AGW Theory - Discussion

Chanti, you need to brush up on your "sarcasm detecting" skills.

Nope. Italy agrees to the plan for the reduction of emissions and nobody is against it. The party opposing the government raises all kind of objections to everything, but this isn't one.

Asking how a "science" can be so settled with proof while ignoring historical data doesn't mean that Republicans are deniers.

Actually, ignoring data and conclusions is what makes people deniers. Pretending to be critical while having no apparent background or basic understanding of climate science (or science, in general) doesn't help either.

How many more virgins will need to be sacrificed before the volcano is satiated?

So you admit you're disagreeing with the vast majority of scientist because of political reasons?

So, either climate scientists are deniers because they ignore historical data that seems inconvenient to them, or they don't understand the basic understanding of general science.

Thanks for confirming that Pleebo.

Oh, before your obvious "I didn't say that" remark, read what I stated again that you responded to.

Note that the Republicans are the one's asking how a "science" can be so settled with "proof" while ignoring historical data presented to them. Not the so-called "scientists" themselves.

inb4 "You are still a denier because I said so" retort.

So you admit this is all politics?

Five. Six if you want a good harvest next year.

KB, you ever stop and think that the reason why you're so hung up on conspiracy theories is because you believe the craziest one of them all?

According to you, the climatology lobby is so powerful that they're controlling the vast majority of other scientist, every reputable scientific agency in the country(possibly world), the democratic party, most of the other countries in the world, including Russia and China, as well as the UN, the pope, and the only truth tellers fighting back just happen to be funded by oil companies who stand to loose billions if stronger environmental regulations are pushed forward. They also happen to hate the EPA, for some mysterious reason.

Well, one, I made no connection. Two, I was silly to expect a conservative to actually answer the question.

Hi Lordgrim, how are you doing today? I see that you reverted back to your sock account Ihina, but it's pretty obvious it's you due to your outlandish and idiotic post.

Nice blanket statement though. How far did you have to stretch change my words to come up with that?

/uses the broad stroke of the brush of generalizations

basically and most simply put. we just don't like being told what to do... we never have and we never will

consider that the original tea party was over a tax to pay for the french and indian war that england spent a lot of money on.

we owed them that money... but again, we just don't like being told what to do. declaration of independence, yadda yadda yadda 239 years later... and we still don't like being told what to do.

it doesn't even matter whether or not we (the royal we as in republicans) have to actually DO anything or not we don't like it when any government tells anybody what to do about anything.

and this is the hard part to understand. it doesn't matter of the end result is a good thing or a bad thing, if it's being forced on us, we just don't like it.

/folds arms

I don't disagree with it on the basis of political reasons. Many of the methods for discovery are fundamentally flawed. Most predominately the notion that no proponent of anthropogenic causes has ever accurately predicted the future earths temperature.

They've always been wrong.

(You gonna answer my question now?)

In one ear, out the other. Obviously I'm not going to change your mind, but here's one more thing to consider.

Republicans don't actually have a stance on global warming.

1/3 of them don't believe it's happening at all
1/3 of them admit it's happening but that it's natural, not man made
1/3 of them admit that we're doing it, but we'll hurt the economy too much if we do anything about it.

One of the conclusions I've drawn from that is that it's not that republicans want to be right.

Republicans just don't want to be wrong, to a liberal. It now gone beyond being a political issue, it's become an emotional issue, and that is why you and other people with inferiority complexes will never change your mind on this.

Let the record show I answered Ihinas question and instead of answering mine, she turned it to politics.

Of course we don't. Most of us (not politicians, of course) don't like to back a stance on a large issue such as global warming without having all of the facts laid out to us to analyze first.

Unlike liberal/democrats who automatically take the populist stance before any facts are presented and are often wrong about it (and still don't admit that they are wrong about it).

Republicans don't want to be wrong, period.

When you make knee-jerk reactions that end up not only being wrong, but destructive, you tend to destroy the very thing you are trying to protect....

The problem is the vast majority of people aren't qualified for this.

Which question didn't I answer?

It's impossible to be qualified for every issue possible though.

That doesn't stop people from thinking that all of their opinions are backed up by 100% undeniable facts.

Big bang, evolution, agw and the vaccine scare is coming back.

You can argue that liberals being against GMOs shows we're also anti-science, but it's more that we're more cautious about how corporations value profits over people.

And it goes beyond science. Most every prediction about the Iraq war was wrong, nuclear weapons, will only take a few weeks, will only cost a few billion, will be greeted as liberators, etc. Fox News still brings on the same people who made these predictions to criticize Obama's foreign policy today.

