This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax? - Comments

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 1 by Zeuglodon

Is there an e-petition for teaching climate change science in early education? I'd sign it on the spot. I don't want another "controversy" debacle. I want people to realize what's going on and be doing something about it.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:47:08 UTC | #921197

EvilConservative's Avatar Comment 2 by EvilConservative

Both sides of the political spectrum have organizations who plan and spend money to inject their points of view into school education. So today its "this" document leak, tomorrow it will be another document/email leak.

Global Warming education shouldn't be given a free pass into schools. The Global Warming debate is wrought with political partisanship, mixed facts with prominent scientists on both sides. The scientific community has been caught with its pants down on this one multiple times secretively manipulating data which only hurts their cause. This topic is wrought with corporate money pandering on both sides under this President and past presidents.

I have a feeling that by the time the dust settles on this issue, we'll be ready about it in our history text books instead of our Science text books.

FYI: Don't reply to this with some global warming is real link, cause for every one of those you can post, I can find another credible organization saying the exact opposite. I can also link page upon page of big oil/Solyndra scandals all day. So don't post me any corporate greed links either.

Last but not least, don't tell me that because I haven't posted any links myself, that I'm making this up. I don't need to post the massive returns of a basic Google search into this post because you don't want to do the research yourself.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:16:25 UTC | #921216

Kalex's Avatar Comment 3 by Kalex

Wrong wrong wrong "EvilConservative". Your Climategate BS was just that - BS. All of the investigations showed the scientists did not manipulate the data. I'm surprised you would believe FOx News and Rush Limbuagh before the extrememly vast majority of climate scientists.

Shame.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:26:23 UTC | #921226

digofthedump's Avatar Comment 4 by digofthedump

RE. Comment 2 by EvilConservative..."Last but not least, don't tell me that because I haven't posted any links myself, that I'm making this up."

Mate....I guarantee you'll receive at least one reply which simply says "Evidence?!! I didn't think so!!."

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:35:17 UTC | #921230

Daisy Skipper's Avatar Comment 5 by Daisy Skipper

Comment 2 by EvilConservative

FYI: Don't reply to this with some global warming is real link,

Very... dogmatic of you. here is a little table worth looking at. You can easily see which way the consensus lies

The link also contains this:

Quite roughly, in order, you could have from high (implicit) to lower (need to be confirmed) trust as follows: Professional societies, Government Reports, University Research Programs, Think Tanks, Advocacy Organizations, Individual Professionals, Individual Lay People

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:40:33 UTC | #921236

Kalex's Avatar Comment 6 by Kalex

          [Comment 5] by  [Daisy Skipper]:

Very... dogmatic of you. here is a little table worth looking at. You can easily see which way the consensus lies

Thanks for being more eloquent then I was able. I just couldn't believe it.

Sigh

I thought all atheists hold reason and science in high regard. But it appears some are victims of propaganda. It's a shame. I mean, someone actually would put something say a Jeremy Clarkson says over the consensus of the vast majority of the scientific community? If we can't even get free thinkers to think how do we ever expect the indoctrinated to be able? Perhaps political ideology is just as nefarious as religion in this regard.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:54:59 UTC | #921242

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 7 by Nunbeliever

There's a big difference between the debate about evolution and the debate about climate change. Evolution has more to do with the view of ourselves and our place in the universe. It's of course highly troubleing that so many Americans don't believe in evolution, but I have not yet seen any evidence that this denialism has really affected scientific progress in the short term per se. Perhaps I am wrong, and I would be glad to know if someone can show me any such evidence.

Climate change denialism on the other hand is a huge problem right here and right now. Although most of us might not yet suffer the consequences of global warming, we have to act now in order to prevent a potential disaster in the future. We need much more research and much more resources. But, most of all we need to convince politicians that this is a real problem. Unfortunately our politicians won't do a thing if they don't see promoting action as a way of getting reelected.

