tim.ned Says:
Jimmy Big Bucks Says:
________________________________________
Tim how could you marry a liberal?

I’m just a lowly construction worker and she is a PHD. But, somehow between our voting differences we have managed to raise 4 daughters and 1 son. Perhaps it is because I attend her events and she goes to football games with me. We both agree that we need to insure a clean environment for our children. I’m not convinced carbon dioxide is a pollutant and I don’t believe that we can change the climate.

I don’t know you or your positions, but if you are a conservative who is capable of discussing issues reasonably, I welcome you to the community. We desperately need some.

A couple of thoughts: carbon dioxide is clearly NOT a pollutant. The tactic of allowing it to be regulated as one is a political maneuver and may be a valuable one.

Also, we already DO the change the climate. Ever hear of “urban heat islands”? Human development of high-density cities with a heavy concentration of industrial output, energy use, human activity and vehicle emissions is well known to raise the surrounding temperature measurably. This is a small-scale impact on the climate, and if one considers the Butterfly Effect, the ability of man’s activities to affect the climate on a larger scale should be clear. The path from that point is less clear, but your belief that we can’t change the climate is clearly mistaken.

Jimmy Big Bucks Says:
________________________________________
Tim how could you marry a liberal?

I’m just a lowly construction worker and she is a PHD. But, somehow between our voting differences we have managed to raise 4 daughters and 1 son. Perhaps it is because I attend her events and she goes to football games with me. We both agree that we need to insure a clean environment for our children. I’m not convinced carbon dioxide is a pollutant and I don’t believe that we can change the climate. But I am confused why this debate is so brutal? Our country needs a long term energy strategy and one that makes us more dependent on American resources and less foreign dependence. It is apparent our politicians can’t get a grip to solve these problems as they are locked in biased party debate. Perhaps the rule should be that only liberals and conservatives should marry each other?

obamawipe$ Says:
A computer scientist

Nuff said…LOL!

Yeah, I thought you might pounce on that… problem is, wipey… this computer scientist didn’t analyze the climate data for the validity of its conclusions.

He analyzed the contents of the reports for statistical representation. His status as a computer scientist is a pretty good qualification for this task. You made the claim that “Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory”. That’s a statistical claim, not a climatalogical one.(I know you probably don’t understand the difference, but intelligent people do.)

But it’s good to know that you recognize that when analyzing actual climatological data, computer scientists (or economists or social scientists or biologists…) really don’t carry a lot of weight.

Shall we examine again the list of scientists (and their degrees) who signed the petition you guys always trumpet?

“It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself. As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience. NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” – Frank Tipler, mathematical physicist at Tulane University

http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/26/global-warming-quotes-of-the-day-6/9637/

“The Global Humanitarian Forum, headed by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, released a 103-page report estimating that ‘every year climate change leaves over 300,000 people dead, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses of US $125 billion.’ The report contains so many extrapolations derived from guesswork based on estimates inferred from unsuitable data sets that you have to ask some serious questions about the methodology.” -Richard Cable, BBC Climate Change blog, 1 June 2009

“Mr Annan said the report could never be as rigorous as a scientific study. Why can’t the work produced by the GHF be “as rigorous as a scientific study”? Well, one answer is that scientific studies on this topic simply don’t give the desired answers.” – Roger Pielke, Jr., Prometheus, 1 June 2009

http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/category/environment/global-warming/

in a crazy cat-lady sorta way….
June 7th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Hey, as a crazy cat lady, I resent that! :D

The First amendment isn’t a contract between MIC and Burger King. I’m pretty sure the contract between MIC and BK allows BK to yank MIC’s franchise rights if they’re going to be total asshats about something that has nothing to do with selling burgers.

.

backup Says:

Regardless of how it plays out, it does not make any sense to me why the owner of a franchise would want to put up divisive signage that could potentially alienate customers.

Because Republicans are almost as good at running businesses as they are at history, the law, economics and math.

.

wiley Says:

I CALL IT SHUN-A-TROLL. DON’T TALK TO IT. DON’T TALK ABOUT IT. DON’T READ IT.

This is only appropriate for troll-posts that are off topic. If they’re addressing the issue, then their BS should be countered. How did shunning the media trolls work for Kerry? Gore? Dukakis?

The reason we’re winning now is because we’ve actually gotten up our “spineless” Dem asses and started fighting back. I’m not going to go back to the “we’re too good to talk about that” crap that just amounted to rolling over and conceding every debate, no matter how stupid, no matter how easy it would have been to win it.

But wipey’s drivel is so laughably easy to debunk, I figure it’s just good exercise. Plus I learn a thing or two doing research.

You are wasting your time.

Jeffy Bovine (habib = olby sucks = archie, etc.) is well known for lifting talking points from other sources and never giving credit or links to where he lifted them. Much less defending his own stupidity.

The minute you shove facts down his trap, he will try to switch to another distraction, usually it involves Fox ratings or Keith Olbermann. Just watch him.

Trolls that are disruptive and annoying are basically the only ones that actively disagree with the premises.

Assuming that you don’t want to change the minds of those that agree with you, what do you have left? Trolls.

If you are effectively addressing the objections of trolls, you are effectively addressing the objections of Waynebro’s silent majority of fence sitters (around post # 564).

So, attempt to change the minds of the trolls. It probably won’t work. But, in the process, the appearance of high minded liberals engaging trollish objectors, will more effectively sway the silent moderate observers.

It appears that his source is James Inhofe’s blog.

It does indeed seem to suggest that there have only been 528 papers published on the question of climate change. Does this make sense to anybody? 528 papers represent ALL of the published research on climate change?

In 2004 another survey was done which tested the acceptance of the theory in peer-reviewed published work:

(This acceptance) was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

A computer scientist named Tim Lambert writing at scienceblogs does an analysis of the study that wipey offers so casually.

He likens it to a similar effort directed at the 2004 study I noted, in which a skeptic originally claimed 34 papers rejecting the theory but under scrutiny eventually reduced his claim to a single paper.

Lambert finds a similar circumstance here, in which the seven that wipey found so compelling is reduced to three:

The three that do reject the consensus are Gerhard, which was published in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin; Shaviv arguing for cosmic rays, which doesn’t explain how they could make a difference over the past 50 years when the cosmic rayflux hasn’t changed over that period; and Zhen-Shan and Xian, which is just a rubbish paper that should not have been published.

The comments are interesting too.

wipey? Your response?

The truth hurts. Were actually entering an era of global cooling, yet we are spending millions of tax payers money on “global warming” bullcrap.

The earth heats up and cools down, its a cycle that has been going on for billions of years. Go take a 1st grade science class libs.
=========================================================
You missed all the polling data that showed liberals MUCH more highly educated than the “Earth is 6k years old” crowd. Not a climatologist on the planet agrees with you. You are the fools that think that cooler means there can’t be global warming. Just as soon as you nitwits don’t think Man walked with dinosaurs and worship a magic man in the sky, get back to me.

And you wonder why the GOP is going extinct.