Climate Gate !!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Climate cultists exposed.
The funny part is, did we really need to see the proof of this hoax in order to dismiss it? How the hell did so many people fall for it in the first place? It truly is the age of stupid as the film-makers claim, but they need to look in a mirror.
We just needed to look at the geologic record to see that the earth has been much warmer than today without automobiles (and plants thrived when warm - see dinosaurs). Earth temperatures mirror sun activity more than they mirror CO2, and the Mars polar caps melting is the big giveaway that the AGW people want to ignore. Sea level rise was 1/2 foot last century, and is on course for 1/2 foot this century. No biggie. The IPCC estimates 1.5 feet anyway. Also no biggie. Holland made levies dozens of feet high that kept out the sea and they did it at the turn of the 19th century.
I mean, are these people dense? Are they blind? Are they ignorant?
I like this quote:
'Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st-century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections contemplated a roll-back of the industrial age.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html#ixzz0XnGCL1SE
<<<<<<<<<<<<<The funny part is, did we really need to see the proof of this hoax in order to dismiss it? How the hell did so many people fall for it in the first place? It truly is the age of stupid as the film-makers claim, but they need to look in a mirror. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's dogma, always has been. Most people will automatically accept what the majority tell them and adopt it as truth, simply because they do NOT have the information to make an intelligent decision, and because they don't want to look foolish. The climate cultists play on fear and ignorance. Not exactly a new trick. And that's why most climate science today is a religion.
Denialist bloggers have really impressed you that much?
Of course it is perfectly understandable, if you have to choose between believing the absolute top professional opinions, of the world's leading experts, or on the other side, anonymous bloggers, and ultra right wing loonies, who just happened to have identified with the line of bull the PR company, (that coincidentally also defended tobacco companies for so long), invented, then go for it, if that is what you are impressed by.
However, do not use the term skeptic, for that is a term which implies a thoughtful and considered questioning approach, not the one of providing totally false arguments, repeating discredited, totally debunked myths, and proliferating deceit to cause deliberate confusion, as the basis for a stance without merit, that is "Denialism".
A skeptic is open and thoughtful, and considers real evidence when presented, and to our dismay, denialists do none of those things, they are very much in the ilk of extremist creationists, many are well meaning and decent enough people, but not ones who will let reality ever get in the way of "Their Opininon".
I see mozzaok's reply as an add hominem attack, or "shoot the messenger and not the message". Simply put, a diversionary tactic. Fair enough in light of the fact that mud has been thrown both ways.
I do agree that a skeptic is "open and thoughtful", although considering that the "science was in" and freedom of information requests, asking for the data, have been repeatedly denied, I become even more skeptical.
Um... no, that's not an ad hominem attack... there was no messenger. Instead, what he was explaining was that those he was criticizing examined neither the credibility of the messenger nor the message before coming to the conclusion that "because it seems scary and I don't like it, it must simply be a fear tactic, and I'm going to take whatever consolation I can get, whether or not the opposing view point is credible, so that I can be confident and feel smart that I know everything is going to be alright. And by the way, for spite I'll drink a plastic water bottle a day, take down my solar panels and buy a new hummer, because even if oil does run out like the hippies say, I can laugh and say 'well at least the profits from my fill up aren't going to power-hungry GREEN corporations'"
Like a burp, just because it sounds rude, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen in real life.
It's kinda hard to teach a horse a language without a magic apple
Good on you reclaiming the skeptic term from the denialist cretins.
For the rest of you, I'll say one thing : check your sources.
@mozzaok, huh? what "opinion"? haven't you read the emails out of CRU? obviously not! either read them or stay the conformist line, up to you i guess.
shareI like this quote:
'Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st-century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections contemplated a roll-back of the industrial age.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html#ixzz0XnGCL1SE
I wouldn't take that article too seriously - the man who wrote it, (though not the person responsible for the above quote) believes that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder. He doesn't have any credibility whatsoever.
I know it's difficult to find people who deny global warming who either don't have a screw loose, or whose salary doesn't depends on global warming not existing, but you should try harder. share