Yeah. like you're really one to talk. Come on then, tell us what the ideal climate would be if all of us pesky humans weren't busy warming it up. Conspiracy is such a strong word. But I have no doubt that with the money and the politics involved that there is definitely data being ignored or modified to fit a pre-existing conclusion. Frankly it's quite shocking that the sun, the single largest driver of the global climate, continually gets ignored in these circles, along with so many other facts that just get in the way of the political agendas. It's also been plainly obvious that political agenda's have been at work since this bullshit started.
Whatever I say, your follow up will be "Keep telling yourself that," so why don't we just cut to the chase?
I think they spend so much time making up new definitions for perfectly legitimate English words that they lose their ability to comprehend what they're reading in actual English.
Not remotely the point. the reason it is inaccurate is because virtually no one "denies the earth is getting warmer" The dissent comes from those who question the postulated REASONS why it does. the quoted passage blatantly mischaracterizes the argument of the opposition.
given that scenario, would you advise passing massive amounts of regulatory legislation with trillions of dollars worth of economic impact based on either doctor's view while such disagreement exists?
The quoted passages do not make up the entirety of the research. Just because an article quotes selected passages and says "this", does not mean that is the results of the research. If you want to know what the research says, read the research report. Then come back here and refute the points you think the author of the article is attempting to lead you to believe.
"The chase" is that you try to avoid argument by simply making things up out of no where while simultaneously pretending being smug somehow makes you more intelligent.
One doesn't need to read an entire report to see the inaccuracy in one statement, like the whole "denies the earth is getting warmer" thing.
For what? The flow of time for us humans is past, present, and future. The inability of garamet to understand that Svensmark's past statement has been invalidated by the man himself based on the present results of CLOUD is not my concern.
Now be a good little bot and post a definition of "invalidated" from Dictionary.com. Then figure out that it was Jamey who originally cited Svensmark, not me. (It's obvious too much to expect you to understand that science consists of reexamining original data in light of new data.) Then make sure to watch out for falling apples every time you leave the house. [action=garamet]bets that sandbagger has no idea what that last sentence means...[/action]
Having now finally realized that the statement she nailed her colors to has in fact been superseded, garamet returns with the same weak ass tired shtick. Make particular note of the sentence in bold where she now tries to claim that it is her opponent who is ignorant. While posts a mere one page back demonstrate her ignorance of the very thing she now claims dominion over.
Good. Back to Svensmark, then. Crackpot, respected scientist, some of his data's valid, some of it isn't? What's your take?
Good. Back to Svensmark, then. Crackpot, respected scientist, some of his data's valid, some of it isn't? What's your take?[/quote] Having now rattled her with the facts about her posts in this thread she now desperately tries to change the subject. I think in admitting that the newly acquired data from CLOUD will require him to rethink his previous opinions that he is probably a sensible fellow.
Notice the broken quote.[/QUOTE] Having Dayton problems, are you? Maybe an admin can help you. What I find amusing, if not a little sad, is the concomitance of "global warming is inevitable" with "there's nothing we can do about it!" Would the same "thinking" apply to a medical condition? Of course not. Cherry-picking.
Having Dayton problems, are you?[/quote] Congratulations on your ninja edit. One thing our study of the Earth's climate has taught us is the fact that Climate Change is both natural and ongoing. And as has always been the case man's best defense against it is the advancement of technology. Deserts made by nature can be made verdant farmland. Shoreline lost to the sea can be reclaimed. It's been much colder than it is today and much hotter than it has been today. Humanity survived without the advantages we have today.
So is cancer. And that sounds suspiciously like an argument for improving our current technology. Or did you think anyone other than the coal industry was lobbying for us to go backwards?
Not sure where you're going with this. Once upon a time we "cured" people by bleeding them. Scientifically, we thought that was the best thing to do, to balance out the "humours". Are you suggesting we "cure" cancer by bleeding patients? Or are you advocating a "cure" for Global Warming(tm) that is scientifically nebulous, at best.
Sorry, neither. Just trying to figure out why the "it's inevitable and there's nothing we can do about it" mindset is particular to climate change and not to, oh, say, medicine, space exploration, building a better mousetrap... And, for the record, leeches have been reintroduced into some fields in medicine.
Cancer unlike Climate Change has not shown itself to be beneficial. We should always be improving our technology. Actually the coal industry has worked very hard to develop clean technologies. Emissions from coal fired electric plants to day are much lower today than they were in the past. The Clean Air Act has been a resounding success. Such a resounding success in fact that now environmentalists are forced to concoct a Carbon Dioxide threat.
We were discussing whether or not it was natural, not beneficial. How is climate change beneficial? Agreed. I'd need to see the data on that in order to make an informed judgment, though in the meantime, having known a few people who grew up in coal country in Western PA, I'd suggest you take their word for the fact that outlawing strip mining is a *good* thing. I mentioned coal because I was thinking of the deadly fogs in London in the 19th century that were a result of coal-burning.
