DAMN, there's so much snow in Calgary...

[mcHAPPY]

In what? Bullshit?

Feces to be exact.

[enlightenment]

"Uh oh, I have no idea how science works. They were wrong before, so they are wrong now! I am unaware that science progresses through being proven wrong, so Im going to critic the entire method without giving credence to its usefulness in helping us understand the world"

Your mentality belongs in the stone age. Pre-science. Go read on how science works, go read philosophies on consensus and knowledge. Go pick up a fucking book.

[mcHAPPY]

"Uh oh, I have no idea how science works. They were wrong before, so they are wrong now! I am unaware that science progresses through being proven wrong, so Im going to critic the entire method without giving credence to its usefulness in helping us understand the world"

You nailed it.

You still claiming to know more than Lennart Bengtsson I see.

[enlightenment]

You must feel like some rouge thinker, outsmarting the masses, feeling smug in your rebellion. You're just a nutcase on a computer and you've never picked up ONE climate change journal, or a treatise on knowledge, or a history of science. You wallow in your ignorance, and you arent ashamed to be loud and proud of it.

[Joey]

The majority of science also said a low fat high carb was healthy.... Uh oh. But take comfort in the masses.

Not even sure what to say here ... then you must think ALL Science is wrong? Or at least Science Majority's?

Ice is one component but not the only. Land surface temps also not buying the hype either.

Proof? He showed in the video the Land Temperature averages for the year, and he says they look balanced, but they certainly do not in my eyes. Again, clearly skewed to "above average" temperatures.

Government has buildings covered.... Great. Now let's get to industry.

Again, I think they do, through Taxes. I think its a fine solution to get companies thinking about the environment and their impact on it.

You must feel like some rouge thinker, outsmarting the masses, feeling smug in your rebellion. You're just a nutcase on a computer and you've never picked up ONE climate change journal, or a treatise on knowledge, or a history of science. You wallow in your ignorance, and you arent ashamed to be loud and proud of it.

Easy does it. We're all entitled to our opinions, no matter how misguided some may think they are.

[mcHAPPY]

You must feel like some rouge thinker, outsmarting the masses, feeling smug in your rebellion. You're just a nutcase on a computer and you've never picked up ONE climate change journal, or a treatise on knowledge, or a history of science. You wallow in your ignorance, and you arent ashamed to be loud and proud of it.

One reason the rhetoric has become so overheated is that the climate-change activists increasingly lack a scientific basis for their most exaggerated claims. As physicist Gordon Fulks of the Cascade Policy Institute puts it: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea-ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.” He points out that there has been no net new global-warming increase since 1997 even though the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 25 percent since then. This throws into doubt all the climate models that have been predicting massive climate dislocation.

Other scientists caution that climate models must be regarded with great care and skepticism. Steven Koonin, the undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Obama’s first term, wrote a pathbreaking piece in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal in which he concluded:

We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influence. . . . The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. . . . Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties, but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

Even scientists who accept the conventional scientific treatment of the subject by the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change increasingly question just how much it would help to curb emissions or to radically redistribute wealth, as activists like Klein urge us to do. Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, told me that all of the carbon-reduction targets advocated by the U.N. or the European Union would result in imperceptible differences in temperature, at enormous cost. “We would be far better off and richer if we did simple things like painting roofs in hot climates white and investing in new technologies that could help us adapt to any change that is coming,” he says. Even the U.N.’s own climate panel admits that so far, climate change hasn’t included any increase in the frequency or intensity of so-called extreme weather.

At the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change last July, I ran into scientist after scientist who felt that the debate was finally going against the climate extremists. Several noted that the conference’s organizers were on the offense and gaining real ground. Roy Spencer, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, described the shift in opinion on his blog:

For many years we had been hearing from the “scientific consensus” side that natural climate change is nowhere near as strong as human-caused warming . . . yet the lack of surface warming in 17 years has forced those same scientists to now invoke natural climate change to supposedly cancel out the expected human-caused warming!

