Conservatives and climate change

[DC]

And I would say what the heck are you talking about? 98% of scientists agree that it's warmed about 1 degree on average in the last 150 years due to humans burning fossil fuels.
There's no "denying" that.

Unfortunately, what's to happen in the coming years, decades and even centuries is totally open to interpretation.

IMO it's not that bad. It's not bad enough to do much beyond trying to reduce CO2 emissions in the next 20 years down to 0. It's not enough to put a halt to economic progress and tax ourselves into recession in the process. We're putting up wind turbines and implementing PV on a daily basis. People are buying more fuel efficient cars and going to triple pane windows. They're using CFL's and LED's. They're recycling and composting more now than they ever have in human history.

So what am I denying? Denying that it's not the end of the World? Denying impetus irrational thought? You betcha. If that's what a "denier" is then I've got no problem wearing the scarlet "D".

here Soon is denieng exactly that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEXe4y1d8Q

this time you maybe want to watch it first? so you not end up once again denieng the denial.

reduce CO2 emissions in the next 20 years down to 0

that is very radical, that is not even the goal and sure not in such a short time period.

 

[mhaze]

The preponderance of the evidence support AGW.
.....

What the hell is there to gain by falsifying AGW?

This is not a scientific position.

And why, precisely, should anyone listen to your opinion that "it's not that bad"? Why should anyone pay even a shred of attention to it, least of all policy makers or the scientific community? Why should your opinion on this matter be given any more credence than your opinion on, say, the best procedure to land a jetliner in a strong crosswind, or your opinion on the best way to conduct open heart surgery, or your opinion on the best way for a catcher to call the pitches in a major league baseball game?

Why should your opinion be valued as equal to the opinion of those who are professional scientists working in the appropriate fields who have the requisite background and years of practical experience, and furthermore, who have painstakingly gathered lots of evidence to support their opinions?

Should I expect you to soon write the authoritative manual on who to land a commercial jetliner in a crosswind?

Why of course. Let me add to your list.

Why should his opinion be valued as equal to the opinion of professional politicians who have years of experience spending our money and sending it to their friends? Clearly their ideas on raking in the cash on the AGW bandwagon and should take precedence over someone who Denies that they should do whatever they want to do.

 

[DC]

science denial is not a scientific position.

 

[lomiller]

lol, I could care less about Watts.

The issue isn't how muhc you care about Watts it's you choosing to defend his anti-science

It's just an easy way to show how empty the "denier" claims really are.

But the evidence showed just the opposite, he is was and is denying science. Bizarely, you tried to cite this same evidence to show he doesn't deny science.

The facts are simple, however, he said he would accept the results of the BEST group right until it became apparent it would reject the claimed Watt's had been making.

 

[lomiller]

Right, calling out pseudoscience for what it is is "denial". It's the same thing religious freaks say about atheists.

Again though, what you are calling out as "psudoscience" are articles written by prominent climate scientists citing high profile peer reviewed journals. This is a classic example science denial on your part.

 

[AlBell]

One undeniable fact is that every politician wants more of other peoples money to spend so he gets reelected.

 

[DC]

One undeniable fact is that every politician wants more of other peoples money to spend so he gets reelected.

oh really, that is why there have never been any tax breaks in history of politics.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, that's exactly what your vapid claim amounts to. Deal with it.

No, it's not. How about you deal with my actual claim instead of a strawman?

Boring rhetoric. Who said what exactly? The "denialsphere" is no less meaningless than "they"and "them".

So you are asking me to reiterate every retarded accusations made by science deniers these past few years? Nope, ain't going to happen. We both know what I'm talking about. Don't play dumb.

Strawman.

To borrow a quote: "Yes, that's exactly what your vapid claim amounts to. Deal with it."

Boring rhetoric.

An alarmists chasing ghosts.

I really thought you were coming around to the side of science. Guess I was wrong. How disappointing to see you fall back into your denialist ways.

 

[uke2se]

More boring rhetoric. I've "denied" nothing, you're lying because that's what alarmism dictates.

I'm not lying. Your denial is eviden to anyone reading this thread.

What does Watts "deny"? Be specific and provide evidence because I know you're just making it up. It's a strawman.

He denies different things at different times, depending on what the argument is. Suffice to say, he's denied the "A" part of AGW, he's denied the "GW" part of AGW, he's denied the history of climate science and so on and so forth. Once again, I'm not going to trudge through What'sUpHisButt.org just to get quotes and win an argument against you, a science denier, but we both know what I'm talking about.

Monkton? Fringe.

Orly?

When Monckton contribute to Watt's anti-science blog, is he still fringe?

McIntyre? I'm not familiar with.

Hookay.

