Great series debunking GW-denial pseudo-science

Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack - Part 2

I believe the climate is changing, BUT it is always changing. There are at least three previous ice ages that we can document, what caused the last one to end?... massive amounts of C02 from cromagnen man campfires? I have read that if we committed to and did even the most radical goals of the Climate Change supporters, in 50 years our temps would go down maybe... and thats a big word...maybe 1-2 degrees.
I have a farm, I am a good steward of the earth, no pesticides nor herbicides, not certified organic but we do things naturally...no tractors either. But when I see these GW advocates flying into Oslo in big jets, Al Gore in a big ass SUV, throwing dinners to celebrate their cause by shipping in foods from around the world...No Carbon Footprint there...I don't believe their interest are genuine. The only warming they care about is in their wallets.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
I believe the climate is changing, BUT it is always changing. There are at least three previous ice ages that we can document, what caused the last one to end?... massive amounts of C02 from cromagnen man campfires? I have read that if we committed to and did even the most radical goals of the Climate Change supporters, in 50 years our temps would go down maybe... and thats a big word...maybe 1-2 degrees.
I have a farm, I am a good steward of the earth, no pesticides nor herbicides, not certified organic but we do things naturally...no tractors either. But when I see these GW advocates flying into Oslo in big jets, Al Gore in a big ass SUV, throwing dinners to celebrate their cause by shipping in foods from around the world...No Carbon Footprint there...I don't believe their interest are genuine. The only warming they care about is in their wallets.

Well, climate always changes, but it also comes/goes in fairly predictable cycles. However, the fact that the climate changes naturally is absolutely no argument against anthropogenic global warming. And this is exactly why global warming is an unacceptable problem- because WE are messing with the normal climate cycles of the planet, causing warming at far too rapid a pace for ecosystems to adapt well. We're already in an environmentally precarious/delicate position, and global warming is like a huge uppercut to what balance we have left. Humans are causing the planet's 6th Great Extinction, aside from the problems this might cause us (selfishly), on a more conscientious note- we have absolutely no right to trash this planet that has given us life and sustenance.

If you want to know why ice ages wax and wane, research them for yourself. The current warming cannot be explained by anything but anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and subsequent warming effect. The scientists who study this are in 97% agreement on this.

As for the solutions only generating 1-2 degree drops (if Celsius then that's a substantial drop), I don't know where you read that, but you should source it. Regardless of what steps we take to reduce global warming, those steps still NEED to be taken and ASAP. We can't simply throw up our hands and say, "whelllp we're f*cked!" and just keep doing what we're doing. We're not #ed unless we cop that very attitude. What we're doing is unsustainable, our only option is to stop doing what we're doing wrong, period. Otherwise we'll face a very ugly series of collapses. Also, if you TRULY took the most radical methods to impede global warming, then you'd see virtually overnight drops in CO2 output. But that definitely wouldn't include mainstream/legal methods... however they may be necessary the closer we come to tipping points and if we truly care about this planet.

The vast vast vast majority of people who know that global warming is real do NOT fly around in jets all the time, throwing lavish dinner parties. To take Al Gore and his shortcomings in carbon footprint and use it to slander the entire environmental movement is just plain f*ckin stupid. That argument doesn't even make sense. And even so... even if CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere (very very negligible amounts in the big picture, mind you) to host parties/travel/festivals for global warming action/awareness... don't you think that that's the BEST use of fossil fuels? To use the dirty technology you're against to advocate a change in its use does not necessarily show hypocrisy. All it shows is how saturated our world is by such technology, to the point where it's the ONLY feasible option for most people and events (even if they'd rather not use it). Sometimes you can and must use the master's tools to bring the master's house down, especially if they're the only tools you've got and he's suppressed the better ones.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by NoHierarchy]

UPDATE!

New/revised version of 'The Great Petition Fraud' which goes deeper into Dr. Seitz and the rest of the issue:




32000 Scientists

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Yes!!

This is one of my favorite Peter Sinclair videos - it really rips the climate deniers a new one and shows just how much absolute junk their allegations are based on.

The 32,000 denier "scientists" include Hawkeye Pierce and Ginger Spice.




I was worried this video had been taken down because some of the Oregon Institute schmucks were trying to censor Sinclair the same way Anthony Watts tried to.

