What Do We Think About Climate Change

"We could make up a graph from 2007 onwards and demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that we are facing "rapid cooling" and that in 10 years we will be in an ice age. We could blame the labour and democrat administrations since they started around that time. Name could be "Populogenic catastrophic cooling". Clearly then it is logic to believe that voters can just vote this catastrophe out. VOte conservative and the cooling will stop." - Brilliant. Yet ANOTHER end to this debate.

 

You say the Larsen Ice sheet didn't melt? You say all the Inuit are lying when they say winter is several months shorter? You say you know more than they do about what their weather is like, without having ever been up there? So much for your credibility! It says a lot about your gullibility.
Boy, do the oil gas and coal industries ever have you suckered!

 

Yep. Screw genuine science and data.

Just pick some narrow little bit of facts that trend in a direction you like, make a graph from them, and mindlessly extrapolate it until it covers whatever you want to believe. Saves all that pesky thinking and research.....

And as a bonus feature, you no longer have to pretend that the vast majority of scientists in the world are liars, frauds or incompetents. You can just say that they happened to look at the wrong graph.

 

The vast majority of scientists support belief in global warming. Only a small, nutbar fringe, paid by the oil gas and coal industry, deny global warming, just like the small nutbar fringe paid by the tobbacco industry claimed smoking was harmless..

 

Sometimes I get you and Brent confused, Troy, so If if my responses seem a bit incongruous... "Screw genuine science and data" - I believe it was more of an illustration of EXACTLY what happened on the other side.
Brent, buddy, you're a great guy, smarter than most, cool, and I'm sure the ladies dig ya'. I know WE all think you are the **** but for the sake of clarity, would you mind just sittin' out for a spell? I think Troy's got your back.

 

I'll beat up on Brent thoroughly when I think he's full of it, just like I will you. But on this particular subject, I don't think I need to cover for him. He's doing just fine on his own.

I'm sure it confuses you that the two of us don't march in lockstep. Here's a wild concept: What if disagreeing with you on this particular subject doesn't mean we think alike on everything? How's that for scary...you might have to start dealing with people as individuals, instead locking them into little boxes labeled 'liberal' and stacking them in a dusty corner of your mind.

 

There was a time when the vast majority of scientists believed the earth was flat. Why? Because they were forced to by a powerful clergy, not that unlike the Church of the AGW.

 

This is true. Troy actually stood against Brent on an important issue where it counts. He is still full of B.S. on this thread, though.

 

By the way, Obama put an AGW wacko on the Gulf Spill committee.

 

Bush put oil company puppets in charge

 

You sound like a broken record.

 

Actually, that isn't true. Church doctrine never said that the world was flat, and educated people always knew better.

The false belief that medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth. In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history. The myth that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat only entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Here's a quote from Saint Augustine. Note that he isn't arguing whether the world is flat or not; he's arguing whether there are people on the other side of the world:

But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.

 

I guess the irony and humor got lost for you!

 

And someone suggested I was not being quite rational.

 

Somewhat heavy-handed for irony, and not all that humorous.