So 3 guys and 3 members of the JREF make up the "denialsphere"? That's laughable. What this is is alarmists having a tantrum because they can't incite fear in the general public so they make up scary "denier" ghosts.

Nope. Never said they did. I didn't realize you were dumb enough to ask me to list every single science denier in the world.

Still waiting for evidence....

What? So you can deny it?

 

[BenBurch]

Here is some REAL intimidation:

I hope none of "our" deniers here were behind this.

Yes, I'm an optimist.

 

[BenBurch]

One undeniable fact is that every politician wants more of other peoples money to spend so he gets reelected.

That's why Obama is seeking authority unprecedented changes to cut the size of the federal bureaucracy, right? In an election year?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57358733/obama-takes-aim-at-government-bureaucracy/

(AP) WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Friday took aim at his government's own messy bureaucracy, prodding Congress to give him greater power to merge agencies and promising he would start by collapsing six major economic departments into one. Pressing Republicans on one of their own political issues, Obama said it was time for an "effective, lean government."

Obama wants the type of reorganizational authority last held by a president when Ronald Reagan was in office. Obama's version would be a so-called consolidation authority allowing him to propose only mergers that promise to save money and shrink government. The deal would help Obama considerably by entitling him to an up-or-down vote from Congress in 90 days.

...

Obama is the best Republican since Reagan.

 

[mhaze]

That's why Obama is seeking authority unprecedented changes to cut the size of the federal bureaucracy, right? In an election year?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57358733/obama-takes-aim-at-government-bureaucracy/



Obama is the best Republican since Reagan.

From your own link.

1000-2000 total jobs cut and estimated 300M per year savings.

That's on a baseline budget that increases how much Ben?

......

About 320B per year?

300M .... 320B .... hmmm....

Fail.

One undeniable fact is that every politician wants more of other peoples money to spend so he gets reelected.

And that global warming scam, hey look. If you get your head straight and play ball with the right people, you can get some of that money, too.





Originally Posted by keale
The preponderance of the evidence support AGW.
.....

What the hell is there to gain by falsifying AGW?

science denial is not a scientific position.

What is the meaning of falsifying a hypothesis?

 

[DC]

some interesting flip flopping and lies from Monckton

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?blend=2&ob=video-mustangbase#p/a/u/2/9K74fzNAUq4


here also Monckton about the cure for aids he discovered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-tKEpJs7I

how much more fringe could one get?

 

[DC]

What is the meaning of falsifying a hypothesis?

that would require scientific evidence, something the science denying AGW deniers are not interested in.

 

[mhaze]

that would require scientific evidence, something the science denying AGW deniers are not interested in.

Nice dodge. However the assertion by your brother in the faith, Keale, did not require scientific evidence. Let's examine the assertion.

The preponderance of the evidence support AGW.
.....

What the hell is there to gain by falsifying AGW?

Falsifying the hypothesis is the essence of scientific inquiry. Keale suggests that such efforts not be made, as there is nothing to be gained from them. In order words, disregard scientific evidence as required to maintain the position.

In other words...

Keep da Faith, Bro!!!

 

[DC]

Nice dodge. However the assertion by your brother in the faith, Keale, did not require scientific evidence. Let's examine the assertion.

The preponderance of the evidence support AGW.
.....

What the hell is there to gain by falsifying AGW?

Falsifying the hypothesis is the essence of scientific inquiry. Keale suggests that such efforts not be made, as there is nothing to be gained from them. In order words, disregard scientific evidence as required to maintain the position.

In other words...

Keep da Faith, Bro!!!

oh i totally disagree with Keale then, i think if the theory of AGW would be falsified, it wold be one of the best discoveries ever. so much we wouldn't have to care about. The next day i would propably buy me a car.

 

[BenBurch]

Re-read the article, MHaze. You appear not to have understood it.

 

[mhaze]

oh i totally disagree with Keale then, i think if the theory of AGW would be falsified, it wold be one of the best discoveries ever. so much we wouldn't have to care about. The next day i would propably buy me a car.

That's what I was trying to get at. His comment is exactly, perfectly wrong and unscientific.

But now you've committed a heresy.

You may not be welcome in the Faith any longer.

 

[DC]

That's what I was trying to get at. His comment is exactly, perfectly wrong and unscientific.

But now you've committed a heresy.

You may not be welcome in the Faith any longer.

well lest test this prediciton of yours. lets see if they kick me out of ther faith group as you would call it.

 

[AlBell]

That's why Obama is seeking authority unprecedented changes to cut the size of the federal bureaucracy, right? In an election year?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57358733/obama-takes-aim-at-government-bureaucracy/



Obama is the best Republican since Reagan.

How much koolaid did you drink so you can pretend that will cut expenditures? All we'll have is another Homeland-Security-like fiasco which theoretically was to subsume several existing agencies and instead became just another, extra, budget item.