What Do We Think About Climate Change

well you were caught out in a blatant lie and making wildly false accusations against fellow forum members, and you did manage to drive old Alan off the forum with your beligerance and personal attacks personal insults and insisting on cherry picking which is what I think finally got to him

then you act all wounded when your tactics are called into question
if you actually wanted to discuss the numbers you would have but instead you insisted on cherry picking a single data set and refusing to consider anything but that
which simply isn't science
that might have got to him as well

then you launched into a viscous litany of personal insults on the man and now your acting all hurt that no one takes you seriously

cant imagine why your complaining when it is you who made false accusations against others and then lied about it, at least in my case

then blame the "AGW camp"

pretty obvious your simply not facing up to realities

the simple truth is your posts follow a play book and its just not fooling anyone

you might try and draw on information from something other than the deniers web sites
or are you getting your info in some kind of kit directly from the oil and gas industry

 

I think it's amusing to see you portraying yourself as a martyr and and the principal victim of such tactics, Guillermo, when I consider you one of the worst offenders.

You alternate between insulting people and pasting page after page of material - some of which is irrelevant, some of which you don't even seem to understand, and some containing claims and arguments which have already been thoroughly discredited.

Instead of responding with cogent arguments when you read a post you disagree with, you generally revert to name-calling. Perhaps if you stopped labeling people cretins and fools for not believing exactly what you believe, your efforts would be better received.

You apparently believe all or most of the world's mainstream scientists are frauds, liars and incompetents, but laud contrarians and professional shills.

You don't seem to have any particular alternative explanation to compete with AGW; you just willy-nilly post anything and everything that might possibly throw any doubt on it, no matter how improbable or unsupported it is - even if it directly contradicts something in an earlier post. I'm surprised you haven't already posted a theory that our climate change is due to Planet X moving through our system again on its 3,600-year orbit. As I've said before: if you'd pick a story and stick to it, you'd have more credibility.

I'm willing to try a fresh start anyway, and attempt to do my part in contributing to an atmosphere of civility and respectful disagreement. Frankly, I expect the new atmosphere to last about as long as your earlier promise to stop calling people names - but what the heck; let's at least make the attempt.

 

Consider the source. Braying ********* kill more humans every year than lightning. It is no coincidence the Democrats chose one as their mascot.

 

its not political
its science

simply because the issues are so important that the governments of the world decided to form an international panel of scientists to collate all the data coming out doesn't mean that the effort isn't one of science rather than politics

personally I dislike democrats and republicans equally

climate science is exactly that
science

 

dogma, more like.

 

what's dogmatic about it?

factual data is always impartial

 

Please provide some.

 

Tsk, Hoyt. You know better than that. the Democrats didn't 'choose' the donkey as a symbol or mascot. It was pinned on them originally by opponents of Andy Jackson, who called him a "*******.' Later, the symbol was popularized by political cartoonists.

When Andrew Jackson ran for president in 1828, his opponents tried to label him a "*******" for his populist views and his slogan, "Let the people rule." Jackson turned it to his advantage by using the donkey on his campaign posters. During his presidency, the donkey was used to represent Jackson's stubbornness when he vetoed re-chartering the National Bank.

In 1837, the donkey was used in a political cartoon for the first time to represent the Democratic party, again in conjunction with Jackson. Jackson was retired, but still considered himself the party's leader. Kind of like President Clinton was doing after he was no longer President. The cartoon, titled "A Modern Baalim and his ***," showed Jackson trying to get the donkey to go where he wanted it to go.

Interestingly enough, the person credited with getting the donkey widely accepted as the Democratic party's symbol was Political Cartoonist, Thomas Nast. He first used the donkey in an 1870 Harper's Weekly cartoon shown above, to represent the "Copperhead Press" kicking a dead lion, symbolizing Lincoln's Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who had recently died. Nast intended the donkey to represent an anti-war faction with whom he disagreed, but the symbol caught the public's fancy and the cartoonist continued using it to indicate some Democratic editors and newspapers.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1tvxm/thepoliticalarena/Donkey and Elephant--Political Animals.htm

 

2+2=4

except to deniers

 

Finally, a fact. Let's have another!

 

Just thought I'd interject in your enlightened discourse...
I've been burning a lot of wood lately to keep the house warm (Getting down to about 28°F at night last few nights). I was looking at an old copy of the Newsweek with Algore on the cover - you know, the one where it shows his eyes and calls him "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man"...well, I wasn't reading it, only looking at it, while I was putting old Tupperware in the fire. It got me thinking; That Tupperware burns very, very well and puts out large amounts of acrid black smoke but since I am getting rid of the plastic, instead of trees, that's a good thing, right? It is a Blaze Prince, so a pretty efficient burner and some of the heat stays in the house. I get a gold star or something for my ten percent effort for the environment?

 

I hope you burned some of the Newsweek to get it going.

 

It's too bad you didn't have any chunks of tires to throw in to give it more "flavor".

 

Can we find your neighborhood by checking the soot level on the polar bears? Let's send some environmentalists to measure them for soot.

 

Actually, I try not to burn too much plastics and rubber except at night - I think it's better for the environment that way.
I'm home today becuz I'm doing my taxes (Never do today what you can put off till tommorrow - Jeez, this WAS dumb) but I don't have that much time on my hands. Have a good one.