Nice to see Peter was just reworking it to include some of that footage of We Are Deranged Chicago to show climate conspiracy theorists just how much they've become lost in the plot and how stupid they make themselves look as a result.


Great stuff.

UPDATE!

New episodes in the series:

It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming

Plug-in Hybrids: Renewable Energy Solution of the Month

What Do We Know About Climate Change?

Flogging the Scientists

Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1

Well, posting 22 videos sure makes it a pain to try to debate the content.

Let me guess, "Deniers" are wrong on every possible item that can be debated, and the "Saviors of Earth" are right every single time?

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


For crying out loud... NoHierarchy is a prime example of a AGW fanatic believer...

Even after it has been shown these people have been scamming teh world, and they even ADMITTED to have used FALSE information and data there are AGW "believers" who keep claiming this is not true and AGW is real?....

We even recently learned that NASA through the lunatic Hansen has also been fudgeting and rigging the data, as well as cherry picking only some sources and there is going to be a Senate hearing because Hansen and his were also caught yet we still get the AGW die hard believers claiming AGW is real?....


[edit on 12-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

 

For crying out loud... NoHierarchy is a prime example of a AGW fanatic believer...

Even after it has been shown these people have been scamming teh world, and they even ADMITTED to have used FALSE information and data there are AGW "believers" who keep claiming this is not true and AGW is real?....

We even recently learned that NASA through the lunatic Hansen has also been fudgeting and rigging the data, as well as cherry picking only some sources and there is going to be a Senate hearing because Hansen and his were also caught yet we still get the AGW die hard believers claiming AGW is real?....

[edit on 12-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Hahaha, AGW fanatic believer?? You act as if it's a religion. It's not, I assure you, it's called SCIENCE. And the science is quite clear and abundant in favor of AGW.

Who admitted to what false information? Hansen has been "fudgeting" and rigging data and cherry picking sources? Please cite proof of your assertions, and really try to avoid second/third-hand hearsay posted on industry-backed denier websites.

Deniers have been proven wrong time and time again. What baffles me is trying to understand exactly WHY you picked global warming to randomly disbelieve in amongst all other scientific theories? I suppose you're in tune and impressionable to conspiracy theories, and the conspiracy theory that AGW is some big hoax must have caught your eye before the real conspiracy did (you know the one where companies like Exxon, Western Fuels, and Koch Industries directly fund disinformation and pseudo-science to discredit AGW). Tell me... do you "believe" in evolution? How about the "theory" of gravity?

Why don't you actually watch the videos before you comment, that's why I posted this thread, not so you could make assumptions and try to insert the last hollow word championing your ignorant side of a false debate. If you really seek the truth and are not constantly trying to cherry pick your own "proof" that supports your desired world-view, then please watch these videos with an open mind and accept the fact that they may be (and are) correct. Trust me, I've personally researched a lot of the data, and when I came back to watch these videos I was doubly impressed with how thorough and accurate he was in covering the ACTUAL data while discarding the bunk.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Well, posting 22 videos sure makes it a pain to try to debate the content.

Let me guess, "Deniers" are wrong on every possible item that can be debated, and the "Saviors of Earth" are right every single time?

You don't have to watch all 22 videos, just pick one or two or a few that catch your eye. Then watch them and feel free to reply/comment on your thoughts- whether the video enlightened you on some facts, or whether you have facts that seriously dispute what is presented, or whatever is on your mind. This is an open conversation, pretend we're all hanging out, shootin the sh*t in a basement watching these videos trying to make sense of them. The guy who does these videos isn't trying to mislead you, I've talked to him personally, he's a regular guy with a high intellect and a desire to get to the bottom of global warming facts versus myths. He painstakingly researches all this data for us and makes these videos free of charge because he cares about the issue. It's not propaganda I assure you, because as I said in my previous reply, I've gone and researched a lot of this data myself and this guy is impressively spot-on. I wouldn't say that otherwise. I've given every denier argument a chance to be right, I'm always open to any possibility in this world, even if it contradicts my own beliefs, and even so I've come back from the abyss of the internet even MORE convinced that deniers are the ones being mislead on faulty/cherry-picked data. Rarely do denier websites cite the actual data in scientific journals or university studies. When I do google searches on the data, I stick to trustworthy websites, mostly prominent organizations who do the bulk of the data collection/analysis and ".edu" addresses to ensure that I'm not on some phony site with an agenda (from EITHER side). If I'm on a site with an agenda, I make sure it's A) Not phony, and B) Accurately cites REAL studies and keeps them in the correct context/interpretation.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
The guy who does these videos isn't trying to mislead you, I've talked to him personally, he's a regular guy with a high intellect and a desire to get to the bottom of global warming facts versus myths.