Yes, I have many times expressed my deep frustration with the fact that many people I know and meet deny global warming. I deeply despise the whole AGW denialism movement. It is a very destructive movement and we need to fight it by any means possible. Still, I think the really big problem is that global warming is hardly ever discussed in the public sphere. When I discuss global warming with my friends most just seem quite uninterested. They have a vague idea of what it's all about, but they don't really seem to care all that much. Sometimes you see some article about global warming but at least in Europe my experience is that this is a topic that people seem to be quite fed up with. Much like the discussion about famine in Africa in the 80s. When people see these poor kids with flies in their eyes enough times we don't care anymore. We've heard about climate change so many times in the past that most people lose interest. They forget about it. They don't really care.

This is the large challenge we are facing. How to keep the public (which is a prerequisite for attracting the attention of our politicians) interested in global warming and the huge efforts we need to make in order to prevent global warming. When the great Haiti disaster happened people lost interest in a few weeks. How on earth are we going to keep the public interested in global warming the next decade or more? Especially since we have to make large sacrifices in the short term. It' not surprising that most politicians don't want to deal with global warming in these economically tough times. People are desperate. People want to hear good news. People vote for politicians who promises new jobs and opportunities right now. Talk about some potential disaster in the future seems irrelevant to people who are struggeling every day to make ends meet. This is the big challenge! And this is why the global warming deniers are so successful even though they hardly have any credible scientists left on their side. Politicians don't want to hear about climate change. People don't want to hear about climate change. It's much to vague and abstract. You can't see it when you look out your window. The consequences will happen slowly over several decades. On top of that we are still witnessing the consequences of the last economical crisis. Many experts predicts a new economical collapse is in the making. With all this in mind, tell me. If you can't keep people interested in a large disaster like the Haiti disaster for more than a few weeks (at most). Then how on earth are we going to keep people interested in something as abstract and vague as global warming???

That's the big challenge, and the future is not looking bright I am sorry to say!

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:02:38 UTC | #921245

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 8 by Tyler Durden

Comment 2 by EvilConservative :

FYI: Don't reply to this with some global warming is real link, cause for every one of those you can post, I can find another credible organization saying the exact opposite. I can also link page upon page of big oil/Solyndra scandals all day. So don't post me any corporate greed links either.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

(pauses for breath...)

Last but not least, don't tell me that because I haven't posted any links myself, that I'm making this up. I don't need to post the massive returns of a basic Google search into this post because you don't want to do the research yourself.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Best Post of The Day. You win the internet.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:03:12 UTC | #921246

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 9 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 2 by EvilConservative

FFS not another one.

The scientific community has been caught with its pants down on this one multiple times secretively manipulating data which only hurts their cause.

Is that right? Or have you fallen for the media manipulation? You'll have evidence I'm sure?

I have a feeling that by the time the dust settles on this issue, we'll be ready about it in our history text books instead of our Science text books.

I hope not...it'll be too late for mankind. You are aware that more than 90% of science experts in this field are in consensus...right?

FYI: Don't reply to this with some global warming is real link, cause for every one of those you can post, I can find another credible organization saying the exact opposite.

Not credible....but go ahead and give it a shot.....Alan and Jos will be intrigued.

Last but not least, don't tell me that because I haven't posted any links myself, that I'm making this up. I don't need to post the massive returns of a basic Google search into this post because you don't want to do the research yourself.

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. How is anyone supposed to refute an assertion you make from a Google search?

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:03:34 UTC | #921247

Reckless Monkey's Avatar Comment 10 by Reckless Monkey

Comment 2 by EvilConservative Global Warming education shouldn't be given a free pass into schools.

It isn't its stood the test of time and peer review something you will see very few AGW diners attempting and when they have they have been rightly shot down, not because of some ideological battle but because their hypothesises didn't align with reality. This is why there is little debate over AGW in scientific literature, been done already, your guys where wrong.

The Global Warming debate is wrought with political partisanship, mixed facts with prominent scientists on both sides.

Okay first name me one prominent climate scientist (see if you can without googling it not including those involved in the so called climate-gate because they received public prominence from that). If you bothered to actually read the science ie. look at the actual science not the cherry picked misdirections shoved about by AGW deniers then you would find that the science is completely sound.

