I also find it impossible to see how anyone could think we could pump tons of pollutants into our environment every day and have it NOT have any affect on our climate. That makes no sense at all. Perhaps CM and the other trolls would like us to pump those pollutants into their houses.

The problem with Newshound’s policy is that they have to have someone there monitoring the board at all times. I don’t get that TP is monitoring what we post very often. I have seen a totally offensive post stay up all day long, even with people flagging it.

I am of the opinion that TP is vested in their trolls. They like the fact that the trolls drive up their numbers on posts on threads. Personally, I think they are making a big mistake. I have told several friends about TP and when they see how badly troll infested this site is, they say “no thanks, I’ll go somewhere else”. I think that TP is losing more visitors than they are gaining by allowing the trolls to rein supreme.

I no longer talk to trolls. I talk about them, but not to them. Try it, it feels good to know that I am not personally engaging them and giving them what they so desperately need, attention.

Substitute “a Nobel prize for peer-reviewed research establishing Christ’s existence” for Gore’s and the IPCC’s Nobel, and you’ll see how ‘progressive’ CaptainMasticate’s ‘logic’ is….. ;-)

Cheers,

zuch. I may be skeptical,…

You misspelled “ignerrent and obtuse (not to mention, a troll)”. You are the “weakest link”. Goodbye.

Cheers,

Why so much concern about debate. Are proponents concerned the truth might escape?

Nice way to evade my other points. Why we care about “debate” is that you RW morons keep insisting on “debate” in lieu of any actual action so we can just sit on our duffs some more until things really go to hell in a handbasket. Same thing Dubya did with arsenic levels, same thing Reagan did with acid rain, anonanonanonanon…. Couple more years of “cheap” oil, and record profits from oil companies. And even better profits in years to come for the oil giants, as demand eclipses supply, and a market that has been encouraged by gummint to continue to rely on fossil fuels and is incapable of any quick changes to alternatives (and alternatives that are lacking because of lack of public commitment) allows the energy companies to hold up at gunpoint consumers desperate for energy with outrageous prices. Energy companies do not want demand curtailed, and they do not want alternatives (i.e. “competition”). Which is why they buy their own “science”….

Cheers,

The troll is a global warming denier, and therefore is either an imbecile or a liar or both. Anybody who is still a denier cannot be helped.

http://www.its.org/node/5336

It seems JPL scientists are in a struggle with heavy handed background checks at CalTech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The new background checks, part of a Homeland Security effort to implement “Presidential Directive No. 12″ (how Orwellian) requires JPL employees and contractors to sign waivers allowing government access to financial, medical and psychiatric records. They also are asked to fill out questionnaires on their personal lives and agree to allow their friends questioned.

Staggering. I’m glad I don’t work there anymore.

The LA Times also reports that many people at JPL “see the background checks as the first step toward establishing a system of intimidation that might be used to silence inconvenient science.” The NASA administrator is said to be skeptical of human involvement in global warming. At one time I would have dismissed the idea of intentional intimidation as laughable, delusional paranoia. But that was then, this is now.

I believe that throughout history, many people may have doubted the existence of God, but still promoted the idea, because they believed there wasn’t a downside. Pascal’s gambit. I believe the unintended consequence (and I don’t believe many here would deny) was that the Church was unreasonably empowered by the lack of skeptism from those that may have doubted, but said nothing.

Obviously, the fear of disobeying or disbelief in God was used as a powerful motivator to enforce Church edicts. In much the same way, I believe, the global warming debate is attempting to steam role environmentalism and limit debate with similar tactics.

Oh. Rrrrriiiigggghhhhtt. The Church was steamrolling all those sceptics with tons of peer-reviewed scientific papers on evidence for Gawd’s existence. Missed that; maybe I didn’t go to the right church, eh?

What’s amasing is that you losers want to stifle debate when you have the power to (see, e.g., the very subject of this thread, and see the Church’s actual efforts vis a vis Galileo, for example), but then insist on “debate”, “equal time”, “teach the controversy” and so on, when you’re losing. Imagine that.

Cheers,

First, I believe there are studies out that show the CO2 levels follow the temperature and not the other way around. I’ll try to find them for you….

Let me help you, Doofus:

Here’s a start.

In simpler terms, it doesn’t matter much; if they’re both going up, our goose is still cooked. They do both tend to go up together (for various reasons), and in fact that is one of the more worrisome aspects; the positive feedback can lead to greater excursions or perhaps to a runaway climate change.

Cheers,

uh… not in THIS administration…

(i bet you caught that yourself)
.

and that “big idea” was the most ridiculous piece of
twisted, spinning crappola i’ve read in a long time…
a very thinly veiled appeal to the athiest heathens…
w o w …

I mean, since the relationship between greenhouse gases (of which carbon dioxide is one) and temperature change is the foundation for the principle, and you’ve proved with a link to “skepticalscience.org” that the establishment has it backwards, then everything is fine.

Let’s pump MORE greenhouse gases into the atmosphere!

Your link debunks your own argument. That page is dedicated to debunking all the standard “sceptic arguments”

Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 28, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

But as soon as an economist joins the government, he becomes a ‘bueraucrat”. Do you really think the people who generally set economic policy (in responsible administrations, at least) are not economists?