Alright, now I'm a nazi too!

To think the ability to read and comprehend just the concepts behind energy transfer and EM absortion can put one into so many groups.

You know a liberal is in denial when they start lumping opponents in with the national socialists and other crazy LEFT wing groups.

So you're saying you forgot to add the IPCC to the list, right?  There isn't any consensus, there isn't any proof.  The sooner you get over it, the less of an idiot you'll look like.  You're lumping everyone in with nutjobs because you can't accept that the few dozen people who have actually done the research everyone else hasn't bothered to duplicate before agreeing with are proveably wrong in their assertions by their own findings.

Now we have emails showing that they purged files purposefully to avoid a FOI submission, yay science?  Since when do scientists delete necessary empirical records pertaining to ongoing research?  I'm not a conspiracy nut, but damn is it looking an awful lot like one.  Maybe it's a conspiracy in the other direction...

I tell you what, I'll move my goal posts.  I'll move them from proving that CO2 increases preceed temperature increases, and not the other way around as the records show(that's also one of those basic physics things that's been known for longer than the surface stations have existed), to just not proving that the surface station data hasn't been purposefully manipulated.  I await a clearing of the air on why the head researchers at the CRU orchestrated an illegal file purge.

May they prove the emails to be altered, the deleted databases to still be there, and me to be a sucker.

GE will still be the devil though, they've got too many black marks against them even if pushing global warming turns out to have been both honest and lucrative.  Exclusive shelving rights in stores is getting particularly irritating, but democrats never actually look after the little guys so they don't throw the book at anti-trust violators any more than republicans do.

oh, im sorry. so you have your own personal viewpoint concerning the origin of species. good luck with that champ.

well, be sure to let us know when your idea(s) fundamentally alter our understanding of biology and you receive the nobel prize.

my argument is that until you produce something of significance, that improves upon or completely re-designs the theory of evolution, you're nothing but a loud mouth on the internet.

Not that it matters much, especially since you'll believe what you want to, as will I and neither of our views is likely to change from the sounds of it but there are some flaws in your logic.

I do not believe in global warming as touted by most. Climate change yes, but that has been going on for centuries. Biggest one I can think of is the ice age. Also if the Earth is so warm why is this one of the coldest winters I can remember where I live? and why have the past two summers been so cold here?

Holocaust denier, absolutely not. From what I have heard most holocaust deniers are anti-semetic and think the world would be better off without Israel. The holocaust quite obviously happened, and I think Israel is quite in the right to defend themselves against terrorist attacks. If the US were attacked by rockets from Mexico there is no doubt in my mind that we would retaliate in force.

Creationist, absolutely. That is if by creationist, you mean I believe we were created by God. Does that mean I believe God just snapped his fingers and there we were? No. I believe he probably did create us by using some form of science which we probably don't understand as of yet, so it might seem miraculous. As for evolution, according to the theory of evolution, animals adapt to their environment. Yes there is such a thing as evolution (the Galapagos are an excellent example). However, if you notice on those islands, none of what they evolved from remains, so if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still here?

911 conspiracy theorist, nope. Not at all.

I am amazed at the conservative bias against wikipedia.

Yes, wikipedia is editable. Wikipedia *also* amazingly enough has a consistent habit of *citing it's sources*, so whe you read wikipedia you can find out whether it has been pulled from a creditable source or out of context.

Yet, for some reason conservatives claim that it has a 'liberal bias' when the truth is they can edit wikipedia as much as a liberal can, they just get their edits reverted when it turns out that "Yes, the IPTC is considered a valid source, and Rush Limbaugh is not"

Jonnan

No you dumbfuck. It onlys ays that evolution has is supported by the scientific community. It DOES NOT tell you to believe in evolution. 

What?! You're saying that i can't construct an argument? You just said you know evolution better than I do. Thats no argument. And then you blame me? Besides you're just evading the subject. Tell us what you think is false about evolution. 

If you're so good at constructing arguments and studying evolution, tell us why its wrong.

Also you keep saying that your personal beliefs don't matter but I bet that 99 times out of 100 someone who doesnt believe in evolution is religious/spiritual(goddamnit I hate newagers).

Don't blame newagers for christian fundamentalist creationist reform agendas attempting to make christianity more relavant today as it fades from center stage.

Can we get back to skeptics?

Oh yeah who was that skeptic that first 'proved' the earth wasn't flat?

Or that guy that proved that 'gravity' existed.  Or that other guy who proved light was made of all the colors of the spectrum.

All pooo pooo'd until they were proven to be correct. 

That said.  ALL scientists are skeptics by nature or they are not being scientific.  They do NOT go into an experiment and 'influence' results to get a desired outcome.  They perform the experiment with an expectation called a theory and when the experiment proves the theory often enough they then consider a law. 

The sheer amount of psuedo science going on in the GW debates is laughable.  Co2 is heavier than air (demonstrateable)

Co2 is currently at lower PPM(parts per million) today than it was at many junctures in the past ~200ish ppm.  C02 isn't dangerous until it approaches the levels of 2000ish PPM where it becomes an impediment to breathing.  Greenhouses (where people walk in daily to care for plants) often pump Co2 levels to 600ish PPM to encourage plant growth. 

The 'overwhelming' evidence that these people offer is a computer model.  Which they input data into and get an expected result from.  This is unacceptable as it doesn't account for things outside of their model.  Like the upturn in plant growth that extra Co2 would generate, which in turn increases the surface areas of water being evaporated into the air, which increases precipitation.  Which will actually determine the amount of snowfall you get in an area. 