Now to the really offensive comment

"This topic is wrought with corporate money pandering on both sides under this President and past presidents."

. Go look up the salary or a climate scientist. Done that? Now name me 1 who earns 10's of millions a year. Every CEO of every oil company is earning obscene amounts of money. If you want more proof that climate scientists are not making the political decisions have a look at what they suggest we need to do and by when and see how little of that is actually being done! Don't talk about the science being polluted with politics, the science isn't and it's clear for anyone with the wit to actually read it instead of just sucking on the comforting pacifier of their distorted ideology.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:05:59 UTC | #921249

EvilConservative's Avatar Comment 11 by EvilConservative

Comment 3 by Kalex :

Wrong wrong wrong "EvilConservative". Your Climategate BS was just that - BS. All of the investigations showed the scientists did not manipulate the data. I'm surprised you would believe FOx News and Rush Limbuagh before the extrememly vast majority of climate scientists.

Shame.

Wrong wrong wrong. I don't watch Fox, and I don't listen to Rush.

Here is your latest climategate link filled with emails showing scientists manipulating data.

Climategate II http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/

Here is one from NASA getting caught http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

Here is one from CBS who in case you didn't know are NOT affiliated with Rush Limbaugh or Fox news.

Told ya.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:06:01 UTC | #921250

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 12 by Starcrash

No matter what the scientific consensus is and whether or not you agree with it, it should be taught to kids. The consensus is always "the best view of the truth we have at the moment based on all the given information".

Who cares if it's controversial? If it turns out to be false, then the consensus will reverse their view --- it has happened, and we have no reason to suspect the majority of scientists of dogmatism. Teach the kids what we know, and if there's anything to be said about "controversy" on the subject, it should be that no truth can be absolute... but we can still call this theory true, given the weight of current evidence.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:15:36 UTC | #921253

ColdThinker's Avatar Comment 13 by ColdThinker

Thanks, EvilConservative, for now I see the truth.

Of course it's a brilliant hoax. The 99 % of the climate scientists in the international science community are joined in a secret evil club to perpetrate a global conspiracy. All in order to get the huge university grant money, literally thousands, yes, thousands of dollars each!

I'm so happy that you have found out the truth as told by the 1 % of the brave, incorruptible, pure-hearted heroes of True Science. I'm sure the hundreds of millions of dollars the oil companies use for buying studies, manufacturing scandals and paying kickbacks have no part in their holy quest for truth. 

But of course, the hoards of climatologists prefer a meager income from the universities, because they are ungodly, evil socialists. The godly conservative oil-respecting right wing pundit rightfully earns his fat kickback millions, for bravely exposing the hoax.

I'm sure believing in the real republican truth of this evil scientist conspiracy will make you happier driving you car.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:22:02 UTC | #921260

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 14 by Zeuglodon

I'm expecting a post from Jos Gibbons or Alan4Discussion any second now...

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:29:44 UTC | #921262

Nastika's Avatar Comment 15 by Nastika

Comment 2 by EvilConservative

I don't need to post the massive returns of a basic Google search into this post because you don't want to do the research yourself.

A Google search is not research:

Proof that fairies are real: 4,310,000 results

Proof that dinosaurs never existed: 6,700,000 results

Proof that earth is flat: 41,200,000 results

Maybe you should get an account with Science Direct rather than joining the ranks of the Delingpole interpreters of the interpreters (of the interpreters) of science. You would then discover just how many "prominent" scientists are against the consensus view on climate change.

Some these "prominent" biologists, chemists and physicists (and even classicists) may be great at publishing blogs about climate change which end up polluting Google searches

However their distinct lack of publishing record in peer reviewed journals is a clear indication of their lack of expertise when it comes to climate science.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:30:44 UTC | #921263

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 16 by alaskansee

EvilConservative

What don't you understand about posting on a public forum? The feeblest part of your post wasn't the regurgitated lies but the plea not to be rebuked.

