If you don't believe in global warming, you're standing in the

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Thank you.

 

But you forgot to add "science isn't done by consensus." "Consensus" is politics. And "belief" is religion - if you "believe" in global warming, don't even !@#$ing talk to me.

 

 

 

Why is natural gas excluded?

 

 

 

I didn't realize you are.

 

I can read a research paper. When you can, then you can disagree with me.

 

Let me speak for Gene Frenkel--"Your mother wears combat boots". In his mind, he is winning.

[IDBillzFan]

Scientific understanding?

 

Of?

[Gene Frenkle]

 

 

Thank you.

 

But you forgot to add "science isn't done by consensus." "Consensus" is politics. And "belief" is religion - if you "believe" in global warming, don't even !@#$ing talk to me.

 

 

 

Why is natural gas excluded?

 

 

 

I didn't realize you are.

 

I can read a research paper. When you can, then you can disagree with me.

Natural gas is a much cleaner alternative to coal and oil and can easily act as a transitional fuel while "greener" technologies are perfected and infrastructure is built. Economically, natural gas reserves in the USA are abundant, though trapped in shale formations. We are literally sitting on a gold mine of energy independence and exportabable resources for years to come. All we need to do is perfect our techniques for getting to it and overcome the ridiculous environmentalist objections to hydrofracking and whatever other methods we come up with. Selfishly, it could also be a great boon to NY, PA and other states covering the local Marcellus Shale.

 

I never claimed to be a climate scientist or someone who understands the ins and outs of the current state of scientific understanding. My tendency is to err on the side of the 97%+ of scientists who disagree with the consensus of global warming deniers, but am willing to wait for the scientific method to run its course before deciding to fully accept it. I can call myself a computer scientist, but that doesn't mean I know what the f I'm talking about. Reading a handful of papers does not make one an expert by any stretch. What type of scientist are you? Serious question.

 

 

 

Let me speak for Gene Frenkel--"Your mother wears combat boots". In his mind, he is winning.

The problem with you meatheads is that you think this is about winning, as opposed to getting it right.

 

 

 

Of?

Why your mother insists on wearing combat boots...

[OCinBuffalo]

Natural gas is a much cleaner alternative to coal and oil and can easily act as a transitional fuel while "greener" technologies are perfected and infrastructure is built.

This is literally out of the Democratic/Environtologist talking point memo.

 

Especially the word "transitional". This makes the 3rd time in 2 days I've heard that word/phrase used by a leftist to describe their position on natural gas. I had never heard that word associated with natural gas until last week. In 2006-11, Natural Gas was included in The Heresy of Global Warming Deniers as the devil's sneakiest fossil fuel. Now? It is merely....transitional?

 

Is this kinda like not making us eat fish every Friday anymore?

I never claimed to be a climate scientist

No, but clearly you also haven't claimed to be unwilling to regurgitate what you heard your favorite talking head say on MSNBC, without crediting them for saying it. I don't know if you missed it, but, I asked you 3 questions above. To save you time:

 

1. Do you think the East Anglia Emails are the only evidence of wrongdoing WRT Global Warming^TM?

2. Read this, http://tinyurl.com/bvaer8q,and please tell us what you plan to say when those models fail? Will you tell us about a consensus?

3. The author in the link tells us that the Not-Global Warming^TM is happening for "some unexplained reason". What exactly is that reason today? What exactly will be that reason 2 years from now, when the models start to fail?

 

(I wonder if political convenience, grant money, ego, fame, real money to be made, or any sort of political or personal gain is involved in the "unexplained reason" why these models are failing?)

 

And now I have a new one:

4. Are you including The Economist now, on your black list of heretical deniers? Can we expect a bonfire for their vanities? Why not? They denied you more than 3 times in that article. Over and over, despite their valiant attempt to hold the line on the story they themselves have been propagating for years...they deny you in that link. They say that the temps aren't going up, AND, that the warming isn't hiding at the bottom of the ocean. That was the final excuse, and now they've denied you that too.

