The best that you can do is lame childish taunts, because you know the facts are against you.

And you hold your beliefs even though the facts are against you.

THAT is blind faith.

SO in your opinion is the world heating at all? For whatever reason do you agree that the planet is getting warmer or is that false as well. Is you argument that the earth is indeed warming but it is a natural process that has occurred before or is your argument that the planet is not warming at all or do you think it is getting cooler?

Denying science or calling them liars or whatever it is that you are implying makes your camp more like a cult than those of us who are actually following the science. The science is against you.

Your claim that global warming is happening on Mars is garbage. Pure pseudoscientific garbage ginned up by the energy industry and their ilk. Either you sincerely just don't get it, or you are intentionally attempting to fool people. I assume you are somewhat intelligent which makes me lean towards the latter. Perhaps you are just fooling yourself because it interferes with your other world-views. Either way, you're just plain wrong about the current scientific understanding of climate change.

You have been debunked:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

More Info:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

Being Nostradamas-like I predict you will attack me or the source without addressing the actual science behind what is being said. That's what people with no real argument do. Go ahead.

Does this conclusively prove that humans are the cause of climate change on Earth -- no. It proves that you should stop trying to say that you know what you're talking about when it comes to Mars as a rebuttal to actual science. So you can stop bringing up Mars now.

It is fine that you don't personally accept climate change for whatever reason. The only argument that I am making is that the science, which you are for some reason comparing to thinking cats are servants of the Devil, is not on your side (which is WHY you are trying to downplay the science itself I suspect). There are some dissenters, but they are the minority. It does not serve your position to pretend that is not true. You do realize the differences between science and religion. I know you must.

Nobody is assuming that we have all the answers. Does that make science irrelevant? Does that make science a faith-based field like a religion? Does that give us license to believe whatever we want to believe despite the science? No. We do not fully understand gravity either, but our mathematical models for gravity and the motion of the planets in the solar system has served us well, and at no time did anyone have to rely on the "fact" that cats are the servants of the Devil to put satellites into orbit or land man on the moon. We do not have to claim that we fully understand every aspect of space-time either. What we do know has served us well, from a scientific standpoint.

However, if it were somehow profitable to claim that the moon landing was a hoax, business-minded people would be clinging to the dissenters who claim that we never really landed on the moon. They have their pseudoscience too.

You can take a dissenting view, but if you don't admit it is the minority view, or you try to straw man science itself, or attack the people who follow the majority as cultists, or claim that the majority of scientists believe something as illogical as man causing the extinction of the dinosaurs, then you are either being outright dishonest or you are sincere yet you are putting forth an extremely weak argument.

Again- you BELIEVE there is some vast conspiracy.
Where is your proof?

For any scientific conclusion, you will simply:

1.) Agree with the results if they conform to your preconceptions.
2.) Reject the results if the disagree with your preconceptions.

Either way, your preconceptions win, and you never learn anything.

Again- this is EXACTLY like the Evolution vs Creation "debate".

The consensus of scientific opinion is in favor of evolution.
ALL the evidence points to evolution being a fact.
Those who deny evolution do so for the exact reasons you do- pretending the decision was political rather than scientific.

They do that so they don't have to deal with the science.

Then, this all begs the question- what's the motivation for a political answer?

Who is to gain by saying the climate is changing and we should stop pouting?
The evil recycling industry?
Those menacing solar panel manufacturers?

Now, who is to gain by DENYING that climate change is occurring?
Ahh- now we get the deep pockets.
Oil, and coal, and manufacturing.

So, not only does your denial of science not make any sense, your denial of science based on politics does not make any sense- since any political pressure would be going in the OTHER direction.

You do know that Michael Crichton is a fiction writer, don't you?
Do you also treat Dan Brown books as Art History texts?

Hey, I love a good work of fiction- but it's nice to be able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

As far as I'm concerned, those are two separate issues.

First, is recognizing that the house is on fire.
Second, is deciding whether to pour water on it or gasoline.

We can't even get past the first step because people have been brainwashed into denial.

