Global warming sanity.

[Vandaler]

I've posted this before, but I think it makes excellent points. John Stossel couldn't be accused of being a "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination (he believes in abortion, gay "marriage", et cetera).  So for what it's worth:

Thanks for sharing...

I actually don't have a problem with the "Debate is not over" statement.  By all means,  science should never be dogmatic.

It does not give grounds to the argument that Global warming is an hoax though.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

I actually don't have a problem with the "Debate is not over" statement.  By all means,  science should never be dogmatic.

It does not give grounds to the argument that Global warming is an hoax though.

No, but you misrepresent the position of the opposing scientists. They oppose the idea that humans are causing global warming, not that there is global warming. Give me one quote from an opposing scientist that they state global warming is a hoax (in those or similar words); you will not find one most likely.

I wanted to state this previously in my last post; I decided to make this response in what hopefully will be my last reply.

[Vandaler]

I actually don't have a problem with the "Debate is not over" statement.  By all means,  science should never be dogmatic.

It does not give grounds to the argument that Global warming is an hoax though.

No, but you misrepresent the position of the opposing scientists. They oppose the idea that humans are causing global warming, not that there is global warming. Give me one quote from an opposing scientist that they state global warming is a hoax (in those or similar words); you will not find one most likely.

I wanted to state this previously in my last post; I decided to make this response in what hopefully will be my last reply.

I am not misrepresenting scientists.  I am trying to fight much of the numbskullery I keep reading on the subject. Claiming flat out that Global Warming is an Hoax is part of this.

I choose to take my crusade on this site, but it could have been done it anywhere as this is not especially a Trad phenomena.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

I actually don't have a problem with the "Debate is not over" statement.  By all means,  science should never be dogmatic.

It does not give grounds to the argument that Global warming is an hoax though.

No, but you misrepresent the position of the opposing scientists. They oppose the idea that humans are causing global warming, not that there is global warming. Give me one quote from an opposing scientist that they state global warming is a hoax (in those or similar words); you will not find one most likely.

I wanted to state this previously in my last post; I decided to make this response in what hopefully will be my last reply.

I am not misrepresenting scientists.  I am trying to fight much of the numbskullery I keep reading on the subject. Claiming flat out that Global Warming is an Hoax is part of this.

I choose to take my crusade on this site, but it could have been done it anywhere as this is not especially a Trad phenomena.

Well, I, for one, have never stated one way or the other. But the media is twisting it into that the opposing scientists claim that global warming is a hoax, which is not in the slightest way true. That is what I'm fighting. And the two videos I posted or others concerning the opposite side never state global warming is a hoax, but that global warming CAUSED BY HUMANS is most likely not true.

[Vandaler]

But the media is twisting it into that the opposing scientists claim that global warming is a hoax, which is not in the slightest way true. That is what I'm fighting.

Hmm, well then join me, since there seems to be a whole bunch that subscribe to such views on this very forum.

You are still mysterious as to why you choose to side with the minority, but I guess at this point it's clear you don't wish to answer this central question.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

But the media is twisting it into that the opposing scientists claim that global warming is a hoax, which is not in the slightest way true. That is what I'm fighting.

Hmm, well then join me, since there seems to be a whole bunch that subscribe to such views on this very forum.

You are still mysterious as to why you choose to side with the minority, but I guess at this point it's clear you don't wish to answer this central question.

I already stated in my very first reply to you:

I've always been suspicious of claims of "apocalyptic climate changes" (caused by humans [NOTE: Added right now by me]) that are going to occur in the near future. Last time, it was global ice age. Now, it's global warming.

And another thing: I don't see a minority, if you mean by "clear minority", but I see nearly half of the scientists subscribe to human-caused global warming and the other half subscribing to global warming caused by climate changes not man-induced.

[Vandaler]

Sorry QVP,   I missed your reply.

I don't believe in near future apocalyptic visions either which are advocated by zealots. I would not see that as a reasonable justification to take on the opposite view though. But then again, we have a clear difference of perception of where the consensus resides.

Where you to find out that you are wrong, and that there is an overwhelming majority of experts on the side of man made global warming, would you reconsider ?

If I was to find out I was wrong in my view and that the scientific was evenly split on the question, I would reconsider my position immediately.

[AdoramusTeChriste]

I must say, I am disheartened by the level of discourse with regards to Global Warming.

So, this is a no B.S. thread where I stake a defense of man made global warming.  I don't intend to defend the science point by point, but rather intend to sanitize out bad arguments based on fallacious reasoning. 

So please, no details on how much carbon units Al Gore's house consume or that the earth used to be warm naturally, therefore it cannot now be getting warmer because of human activity. 

This site might be handy, I submit for reference:     Logical fallacies

So, you don't want to defend the science for man made global warming, you just want to debunk the science against it? That's handy. This way, you get to reject any and all facts as fallacious if they don't fit your preconceived criteria.

I like the approach though, at least we know where you stand.

And I agree that there is no room for dogmatic posturing in so serious an issue. Governments are poised to take draconian measures against human beings to try to rein in a phantom problem. Australia, for example, is considering implementing a tax for each child born- levied in advance for the impending carbon emissions.

I am curious as to whom you regard as the premier scientist in the area of man-made global warming. In reading the posts thus far, it seems you are simply joining the majority opinion for the sake of being in the majority.

[AdoramusTeChriste]

I've posted this before, but I think it makes excellent points. John Stossel couldn't be accused of being a "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination (he believes in abortion, gay "marriage", et cetera). So for what it's worth:

Thanks for sharing...

I actually don't have a problem with the "Debate is not over" statement. By all means, science should never be dogmatic.

It does not give grounds to the argument that Global warming is an hoax though.

It does give grounds that man-made global warming is a hoax, and that is what you asked for.

Thanks for this video, Spooky. I hadn't seen it before. A couple of points:

I despise the scare tactics that have children terrified and feeling guilty for being alive. That is true terrorism.

I liked that Stossel called out the science by point. Funny how no one wanted to discuss it. I really liked that Stossel showed a few clips of the movie. I would have picked the same ones. Gore's Greenland scenario is where he loses crediblity, imo. He drew parallels with the phenomenon that gave us the glacier lakes- a phenomenon that occurred without all the gloom and doom that he is trying to feed us. Gore is completely off with his conclusions.

Now for QVP's video...

[Catholicmilkman]

I am curious as to whom you regard as the premier scientist in the area of man-made global warming. In reading the posts thus far, it seems you are simply joining the majority opinion for the sake of being in the majority.

I was thinking the exact same thing, since when does consensus dictate what the truth is? I look at the truth not the consensus of men. Opinions mean nothing even if everyone holds the same opinion.