C’mon guys. You can’t have it both ways! They fail to see that a climate system capable of cancelling out warming with natural cooling is also capable of causing natural warming in the first place. . . . To me, it feels like a climate skepticism tipping point has been reached.

Maybe that’s why the climate-change extremists are basing fewer of their appeals on fact and more on hysteria. You scream the loudest when the opposition is about to tip over on you and pin you down.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...nsus-john-fund

The last bold is appropriate.

You keep attacking me rather than the issue and take comfort fitting in with politically correct views.

[Joey]

Basketball fans talking about science. This conversation is laughable. Raise your hand if you have more than a highschool education.

*puts hand up ....*

[enlightenment]

The bold is appropriate.

You keep attacking me rather than the issue and take comfort fitting in with politically correct views.

Actually, originally I responded with points. You failed to even read them. Clearly I need to make a video, as it doesn't seem like you consume any other form of media. I am attacking how proud you are of your own ignorance about science, because you don't feel ashamed about making points like these:

The majority of science also said a low fat high carb was healthy.... Uh oh. But take comfort in the masses.

smh.

[mcHAPPY]

Actually, originally I responded with points. You failed to even read them. Clearly I need to make a video, as it doesn't seem like you consume any other form of media. I am attacking how proud you are of your own ignorance about science, because you don't feel ashamed about making points like these:



smh.

So yet again you insult my intelligence stating video is all I view. Hmmmmmm. I read your posts. Clearly you have not read any of mine yet you continue to call me ignorant despite providing numerous sources of information with quotes from, like, you know, real scientists.

The diet was just one example of science and what we all thought to be accurate to be in fact false. There is an ever growing abundance of research showing that the low fat, high complex carb diet that has been pushed for decades now is in fact turning out to be WRONG.

You continue to insult my intelligence and call me ignorant because my interpretation of the climate change debate does not match your own. Based on the extremes in social mood on this topic, which you yourself are a perfect example of, I am looking forward to the findings of the next few years. When everyone runs to one side of the boat, it is only natural for some to start running back to the other.

[Uncle_Si]

So yet again you insult my intelligence stating video is all I view. Hmmmmmm. I read your posts. Clearly you have not read any of mine yet you continue to call me ignorant despite providing numerous sources of information with quotes from, like, you know, real scientists.

The diet was just one example of science and what we all thought to be accurate to be in fact false. There is an ever growing abundance of research showing that the low fat, high complex carb diet that has been pushed for decades now is in fact turning out to be WRONG.

You continue to insult my intelligence and call me ignorant because my interpretation of the climate change debate does not match your own. Based on the extremes in social mood on this topic, which you yourself are a perfect example of, I am looking forward to the findings of the next few years. When everyone runs to one side of the boat, it is only natural for some to start running back to the other.

There is no point in arguing with sheep. Ur arguing with a guy that supports communism. There's no helping him, I just wish there was a place where he could go to experience the results of his idiotic ideologies.

[Uncle_Si]

We watched communism die in the late '80s.

As we roll into the second half of the 2010s we will watch socialism die.

In the 2020s we'll watch a return to capitalism as everyone comes to see the Icelandic response to the banks was the correct response.....some trillions of wasted dollars later.

The solution to a debt and over obligation problem is not more debt and obligations.

I hope you're right.

[mcHAPPY]

I hope you're right.

I do too.

Because if I'm wrong we will be in a totalitarian regime.

In a world today where so many western governments tell us what they are doing is for our own good, I recall Benjamin Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

[Scraptor]

I don't quite understand how people can ignore the massive effect we are having on the global ecosystem, but here is a possible explanation for the pause in global warming. See the chart at the end, "rouge thinker" (red thinker = secret commie?).

http://www.climate.gov/news-features...ng-past-decade

[Joey]

There is no point in arguing with sheep. Ur arguing with a guy that supports communism. There's no helping him, I just wish there was a place where he could go to experience the results of his idiotic ideologies.

I support Communism? Huh?

[stooley]

The economics in this thread are so misguided...