Clearly, for those when asked particular questions about their opinions and the questions get ignored or they break out the scissors and crazy glue, they probably don’t know the answer or have none to offer. If I don’t know why, I’m man enough to say so and or find out what I can.

It seems that those who feel cornered and under attack when faced with problems, have other issues that prevent them from moving ahead in life. Solutions do not evade them. Like many scenarios it is an Alice in Wonderland inversion. They evade the solutions.

Good call about the narcissism ST, here’s another perfect example of it. As we’ve said before though, he was a hopeless cause, the reason for a lot of the debate and links was to offer knowledge to others who might wander by and read the threads. It was obvious from the start that Bob would never open his mind to anything not in line with his ideology, but the hope is that others will find the information interesting and enlightening. But when you’re a first class narcissist, everything is about you I guess, even when it isn’t.

Gee, don’t project much do you Bob?

You’ve convinced me that you’re nothing more than a narcissist, Bob, who loves to hear himself talk (in this case, type) in an attempt to educate ‘those beneath him’ and who enjoys playing the ‘poor me’ victim role everytime your assertions get challenged, as well as someone who won’t practice what he preaches. I’ve had it with you. Goodbye.

As for HIV/AIDS skeptics, you have chosen to accept the view of a tiny group of people—many with ethics issues and a lack of qualifications—who have been pushed to the margins of the scientific debate and for the most part can’t even be said to be conducting legitimate science. It’s mostly PR. You have to explain why you choose the rantings of this tiny minority over the vast majority in the mainstream scientific community. What else could you do but make the ludicrous claim that because 99% of the real scientists support man-made global warming, that it makes you and the 1% of true believers who share your contrary views right, and everybody else is wrong. Yeah, right, and HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.

You really are anti-intellectuals who choose propaganda and ideology over facts. And can we please have a show of hands? How many of you also believe that the theory of evolution is a liberal conspiracy? Thank you for wasting so much of your time trying to convince me that up is down. I guess I should be flattered that you all care so much about me.

Interesting point about the worship of consensus. Seems to me the consensus of all the world’s intel agencies was that Saddam had WMD stockpiles. Why is the left so enamored of consensus on climate science but ignores the consensus on WMD and insists on lying about ginned up and falsified intelligence? Why is consensus right when it supports what the want and not if it doesn’t? Not only do they not recognize that consensus means nothing, but they have to go to extreme lengths to claim that the previous consensus on WMD was all a Bush engineered lie and not a consensus born of the same mistakes made by multiple agencies (one of the big problems with using consensus).

That also begs the question, why are liberals so eager to attack problems or threats that don’t exist? North Korea getting the Bomb, no worries, can’t do anything about it, might just piss someone off. Iran getting nukes? Well, so what, they aren’t dangerous, it’s their right. Fighting terrorism, Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, how dare we, terrorism is no threat. The entire liberal mindset is that real, true, and violent threats to not only the US but the world are never taken seriously. But bring up CO2, a non-problem based on hack science with a huge political agenda is suddenly more important than everything else?

I suspect it’s because with the aforementioned threats, they’d actually have to get off their butts and do something, support the military (or join), support the troops, actually admit a conservative is right about something, whereas with CO2 they can whine and expect someone else to do something (hey, I can fly all I want on private jets, let someone else cutback!) while congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are. It’s a common theme with the left, useless solutions to non-existent problems get made into mountains, real and serious threats get made into molehills, it’s as if they believe that they can make up whatever facts they want to believe and not suffer the consequences when the world doesn’t agree with their fantasy, sooner or later the chickens come home to roost, as we saw on 9/11 when decades of ignoring terrorism and Islamic fundamentalists reared its ugly head to the point it couldn’t be ignored anymore. I have to come to the conclusion that it’s a hide the head in the sand approach, real threats are just too scary for them to wrap their minds around and they might have to act, better to obsess over trivia.