LOL!!!

THe energy Industry only invests in green technology BECAUSE of the public pressure to change from fossel fuels.

If they had their way they would continue to pollute non-stop. They are simply working on backup plans just in case they can't brainwash enough people to believe Michael Chriton novels are real life.

And no, they would NOT get anywhere near as much money with green tech as with current power plants and grid system; because the sun and the wind are FREE.

Ok since you agree that some warming is going on you also must realize the danger of that. Imagine if today glaciers covered Wisconsin or the earth warmed to the point of creating vast deserts, don't you think we need to prepare for that? Even if it is totally natural that the temperature warms don't you think we need to prepare for rising oceans? Human made or natural the danger is still the same. Why not take the view that if temperatures change naturally over the course of time maybe as humans we should examine everything we do in order not to add to the natural change in temperature. If all the CO2 we add to the atmosphere or all the trees we cut down to build homes etc causes even an increase in 10% in the speed at which these natural temperature changes occur don't you think we should change our behavior so that we don't add to the change at all?

No matter what the cause of the change the result is the same, we may have changes to our planet that may no longer support our life here, you mentioned dinosaurs, where are they today? For whatever reason they are no longer here. We are trying to prevent that from happening to humans.

Or maybe there IS a consensus that objective science is less important than what we imagine the world to be. Science, after all, produces only a set of ephemeral hypotheses that die out over time. The world is flat, the world is round, the earth is the center of the universe, the earth is at its periphery, the universe is infinite, the universe is finite, the universe is sui generis, the universe is simply one iteration of reality in an infinite series that is boundless across 11 dimensions.

Maybe reality is a negotiable agreement.

neutrinos seem to suggest that might be so...

It sounds reasonable,....but,....nope.
( Sorry, you're dealing with a Platonist here )

But it is quite possible that "the HUMAN subjective reality" is a negotiable agreement.

+^d

well,....if matter and energy WERE reality..... in a nutshell, though "reality IS math,...its ALL math baby,....math is REALLY - ALL THERE IS". ( the rest is window dressing ; all that "stuff n such". )

+^d

That link is hardly unbiased. It's from CFACT, a conservative libertarian lobbying group.

Not once did I mention Al Gore. I'm listening to the scientists not the politicians. As much as you want to wrap this whole thing up in an Al Gore straw-man, you can't. As much as you want the Earth, nature, and reality itself to bend to your free-market idealism, it won't.

I have nothing to say politically about global warming. I don't care what Al Gore has to say about it. Calling people who agree with and admire Al Gore a "cult" is unnecessarily pejorative. You don't have to use that word just because people disagree with you. From my perspective these people are making sense from a scientific standpoint, so you can't call them a cult. You can't call them liars either. You could if science was against them, but it isn't. This is not like a religion where ideas are based on faith. This is actually backed by real peer-reviewed science.

Scientists are backing human-caused global warming. That's just a fact man. I will always follow the majority of credible scientists, even if they eventually do a 180 on the causes of global warming based on new evidence. I don't care what corporate or libertarian lobbies have to say about it, nor politicians or famous people. I only care about reality, and in my opinion, I think listening to the scientists who know what they're talking about is the best way to go and that's who I'm going to listen to. Not you, not Al Gore, not the free-market idealists. Scientists.

Thank you. People who constantly make this all about Al Gore are not credible and have other motivations. Simple as that. I support him because he too listens to scientists. I support the scientists because I too have the ability to see the signs and know the science behind this. Unfortunately, there are those among us who can't make a real argument without a fall guy and insults. They are the ones imo to be ignored lest you be the one punished here.

Absolutely. Which is why it is not a political but a moral issue. Once it got compartmentalized as a "left" issue by the right and deniers who did it deliberately to turn people off to the urgency of it by smothering it in politicial partisanship, it was then stripped of its importance which is now dangerous for the future. I suppose people will simply have to learn the hard way.

Then don't depend on biases and let the evidence prove it so it can be objectively verified, no matter what the SNAFU principle forces people to do

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SnafuPrinciple

"Many people don't even know basic science."

