BmanMcfly

Lol... I thought he was talking about your post...



"Arguing from a position of ignorance"?? No, I looked at the evidence presented and came to a conclusion... look, the actual issues are fairly simple to grasp, sure scientists are the ones writing the papers, but understand that when you're ideas are politically motivated, will there be a 'temptation' to put a 'spin' on the results in favor of funding??

Let's use the example of 9-11... NIST was government funded and when a scietntist asked the 'wrong questions' he was fired. Here... So, given that; and the 'lack' of consensus on the issue... who's to say that hasn't happened at the IPCC??

So, I don't come from a position of ignorance, I come from a different perspective; that regardless of CO2's impact on the climate; it's not a detriment to the environment. Where there are much greater factors that are greater threats to the survival of mankind as a species. Fact is, I bet we'd kill each other off in a giant holocaust rather than being the victims of longer warm seasons; in a co2 rich atmosphere so that plants have more to absorb... longer seasons for farmers means more food... a warm planet overall would be more beneficial than a cold one... but the problem is that after things heat up they generally cool down eventually again.

Unless you're saying that you're a professional environmental scientist, that have personally studied and aided in the experimentation of this 'theory' then you, my friend, are arguing from the same position of ignorance... whether you'd like to admit it...

That I've seen that the environmentalist agenda was going to be pushed to 'create an enemy to unite mankind' except the enemy this time was going to be man himself. That this issue would bring about 'global carbon taxes' (which is hardly meant to 'stop' co2 excesses; or the various OTHER TOXIC elements that are released (but forget those... cause co2 is the culprit). If CO2 was the only concern; then great lets work to keep a balance; plant 2-3 trees for every 1 that is cut down for 10 years; create... get away from plastics (exceot where necessary), etc... but taxing your exhalation... that seems a waste.

But wait... that means I gotta be wearing a tinfoil hat... cause it's easier to make that accusation than to 'step out of the box' and take a look at the evidence for yourself (not just for global warming... the same manipulation is used to : create more police with greater powers (gangs & drugs), eliminate free speach (a free speach zone means that outside the zone you do not have 'free speach'), increase taxes on the general public, getting the population to accept microchips (preventing child abductions/lost pets), combine the economy to combine world currencies, etc,

Gill

Try again. This is the same thing I've read everywhere on the subject. It's nothing but "appears to be". It even mentions a volcano that supposedly cooled the climate. Pinatubo erupted in the early 90's and only cooled the climate for a couple of years, so I doubt that the eruption of Mt. Agung affected climate for a longer time period.

I also noticed that at the bottom, they completely switch gears and claim the mid-century temperature drop was due to measurement errors of the ocean. Sorry, but this has already been debunked long ago. Maybe they'll have a new update now and try to blame the temperature drop on something else.

Show me something with measurements and actual data.

__________________
There is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.
Gavin Schmidt, NASA GISS

Gill

Don't bother.

He's right, you're wrong.

Actually, CO2 levels are at or near their lowest levels in history.

__________________
There is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.
Gavin Schmidt, NASA GISS

UtahBill

good post, but 2 comments.... some people take a position of ignorance and call it "thinking outside the box", and most of those people don't have the education to realize how ignorant they are on the subject...but they want to have their say.

__________________
Education is expensive, ignorance is costly.

Each generation should have more opportunities than the last, but not at the expense of the next.

BmanMcfly

Ya and arguing with these self-proclaimed 'intellectuals' is near-impossible with the righteous indignation they use to approach debate.

Especially when the best defense is 'orwellian double-speak' that is 'having 2 contradictory ideas held as truth at the same time. (Trying to explain that I must accept that 'there is real environmental human caused damage going on... yet CO2 is THE ONLY culprit up for debate... also, that CO2 is able for the length of recorded CO2 levels to be an effect of climate, untill the past 400 years when it's become the engine; saying; the sun and stellar rays both have an effect and do not have an effect depending on the point being argued; then when those issues get clarified simply move on to personal attacks)

UtahBill

you have admitted to being weak on science, and when someone agrees with you, it is a personal attack? nice try, but no sympathy from anyone who knows better...

__________________
Education is expensive, ignorance is costly.

Each generation should have more opportunities than the last, but not at the expense of the next.

Bodhisattva

It would seem that the one trying to use Orwell is hoping to come off as the Intellectual" here.

__________________
"Only pompous idiots have a quotation as their signature" - Agnapostate

Frank Talk

Besides the fact it's newspeak not doublespeak.

BmanMcfly

Dude, I was explaining the environment in which I'm attempting to debate... and I was referring to everyone that joined in attacking me instead of arguments.

I never said I was the intellectual... putting words in peoples mouth... does that work for you?

No, I said that I'm not a scientist, so I had to look into it for myself; I had done so and came to a conclusion. I wasn't trying to say I was any smarter than anyone else... but this one never really was up for debate, was it... I mean it seems the common thread is that it's a 'case closed' and there are so few areas of science that can get a 'case closed'... especially when we can't even predict weather next saturday with anything more than a lucky guess....

Bodhisattva

Well, newspeak is the overall language, of which doublespeak is a term.
He is thinking about Doublethink

Doublethink
Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs.

Doublethink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Doublespeak is something else...


Doublespeak
Doublespeak (sometimes double talk) is language constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning

Doublespeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I was letting it go, I love 1984 and read it a few times a year.

__________________
"Only pompous idiots have a quotation as their signature" - Agnapostate