Why do conservatives deny Global Warming?

[_Droopy]

EAlussion, a heads up. You can whip Coggins/droopy in debate and he'll come back in spouting the same nonsense a month later as if it never even happened.

If not knowing what on earth you're talking about is a virtue, Moniker is the Mother Teresa of this issue.

Tell me Moniker, is the South Arctic melting?[/quote]

You go first!

Tell me, Coggins, how Jefferson and Hamilton agreed on how our nation should progress and how they were not elitists. :)

~changed to Jefferson to make it fun!~

[/quote]
Run run away HEY!!! (as Tarski and E follow as best they can, lugging those coffee table editions of Das Kapital and The Affluent Society along with them...)

[_Droopy]

The nice thing about the realclimate link is it contains links to primary sources, like the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report, that make it clear their point is correct.

What point, E?

[_EAllusion]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/special ... andIce.pdf

You'd think this would be a refutation of my link rather than an example of what it is doing an admirable job of refuting.

[_Moniker]

Run run away HEY!!! (as Tarski and E follow as best they can, lugging those coffee table editions of Das Kapital and The Affluent Society along with them...)

Droopy, I don't know what is melting or not melting. I have no idea. I trust scientists to determine what is occurring and to help shape policy from their scientific observations.

Now, your turn to admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Although the difference between you and I is that I can admit when I lack knowledge in something -- I don't run and immerse myself in right wing rant, piecemeal it together, and attempt to make an argument that is not in the least cohesive or reflect reality. :)

[_EAllusion]

Again, I'm a libertarian. My commentary on politics would generally not be out of place as entries at Reason.com. There are exceptions of course. Libertarians, as a group, tended to be global warming skeptics, and I'm certainly not. That was an embarrassing association. Fortunately there's some coming around on that front, like that of Ronald Bailey at the aforementioned libertarian publication Reason. Insinuating I'm some sort of radical pinko is bizarre.


---------

What point, E?

Did you even read it before spouting off?

[_Droopy]

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).

Nothing has changed. Although we know relatively more now than we did then, the above statement is still perfectly accurate, and is the main reason why Realclimte's position on AGW is bogus. The empirical science just isn't there, never has been, and they know it (which is why they spend much of their time trying to rehabilitate the discredited computer models from which the entire edifice of AGW was originally erected).

And AGW fell, and great was the fall of it...

[_Droopy]

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).

Nothing has changed. Although we know relatively more now than we did then, the above statement is still perfectly accurate, and is the main reason why Realclimte's position on AGW is bogus. The empirical science just isn't there, never has been, and they know it (which is why they spend much of their time trying to rehabilitate the discredited computer models from which the entire edifice of AGW was originally erected).

And AGW fell, and great was the fall of it...

[_Droopy]

Again, I'm a libertarian. My commentary on politics would generally not be out of place as entries at Reason.com. There are exceptions of course. Libertarians, as a group, tended to be global warming skeptics, and I'm certainly not. That was an embarrassing association. Fortunately there's some coming around on that front, like that of Ronald Bailey at the aforementioned libertarian publication Reason. Insinuating I'm some sort of radical pinko is bizarre.

Just as, in the past, most of your philosophical positions always seem to nest on the Left. Then you deny it. Then you argue from the Left again.

Oh well.

[_Moniker]

Insinuating I'm some sort of radical pinko is bizarre.

He insists everyone that disagrees with him is a commie pinko. Again, he doesn't care about reality, he merely has his rant and applies it over and over again to different posters and different threads.

[_Droopy]

Droopy, I don't know what is melting or not melting. I have no idea.

I didn't think so.

I trust scientists to determine what is occurring and to help shape policy from their scientific observations.

This statement is all I need to see to understand who it actually is that does not know, and apparently does not care to know, what they are talking about.

Now, your turn to admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Although the difference between you and I is that I can admit when I lack knowledge in something -- I don't run and immerse myself in right wing rant, piecemeal it together, and attempt to make an argument that is not in the least cohesive or reflect reality. :)

I've followed, studied, and read upon the subject of climate science and AGW for upwards of 15 years now.

Conversation ended.