I won’t even address the inane aspects of which is/has been dis-proven (that’s been done with multiplicity), nor would I waste bandwidth wondering how one could accept much of anything coming from the UN as credible. Read (read -do not peruse) the links ST provided and Thomas Sewells (sp?) analysis for this topic.

Simply put, since consensus seems to be your anchor for that which is by all that’s holy and above reproach, then using your form of logic, where should you stand among the time tested and proven folks here. W/O going back over the few months I’ve been away, I know what their consensus is to a person.

They have undoubtedly linked facts, not opinions, more than enough to demonstrate the holes in the theoretically flawed peeps inflicted with Gore syndrome’s knowzone.

I am fully aware of mans carbon footprint and the out of balance factual clamor associated with it. A man once choked to death on an orange. Survey says……..oranges are bad for ones health. Finding balance in issues of any kind where power and money are at stake is a tough row to hoe, especially in America.

Care to venture how much oxygen is consumed by Old Growth Forests? Or how much is created by what is commonly referred to as second growth?

One must ask, “How in the world did university researchers come to conclusions that defended this outrageous affront to society?” A look back at the research concluded that the researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research. This is not unusual. It is very easy to believe that the settled science regarding climate change is just as suspicious, and indeed may be another example of pseudo-science capturing the imagination of politicians, actors and the media elite who have a desperate need to embrace some “science” which may force us to change the way we live our lives. H. L. Mencken once wrote, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

We see pictures of huge blocks of ice crashing into the sea from the Antarctic Peninsula, which comprises about 2 percent of the continent. The fact that the remaining 98 percent of Antarctica is growing by 26.8 gigatons of ice per year is ignored.
We are told today that human activity is causing a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide levels that is responsible for “global warming.” While a congressional delegation was visiting the Antarctic expedition in January of 2003 we were shown the results of the Vostok ice-sheet cores where temperatures and CO2 levels were measured as far as 400,000 years ago. At that time, the level of CO2 was 280 parts per million parts of atmosphere (ppm), about what it was 20 years ago. The levels of CO2 and temperature rode up and down in consonance over 400,00 years. “Who,” I asked, “was burning the fossil fuels 400,000 years ago?” I was treated as though I was rude.
It has been known for years that most CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. It is called “carbon sinking.” The oceans typically contain 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. It is also known that colder waters dissolve more CO2 than warm waters. Which do you think is cause and which is effect? We currently have CO2 levels of about 380 ppm. A recent study completed at UC Davis concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Then this, “the same increase that experts expect by the end of this century as remaining reserves of fossil fuels are burned.” If it is a given that human burning of fossil fuels is what will cause an increase of CO2 levels up to 2,000 ppm in the next 93 years, don’t they owe us an explanation as to who burned those fossil fuels 300 million years ago? In fact we are being treated to a modern scientific shell game. The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2; it is water vapor, which accounts for about 60 percent of the heat-trapping gases while CO2 accounts for about 26 percent. So, why are we being served a daily diet of our destroying the environment with our behavior as it relates to CO2? Because our behavior has little to do with the amount of water vapor, so it is a non-starter when it comes to those whose principal goal is ruling our lives.

Link

And before you get so impressed with “Science” as such a reputable source, remember they not only published that discredited hit piece by an untalented social scientist who claimed that out of 928 papers on global warming not one dissented from the consensus view. Upon further study by someone honest it was found only 13 fully supported AGW, 13 didn’t even have abstracts, and the rest didn’t support AGW. So, if Science is such a credible source, why and how did they publish such an easily disprovable and dishonest piece of work? They have an agenda…it’s transparent and unseemly, but it’s there nonetheless.

Have you ever seen the polls of journalists back when journalists participated in those polls?

An entire set of professionals have quit taking these polls for a reason. They were damning.

Between 91% – 93% of journalists voted for Dukakis (yes Dukakis – He was beaten by a true landslide), Carter, Mondale (yes Mondale – even though he was beaten by a landslide) and between 5% – 7% voted for the candidate who WON. Reagan won, he won again, and Bush senior won in these elections I just referenced.