Personally I think the post should be removed for the utter stupidity of shouting at people with your fingers in your ears.

Also aren't there real "Evil Conservatives" that don't want you smearing them with your thoughtlessness?

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:37:20 UTC | #921264

Nastika's Avatar Comment 17 by Nastika

Comment 11 by EvilConservative

Climategate II http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/

I don't believe it - you actually quoted referenced a Delingpole blog while I was composing my comment. Spooky.

James "It's not my job to sit down and read peer reviewed papers" Delingpole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

So this English Literature graduate is your authority on climate change?

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:38:14 UTC | #921265

EvilConservative's Avatar Comment 18 by EvilConservative

You are all doing what I told you guys not to do. Quoting me that your right and I'm wrong and the proof is proof. Which I knew you guys would and you all fell into the trap/mindset I knew you would.

I probably didn't explain myself properly in relation to the context of this article. There is NOT enough solid concrete proof to give evidence of Global Warming. There is NOT enough solid concrete evidence to prove "Man Made GW". There is NOT enough evidence to prove that GW does NOT exist. Its all still up in the air. 30 years ago scientists were complaining about Global Cooling.

But I'm not saying I don't think GW exists. There is as much data proving its existence as there is disproving it. I don't know what is true. Neither side has won the argument. Having said that, do we teach it in schools as fact? I don't think so. I say leave it out for now.

BTW, the 90% of scientists argument doesn't work. If I took that same reasoning and applied it to Atheism, then we the 10% of the world who don't believe in God are then wrong, because 90% of the other people do believe in God. The human race has plenty of examples showing that the majority can be wrong.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:39:13 UTC | #921266

EvilConservative's Avatar Comment 19 by EvilConservative

Comment 17 by Nastika :

Comment 11 by EvilConservative

Climategate II http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/

I don't believe it - you actually quoted referenced a Delingpole blog while I was composing my comment. Spooky.

James "It's not my job to sit down and read peer reviewed papers" Delingpole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

So this English Literature graduate is your authority on climate change?

Fine, that is why I posted 3. So you don't debunk the one from NASA or CBS News then. My point is made again.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:42:06 UTC | #921268

EvilConservative's Avatar Comment 20 by EvilConservative

Comment 12 by Starcrash :

No matter what the scientific consensus is and whether or not you agree with it, it should be taught to kids. The consensus is always "the best view of the truth we have at the moment based on all the given information".

Who cares if it's controversial? If it turns out to be false, then the consensus will reverse their view --- it has happened, and we have no reason to suspect the majority of scientists of dogmatism. Teach the kids what we know, and if there's anything to be said about "controversy" on the subject, it should be that no truth can be absolute... but we can still call this theory true, given the weight of current evidence.

I don't agree with this in the sense that I want my kids school text books to be filled with facts. If the fact is still up in the air, then leave it out. If I taught my children based on consensus, then I'd be teaching them to believe in God since as Atheists we are the non believing minority.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:44:40 UTC | #921271

EvilConservative's Avatar Comment 21 by EvilConservative

Comment 20 by EvilConservative :

Comment 12 by Starcrash :

No matter what the scientific consensus is and whether or not you agree with it, it should be taught to kids. The consensus is always "the best view of the truth we have at the moment based on all the given information".

Who cares if it's controversial? If it turns out to be false, then the consensus will reverse their view --- it has happened, and we have no reason to suspect the majority of scientists of dogmatism. Teach the kids what we know, and if there's anything to be said about "controversy" on the subject, it should be that no truth can be absolute... but we can still call this theory true, given the weight of current evidence.

