[KAM1138]

Well, another rambling page of accusations. We've narrowed down "they" to "the AGW's", whoever they are. No additional evidence to support the claims, nor a reference to a single scientific organization that supports the anti-global warming view. But additional allegations that I'm "anti-science", even though the entire scientific community supports my view.

Definitely not a conspiracy theory. I'm convinced now.

I'll post a short version here too--since I know volume bothers you.

Convincing you isn't possible. Zealots aren't subject to reason. I'll just remind others that you are misapplying the term "conspiracy theory" despite being told again and again that it includes a claim of secrecy or covert action--none of which has been alleged. If you can't even get the definitions straight in your head, whatever follows is sure to be nonsensical. I know that doesn't matter--just keep repeating the falsehood long enough and its as good as truth, right?

Some people just aren't teachable I guess.

KAM

[KAM1138]

It's easy to say that "some will dismiss it out of hand", but when the following organizations are wholly dismissed in one fell swoop by folks in this thread, it's hard to take the high ground on the issue of having an open mind.

Again, you fail to understand the difference between the existence of an organization claiming authority, and facts. SCIENCE doesn't care whether an individual says something, or a million people agree. The Facts and Data what's relevant.

Organizations aren't dismissed--your claim of authority of organizations is, in comparison to actual facts. I guess to you something is true if a lot of people agree. To me something is true if it is factually sound.

Of course, this really is important to understand the position of Global Warming alarmists. They DEPEND on "consensus" and declarations like "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" which are all outside of the scientific method of course.

That sort of "reasoning" (and I use the term very loosely) might be sufficient for parents or bullying professors, or politicians but not for people who actually respect objective science.

Make-believe Authoritarian declarations like that reveal (to the objective observer) the weakness of those making the claims, and the desperate need to suppress opposing points of view. Only then, can these AGW alarmists perpetuate their agenda.

KAM

[KAM1138]

Sure - we can add the AP to the dozens of organizations listed earlier...all part of the same vast, global conspiracy.

I still think it's the Illuminati, personally. Or maybe the Shriners (never trust a guy wearing a fez).

Or maybe the Reynolds Wrap people, so they can sell more do-it-yourself hats?

In any event, no amount discussion of science, evidence, scientific consensus, appropriate methodology will ever convince folks...because they do things like point to one incident and use it to devalue the thousands of scientists who have published on the matter.

I just wish you well, & hope that big oil money will someday trickle down to you!

Hmmm, for someone who values science and evidence so much, and demands others present evidence, you sure don't practice what you preach. Of course, "do what I say, not what I do" is a tried and true tactic isn't it?

Of course to break this down, you are simply denying that a news organization could possibly be biased, by attempting (again--get a new tune once in a while will you) to say it is a "conspiracy."

Of course Media bias is well known to exist, and if I'm not mistaken, you've complained about Fox News and their bias. I guess that was just your little conspiracy theory then huh?

It must be comfortable to live in whatever bubble you do, where no one calls you on inconsistency like this, and where you can get away with this sort of nonsense. What's your field again? Education, that's what it was. That explains a lot I suppose.

KAM

[KAM1138]

As are those who support the overwhelming scientific consensus, as evidence by the frequent use of "liars" and propogandists" in this very thread. The article presents one skewed side of the issue.

Ah, wrong again. There is no "Scientific" consensus. There is political consensus, in denial of scientific facts and evidence, maintained despite inaccuracy in climate models, predictions proven to be incorrect, and many contrary views.

Of course the existence of people who have differing scientific views destroys the notion of "scientific consensus" but it won't stop people such as yourself from parroting this falsehood.

You seem to have a problem with me calling things lies, but if that bothers you--stop repeating propaganda which has been exposed as being built on numerous falsehoods, distortions, intimidation, etc.

Oh I know, I know--anyone who disagrees with your propaganda is a conspiracy theorist.

Anyone who has even the most basic understanding of human nature can see that people often simply advocate what is best for them. If a researcher can get a grant with more ease by linking it to a particular popular hysteria (like Global Warming...oops, climate change), there is a good chance they might do it. There is no conspiracy--just self interest or even self-preservation.

I'm sure you are capable of understanding such simple notions. Admitting this however, doesn't allow you to keep up your nonsensical accusation, trying to paint those who disagree with you as (crazy) conspiracy theorists. In other words--you're following the practice of many in the Global Warming crowd--distract, diminish, belittle, and silence as best as possible.