Explain to me why the Global Warming pundits have changed their tune to Climate change now at the first sign of things not going as they expected?Ah well that's easy you see.... climate change and change in general is ALWAYS happening.

IF we can make people hysterical and fearful of something that is happening ALL THE TIME... we can get them to give us money to make them 'safe' from it.

This is a LONG CON that would make a certain LOST con man very proud.

Eratosthenes: Proved the world was spherical to within a margin (depending on the size of a 'stadia') 16.3%, or 1%

Newton: Of course proved a (Very slightly incorrect) model of gravity.also the light spectrum.

Of course, both of those people delivered a theory that made specific, testable predictions, verifiably more accurate than previous theories, and then went out and empirically tested them. Climate-Change skeptics are the exact opposite - we have a theory that makes specific, testable predictions, which are validated via empirical testing, while the 'skeptics' theory is that ... well, actually the skeptics don't have any one theory, they have a dozen, none of which match the observations, and are exchanged out at a moments notice.

So Frogboys observation that historically the consensus is overturned by new science is a valid observation, but has nothing to do with the case at hand - overturning climate change would not involve going from, say, leeches to antibiotics, but from Newtonian gravity to a more accurate theory such as Einstein's Relativity. And the blunt fact is - there's nothing out there that's even close to replicating the predictive power of the current theory on climate change, which has fundamentally tracked the middle-of-the-road predictions dating back to the late '70s. (BTW - yes, you have heard differently. That's because there were three scenarios given, best case, worst case, and most likely, and the oil industry consistently quoted the worst case scenario figures and said "See - that hasn't happened, so they're being alarmist!" and paid shills like Rush Limbaugh ran with it. Well, actually they were pretty much exactly on target - the entire rest of climate change science has been verifying and clarifying basically valid figures from the 70's. So Actually - today's Climate change *is* the more accurate Einstein versus the basically accurate Newton.)

To overthrow Climate change at this point, you would have to overthrow so much related science that you were saying the universe doesn't work with the basic laws of physics we've used since the forties. You need a theory that makes predictions to do that - and you do not have one. Climate change does.

Jonnan

Eh, actually we DIDN'T evolve from modern-day monkeys.  Assuming the Theory of Evolution is correct (I do), we evolved from a common ancestor with modern monkeys, WAY back long time ago, who IS no longer around. Also, I personally see no reason why a species has to have died off for another species to evolve from it.  I mean, if two groups from the same species get sepearted, one stays in an environment which never changes (wouldn't happen, but theoretically speaking) while the other is in a new environment, the group in the new environment would change, the group in the old environment probably wouldn't change signficantly.  Then you'd have a new species that evolved from a species that is still around.  Doesn't mean they didn't evolve from that species.  Of course, in reality this wouldn't occur, because the Earth's environment is always changing, and evolution is a very slow process, so the chances of the "Mother Species" so to speak remaining essentially the same long enough for a seperate group to evolve into a completely different species is likely very low.

Also, Agent of Kharma, a few things.

I am kind of curious as to what you do believe led to modern animal species.  I mean, the options seem to be:  developing slowly over time, based on who survives long enough to make babies, and modern life appearing instantly.  If you have a third option, I would very much enjoy learning about it.  If you don't buy either, but don't necessary have a third option, well that's okay too, though I would still like to hear your reasoning for why the evidence of evolution is false/not good enough. 

You go into a museum of natural history, and you'll see explanations of natural selection and evolution all over the place, from a Neanderthal exhibit that might explain a possible scenario that would result in humans developing the tall, straight bodies with long legs and short arms that we have now, and chimps developing the hunched, long arms, shorter legged bodies that they have, to a simple example showing how Natural Selection would work involving stuffed mice and a hanging brick.  The hanging brick squashes all the white mice, leaving the black mice the only ones alive to mate, which would mean that the baby mice would probably all (or almost all) be black.

Finally, I am no biologist, I don't have the time to study the subject extensively and conduct all the original research necessary for true, first hand conviction.  So, I generally fall back on what the experts who have studied this stuff all their lives are saying, especially when there is such an overwhelming consensus. 

Also, I read an interesting article about the whole global warming thing in the December 2009 issue of National Geographic, called "The Carbon Bathtub."    It essentially said that the problem is that more C02 is being pumped into the atmosphere than being absorbed.  According to the article, C02 is being released into the atmosphere at twice the level that it's being removed.  Furthermore, removal apparently occurs much slower than emission.  According to the article, if we were to completely stop all emissions right now, it would still take centuries for plants and the ocean to soak up most of the human-made C02.  So, the problem isn't necessarily that things are really bad now, or that they'll become bad soon.  The problem is that natural corrections for all this CO2 take a long time, and at best our use of carbon will drop off gradually, so if we kept charging forward recklessly like we were, the planet could hurt in a bad way for a long time.

Also, keep in mind that while plants may grow more abundant with more C02, humans are expanding too, and space for us means space where a plant isn't living (especially since we like to live on rich soil where plants would grow if we weren't there with our concrete and the like).  So, plant life may not expand at the rate we'd expect.

Now, a short on-topic comment:  Nobody's going to call themselves a Denier anymore than somebody's going to call themselves Evil.  Personally, I see no problem with just letting people call themselves skeptics (I aclaim to be one on several fronts), and if you're determined to convince them, then I guess give them what evidence you have, if it's not enough, see if you can find some more, if that's not enough, well, okay share a beer (or cocktail, I hate beer)!

You left out the

Don't giver a fuckers: They don't care about it because it is what it is. If we all die than we die, and if we don't than we don't.

tetleytea. Shut up. Go play with the other Einstein deniers.