It's all over but for the sweating?

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

How is being wrong on anthropogenic climate change irrelevant? It is a exactly what we are talking about - and Christopher Monckton is wrong on climate change.

Other than Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon - what other scientist(s) reject anthropogenic climate change? Surely you can come up with some? Who wrote that one paper mentioned in the SA article?

Either you didn't read my reply in post #1285, or you chose to ignore it. It's easy and convenient to pick and choose your targets, and easy to knock down chosen straw men, isn't it?

Here is the link again for your convenience:

Why Most Published Research Findings are False « Roy Spencer, PhD

I suggest that you (and anyone else who is interested) read Dr. Spencer's entire site. He is a real climate scientist, not a pretender.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Christopher Monckton was the darling of the climate denier crowd...

Is that it ?

[Arragonis]

I assume as there is no answer then that was indeed "it".

Wow. Hmmm. Yeah. Well. Ummm. what ?

I though it would at least be a video of Monckton drop-kicking seal pups into a pool of crude oil, maybe even burning crude oil, being topped up by the head of BP from drums stored on the back of his Hummer. All would be cackling and rubbng their hands together like most evil bosses whilst Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell would all get in line to add ads to the video feed.

Anything less was a let down.

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

Spencer believes in intelligent design.
Most people from Alabama have that mindset.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

Spencer believes in intelligent design.
Most people from Alabama have that mindset.

By the same measure you must also believe all vegetarians to be brave ex-soldiers, rabid anti-semites, insecure in female company, repressed, sexually frustrated with a liking for small moustaches, world domination, Wagner and military uniforms.

Do you take a moment before posting ? Maybe you should.

Yes I did invoke Godwins law but as I also point it out it doesn't apply. Ta.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I though it would at least be a video of Monckton drop-kicking seal pups into a pool of crude oil, maybe even burning crude oil, being topped up by the head of BP from drums stored on the back of his Hummer. All would be cackling and rubbng their hands together like most evil bosses whilst Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell would all get in line to add ads to the video feed.

Ask, and ye shall receive!

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by P-hack

The main problem is that there is so much noise, and it is very detrimental. Assume we are here for one reason (save gas), when others hijack the forum with heavy controversy (politics/religion/etc) then they steal that initiative, that unifying cause, for their own agenda. Actual projects here are pretty low, just a lot of bickering. You may agree with that agenda but plenty of smart/bright people do not, or at least do not think this is the place for it.

Believers will go on ad nauseum (perhaps some Patty Hearst syndrome after listening to Al Gore preach about thermal runaway), it is simple self siloing, not intellectual victory, and it is bringing down the site as a whole IMHO.

The off-topic politics/religion discussion has always been my favorite in forums, and every good forum has a place for these. Pursuing a sound philosophy is extremely important because it is the motivator behind all action. It gives purpose and perspective to any action.

While discussion often doesn't result in moving someone, it sometimes does. I've had several instances where I thought one thing, shared my ideas with others, and was shown to have an opinion that was incongruent with my philosophy or otherwise untrue. I have changed my position on topics such as capital punishment, drug law, prostitution, and even global warming. Other times the debate reinforces a position when no opponent can offer a valid counter argument.

Global warming is an especially difficult topic because there are so many areas of debate. Is GW real? Is it man-made? Is it bad? How bad? What can be done about it? What should we do about it? What should we force others to do about it? Considering war, poverty, famine, disease and the U.S. tax code , how important is this?

My current position is that MMGW is real, has an impossibly complex set of good and bad outcomes, and is probably not worth spending vast amounts of resources given the many other serious issues that directly harm people.

The one thing I never see being discussed is what are some of the good outcomes of global warming, and how do they compare with the bad? Warming means that less energy has to be expended on heating. Warming means that the water cycle will increase in speed resulting in overall more rainfall. Warming means less freezing to death. Warming means longer growth cycles for plants. There are sure to be a lot more positive things about global warming, but none are being discussed.

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

Warming of our planet has negative benefits that should alarm everyone!
Once the tundra melts, vast quantities of methane will fill the atmosphere and create such high temperatures that it will cause the polar caps to completely melt. This will raise the ocean levels to over 30 meters. This will displace over 25% of the world population and create a financial collapse and mass starvation.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

Spencer believes in intelligent design.
Most people from Alabama have that mindset.

Interesting comment! That is a classic example of fallacious reasoning.

You comment tells us that you are eager to tar someone with a broad brush - especially those from a region other than your own.

This is an excellent example of real PREJUDICE: baseless ridicule and condemnation without cause, based upon logical fallacy. It's a very useful but desperate tactic, often used in politics when you have no logic or facts upon which to base your position.

Dr. Spencer revealed his own personal (if religious) belief, and perhaps he did so deliberately. That admission doesn't render his scientific viewpoint devoid of merit or consideration. Perhaps he did it to lure his critics (such as you) to discredit him based upon that admission alone. Einstein also revealed his personal beliefs about religion when discussing the nature of the universe. Does that make Einstein a rube or a fool? Did his personal and religious beliefs reduce or negate his contributions to science?

Maybe we should revert back to Neil's pretense that Donald Trump epitomizes the dissenting viewpoint, so we can lampoon him for his deficient hair. Then we can all blow the targeted straw man down, and claim that all who dissent with the consensus are nothing more than mere blowhards with bad haircuts.

Einstein had very unruly hair. Much worse than the Donald.

Have we any more fallacious, illogical conclusions to propose?

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Warming means that the water cycle will increase in speed resulting in overall more rainfall.

One of the things the water cycle does is take heat energy higher into the atmosphere helping to cool the planet, helping to stabilize the temperature.