I don't agree with this in the sense that I want my kids school text books to be filled with facts. If the fact is still up in the air, then leave it out. If I taught my children based on consensus, then I'd be teaching them to believe in God since as Atheists we are the non believing minority.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:45:16 UTC | #921272

Warren-S's Avatar Comment 22 by Warren-S

James Delingpole is an idiot, who believes he is exposing evil Nazi/Commie conspiracies to push us back to the Stone Age. Conspiracies that are orchestrated by thousands of people worldwide, who somehow all manage to keep schtum about it, but only he can expose this heinous plot by the 'powers-that-be', like some low-rent David Icke (one who is considered palatable to the mainstream media). He isn't that intelligent, he doesn't do any original research, simply quoting everyone else, again, like David Icke, and has no science education whatsoever. His method of shooting down the opposition involve character assassination (often labelling them 'Nazis', or 'Commies') and insults. His arrogance shows in his little self-description "always right about everything". Maybe that was in jest, but no one is always right about everything!

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:56:14 UTC | #921277

Nastika's Avatar Comment 23 by Nastika

Comment 11 by EvilConservative

Here is one from NASA getting caught http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

Here we have "computer expert" E. Michael Smith and "Certified Consulting Meteorologist" Joseph D'Aleo having trouble with understanding the source of Global Historical Climatology Network data.

See the response from Dr Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/unforced-variations-2/

I suppose that Google does have its uses when debunking.

BTW "prominent" scientist Joseph D'Aleo has an interesting take on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%27Aleo)

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:57:31 UTC | #921279

EvilConservative's Avatar Comment 24 by EvilConservative

Comment 16 by alaskansee :

EvilConservative

What don't you understand about posting on a public forum? The feeblest part of your post wasn't the regurgitated lies but the plea not to be rebuked.

Personally I think the post should be removed for the utter stupidity of shouting at people with your fingers in your ears.

Also aren't there real "Evil Conservatives" that don't want you smearing them with your thoughtlessness?

I know plenty about posting on public forums. And I definitely know about posting on this forum. Many an hour I've spent posting on these forums with facts and quotes from reputable source only to have people basically say, "I don't believe your facts."

So I don't waste my time anymore doing the research and laying the facts out for people who basically have their minds made up already. Hence my post about links and facts and sources and such. I'm not gonna be dragged into that on these forums anymore.

Which is why I tell people to do the research themselves. Some will, some won't.

The "Evil Conservative" forum name is a double stab. A stab at the religious right who find my lack in a belief of God.....Evil. The Conservative part is a stab at the Left because they hate Conservatism and endorse Progressivism/Communism/Fascism etc..

And trust me...I think way more about everything than all my Left/Right wing friends.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:01:38 UTC | #921281

Reckless Monkey's Avatar Comment 25 by Reckless Monkey

EvilConservative's Avatar Comment 18 by EvilConservative There is NOT enough solid concrete proof to give evidence of Global Warming. There is NOT enough solid concrete evidence to prove "Man Made GW". There is NOT enough evidence to prove that GW does NOT exist. Its all still up in the air.

Sorry read the actual science and you will see it is real and settled. There was a time when it was unsettled but that was a long time ago.

30 years ago scientists were complaining about Global Cooling.

Really? You'll find this was never the consensus view but was published as such by some of the mainstream media. Again read the actual scientific papers not the media BS unless of course you want to go on sucking on your pacifier.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:08:43 UTC | #921283

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 26 by Alan4discussion

Comment 14 by Zeuglodon

Funny you should say that! I've just come back from a political meeting on health reforms!

I see see EvilConservative has already done the "Aren't I incredulous", comedy!

FYI: Don't reply to this with some global warming is real link,

Well that would be confusing the poor fellow with real science!

.... ... but never mind. We do real science here on this site, so here are some links for those who have not seen them already. They are the sort of basic knowledge children should be taught and politicians should urgently learn.

  1. http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/642733-why-the-laws-of-physics-make-anthropogenic-climate-change-undeniable

  2. http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/643310-water-cooled-nuclear-power-plants-aren-t-the-only-option

  3. http://lisas.de/projects/alt_energy/sol_thermal/powertower.html

  4. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-us-power-tower-lights-up-california

  5. http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/632627-harness-the-sea-national-geographic-june-2011-tidal-wave-power-generation

  6. http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1803910/atlantis-takes-wraps-worlds-largest-tidal-turbine

  7. http://namesake-expert.blogspot.com/2011/01/gulf-of-kutch-in-gujarat-first-tidal.html

  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations

  9. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642270-noaa-study-suggests-aerosols-might-be-inhibiting-global-warming

  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

  11. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642177-global-temperatures-were-seventh-warmest-on-record-for-june

  12. http://essayweb.net/history/ancient/prehistory.shtml - This link is mainly about history of human migrations but it does contain temperature graphs and explanations for a record of the past 5.5 million years of Earth's climate. The past half million years show three major glaciations: the Mindel, Riss and Würm glacials.