Unfortunately, there is no cure for ignorance.

You are obviously not paying attention to the scientists, or you are only doing so selectively. The consensus of active climatologists in the United States is like 97% in favor of the idea that not only is the climate changing, but that mankind is the cause of it. Further, the National Academy of Sciences of the United States released a survey showing that those who remain unconvinced have much less expertise in the field of climatology.

If you take politics completely out of the equation and read the science journals, you would not have made the statement that you just did.

It is also of important note that there is not one single nationally or internationally recognized scientific body that maintains that climate change is not real and caused by man.

You mean no cure for ignorance until a desire to learn is embraced then education is possible

Then go ahead and show the stronger evidence that the scientist that disbelieve it is happening to be objectively verified.

If it is better than depending on the sarcasm in your comment then it should prove that the scientists that show evidence for climate change are wrong.

But that hasn't been done since none of that evidence has been objectively verified as being disproven.

It doesn't matter which scientists are tenured, which have been at it longer or which are skeptics since the research data would show what the facts are that can be verified.

No I mean no cure at all. There will always be someone to take the others place.

Isn't it usually the ones that bring up biases that show the most evidence of them? And most of the time it's proof of projections of themselves onto other people.

That's a cop out since there has been plenty of evidence to prove the positive without resorting to the excuse of dogma.

http://climate.nasa.gov/ NASA has loads of evidence from satellite data that can objectively verified

There are billions of bits of lots of things floating around the Nets without verification so what does that prove? Just more excuses to avoid the subject.

The doom scenarios are not part of the evidence, they are speculations going beyond the facts.

A lot of the solutions that have been proposed have nothing to do with the evidence, they are for a variety of other motives

None of which have anything to do with disproving the evidence except distortions, evasions and distractions

So where is the verified evidence to back up your claims instead of excuses? Is it just another projection of the dogma that you cling onto others?

That's why the science "fails to persuade" because so many avoid it and refuse to focus on the evidence.

According to the STATS survey:

- 97% of climate scientists agree that the average global temperature is increasing
- 84% of climate scientists who personally believe that humans are causing global warming.
- 74% of climate scientists say there is enough scientific evidence to substantiate that global warming is caused by man.

Of course there is no end to ignorance itself since babies are born with it and have to be taught.

The bottom of the scale of willfully ignorant will always be there but it is the degree and amount of the population that will shrink and the top of the scale increase.

Even the most ignorant person in the country today knows a vast amount more than the same did a century ago and there are fewer of them now.

A denier or a warmist?

The term “global warming denier” is so offensive because it seeks to attach skepticism about the warming and/or its supposed Draconian solutions with denying the Holocaust and being “anti science.” But that kind of disparagement doesn’t work except among those who are so steeped in their own juices they can’t see–or don’t care–that their bullying convinces no one.

In contrast, the term global warming hysteria is not so personally pejorative. Rather, it seeks to point out that some warming activists have become so overwrought that they are willing to create “cures” that are worse than the disease. It’s a splash of cold water on the face that says, “Get a grip, man! Get a grip.”

The global warming debate is no laughing matter. Limiting the debate to only two valid positions—for or against—makes a constructive discussion impossible. If we truly want to make progress on climate change, we must acknowledge a middle way—one that recognizes that while we do need to deal with the reality of global warming, solutions based on worst-case scenarios will actually do more harm than good.

The smart middle path means making green energy so cheap everyone wants it. There’s nothing confusing about it.

~ SOURCE: http://climatechangedispatch.com/editorials/7668-global-warming-hysteria-a-criti...

if climate change isnt happening and we proceed as though it is, we just inconvinience ourselfs in terms of our infrastructure.
if climate change is actualy happening, the result is catastrophic.

pretty simple policy choice to me, unless you have an apacolyptic hard on

look when china is on board, you really cant argue it.i mean they dont give a shit about anything but productivity.if they see the damage the environment is taking, it isnt even a question

and how is it again that we foster the desire to learn? cuz i mean fox still exists despite being debunked as they lie.

lol your a facist.
the first step is admitting it lol

has anyone actualy been a facist in the last 50 yrs?

