Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...
Oh absolutely.
At some point, mocking becomes a totally acceptable response when the opponents basic stance becomes outright ludicrous.
I would say that it weakens your stance. It is one thing that we clearly have a strong difference of opinion on the subject at hand, but just because you think that your own opposition to my opinions, or the opinions that disagree with key points of the argument allow for ad hominem attacks, and a move to personal attack rather than the topic of discussion is what is the real joke here.
Love the 'leftist' crack though.
"Leftist" is merely a descriptor. I would pose that you already pose your lean here as "Slightly Liberal".... Akin to being 'slightly pregnant' no doubt. Why are you ashamed to embrace your own lean? You sit to the left on the political spectrum, and on this issue further left than others could be, but none the less to the left, so the descriptor of "leftist" stands.
It's a scientific issue and somehow you guys come at it from a political viewpoint, although you pretend it's from a scientific one.
Not at all, and you really should go back and re read the thread to see that so far all 3 of us, LoP, code, and myself have repeatedly said that we didn't question that GW exists, or that man has played at least some part in exacerbating the conditions over the time that we have industrialized our existence. But that isn't good enough for you. You, Joe, and others seem to have this need to have those of us that are skeptical of the political ramifications of what AGW proponents plans to mitigate this phenomenon through not a real care of science, but rather a political scheme to redistribute wealth, and control people through governmental control makes it crystal clear which side of the argument is politicizing this, and who is simply asking for the justification for actions proposed.
And here's the shining example if the ludicrous argument.
Nothing ludicrous about it. The scientists that were caught, although it is true enough that they don't necessarily represent the entirety of the scientific community, their clear propensity to bully, stifle opposition, limit data in some areas, while at the same time shifting other data at a moment in time when the debate in different governments across the globe was actually at least holding its own in so much as it was being taken seriously, was severely damaged, and AGW proponents would be lucky at the moment to get the people to agree that they should adopt the restrictive, expensive, and unproven methods to deal with the hyper exaggeration of what the possibilities of mans contribution are at present. IOW, those of you whom are out there screaming that something must be done, and we are the problem, have lost credibility.
Thirty years and thousands of studies, and you somehow maintain that the 'data is fudged'. It's nonsensical. Paranoid. An impossible conspiracy. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. It's akin to Creationist arguments.
There are also studies in dissent of the "popular" argument as well. But funny how a double standard of acceptance applies to those isn't it? These studies the AGW side presents are accepted at face value by the AGW proponents, without looking at things like grants, private funding, and political agenda, and are to be somehow taken as pure, and altruistic, while any in dissent of popular belief among AGW proponents must be scrutinized to the last punctuation mark for these very things, and when those fail, the political tactic of Alinsky style mockery, and dismissal are employed.
Think of it in general conversation. If we were at a gathering discussing this, and you proceeded to single out, and mock someone to their face, are you more, or less likely to have a civil outcome to your argument? Or, does the person on the receiving end of your vitriolic responses generally think poorly of you and at the very least, cease contact with you?
So, you are not furthering any understand, or acceptance of your argument, rather the opposite, sowing division, and contempt. I would think that if you are truly concerned about it, you would adopt tactics that win more people to your side of thinking, not push them away with childish tactics, and boorish behavior.
