Global Warming: Last Chance to Repent!

You believe the "science" that claims human beings are the cause for Global Warming? I am not decrying climate change. I am decrying the claim that humans are the cause. I am also well aware of some of the data used to justify the claim has been falsified.

I'm positive that there is climate change. I'm positive that through out the history of this planet, the climate has changed and continues to change. I'm simply not stupid enough to buy into the myths, lies, and claims by a body of people in the scientific community who have lied to the world in order to promote their theories and beliefs.

Well I find it interesting that those who most believe that mankind is responsible for climate change decry the possibility that the climate has always changed since the planet's formation, and maybe we really don't have much of a grasp on the climate as a whole.

I mean, if it was changing naturally for millions of years, then it's suddenly changing because of us, when did it stop changing naturally?

Did the climate roll to an optimum stop a few hundred years ago?

No, you assume I do, I accept the possibility that it is humans, but you seem to operate under the assumption that because some data was falsified that all of it is falsified.

The logical thing to assume is that it is the effect of both.

If nature were changing it in a way you didn't like, would you support steps to modify the climate?

Why? It's logical only if the data supports it.

No, I operate from the position that if some of it is falsified, what else is falsified.

You mentioned religion and dogma. Well one of the things required in most any religion is faith in what is being told to you. There is quite a bit of faith required to trust what is being said by scientist now.

Given the fact that the climate was changing long before the existence of human beings it is very logical as well as believable to expect it to continue to change no matter what human beings do, or do not do.

Spot the contradiction.

The problem with tap dancing on the fence, casting scorn on either side, is that you're eventually going to slip and bust your balls.

Great news, everyone!

Only if you're weighing 100 years of industrialized humanity against, oh say, the 6000 years since creation.

Tamar, or someone, make us a copy of that smiley - bigger hopefully - with the earth on his hat instead of a cross...

I prefer this one.

It's nice, but mine has the inside-baseball irony thing going for it. What with Jor-El being the one who bucked the "scientific consensus" about Krypton's impending destruction.

[yt="You know what they say."]fQMfN0UFqms[/yt]

In the interest of keeping an open mind, a friend of mine gave me the number of a Scientist who, I'm told, can explain Global Warming to me. Can I borrow your cell phone?

Sorry, I only loan my stuff to people who don't have undergrad degrees in Art.

Such a delusional fairy.

Peer review doesn't check for falsified data. It only checks whether the data has been dealt with within accepted norms for the current discipline - and that might not be the accepted norm for other disciplines. For example, statisticians have been very harsh on the way Climatologists do their statistics work.

For example, according to Phil Jones, the head of the CRU that was involved in the climategate scandal, no one ever checked any of his work in peer review.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry

This is the same organization who refused freedom of information acts that the UK government said would have been criminal offenses if they had been found before the statute of limitations expire.

Oh, and as far as the external review process - no less than the Chair of the 2nd inquiry Phil Willis stated it was an 'intentional sleight of hand' in order to avoid actually assessing the science.

And the list of papers who were looked at by Lord Oxborough's commitee were drawn up by UEA (they oversee the CRU where the climate emails originated). These did not include the ones that the skeptics were saying were controversial and showed potential fraud. None of the ones that were analyzed were in question.

And no interviews were conducted with any skeptics at all in any of the three inquiries.

Hard not to say the fix was in.

All reported here, on BBC radio:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8795000/8795643.stm

The Environmental Nazis have to lie in order to accomplish their agenda.

Let's also try to remember that in California, Mary Nichols the head of the California Air Resources Board knew that the man she's hired to do research on diesel particulates was not qualified to do the research. She never informed the board of this and they helped establish some of the standards for AB32.

So the woman has to commit fraud in order to move her agenda forward.

Wow, Kirk really does believe that if he lies enough it will become true. Oh, well. Just another topic that is a waste of time to try to discuss rationally here.

Prove him wrong then. Should be easy enough, right?

I have in the past but it doesn't do any good as he's in his own little world. Never the less I'll try again.

We'll start with his claim that "climategate" had any actual falsified data. Factcheck.org agrees it did not.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Oh, and an independent investigation vindicated the scientists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/climategate-investigation_n_519644.html

I predict facts will continue to not matter to Kirk and people like him though.

Edit: and he's already proved I'm right with his typical childish "I can't argue the facts so I'll just rep war!!!" stupidity.

Stupidity, is posting links to shit like that you haven't actually read Retardin.

Still no replay to the actual facts? Well, thank you for once again proving what a special little boy you are.

Yet I already showed links that indicated even the chair of the 2nd of the three inquiries into the Climategate investigation believed that the investigation was run intentionally to obfuscate the facts - no investigation was ever done of the science, which the chair of that committee claims was an intentional deception.

You can post all the democratic party talking points you like - if the foot was reversed and one of the most important men in a pro-conservative POV was calling sham, you'd be all over it.

Once again, criminal refusal of FOIA requests for the data, and a cover up that even one of the three chairs of the investigation decries.

When do we get our last last chance, so I don't have to hear about last chances anymore? How long does nothing bad have to happen before it's settled science that nothing bad is going to happen?

It's tempting to get consolation from talk of a doomed future so far off that I won't live to see it, but it would be far more gratifying to actually be there when nothing happens.

Limbaugh's got this clock on his website counting down to ten years since Al Gore warned that humanity had only ten years left. Only five years left -- I'm thinking that clock's going to need a snooze button...