, addressing pollution in the 60's was also something that drove the teabagger types to apoplexy - economic doom, etc.

Birth defects? No way.

Affect on the food chain? Inconceivable!

Then Lake Eerie caught fire.

Being a good shepherd is an imperative - either devine or ethical, not an economic convenience.

Destroy the economy...what utter bullshit. You been drinking that polluted Fox Kool Aid again.

By the way, you've quickly shifted from "we don't know for sure" to "leap of faith" to cover your story. I bet you think there is no tobacco cancer link, too.

What a terrible world JIMV lives in. Economics uber alles, eh?

That's very sad. You are making Jesus unhappy.

Quote:
Every bit of your last post was emotionally driven suppositional logic. Not one word had even a lick of sense in it.

Please take a hard look at what you just said. I'm not arguing one way or another, JIMV, but.. man. Watch out for that kind of thinking and expression. That one (post) looks like it came straight out of the egoic mirror.

This is a very complex subject at best, and it cannot be simplified. Therefore, there is plenty of room in any camp to make solid efforts to change perception of the public through the jostling and positioning of chains of 'logic'.

My comment was in response to another...that said, my point is that you undersell the complication of the issue. My point was that NO ONE, for or against the issue knows enough to comment without falling into faith. Those that pretend to understand the science, simply do not.

That is the point...as no one can prove anything on this issue beyond the emotional, those pretending anything is settled are simply worshiping...they know it is so because they have faith it is so...That is no different than any established religion or for that matter, a belief in UFO's, bigfoot or ghosts.

Quote:
That is the point...as no one can prove anything on this issue beyond the emotional, those pretending anything is settled are simply worshiping...they know it is so because they have faith it is so...That is no different than any established religion or for that matter, a belief in UFO's, bigfoot or ghosts.

So, both the deniers and the opiners of global warming are in the league of UFO and Bigfoot aficionados?

Hmmm, we now have JIMV implying that UFO's, Bigfoot, and ghosts are just as likely to be true as global warming denial.

While I agree, you should really refrain from insulting the religion of Bigfoot Belief. The same people who don't believe in gloabl warming tend to believe in Bigfoot, Jesus, UFO's, Satan, and ghosts.

You're all over the place here, JIMV. We know you don't believe that global warming is occurring, yet you equate you belief with things like believing in Bigfoot and religion.

Quote:
Global warming shouldn't be so controversial.

We've likely been in a warming cycle for a hundred years.

Thank you!

BTW, some strange shit went down around here in 1947 so please keep UFOs out of the formula. We have the UFO industry and Wall Street has global warming.

Quote:

Quote:
That is the point...as no one can prove anything on this issue beyond the emotional, those pretending anything is settled are simply worshiping...they know it is so because they have faith it is so...That is no different than any established religion or for that matter, a belief in UFO's, bigfoot or ghosts.

So, both the deniers and the opiners of global warming are in the league of UFO and Bigfoot aficionados?

As far as their understanding of the issue...yes

Quote:
You're all over the place here, JIMV. We know you don't believe that global warming is occurring, yet you equate you belief with things like believing in Bigfoot and religion.

Actually, I am a doubter, not a devote of the faith...As to ghosts, having seen one, I believe...but like Global Warming folk, I cannot prove it.

I love ghost stories, are you comfortable telling the tale?

If so, I have a couple that would take me a while to type!

Not exactly a ghost story...here goes...when posted to our Embassy in South America I rented a large, and new home. One Saturday afternoon I was passing through a large salon when I saw someone clearly...Hispanic, gray pants, white shirt. I asked if I could help him, he said nothing but turned and walked into the social bathroom. I followed and no one was there. There was one window 8 inches square that did not open. This happened again about a month later. Never saw him again. Zero feeling of unease or fear. It simply was not scary. No idea who it was. No reputation of ghosts in the home or on the property.

I have infinite faith in the ability of JA and Mejias to survive. The fall of Manhatten? Bring it on. After you survive it, you are welcome to my sanctuary in the Sierras, for booze, happy tunes, and endless chasing (and eating, but only a few) of the wily trout.

Manhatten? Good riddance, as long as JA, Mejias, and whoever is manning the front desk all survive and make it West. The others? Fuck 'em and feed 'em bad pasta, slushed over with bad marinara.

Happy tunes, all.

Quote:
Every bit of your last post was emotionally driven suppositional logic. Not one word had even a lick of sense in it.

That's funny. Sometimes your dissertations remind of the same thing.

Now this is interesting...it appears 'if true' that some in the global warming community have known for years that their data was cooked and were hiding the real data...

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/hold_your_fire1/

Hacked E-Mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics

Article Tools Sponsored By
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 20, 2009

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2&hp

Edit...

Here is one of the memo's