Right, thats why he constantly uses the word "DENIERS". Nope, no preconceived notions driving his ambitions to be found there. He doenst have anything to prove. He's just trying to get to the bottom of things, thats why he a has slanted video for every possible area of discussion of AGW stickin' it to all them profit driven denier idiots.

It's not propaganda I assure you,

You might consider doing some direct research of what propaganda is.

I've given every denier argument a chance to be right, I'm always open to any possibility in this world, even if it contradicts my own beliefs, and even so I've come back from the abyss of the internet even MORE convinced that deniers are the ones being mislead on faulty/cherry-picked data.

Right. Deniers are wrong on everypossible area and aspect of anything to do with the uber-complicated world of climate 'science' and climate prediction.

Rarely do denier websites cite the actual data in scientific journals or university studies. When I do google searches on the data, I stick to trustworthy websites, mostly prominent organizations who do the bulk of the data collection/analysis and ".edu" addresses to ensure that I'm not on some phony site with an agenda (from EITHER side). If I'm on a site with an agenda, I make sure it's A) Not phony, and B) Accurately cites REAL studies and keeps them in the correct context/interpretation.

The Climategate scandal proved that the scientific peer reviewed process is compomised. You might research that a bit. You can even watch my Climategate video, which isn't even propaganda as it isn't specifically trying to persuade anything from you, instead it has nothing but direct quotes from your clergy members, with no name calling or anything:

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Right, thats why he constantly uses the word "DENIERS". Nope, no preconceived notions driving his ambitions to be found there. He doenst have anything to prove. He's just trying to get to the bottom of things, thats why he a has slanted video for every possible area of discussion of AGW stickin' it to all them profit driven denier idiots.

Preconceived notions? I don't think so... this guy has very very POST-conceived notions after doing a LOT of homework on global warming. He's essentially a journalist/activist expert on global warming, and using the term "denier" is quite fitting, short, and to the point. I'm not sure what you mean by slanted... if by that you mean he believes that global warming is real/anthropogenic then sure... but the science overwhelmingly backs him up on that "slant". I mean... I personally believe in evolution, gravity, and that the Earth revolves around the sun, but I don't exactly consider myself "slanted". And researching the issue myself... it does seem that the vast majority of public deniers are profit/ideologically driven indeed, rather than being driven by hard/sound science.

You might consider doing some direct research of what propaganda is.

Propaganda is essentially putting out a one-sided message to influence public opinion on a certain policy/ideology. In it's most common use it is a combination of facts with falsehoods as well as emotional knee-jerk triggers and exaggerated conclusions.

If you want to use the term propaganda very loosely (as in putting out a certain message) then yeah... it's propaganda but so is EVERYTHING ELSE you see/hear. However, if you want to use it the way most people use it then this series is absolutely NOT PROPAGANDA. It reflects science, fact, and rational reasoning and doesn't seek to mislead people for some hidden agenda. However, I do find a mountain of propaganda coming from denialist proponents and THAT is exactly what this series is about debunking.

Right. Deniers are wrong on everypossible area and aspect of anything to do with the uber-complicated world of climate 'science' and climate prediction.

Essentially? Yes. Sure, some more advanced denialists use more complex science and some actual facts to back up their claims, but their conclusions and holistic understanding are wrong. Many times their sources are wrong as well.

The Climategate scandal proved that the scientific peer reviewed process is compomised. You might research that a bit. You can even watch my Climategate video, which isn't even propaganda as it isn't specifically trying to persuade anything from you, instead it has nothing but direct quotes from your clergy members, with no name calling or anything:

(click to open player in new window)