There are other things, like how Romney predicted he can get the unemployment rate under 6%(?) in 4 years, and Obama got it to 5~ in 2.

Long story short, it'll be nice if republicans change their mentality from not being wrong to being right. In the political arena, all you have to do to not be wrong is insist that you're not wrong, then the media will pretend it's controversial.

Too bad we don't have experts who dedicate their entire lives to these issues that we can listen to.

Republicans this, conservatives that, my side good, your side bad, yadda yadda yadda. I don't even listen to people on my side of the political spectrum who are this biased.

You are talking about a fringe group of people who are a bunch of idiots anyway. If you are going to group an entire political party based on a few idiots, then don't cry when we do the same to you.

Then you can argue that conservatives not automatically buying into climate science because we are more cautious at how politics is being used as an agenda to push non-effective legislation and destroy the economy at the same time. How would you like it if the EPA issued a regulation that did absolutely nothing to help the environment but it caused over a million job losses from that regulation?

That's the thing, isn't it? It's impossible to predict the future. Why are you so gung-ho at trying to do so?

Long story short, it will be nice if liberals/democrats didn't try to change the world over the little things that are the current "flavor of the month" protest and end up destroying our society in the process...

Fossil fuels are limited, hydrocarbons which are created from them are unlimited.

Right now we are in possession of the technology required to synthesis all hydrocarbon fuels. The US Navy developed a miniature version of this so that they could use excess power off their nuclear reactors to synthase fuel to power planes and other ships.

So right off the bat remove the idea from your mind that we might "run out of" hydrocarbon fuels. It's simple a question of cost, what's cheaper and more efficient. Right now pulling the stuff out of the group and refining it is cheaper then creating it from feedstock. There may come a time when this is not true, in which case we would then pull bicarbonate from the ocean or use carbon from the land and synthesize the H-C chemical bonds required.

Also I wasn't exaggerating about the progressive requirement to return to a 1920's era lifestyle. There currently isn't enough land mass in the world to house all the solar arrays required to power the USA in 2010, much less the world in 2015. Our energy requirements, as a society, are growing faster then our ability to power them. Solar / Wind are too weak by two orders of magnitude which leaves Coal as the primary power source of the world with Hydro / Gas / Nuclear / everything else playing second fiddle. Right now the exact same people pushing solar / wind / not-coal also also anti-nuke. There is absolutely no viable solution left for the world to use. When you bring this up their response is to reduce power consumption such that Solar / Wind become viable for 100%.

The logical outcome from this is that the only viable standard of living is one from the early 1920's. If we would go back to that era, then Solar / Wind could, in theory, provide enough power for the world.

I wasn't exaggerating with my claims, these are the hard number requirements in order to meet progressive ideologies. The mass genocide, the mass restrictions on power, the mass restrictions on food, those aren't some attempt to make you feel bad, those are the requirements in order to make progressive ideologies work.

I live in a world of numbers, everything is a metric that is measured, quantified and then qualified. There is no room for emotions or beliefs, either the number is or is not. Either the system has enough capacity for the required task or it does not. This is why I can look at progressive ideology and loudly call ***. What they envision simply can't exist.

It requires more energy to produce the fuels than they yield. The only reason you would produce HC's is to suit a very specific function. Similar to the energy pit that is desalination, the only reason it makes sense to do it is because of the energy cost of transporting potable water to a specific location. In the case of HC's, there's basically no place on earth where it makes sense to produce them instead of just using an alternate energy source. If you have the energy to produce HC's, you'd never need them.

Science isn't settled, ever. There is no condition that exists that precludes counter-arguments from taking place within a scientific discussion.

This is the craziest thing imaginable, that science is somehow determined by a group of self-appointed individuals. It's preposterous that the universe would be subservient to political ideology. The universe doesn't care what political party one is part of, it doesn't care what's politically correct or not, it simple exists with zero attention give to us. Science is the attempt to understand the universe and because the universe is so complicated, no understanding is 100% correct. This creates room for expansion of every theory every created. Except with AGW, somehow the universe has granted them immunity to such expansion or understanding. According to AGW proponents, the universe has bowed down to AGW supporters and now changes universal law to be politically correct and in line with current AGW religion.

This is why I publicity call AGW a religion. It meets all the requirements for a religion. It follows the same model the Catholic church used to stifle dissent a few hundred years ago. Recently they even attempted to make a law that would make criticizing AGW illegal while also stripping funding from those producing research that countered them.

Yes they actually proposed to do that and yes they actually did strip funding from several scientists that produced research that countered their religion.