That should do for a start, covering the evidence it is happening, and some technical industrial solutions for future power generation.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:10:11 UTC | #921284

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 27 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 18 by EvilConservative

BTW, the 90% of scientists argument doesn't work. If I took that same reasoning and applied it to Atheism, then we the 10% of the world who don't believe in God are then wrong, because 90% of the other people do believe in God. The human race has plenty of examples showing that the majority can be wrong.

The argumentum ad populum fallacy and the argument from expert consensus are in no way similar.

Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. In some domains, however, it is popularity rather than other strengths that makes a choice the preferred one.

Quality is preferred over quantity...but when has both, it's a bit of a slam dunk.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:12:05 UTC | #921285

Nastika's Avatar Comment 28 by Nastika

Comment 19 by EvilConservative

Fine, that is why I posted 3. So you don't debunk the one from NASA or CBS News then. My point is made again.

Your 3rd link is missing. Can you please provide it?

In the meantime, let's look at your flood of questions that require a bit more work:

There is NOT enough solid concrete proof to give evidence of Global Warming. There is NOT enough solid concrete evidence to prove "Man Made GW". There is NOT enough evidence to prove that GW does NOT exist.

OK I will get to that later...

Its all still up in the air.

That's funny. What? It wasn't meant as a joke. OK. Let's continue...

30 years ago scientists were complaining about Global Cooling.

I will get to this later too...

But I'm not saying I don't think GW exists.

Hang on. What? You don't think that Carbon Dioxide warms up the atmosphere so that we don't live on a giant snowball?

I don't know what is true.

Yes you clearly don't.

Neither side has won the argument.

It's not an argument it's a scientific theory. There is a difference.

BTW, the 90% of scientists argument doesn't work.

Oh no - the Delingpole manoeuvre. I will therefore use the Sir Paul defence:

Would you refuse a particular medical treatment for a hypothetical disease if only 90% of scientists agreed that it was the correct course of action?

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:13:11 UTC | #921287

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 29 by alaskansee

@EvilConservative

Well if you don't like people commenting on what you say - stop posting. Asking people or should I say TELLING people what they cannot post in response to your posts is ridiculous, please stop making yourself look silly and intransigent.

As to your name, while I can believe your conservative friends thoughtlessly judge you on your lack of belief in their hideously evil little sick gods I have trouble believing the left "hate" conservatism. We're not in it for the afterlife, I am comfortable with many words from socialist and communist to conservative, they are just descriptive and as I have not forgotten or am currently pretending they mean something else I couldn't possible "hate" them.

Most on this forum were not brought up demonising "others" (Typically it's something the religiously inclined do - like US politicians) so your assessment of our psyche is way way off, we're positive realists. The same reason the right are now kicking up a fuss over the small request for the catholic church to treat their non-religious employees fairly when it's clearly not an attack on any religious freedom they still like to lie that it is. Must be tough having to preach to the stupid in the hope that no one that is clever enough to listen might explain it to them.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:19:45 UTC | #921290

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 30 by Alan4discussion

Comment 24 by EvilConservative

So I don't waste my time anymore doing the research and laying the facts out for people who basically have their minds made up already. Hence my post about links and facts and sources and such. I'm not gonna be dragged into that on these forums anymore.

Perhaps you should reaserch SCIENCE WEB PAGES rather than pseudo-science!

Which is why I tell people to do the research themselves. Some will, some won't.

Some of us do and know precisely where the reliable information is to be found.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1202

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:21:29 UTC | #921292