The "climategate" scandal proved nothing of the sort. I have researched it more than a bit and it was the perfect denier storm- full effect/impact with the least amount of actual basis/meat behind it. The reality is, the emails were analyzed by three independent organizations (one being a conservative economist publication) and they ALL concluded that the emails showed no wrongdoing/misconduct and came NOWHERE CLOSE to a damning contradiction of global warming science, climatology, or the anthropogenic nature of global warming. Tiny snippets of a handful (out of thousands) of the CRU emails were cherry-picked, taken out of context, exaggerated, and willfully misunderstood. Also, any claims that the scientists hid any data is false. When they actually published research after these emails, they were found to hide NOTHING. Also, the main issue with the emails is that a couple scientists were pissed off/suspicious of people who were requesting their data, and rightfully so. There is a war going on against science (specifically climatology) by religious, industrial, and ideological interests and these scientists are understandably reluctant/frustrated to hand out their data/information to people who they believe might misuse it to falsely discredit the scientists (which has happened before). Now the British FOIA requests are a separate matter and being a supporter of FOIA I feel that a couple of the scientists should be more open... however, their motives for simply EMAILING about refusing such requests are completely benign and understandable considering the struggles they're facing. There was no shadowy agenda apparent in any of the emails, period.

There is actually a 3-part addressing of the CRU emails within the Climate Crock series, I recommend you check em out: Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack Part 1/2 (which I've already posted) and The Wrap (which I'll post next).

¡ UPDATE !

Debunking Monckton Part 2 (updated)

"It's BP's Rules - Not Ours."

Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Climate Change and National Security

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Climate Change and National Security - Part 2

Stephen Schneider in 1979

Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan on the Greenhouse Effect

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Heatwave Edition Part 1

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Heatwave Edition Part 2

The "CO2 is Plant Food" Crock

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: "The Earth is Carbon Starved."

2010 Arctic Ice Update

reply to post by NoHierarchy


If you somehow believe that series isn't one sided propaganda, then it'd be a complete waste of time for me to go any further with you on this entire affair. All 'truth' is one sided in favor of AGW, and nothing could ever possibly sway your opinion no matter what. There's nothing to even be debated, instead only exclaimed. The denial in your response is quite ironic when your series and surely yourself are calling others "deniers".

The closer reality to the truth would state that it's unlikely that anybody knows for sure, in the context of it's not possible to be sure. This has nothing to do with how convinced they might be that they do know.

But since you are convinced, why don't you go ahead and tell everyone your grand scheme of what to do about it. Without solutions, after so long of pressing an issue anyone with any issue is nothing but a doomonger.

So please do enlighten us all with what is actually going to stop your worst nightmare...

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


IIB - how about instead of brushing something like this all off as just "one sided propaganda" you go ahead and watch the videos and come back and tell us exactly where Peter Sinclair is lying or fabricating his information.

We're right here. We're listening. But we're waiting for you to add something constructive to this "debate" instead of once again ignoring all the evidence supporting our stance, and then pointlessly reminding us for the 15 millionth time how brainwashed we all apparently are.

Talk is cheap, so go ahead. Show me the money.

Because contrary to what you seem to be so stuck on believing: my opinion could certainly be swayed if I saw enough evidence to actually refute AGW. Unfortunately I'm still waiting for ONE. So pleeeease be my guest: come and show me some piece of evidence against AGW that I can't come right back and show you is misrepresented, cherry-picked, out of context, irrelevant, already debunked, etc.

But the second half to that last sentence is critical. Because you guys always seem to think that if you find something on the internet, that automatically means it's game over. "Blah blah blah says this on his blog and he's got a graph to back it up, a-ha!". All we ever do is be skeptical of that information, and then go and take the time to look at the whole story. And EVERY single time it seems to comes back that blah blah blah got it wrong, exaggerated, or flat out lied - and if you "follow the money" it in fact points right back to the same old culprits: corporate funded denial machines posing as libertarian freedom fighters or conspiracy theory agitators.

But oh noes - this "reverse conspiracy" goes against your conspiracy - so it can't be true, it just can't!! We're all brainwashed is the only answer! la la la...

This is the same old story I ever see around here, over and over and over and over and over again...so excuse me if I consider the people selling it nothing but "deniers" while my own mind is apparently made up. I'm still waiting for someone - anyone - to come along and actually change it instead of time and time again reinforcing the same old stereotype that helps keep it the way it is.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


In the meantime - as for your claim that without solutions this is all just doom-mongering:

Well again, instead of jumping to quick accusations - how about taking the time to listen to the accused. NoHierarchy already embedded this video:



Here's another one:




If you actually hear what these people have to say instead of automatically trying to tear them down you might find people like us are in fact not all about "cap and trade rah rah rah" or "more taxes PLEASE". You'd find we're actually about innovative solutions that simultaneously protect the planet while freeing us from our dependence on non-renewables. Non-renewables that TPTB happen to use as a much more subversive and effective tool to keep everyone "enslaved".