KAM

[KAM1138]

I mock because folks choose to ignore science, and conveniently ignore things like "the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press."

The same folks that inaccurately cite sources such as the AP to make a point, then claim it's inaccurate when it clearly undercuts their argument. Because all organizations are part of the conspiracy if they support the view of the scientific community, and are believed without question when they don't.

Evidence can't fight a good conspiracy theory, so you can just continue to rant about what "they" are plotting. Have at it.

Your position is no different than "Ignore the man behind the curtain." Of course you add a little dishonest twist by repeatedly attributing things to people distorting what they actually say.

You just keep chirping our your same "conspiracy theory" line no matter how many times you are told this is factually incorrect. Why not try something new--go see what your fellow alarmists are saying, in their propaganda--this one is getting tired. Surely with such "consensus" you've got better than this tripe.

I've got an even better idea. You could actually do what you demand of others. Why don't you (since, you understand all of this, and have the backing of dozens of scientific organizations) explain to us all about why the analytical models are accurate and why their predictions (although demonstrably incorrect) are still valid. Evidence is what you claim, and demand of others, so please...live up to your own demands.

After all--we should all be reminded that those who demand something of others (which is what Global Warming Alarmists are doing) bear the burden of proof.

So, go ahead...and be sure to consider ALL of the information, not just that which is convenient to your position. That's what science demands of course, and since you claim to represent science that's what you must do.

You are an educator WITH a scientific background--this should be right up your alley. I'd be particularly interested in your analysis of the uncertainty in temperature readings--specifically the differences in accuracy between older methods (from the 1800s) and now. I'd like to hear how this uncertainty is resolved and how the magnitude of this impacts the validity of the conclusions. Further, I'd like to hear about some of the other methodologies and their inherent limitations/benefits and how all of those compare, and specifically the range of predicted temperatures possible within that level of uncertainty.

KAM

[Micael]

I mock because folks choose to ignore science, and conveniently ignore things like "the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press."

.... I'm still laughing about this!!

The Associated Press? Are you freakin kidding me? ROFLMAO!!!

[KAM1138]

.... I'm still laughing about this!!

The Associated Press? Are you freakin kidding me? ROFLMAO!!!

The only thing I'm unclear about is whether they believe their own BS, or if they are blatantly lying.

I don't see how anyone with any sense of objectivity can cry and whine and complain about Fox News Bias (which they are in a variety of ways) while pretending that other news Sources are unbiased.

That takes either a special degree of denial of reality (and great personal bias, blinding ones sense of balance), or a great capacity for dishonesty.

Now, unlike some other (apparently banned) poster from a while back, I don't dislike Bujin, and in many ways have enjoyed posting with him. I don't want to think he's the same sort of unrepentant liar like that other guy was, and I don't. I think however, he believes what he wants to believe, and seems to think a bit of mockery, deceit and distortion is ok in order to support his wants and beliefs. He has a worldview (as do I) and supports it as best as he can I suppose.

KAM

[Wiley_11]

-distract, diminish, belittle, and silence as best as possible.

Pot calling the kettle black,projecting ?????????????

[KAM1138]

-distract, diminish, belittle, and silence as best as possible.

Pot calling the kettle black,projecting ?????????????

Well, first you should understand that I was referring to Global Warming alarmists tactics. Those words were primarily (directly) referring to them. Bujin just seemed to take a similar stance.

Distract...no, but I am easily distracted by treating what others say as sincere and following that path.
Diminish...no, I have no standing or authority to diminish anyone's words.
Belittle...yes, that's fair. I've called people idiots and the like.
Silence...no. Please feel free to explain how I've attempted to silence anyone?

Projecting...no.

Again, the primary reference is to that of the Global Warming Alarmists who have continually engaged in efforts to make sure other scientists who have contrary views are not heard, or have ridicule heaped on them. In other cases, they are intimidated, and threatened with financial or other means. Then of course you have the mantra that "debate is over" which is false on its face--clearly it isn't, which is then followed by "science is settled" which is a fallacy--science is never settled.

If you want to compare my argument against another poster to the intimidation tactics of--what my opponent describes is the "entire" community against a minority then I suggest you have a major sense of balance. If you dislike my tone that I take with another poster (who perhaps puts on a more pleasant veneer, then that's your choice).