Or it could be that your buddy Al has made a butt load of money off of this and stands to make a lot more if people by into his hype. All you have to do is read the emails these LIARS send to each other.

all technology is expensive in its onset, from paying 500 dollars for a cd player in the 80s that today you can get a version of for 9.99 (with more options) to it creating a competetive free market in energy that is presently a monopoly.let them all of the hook and treat them the same as they treat big oil.same tax exemtions, same funding and assistance and whatch how quick sunpannels become the size of cell phones.how quickly chigago ministry of tourism revamps thier city as the city that powers the america via wind.our weather service will become truly funded between that water power entirely by private enterprise competing for our business.

its like saying dont fund medical research it is too expensive.it is just counterproductive not to be so rediculously conservative in regards to how we approach the environment.not conservative in the ush limbaugh propaganda way, but in the literal sense take a batter safe than sorry approach.it would suck for us to have to spend up front for what will cost our kids next to nothing, but that how it works, or would you prefer we live in tents cuz bricks are too expensive.

tis true Jan, MrMxyzptlk is an equal opportunity asshole, but you know, I would be bored stiff if people like him and congoboy went somewhere else to air their side of the discussion.

The irony is that all of these posts together actually validate what the original article was saying, and that is simply that people believe what they are going to believe.

"What will all those coal people do in the new green economy?"

Well, if West Virginia would stop electing Rockefellers and Rockefeller wannabes, they might actually have some viable employment choices besides coal mining. The poverty that goes along with coal mining has been an orchestrated poverty from the beginning, and will continue to be so until the rest of the world finds better sources of energy.

Harrassment, baiting, belittling, and filling threads with nonsense is their side. That isn't ironic, that is the reality. And for me it has no place in an informed civil discussion and does nothing to enhance it. I'm sick of going round and round with a**es who are only here to disrupt. This world is in need of serious action on our part. I have no more time for the likes of two bit Al Gore haters who are just envious and ignorant.

Hello?

When will all of you obsessed jealous ones find another record to play? He is investing his money in alternate energy sources to spur the changes we need to have in providing for a cleaner safer future. What he is engaging in is Capitalism and isn't that what you all believe in? He has worked legitimately and earned what he has and gives back to the cause. Isn't that the American way? Or is that only reserved for Republicans like the Bushes who made their money off the blood of othe rpeople's children dying? By keeping the constant diversion on him just proves you have no knowledge of the science behind climate change so instead of basing comments on that because you are ignorant about it, you attack the messenger. Boring and redundant.

don't go round and round jan...you can step right over them by just ignoring it. Let other people do the bantering. your message is crystal clear, and more people appreciate it than not.

Seriously, I think they are fascinated with you, they wouldn't show up the way they do if they weren't. If you weren't getting under their skin, they would just ignore you. You are forcing their hand, and when their hand hits the table, oops, nothing but deuces.

your argument presupposes that technology and innovation are spurred on by the market, and the market alone. not sure I buy into that. incentive to improve upon a product rarely comes from a market initiative, it might be underwritten or exploited by the market once it makes its appearance, but the real innovators out there are rarely driven by market concerns.

chicago and wind...I think that might work.

I have no jealousies myself. However:

We can all be better leaders. We can all refine away more of our hypocrisies. If Gore has a vision of the next age, then he needs to live it personally and more fully. Wealth is fine up to a point, but wealth also raises questions that should be addressed because wealth is a public responsibility. Indeed, because managers are the true kings of this phase of Western Civilization, they have the greatest duties; but the infrastructure of accountability is directed at "political" leaders. This may be convenient, but in the long run it is illegitimate. In fact, to many people, the current system of accountability is duplicitous--literally two-faced--because managers control immense resources, but act through the political process, which is dominated by industry lobbies and private donations. Shareholder activism can create some tactics for simulating accountability, but the "publicly" traded economy is only a fraction of the whole.

