Is Satan the author of the Global Warming lie?

[_Fortigurn]

Too bad Fort and the others here (Scratch actually asked me an intelligent question on the subject) don't really want to discuss the evidence on its merits, but would rather engage in the usual ad hominem circumstantial agruments regarding "big oil" and "rebid right wingers" somehow having something to do with the merits of the evidence per se.

On the contrary:

* I have repeatedly addressed the issue of the evidence (you made certain claims regarding the evidence, I have asked you to explain why you believe the evidence supports those claims, and you have yet to answer)

* I have never made any ad hominem arguments, and I have never said anything about 'big oil' or 'rabid right wingers' having anything to do with the merits of the evdience.

Indeed, nobody here, including our new intellectual poseur Fort, who would rather play at being an "intellectual" than wade into the meat and potatoes of the evidence, has as yet even attempted a point for point analysis of the scientific evidence for AGW so that a point/counterpoint debate can even begin.

You still seem not to understand what I am asking you to do. I am not asking you to present what you believe is evidence against AGW. I am asking you to explain the process by which you have personally evaluated the available evidence, and dismiss certain claims whilst adhering to others.

I note the personal attack in your post here (referring to me as an 'intellectual poseur'). Do you believe this is acceptable Christian behaviour, or a legitimate method of debate?

[_Coggins7]

On the contrary:

* I have repeatedly addressed the issue of the evidence (you made certain claims regarding the evidence, I have asked you to explain why you believe the evidence supports those claims, and you have yet to answer)

I addressed that in my last post. I don't believe in AGW because there is no rational or scientific reason that I should.. That's all there is to it.

I note the personal attack in your post here (referring to me as an 'intellectual poseur'). Do you believe this is acceptable Christian behaviour, or a legitimate method of debate?

Stay on the subject.

[_Coggins7]

You still haven't addressed my question. Do you object to global warming "alarmism" because you think it is a flat-out "hoax"? Or merely because it is aligned with the Left? After all, as you point out, scientists are not in agreement on a number of points, so thus, doesn't it seem a bit over-the-top to label this "alarmism" a "hoax"? Couldn't it equally be described as "healthy caution" or "preventative measures"?

Its not over the top at all to label it as a hoax, for the simple reason that the confluence of the dearth of empirical evidence for it and the relentless propagandizing for it by only one ideological movement; the internatinal Left and the environmental movement, which is part of the Left, indicates quite clearly that it is. AGW is a hobby horses of the Left, just as global cooling was in the Seventies, and numerous other environmental scams have been since Rachel Carson. Conservatives and Libertarians will, for the most part, have nothing to do with it, and for good reason.

Environmentalism is the Left's latest great white hope, after global cooling, the nuclear freeze movement, and the mythology of overpopulation (among a plethora of other causes).

So, I don't believe it because there's no rational reason to, and I don't like it because its anohter Camel's nose for Socialism.

[_Fortigurn]

On the contrary:

* I have repeatedly addressed the issue of the evidence (you made certain claims regarding the evidence, I have asked you to explain why you believe the evidence supports those claims, and you have yet to answer)

I addressed that in my last post. I don't believe in AGW because there is no rational or scientific reason that I should.. That's all there is to it.

No I'm sorry, that does not actually address what I wrote. I have asked you to explain why you believe the evidence supports those claims, by explaining the process by which you evaluate the evidence, and distinguish truth from error. To date, you have yet to answer.

I note the personal attack in your post here (referring to me as an 'intellectual poseur'). Do you believe this is acceptable Christian behaviour, or a legitimate method of debate?

Stay on the subject.

I am staying on the subject. I am also pointing out not only the logical fallacies you use, but your poor debating skills, and unChristlike conduct. You are demonstrating a pattern of behaviour which may prove to be characteristic.

[_Coggins7]

The process by which I've come to disbelieve in AGW is based upon many years of study, analysis, and critical reasoning applied to the claims on both sides of the issue and to the weight of the peer reviewed empirical evidence as over against the lack of such evidence on the pro side and the claims of both the GCM modelers from which the theory derives and the political activists for whome it is a political golden goose.

The ideological aspects of the situtation are secondary to that.

[_Fortigurn]

The process by which I've come to disbelieve in AGW is based upon many years of study, analysis, and critical reasoning applied to the claims on both sides of the issue and to the weight of the peer reviewed empirical evidence as over against the lack of such evidence on the pro side and the claims of both the GCM modelers from which the theory derives and the political activists for whome it is a political golden goose.[/quote

Ok, you're getting a little closer. Now you've told me what the process is, but you still haven't described it. Could you explain, for example, how you determine the truth between conflicting peer reviewed reports on global climatology?

The ideological aspects of the situtation are secondary to that.

But they are included by you in your assessment. Thanks for making that clear.

[_ajax18]

Another interesting point to ponder is discussed here:


http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=904

and a critique of Gore's film and presentation here:


http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm#CHAPTERS

Loran, I have a question. Do you object to Global Warming "alarmism" because you feel that it is incorrect? Or do you object to it because you see it as being aligned with "The Left"? I only ask because one of your sources notes that scientists appear to disagree about which temperature will permanently and detrimentally affect the earth, in which case I have to wonder why it wouldn't be best to take a "preventative measures" sort of approach... I mean, I'm sure the jury is still out on some of the health benefits which are to be derived from smoking tobacco, so does that mean you should postpone quitting?