If you really just want to oppose my viewpoint and cheer the global warming crowd, then I'd ask you to that directly.

Otherwise, thanks for the distraction.

KAM

[groovy]

If you really just want to oppose my viewpoint and cheer the global warming crowd, then I'd ask you to that directly.

Otherwise, thanks for the distraction.

KAM

I'm not sure who lazslo11 was directing that toward. Maybe both sides?

[Micael]

I'm not sure who lazslo11 was directing that toward. Maybe both sides?

My kettle isn't black, thank you. It's rust.

[groovy]

My kettle isn't black, thank you. It's rust.

As long as your pot isn't green.

[Woof]

As long as your pot isn't green.

It's called medical marijuana, not pot.

[Woof]

Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation tends to be the best one.

1) Numerous, international, unconnected, generally poorly-paid scientists have independently come up with evidence that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change. These studies are supported monetarily by government and private foundation grants.

2) There is no warming going on at all. Melting glaciers and rising seas aren't really occurring. People aren't being displaced by loss of fresh drinking water and flooding of island and Arctic-area homes. These studies are supported by oil companies. The findings by international scientists are incorrect.

Really, I mean, really...who are you going to trust? The simplest explanation tends to be the best one.

Which island area has lost their homes to an increase in the ocean levels?

Can't imagine that happening wouldn't have been all over the news and the web.

[Micael]

Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation tends to be the best one.

1) Numerous, international, unconnected, generally poorly-paid scientists have independently come up with evidence that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change. These studies are supported monetarily by government and private foundation grants.

2) There is no warming going on at all. Melting glaciers and rising seas aren't really occurring. People aren't being displaced by loss of fresh drinking water and flooding of island and Arctic-area homes. These studies are supported by oil companies. The findings by international scientists are incorrect.

Really, I mean, really...who are you going to trust? The simplest explanation tends to be the best one.

I don't know where you got number 2, but it's not what we're saying. Haven't you been paying attention? Don't worry. It was rhetorical

[KAM1138]

KAM, I guess you would know the best....

Really, the "I know you are, but what am I?" response?

KAM

[KAM1138]

Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation tends to be the best one.

1) Numerous, international, unconnected, generally poorly-paid scientists have independently come up with evidence that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change. These studies are supported monetarily by government and private foundation grants.

Yes, except they are not all that independent. Yes, "poorly paid" scientists...who need to keep getting paid, and thus justify important research. Unconnected. Yes, this "consensus" just all happened without ANY interaction at all. These massive (and wasteful) conferences that have been going on for years--no there is NO connection between these groups at all, NO sharing of conclusions at all. Sure there isn't. I'd suggest that contrary to this, the entire "consensus" is rather inbred.
Of course, being supported by government means being supported by taxpayers--in other words, us.

2) There is no warming going on at all. Melting glaciers and rising seas aren't really occurring. People aren't being displaced by loss of fresh drinking water and flooding of island and Arctic-area homes. These studies are supported by oil companies. The findings by international scientists are incorrect.

And of course here you deploy the typical mangling of the opposing view. You are creating a false choice between your "simple" explanation and a caricature. Its nonsensical.

Really, I mean, really...who are you going to trust? The simplest explanation tends to be the best one.

Do you mean simplistic? That's a bit different, but would be accurate to describe your attempt here.

How about these for simple explanations. A lot of people stand to gain a lot of money, and transfer a lot of wealth around. A lot of people have careers based on researching this topic (you know--those poor scientists who might not otherwise have jobs). These people don't want to look like idiots for backing an incorrect, or inaccurate idea--their reputations are on the line, and are sticking to their story.
You want simple?
People need their paychecks.
Global warming is just another excuse to push leftist policies.
Fear mongering is a great way to make money.

You want simple in terms of actual reason for global warming: The Sun.

So, let's review. You create two scenarios--both of which are at a minimum incomplete in order to create a false choice of the "simple" one in order to do what the rest of the Global Warming Alarmists have been doing--make it seem that there isn't even an argument--that you are obviously right.

That's very intellectually dishonest.

KAM

[Micael]

So, that all said, I blame Gore. We can close this thread now... the debate is over

[Bujin#IM]

Video: World of Warmcraft | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

[Woof]

Which island area has lost their homes to an increase in the ocean levels?

Can't imagine that happening wouldn't have been all over the news and the web.

Oh zelgo, still waiting for your update on the island destruction.