The disconnect between power and accountability is fodder for the conspiracy theorists. Particularly when wealth is amassed in connection with those things that are most basic to life--namely, food, energy and water--a great suspicion begins to arise.

There are, I think, both great opportunities as well as threats associated with the new obsession with a sustainable world. The opportunities are both communal (distributed) and private (centralized). The threats are a mirror image, when communal opportunities are concentrated and private risks distributed.

There is no clear indication from any quarter of a transnational green industrial policy that tilts the odds in favour of a more equitable and cleaner environment. The revelations have been entirely about the direness of present circumstances. Aside from prophecies of doom for the future of the world's climate, there has been no comprehensive alternative vision for the future. And that is truly odd. Isn't there an alternative to disaster? The vision for the future that is NOT the apocalypse has to be better than a single number, e.g., 350 ppm. The number says, frankly, not enough. It is a disappointment and a ruse.

Going from a scientific observation to a social contract is no easy task. At the moment, I think we completely lack the ideological framework to make it happen. Do we all truly agree that there are categorical natural rights: the right to biodiversity, the right to water, to adequate food supplies, to affordable energy, to reproduction, to clean air. If these rights are categorical and inalienable, which is precisely what Gore presupposes, how far must the distribution of assets and power around the globe fluctuate to achieve an equilibrium that is consistent with rhetoric? Are we truly willing to go that far?

Or, are we fooling ourselves? From science to a transnational social contract: that trip is one we have not mapped out at all and for which GPS doesn't work.

nicely put, like the GPS touch at the end...

No you are indeed a fascist. You want to force the poor to have abortions, and the other things you spoke about the other day.

"Opponents of human causation often propose the sun as the likely driver of contemporary global warming. While no one can say with certainty that the sun plays only a small role in climate change today, as a solar physicist I can say that the various solar mechanisms proposed to date have either been discredited by current research or have been presented in highly speculative arguments not now supported by observations."

Stuart D. Jordan, PhD - senior staff scientist (retired emeritus) at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

And how do you know he doesn't do that and why the constant double standard where he is concerned?

I don't think there is a double standard, other than the higher standard that I've already mentioned for those in positions of unaccountable influence. Gore certainly isn't alone in that crowd, and not even at the head of the pack.

At one time, without thinking too deeply about it I expect, I used to assume that there was such a thing as inalienable human rights--the wonderful concept enshrined in our national consciousness by Thomas Jefferson and his predecessors and colleagues.

Living through modern history under Bush regime, and cognizant of the entrenched military regimes of Israel and Burma finally brought me to the understanding that the only "human rights" that actually exist are the ones you yourself can enforce.

I do think living by example is a powerful tool. I also think there is an innate "moral" sense to human social behavior with it's roots in a sort of rough tribal or familial equity.
Sometimes after the big monkey have eaten their fill they can be persuaded to leave a bit for the other smaller monkeys, but in the end, it's a matter of mood, circumstance and surplus. It's not, I'm sorry to say a "god-given" right. That is a wonderful fiction.
I wish it were so.

I agree that there's a huge distance between ideals and practice. However, a common ideological goal sets a common target around which an agreement can be engineered. One example: if water were a categorical right, then certain dam building projects could be taken off the table and a search for more distributed water (or, for dams, power) distribution systems could begin in earnest. Common ideals make negotiations more efficient; though, as you say, with an expected degree of imperfection.

No I'll just use the actual definition, which is basically oppressive dictatorial control with strict socioeconomic controls. That fits your ideas. We've had this exact discussion before. The level to which you want to control the poor alone makes you a fascist in the socioeconomic sense of the word. The difference between a king and a dictator is subtle. You might not like the word 'fascist', but that is the form of government that you advocate.

In any free-market with little to no regulation (which is what I assume that you want), the powerful/rich are necessarily going to take advantage of the masses. Without any regulation the poor class in your theoretical system of government would be huge, and if they need the basic necessities from your government they will have no choice but to submit to your strict socioeconomic controls. Whether or not it is your intention, the majority of the people under your King will be oppressed. It would be fascist in practice. That is my opinion.