 

Are you and the rest of the environtologists preparing to label them Suppressive Persons (http://en.wikipedia....pressive_Person), and start suing them, and/or going on TV and claiming to be victimized by them?

Edited May 1, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[3rdnlng]

Natural gas is a much cleaner alternative to coal and oil and can easily act as a transitional fuel while "greener" technologies are perfected and infrastructure is built. Economically, natural gas reserves in the USA are abundant, though trapped in shale formations. We are literally sitting on a gold mine of energy independence and exportabable resources for years to come. All we need to do is perfect our techniques for getting to it and overcome the ridiculous environmentalist objections to hydrofracking and whatever other methods we come up with. Selfishly, it could also be a great boon to NY, PA and other states covering the local Marcellus Shale.

 

I never claimed to be a climate scientist or someone who understands the ins and outs of the current state of scientific understanding. My tendency is to err on the side of the 97%+ of scientists who disagree with the consensus of global warming deniers, but am willing to wait for the scientific method to run its course before deciding to fully accept it. I can call myself a computer scientist, but that doesn't mean I know what the f I'm talking about. Reading a handful of papers does not make one an expert by any stretch. What type of scientist are you? Serious question.

 

 

The problem with you meatheads is that you think this is about winning, as opposed to getting it right.

 

 

Why your mother insists on wearing combat boots...

 

Your little pissant comments throughout this thread have all been about "winning", and they've all been immature, self-serving little parts of a bigger hissy fit. Now you claim it's all about "getting it right". That after 2 pages of your drivel? You could have stated your preference for natural gas up front and had a meaningful conversation, but no, you had to play your usual clown game. Phuck off.

[Fezmid]

It's supposed to snow today in Minnesota.

[/dev/null]

It's supposed to snow today in Minnesota.

Minnesnowta

[TakeYouToTasker]

The Gospel according to Tasker.

 

Amen

So, nothing on the content of my post then?

[Chef Jim]

 

 

The problem with you meatheads is that you think this is about winning, as opposed to getting it right.

 

 

And what would "getting it right" look like in your mind?

[DC Tom]

Natural gas is a much cleaner alternative to coal and oil and can easily act as a transitional fuel while "greener" technologies are perfected and infrastructure is built. Economically, natural gas reserves in the USA are abundant, though trapped in shale formations. We are literally sitting on a gold mine of energy independence and exportabable resources for years to come. All we need to do is perfect our techniques for getting to it and overcome the ridiculous environmentalist objections to hydrofracking and whatever other methods we come up with. Selfishly, it could also be a great boon to NY, PA and other states covering the local Marcellus Shale.

 

Explain how it's cleaner.

 

I never claimed to be a climate scientist or someone who understands the ins and outs of the current state of scientific understanding. My tendency is to err on the side of the 97%+ of scientists who disagree with the consensus of global warming deniers, but am willing to wait for the scientific method to run its course before deciding to fully accept it. I can call myself a computer scientist, but that doesn't mean I know what the f I'm talking about. Reading a handful of papers does not make one an expert by any stretch. What type of scientist are you? Serious question.

 

"Consensus" is not a scientific principle. And when you "agree" with "scientific consensus" to the point where it stifles research that would falsify a theory, it ceases to be "science". That's really the point - one of the main properties of any valid scientific theory is that you must be able to create a negative test for it. Science HAS to be falsifiable. If you're ignoring the 3%- who disagree, you're not waiting for the scientific method to run its course, you're ignoring it.

 

And I was a physicist in a previous life. If you think that makes me inexpert on climate change...well, you're right. But my research was computer modelling of physical systems, which gives me a HELL of a lot of knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of any theory based on such. And besides that, I'm more expert than you, better understand the scientific method, and am smart and educated enough to know why the differential diffusion of oxygen isotopes in ice has a significant import on climate change that as of yet hasn't been properly accounted for in climate models.

