[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What motivates the deniers, I wonder?

Debunking the so-called "science" and exposing the tactics of a political movement pitched toward brain-dead sheeple.

It is certainly easier to convince yourself that you are not doing anything wrong...

Right and wrong are moral concepts. When your political tactic isn't effective you switch to a moral plea. Or, if that doesn't work, an emotional one. This is all part of the nature of politics, nothing more. And it is very obvious what your game plan is. The more you try to advance it with all the methods you subscribe to, the more we will expose it.

****

You are confusing weather with climate. Weather changes all the time; no duh. Climate generally does not change -- but it is changing now.

Climate must be changing because you said so? You have just described your position, which is the intent to equate weather with climate. "Global warming" was an attempt aimed at convincing useful idiots in years that were warmer than the norm. The movement also tried that with "global cooling" forty years ago. Now "climate change" means that if the target of the sales pitch (the useful idiot) feels either too hot or too cold, it's time for him to "believe" the "scientists" and be converted to 'the way, the truth and the light'. (The first step is to get the gullible fool to buy the book Eaarth. I assume you are working on a commission basis, Neil. )

++++

I think it's great that we all have our opinions about science. If you want to jump in on the importance of the Higgs boson, or the tube worms that eat scorching hot chemicals around volcanic vents, or on life on Mars, or on Pluto not being a planet anymore, or on spectroscopy and lasers, or on organic chemistry synthesizing a glaucoma drug from Calabar beans, or how supernovas create all elements heavier than iron (all the gold in existence came from supernovas!), or about dark matter, or how evolution has changed birds who eat from bird feeders, or how to cure cancer, or discuss an ancestor of birds that had four wings, or reconstruct the the temperature of ancient oceans based on the fossil record, or why the megafauna died out except for musk oxen (which are not as closely related to bovines as they are to goats), or why so many bats are dieing of "white nose disease", or why we are seeing bee colony collapse, or just how do they use lithography to make CPU chips, or on earthquake detection, or on the life cycle of the soil, or about horseshoe crab's copper-based blood (which has benefited ALL of us reading this, believe it or not!), or any other of a myriad of subjects that I find fascinating -- then the more opinions, the merrier.

Yep. Neil loves to argue and churn it out by the yard, because as long as you engage in a dialog with him he has an opportunity to convert you. Have you noticed that he doesn't ever argue with me, or address my points? I'm not here to be converted. I'm here to debunk what he is promoting. If you go back to the first page of this thread you will realize that he is promoting a book.

But, if you think you can prove that any of these scientists are faking it, or that they can't possibly know what they are doing, or that you or Glen Beck or Michell Bachmann or Megyn Kelly or James Inhofe -- can any more tell Percy Julian (the genius organic chemist) that he was barking up the wrong tree, or that Pluto should still be considered a planet, or that dark matter really doesn't exist -- any more than you or they can say that the science that shows that anthropogenic global climate change isn't real -- then you need to think again.

We don't need to prove anyone wrong - those who propound this nonsense need to prove they are RIGHT.