You called him full of shit,
then you pulled some numbers out of your ass.
Do you know what comes out of your ass?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Facts are facts.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, when politics is removed from the equation, scientists OVERWHELMINGLY agree that climate change exists, and is exacerbated by human action.

This "debate" is exactly like Evolution vs Creationism.

Once side has ALL of the facts, and the other likes to pretend they are on equal footing.

You sound exactly like a Creationist arguing against Evolution.

You can't prove a negative! You need a time machine to prove it!

Your position is based on your ignorance of science, nothing more, nothing less.

LOL!!

And you would never use a an offensive term like "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice" would you? Nah, never gonna happen.

And in this case, the global warming deniers ARE anti-science.

Having a few puppet scientists who will say anything if you line their pockets enough does not change the consensus of the entire scientific community.

You say that we need to acknowledge a middle way- that's good. That "middle way" is being harmed by global warming deniers.

That "middle way" is to acknowledge that global warming exists, and to do whatever we can to fix the problem.

WHENEVER there is a problem of any kind we must ALWAYS plan for the worst case scenario.

If we do, we have simply over planned.
If we don't, we could get screwed.

Again, you sound exactly like a Creationist.

There is no proof of evolution! If the scientists say there is, it's just because of some vast conspiracy of evil atheists to attack God!

FACT: There IS a consensus that climate change is occurring, and humans are responsible.
The fact that you don't like that a consensus exists does not change the FACT that it DOES exist.

You BELIEVE this consensus is the result of some vast evil conspiracy, except you have no proof of this conspiracy other than your blind faith.

Your blind faith exists simply because you believe what you are told.

When your Conservative Religion and actual science clash, science wins.

Again- all you have is ignorance of science.

We know climate change occurs not because of a crystal ball to the future, but analysis of the past.

And, as usual, because you don't have anything to back up your religious beliefs, you resort to childish taunts.

Well, I'm not panicking or doing anything you describe because that's just your hyperbolyc strawman- your usual debate tactic.

The worst case scenario of an asteroid hit is planetary destruction, so canned foods will not exactly help.

The way we SHOULD plan is by research into moon and mars colonies.

And there is a BIG difference between an asteroid impact, which is a probability and we cannot predict or prevent; and climate change, which is an ongoing statistical phenomena that we know is occurring and we can do something about.

If you understood science, you would grasp that distinction.

your entire deal is invalid.im saying fuck this one system method, there fore no fuel being illegal.treat them equaly as enegry manufacturers and let the market work it out.who knows what the most efficient method of energy production is.i think solar, but i dont know dick about it, just like the rest of us wether it be wind,solar or whatever.
it exists as an unkown thus unable to judge or value.oil cant be illegal anytime soon as our entire infrastucture is predicated on it.just give alternative energies equal benefits to oil.give them the same tax breaks,same subsadies,same basic regulations.

one way or the other we are going to be spending sick money as a result of this.either the middle east is going to rake us over the coals in perpetuity, or until they have the ability to financialy control us and do god knows what with us.or we will end up paying for it as all last ditch efforts at survival never come cheap.it costs alot to stop bedlem

they have been fucking us on that with air travel, lets make good use of thier esceedingly windy city that keeps me circling airports for hours on end.

Again with the hyperbole and strawmen.
No point in me replying to that.

Again with the hyperbole and strawmen.
No point in me replying to that.

Again with the hyperbole and strawmen.

I never said everything we need to know has been discovered.
If scientists find something, they need to submit it for peer review.

If the science is valid, it holds up.
If it's propaganda from the oil companies, it does not, and they cry and complain it was a political decision, and you buy it.

Here is the thing- Science has reached a conclusion. I'm fine with the conclusion, and will accept it until new evidence is obtained. That is how science works.

You are not. You have faith that it just MUST be wrong because you WANT them to be wrong, so you cling to any crackpot who comes along that agrees with you, and ignore the vast majority of scientists who disagree.

THAT is thinking like a creationist.