 

So "err" on the side of "consensus". If you're screaming about "consensus," "err" is the absolute proper term for it.

 

And yes, I'm being a condescending bastard about this. That's because I know more than you do. What's your excuse for your condescension?

[/dev/null]

"Consensus" is not a scientific principle. And when you "agree" with "scientific consensus" to the point where it stifles research that would falsify a theory, it ceases to be "science".

 

Aw c'mon dude. Sometimes folks need to sit down together and hammer out their differences. Whether it's Copenhagen or Nicene, come together reach a consensus, and anybody that disagrees gets burned at the stake

[Chef Jim]

 

 

And yes, I'm being a condescending bastard about this. That's because I know more than you do. What's your excuse for your condescension?

 

He's Gene Frenkle, that's what he does.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

You have it ass backwards. The people claiming man made global warming have a duty to prove it. We skeptics don't have a duty to disprove a proclamation backed by made up science.

 

Unfortunately for you, you are on the wrong side of the point you're trying to make. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have a warming trend that is correlating with an uptick in CO2. And yes, correlation does not always equal causation, but it makes a pretty good case. You're looking at that trend and saying bull **** to causation. Now you have to prove it.

 

It does when the people who provided the supporting evidence are proven to have manipulated the supporting evidence for their own benefit.

 

There are no reputable sources that have ever debunked climate change as not being man made.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Unfortunately for you, you are on the wrong side of the point you're trying to make. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have a warming trend that is correlating with an uptick in CO2. And yes, correlation does not always equal causation, but it makes a pretty good case. You're looking at that trend and saying bull **** to causation. Now you have to prove it.

 

 

 

There are no reputable sources that have ever debunked climate change as not being man made.

I am absolutely !@#$ing speechless.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

I am absolutely !@#$ing speechless.

 

Well, I guess that's a first...

[OCinBuffalo]

There are no reputable sources that have ever debunked climate change as not being man made.

The Economist, in the link I provided above absolutely proves that the climate is nowhere near as "sensitive" to man made carbon emissions as has been previously claimed. And...the current explanation offered for why this is occurring...is "some unexplained reason".

 

Now, you chose to use the words "reputable" and "debunked". The Economist has been publishing "alarmist" Global Warming stories(hey if people are going to causally throw around the word "denier" then you bet your sweet A I am going to throw "alarmist" back at them) for a solid decade. So there goes...reputable.

 

The Economist then proceeded to provide data, that clearly shows that the models are about to the "debunked". Which takes care of that.

 

The worst thing? The very worst thing for you: Rush Limbaugh, the Ultimate Enemy of Science, has had a count down running on his website for years, and guess when it ends? 2016. Yeah, exactly timed to when the models, if the data we have holds, will fail.

 

How awful will that be for you? Actually, how awful will that be for ALL of us? To find out that Rush Limbaugh's fat ass ended up being right, while doing nothing more scientific than running Javascript?

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Unfortunately for you, you are on the wrong side of the point you're trying to make. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have a warming trend that is correlating with an uptick in CO2. And yes, correlation does not always equal causation, but it makes a pretty good case. You're looking at that trend and saying bull **** to causation. Now you have to prove it.

 

 

 

There are no reputable sources that have ever debunked climate change as not being man made.

 

Can you explain palm tree fossils (from many thousands of years ago) found in Greenland?

[/dev/null]

Can you explain palm tree fossils (from many thousands of years ago) found in Greenland?

 

For the same reason some Christians think God put dinosaur bones on Earth

 

Duh, to test the faithful

[Fezmid]

And yes, correlation does not always equal causation, but it makes a pretty good case. You're looking at that trend and saying bull **** to causation. Now you have to prove it.

Dammit, I KNEW ice cream caused people to commit crimes!!!

[/dev/null]

And yes, correlation does not always equal causation, but it makes a pretty good case. You're looking at that trend and saying bull **** to causation.

 

 

100% of cancer patients drank water. 100% is a pretty strong correlation.

 

Does water cause cancer?