I don't see any potential problems due to not smoking. I do see potential problems with forcing the U.S.A. into significant economic sacrifice alone in the world.

[_bcspace]

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2362745.ece

The rise in atmospheric temperatures caused by global warming cannot account for the relatively rapid movement of the glaciers into the sea, but scientists suspect that warmer oceans may be playing a role.

Satellite measurements have shown that the Antarctic glaciers are retreating in a uniform manner, suggesting a common cause. Air temperatures over Antarctica are much too cold for any significant surface melting, which suggests that the flow of the glaciers into the sea is being aided by melting at their base, lubricating their movement into the ocean.

[_Mister Scratch]

You still haven't addressed my question. Do you object to global warming "alarmism" because you think it is a flat-out "hoax"? Or merely because it is aligned with the Left? After all, as you point out, scientists are not in agreement on a number of points, so thus, doesn't it seem a bit over-the-top to label this "alarmism" a "hoax"? Couldn't it equally be described as "healthy caution" or "preventative measures"?

Its not over the top at all to label it as a hoax,

But you yourself have cited material stating that certain aspects of AGW are still up in the air, so to speak. Thus, it is illogical to dismiss this as a hoax.

for the simple reason that the confluence of the dearth of empirical evidence for it and the relentless propagandizing for it by only one ideological movement; the internatinal Left and the environmental movement, which is part of the Left, indicates quite clearly that it is. AGW is a hobby horses of the Left, just as global cooling was in the Seventies, and numerous other environmental scams have been since Rachel Carson. Conservatives and Libertarians will, for the most part, have nothing to do with it, and for good reason.

I'm glad you admit that you hate it simply because you view it as being related to the Left, rather than because the actual evidence supports your view.

Environmentalism is the Left's latest great white hope, after global cooling, the nuclear freeze movement, and the mythology of overpopulation (among a plethora of other causes).

So, I don't believe it because there's no rational reason to, and I don't like it because its anohter Camel's nose for Socialism.

But you don't just "disbelieve" it. You hate it with a rabid passion. Seems an awfully benign thing to hate, don't you think? (Especially since, as you yourself pointed out, via your sources, some things are not agreed upon by the scientists.)

[_Coggins7]

You still haven't addressed my question. Do you object to global warming "alarmism" because you think it is a flat-out "hoax"? Or merely because it is aligned with the Left? After all, as you point out, scientists are not in agreement on a number of points, so thus, doesn't it seem a bit over-the-top to label this "alarmism" a "hoax"? Couldn't it equally be described as "healthy caution" or "preventative measures"?

Its not over the top at all to label it as a hoax,

But you yourself have cited material stating that certain aspects of AGW are still up in the air, so to speak. Thus, it is illogical to dismiss this as a hoax.

I'm not following your point. Alll the evidence, both scientific and political, points to AGW as a tool of political propaganda. If it were being employed by the Right, or anyone else, the fact that it is an attempt to sway mass public opinion towards something for which there is no evidence is hoax-like, ragrdless of origin.

for the simple reason that the confluence of the dearth of empirical evidence for it and the relentless propagandizing for it by only one ideological movement; the internatinal Left and the environmental movement, which is part of the Left, indicates quite clearly that it is. AGW is a hobby horses of the Left, just as global cooling was in the Seventies, and numerous other environmental scams have been since Rachel Carson. Conservatives and Libertarians will, for the most part, have nothing to do with it, and for good reason.

I'm glad you admit that you hate it simply because you view it as being related to the Left, rather than because the actual evidence supports your view.

Here's what I actually said:

Its not over the top at all to label it as a hoax, for the simple reason that the confluence of the dearth of empirical evidence for it and the relentless propagandizing for it by only one ideological movement; the internatinal Left and the environmental movement, which is part of the Left, indicates quite clearly that it is. AGW is a hobby horses of the Left, just as global cooling was in the Seventies, and numerous other environmental scams have been since Rachel Carson. Conservatives and Libertarians will, for the most part, have nothing to do with it, and for good reason.

I made no statement idicating that I hate it (the question was whether I thought it was a hoax or not), but that i disbelieve it because of a convergence of a lack of evidence and the relentless politicization of the issue by the Left. The two cannot be separated regarding this issue.


Environmentalism is the Left's latest great white hope, after global cooling, the nuclear freeze movement, and the mythology of overpopulation (among a plethora of other causes).

So, I don't believe it because there's no rational reason to, and I don't like it because its anohter Camel's nose for Socialism.

But you don't just "disbelieve" it. You hate it with a rabid passion. Seems an awfully benign thing to hate, don't you think? (Especially since, as you yourself pointed out, via your sources, some things are not agreed upon by the scientists.)

These are your words, not mine. I disbelieve the theory of catastrophic AGW. I do despise the political ideology that is behind the relentless propagandizing of this idea, I'll admit. But its a hateful ideology.