Gobal Warming: nonsense?

[_Who Knows]

The policy changes needed are suggested to help prevent eventual global catastrophes. I'd say that Exxon making a few less bucks is worth lowering such risks. And, what a cost that we should have to drive smaller cars instead of SUVs etc.

Coggins is evidently right in suggesting that at least in your case the "global warming" bruhaha is but a shill for anti-capitalism.

Yeah, you tell em! Same goes for those who criticize the ones making $$ off child porn. It's just a shill for anti-capitalism. Or those trying to stick it to the tobacco companies. etc. etc.

[_Coggins7]

I have never seen anyone more ill informed and deluded by the right's propaganda machine than Coggin's.
He just makes false assertions (above) that contradict the considered scientific opinion of experts in the very field in question.

If Coggin's cannot show how the expert responses to the skeptics made by actual climate scientists on the following web site are wrong, and do so scientifically, then he is blowing so much smoke that is should be considered nothing less than immoral.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics


The above is what usually happens when a leftist is cornered in his own ideological den and the dogs are sent in to make the kill.

If you think for one minute that I am going to do your homework for you, when there is tonnage of information on the Internet by competent, and in a number of cases, eminent climatologists and other earth scientists, regarding the deep uncertainties and lack of empirical support for AGW, then you are sadly mistaken.

I've done it all before to no avail. I could eat up vast quantities of bandwidth posting endless streams of criticism of AGW by first rate scietists. Or, I could post numerous links to sites with extensive critiqes based in the professional literature.

But, guess what. You can do the same for yourself. Look at this:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics[/size]

Grist? Now I'm going to send you to http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sc ... /Index.jsp, all of whose criticism and reports are linked to the professional literature, and you can spend the next few months there until you know what your talking about.

Sorry to all to be so intense about this, but this issue is a sore thorn in my paw.

[_Coggins7]

If Coggin's cannot show how the expert responses to the skeptics made by actual climate scientists on the following web site are wrong, and do so scientifically, then he is blowing so much smoke that is should be considered nothing less than immoral.

This, by the way, again, is global warming hysteria. I'm immoral and despicable because I accept what the weight of the professional literature is saying as well as what a rational critique of the issue as a whole in the public sphere suggests. This is the hysteria that Tarski has already claimed does not exist.

As I said, he just doesn't see it because of his close proximity to it.

[_Who Knows]

Does anyone else find the global warming and Mormonism debates eerily similar? ie., if one tries hard enough, one can find something to latch on to to maintain their faith.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if there's a board somewhere out there where people actually debate the existence/ non-existence of santa claus. And then i wonder how different that board would be from this board (i'm guessing not much).

[_Coggins7]

I hereby predict that Coggins's response will not be to actually confront the science in the date you've linked to, Tarski. Instead, I predict that he will:
A) Say that you are not intellectually/philosophically serious.
B) Say that your mind is clouded b/c you are a leftist.
C) Say that the data is tainted b/c it is coming from the Left
D) All of the above.

I spent a large quantity of time, some few months ago, confronting the science with gigantic posts filled with commentary and analysis by competent and eminent authorities in the field. I posted large numbers of links to competent and eminent authorities in the field. I posted links and articles to reports and analysis by competent authorities in the field whose reports and analysis were linked strictly to the professional literature.

Do you know what happened?

That's right. The Leftists ranted, fumed, and called me names for a while, and then left the field of battle.

My prediction? A sequel.

[_Who Knows]

Cog - have you seen the recent newsweek article on global warming? I've posted it in a couple of threads, but haven't gotten a response.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Cog - have you seen the recent newsweek article on global warming? I've posted it in a couple of threads, but haven't gotten a response.

I gave you a response. I read it!

[_Coggins7]

Say that the data is tainted b/c it is coming from the Left

I should have noticed this before and mentioned it, but Scratch has just blown his cover here. Here he admits that the data is coming, and has always come primarily from, the Left. This is key. AGW is a viscerally divisive issue that cuts right down the middle of the Left/Right divide. The reason? Because it is not a scientific issue. It is an ideological and cultural issue and always has been. AGW is a focal point of all out, total cultural warfare and always has been.

The science of AGW has not only never been "settled", its never even gotten beyond the point of abstract theory, if not hypothesis. Not a single empirical observation or measurement I can think of over the last fifteen to twenty years has confirmed AGW theory (and some have disconfirmed it quite nicely). The bald fact of the matter is that AGW cannot (or, at least, has not up to now) been confirmed in nature. The professional literature is virtually defined by uncertainty and ambiguity in the data, while a small coterie of media hounds and ideological true believers like James Hansen and Michael Mann (who likes to hide data others have found to be questionable) like to grease their own skids. Meanwhile, hair raising fanatics like Al Gore and political institutions like the IPCC spread hysteria and paranoia in the name of ideology and anti-American animus.

Scratch is right. The "data" hasn't come from the scientific community per se, which has never been unanimous on the subject at all, but from leftists within science and from interested special interest groups with a personal ideological investment in AGW being true.

There are also other kinds of "data" out there that are not commonly accepted except on the Left. We could fill this message board with examples of it.

But why do that when we can talk about polygamy?

[_Who Knows]

Cog - have you seen the recent newsweek article on global warming? I've posted it in a couple of threads, but haven't gotten a response.

I gave you a response. I read it!

I know, sorry, I should have written "...but haven't gotten a response from you" (meaning coggins).

Honestly, I'm not much interested in the GW debate, I just know that it's a hot-button topic for Cog, so when I saw that article, I had to post it for him.

[_Coggins7]

Cog- have you seen the recent newsweek article on global warming? I've posted it in a couple of threads, but haven't gotten a response.

I don't read Newsweek about scientific issues, or any issues. As to general criticism of AGW, I stick with eminent authorities in the field such as Robert C. Balling, Roger Peilke, Fred Singer, Chris Landsea, Richard Lindzen, and the Idso's, who probably have the best website out there on the problems of AGW as all of their reports and analysis are linked to and developed from past and current research as reflected in the professional literature.

Time and Newsweek are the last places I would ever go for my science (and please, don't take any economic analysis you find in those puppy training papers seriously).

Oh, I just looked it up. You mean the ad hominem circumstantial smear piece by Sharon Begley that makes no substantive arguments whatever in refutation of the AGW critics arguments?

You see, this is really all the Left has...