Entire sets of professionals can have values, opinions and facts wrong and completely out of phase from the reality.

This OPINION piece that you copy and pasted was that. It was an opinion piece with facts laced within. The facts laced within did NOT deal with the substance of climate change.

It did however point to the fact that this MAY be an organization that is made up JUST like journalists. A set of people that have group think but won’t entertain outsiders opinions who have VALID opinions based on facts.

Their unfortunate use of the word “consensus” have people like you convinced but not people who are looking at the big picture perspective and soaking in information from other sources. We are not dismissing those other sources as you have Bob.

It was a consensus by journalists that the Democrat candidates were the better candidate but this country is LUCKY that those Democrat candidates didn’t win.

Here is a fact. Man had altered the climate. It man’s effect 1% or 99% or somewhere in between is the question. The number is between 10% – 20% man and 80% other factors to some scientists and to other scientists it’s a much higher number.

THE BIG problem is that scientists are not economics people and they do not have the right to prescribe solutions that would hurt more people than help. They don’t have the right to command redirecting America’s resources to the extent they wish to. Nor should leftists be allowed to make the INACCURATE accusations about the Bush administration they do. They should apologize for the accusations they’ve made and cease and desist from making any further inaccurate accusations but that will never happen. As long as I’ve been politically aware since 1991 I’ve seen one inaccurate accusation from leftists after another on one topic after another.

The record is clear. Bush has spent more on climate change than ANY OTHER COUNTRY. Our CO2 output has increased far less than most countries except France (which was only very slightly better) during the last 5 years and yet our country had an economic boom much greater than the 30 countries we are compared against.

Our record is clearly better on this issue but you wouldn’t get that picture from leftists.

We have 28% of the world’s economy yet only emit 21% of the world’s CO2. With our prosperity, we have gained a bunch of efficiency, we’ve cut pollutants out of emissions to the tune of 50%, we’ve become more productive and found ways at feeding many in the world and giving so much money and medical supplies and security.

Instead of being negative you should see the positive in this country and think of market oriented solutions (not government oriented solutions) so that this country can remain prosperous and poor people aren’t hurt (which is what government choosing who gets what resources (the definition of socialism) does).

I will write every time to try to convince people that prosperity is good. It gives us the ability to address environmental issues as we do unlike other countries.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.” The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.”

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis 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.”

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.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

In other words, all of the major scientific societies dealing with earth science, climate, etc, have expressed support for the theory of man-made global warming. The number of peer reviewed scientific papers that support man-made global warming out-number those that dispute it by about a thousand-fold. That seems to me to be a pretty decisive edge to the “ayes.” I think the use of the term “vast majority” to describe this situation is completely appropriate.

But I never said the rest of you are SOBs. I actually enjoy our repartee, testy though it sometimes is. I’d still like to think that it’s possible to have worthwhile exchanges across the vast ideological chasm that seems to separate us. And taking this thread as a case in point, it’s not like I don’t make any sincere efforts to reach out—for all the good it ever does. There’s almost no congenial gesture that I’ve made here that was responded to with anything other than silence or condemnation. And only a complete hypocrite could claim that, at the very least, I’m any worse than you guys.

About the Al Gore question: how the hell should I know? Am I his booking agent or something? Do I have a pipeline to his innermost thoughts? I don’t even really care, except that I don’t like to see the global warming debate trivialized by the right wing’s pathetic efforts to make it all about Al Gore. I do think it’s funny though, that the more accolades he receives from society, the more it must drive you guys crazy. But jeez, get over Al Gore, already.

OK, I answered you question. Ya happy now, dirtbag?

And Severian, wow, more insults. And you have such a magical touch with the English language. I don’t think that emoticon is laughing, he’s actually rolling in pain at another failed attempt at humor. And I’m sorry, but I don’t like you any more. I know your histrionics are a desperate plea for my attention, but you’re gonna just have to get over it. Maybe Baklava or someone will let you be their friend. I can’t handle any more of your emotional neediness.