You wanna know something: TPTB figured out a loooong time ago taxes are a crappy way to simply control the masses. It's too obvious and it leads to unpredictable results. People like Marie Antoinette and King Geaorge III found this out the HARD way.

But they learned from their mistakes, and ever since then they've been coming up with much better methods, methods that are essentially summed up in this recent ATS thread:
Aldous Huxley was correct not George Orwell

But the problem is if you want to achieve the solutions listed in the videos above WITHOUT taxes and cap and trade, you need the sheeple to wake themselves up. You need them to begin the process of instituting these changes through their lifestyle choices and creating the market for it on their own. You need them to control their own destiny basically.

But how are you supposed to do that now when they're all being conditioned to believe doing this forces them to give up their so-called "luxuries", or the very threat demanding these changes whether they like it or not is nothing but a hoax based on overhyped doom-mongering? Take a long hard look at the WHOLE story and ask yourself whether the people claiming it's nothing but fear-mongering are the ones trying to wake these people up, or in fact fighting desperately to keep them all asleep.

Then ask yourself why some of us here - on a conspiracy forum - fight so hard for AGW? Maybe we're not all just close-minded, brainwashed Al Gore hippies protecting our paradigm or our egos - but in fact we're full-fledged independently thinking conspiracy theorists JUST LIKE YOU who see proper action against AGW as a vital tool in fighting the system rather than submitting to it.

But to do that we need to start having open, intelligent discussions about how to address the problem without letting TPTB exploit it first. But to do that we need people to acknowledge the problem is even real, or at least real enough to warrant doing something about it.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

 

IIB - how about instead of brushing something like this all off as just "one sided propaganda" you go ahead and watch the videos and come back and tell us exactly where Peter Sinclair is lying or fabricating his information.

We're right here. We're listening.

Okay, suuuure.

You're talking about tons of different videos, each with multiple claims. HOURS of video. Probably thousands of individual "facts" and claims.

Dream on.

Posting this many micro-issue videos goes way beyond attempting to debate even epic threads, such my own, and last I checked you tucked tail in my epic thread about AGW fearmongering, which wasn't bout full-spectrum AGW debate. Single issues you couldn't begin to touch, but now I'm subject to being a stereotype. Think that last bit over real well. Full-spectrum threads are going to get full-spectrum responses.

Because contrary to what you seem to be so stuck on believing: my opinion could certainly be swayed if I...

When the massively complex issue is so solidly one-sided in your view, and anyone who disagrees is a "denier", that statement is absolutely false. Even if you believe that to be true, at the time being it is not. You can safely bet that 95% of the 'brainwashed' zealots of all tiem would say the same thing, while declaring the other side of complex issues or dogmas as being 95% incorrect.

Debate between 2 one sided folks is everythign they could ever hope for, but for those of us with totally different perspectives and therefore angles of understanding, along-side middle-fencers, inherently, it's all a waste of time. Other-wise, more issues would stir up binary debates and outrage on ATS. Even debates in in most epic threads would almost always inherently push on past 10 pages, regardless of the content. But, most people on ATS are pretty center-line and don't get riled up enough too push all the issues.

saw enough evidence to actually refute AGW. Unfortunately I'm still waiting for ONE.

WHAT would it take for you to admit that its all hype at best and agenda-driven fearmongering at worst? Please answer with concepts that aren't absolutely futile, otherwise you're basically fueling my argument.

So pleeeease be my guest: come and show me some piece of evidence against AGW that I can't come right back and show you is misrepresented, cherry-picked, out of context, irrelevant, already debunked, etc.

Check this out, 'no matter' what you present, there's always going to be an angle the other side can use to argue against it, and then conclude they're right after all. GO ahead and try: Start a thread of "non-debatable" AGW truths, point by point, and watch people line up refuting them!!! Guess what: You'll think your response will vindicate most of your exhibits, and they'll all believe they're still correct.

I don't want you to even respond to this post, at all. Test my challenge above. Forget I even told you to do it. Run the thread as you would. Don't even think about it until 2 weeks of no activity in the thread has passed. I wont even participate. After 2 weeks, remember why you did it. Then reflect, introspect, look at the atttitudes you ended up with, and how many of them stormed off on the last note as them 'being superior'. Then send me a PM. Don't even post here.

Because you guys always seem to think that...

WHO guys? BLACK AND WHITE! Anyone who doesn't agree, is all the same!!!! This is the kind of reasoning that drives my conclusions with you. By now you might hate me, but do note I haven't actually been offensive. Binary loyalty conformism is rampant throughout societies everywhere. Most people aren't settled until they find theirs. I'm here to smash down these icons. Fine, I'm a iconoclast JERK, but that doesn't make me like 'them' or even teh enemy. You can learn a lot for me, and I wouldn't even take the time to try to reason many of the zealots on here. I think you have potential.

if you find something on the internet, that automatically means it's game over.

You don't even realize who you're talking too. You're very ignorant in this case, and in that statement, but at least I've argued for years that ignorance doesn't equate to stupidity.

and if you "follow the money" it in fact points right back to the same old culprits: corporate funded denial machines posing as libertarian freedom fighters or conspiracy theory agitators.

I guess my blog is BP funded

The funny thing with your viewpoint is that only oil corporations stand to gain from "defeating" AGW. Meanwhile GE stands to gain as much as any other, by pushing and lobbying for AGW, while being a top DOD war-profiteer, and is part of the Beg 5 Media Complex (helping push AGW), while deeply infiltrated into the Obama Admin (which is helping to push AGW). The big Energy corps... are GE's customers. Any questions?

[quote[But oh noes - this "reverse conspiracy" goes against your conspiracy - so it can't be true, it just can't!! We're all brainwashed is the only answer! la la la...

Actually it doesn't go against "my" conspiracy, it only fuels it. "My" conspiracy is that of the academic community. The "Politics of Fear" is widely studied, understood and published. Obama even used that phrase during the DNC debates. The catch is AGW is the Left's version of the "War on Terror".

This is the same old story I ever see around here, over and over and over and over and over again...so excuse me if I consider the people selling it nothing but "deniers"

Since you couldn't even handle, let alone finish, our last debate, that statement is over the top. I'm trying to maintain respect for you even though we disagree on a pivotal issue. I really am.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Since you couldn't even handle, let alone finish, our last debate, that statement is over the top.

Here is our last debate. Who's is the last post in that thread???


This is the type of thing I'm talking about: the rampant ego-driven delusions that always overshadow the facts in every one of these discussions. This is what I mean by "you guys". I mean every one of you on this website that starts writing me some off-topic 75-page philosophy essay about how one-sided and brainwashed people like me are every time we start winning the debate that has actual facts and data in it.

You know why we're so one-sided? Because the science is so one-sided. Period. Book it. Stamp it. Take a picture.

Now you can write me another opus about how arrogant I am for saying that or you can put your money where your mouth is and PROVE ME WRONG - which is exactly what I challenged you to do in the first place.

This part is not subjective - it deals with data and logic and things that tend to speak for themselves. But if you can't handle it because it's too much work then go play in another sandbox, instead of sticking your head deep under the dirt in this one and then telling us how blind we all apparently are.

reply to post by mc_squared


Well, now. If I'm not a bonafide jack-arse at this moment...

It was real late when I wrote that. The Corona's were tasting real good. Take another look at all of that, and tell me if that really sounded like OUR discussion...

For some odd reason, I overlooked the name, and assumed that the first response was from NoHierarchry. I never actually responded to "you".

Noob alert! For the euphoria I experienced, it was worth it. And even though my response was out of touch with the actual reality, it was wort it. I did pretty damn good

Sine you're clearly the greatest AGW expert ATS has to offer, I do hope you'll answer my challenges to NoHierarchy...

About our last debate... where you were trying to meet me in the middle... the thing is... the entire perception is all the same.

To me it's the Left's version of the Right's fearmongering of the so-called War on Terror.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


I see little use denying that this is caused by humanity, even though I've doubted it at times. I biggest problem with the Climate Change Scare is our assumptions about the 'solutions.'

Even if climate change is coming why use it as an excuse to restrict freedom? freedom is the best tool we have as a species to solve unexpected problems. I believe the price of adapting to a new climate will be far less then the price of putting all our trust in governments to halt or reverse this process. Be careful how much control you give governments to fix any 'problems' even if they have the mind-power capable of solving it, they're unlikely to give up that power after they do so.

I'm completely convinced the best solution to climate change is to just let it all ride.