I'm a Denier!

[Guest 1010011010]

The problem is that monetizing carbon isn't going to help. Global warming is being used as a proxy to economically cripple industrialized (and industrializing) nations.

Kyoto and subsequent climate change conferences are a counter-productive waste of time and resources. These criticism, no matter how strongly stated or how far out of context they are taken, do not amount to "climate change denial". What's being denied is that humans caused global warming and/or that humans can control/fix what's happening. The counter position is that this is a natural occurrence and/or that we need to focus on preparation.... not that nothing is happening.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Why waste my time? What have you or 6.8 brought to this debate to prove YOUR side? The only links I've seen posted from the skeptics are from the conservative Huffington Post equivalent and paid schill Monckton (Monckton's errors - July 2008). It's like clsutton21 said "Facts that prove global warming is real are the fake facts. Facts the prove global warming isn't real are the real facts." You guys have your minds made up, and apparently we have ours. I might as well be debating carry laws on some lib forum, or the bible with an atheist.

Because possibly you've never heard any facts, to begin with? Try several British newspapers that

broke the stories about the fraud. Guardian, Telegraph, and I think even Pravda may have reported.

Sometimes they let news out that our great media in the US doesn't want you to hear. Al Gore has

been caught in so many lies it is laughable. The emails prove a conspiratorial attitude about that

true science you believe.

You can believe what you want, and I really don't care, but when it comes down to my wallet being

picked by your consensus, you better be right. I have had my doubts about it since the seventies, when

I first heard of the media scare about it.

The burden is on your back to prove it by your science, not cast a doubt on my skepticism about your science.

The sky is falling! How about them ozone holes?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Climate Quiz Imagery :: Climate change is real

You global warming agreeing people might go take this little quiz. Get back to me and dispute

their information. They can tell you all about "concensus science".

[Guest clsutton21]

Climate Quiz Imagery :: Climate change is real

You global warming agreeing people might go take this little quiz. Get back to me and dispute

their information. They can tell you all about "concensus science".

Great source:

Produced with the assistance of Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.), Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition.

Post fail!

Someone with a Bachelors and someone with a Masters in Engineering. And even if that isn't bad enough, they are mechanical engineers, not even chemical...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You could have done much better than challenge their degrees. You didn't dispute anything.

Why not? Can you?

[Mark@Sea]

You could have done much better than challenge their degrees. You didn't dispute anything.

Why not? Can you?

This was a rhetorical question, right?

[Guest clsutton21]

You could have done much better than challenge their degrees. You didn't dispute anything.

Why not? Can you?

There's no point in disputing the actual information with you. Yes there are cycles and yes it is blown out of proportion with the media, but the cycles are getting more extreme over time.

I don't understand how you could possibly use someone with a bachelors or even masters in mechanical engineering as a legitimate source.

[Guest clsutton21]

Also, read this: More Proof of Global Warming: Scientific American. It has a professor with a Ph.D. that is actually published in the field.

[DaveTN]

Nevermind...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

By his collection of a concensus? Being published is great, but doesn't establish fact. You

give too much weight to the credential rather than establishing fact. Facts stand alone.

They don't need the credential to prop them up. Kind of like politics can do: blur the truth.

There was a group of scholars and scientists that wrote an opinion about the BP oil spill.

It was taken and bastardized by politicians with sentences actually added to make it seem

that they agreed with the administration's forthcoming policy about the spill. When they

learned what happened to their scholarly document, and how it was politicized, they

came out against what the administration had done. The policies Obama set has killed jobs,

not just along the coast, but all over the country. I realize this isn't global warming but

you would do well to discover and challenge what inequities some say before you trust

the credentials as some sacred omniscience. Global warming has become nothing more

than a political power grab and the so-called "science by concensus" you love is its armor.

Try disputing what the man says, instead of his credentials. What are your credentials?

For that matter, what are Al Gore's credentials?

[Guest clsutton21]

Try disputing what the man says, instead of his credentials. What are your credentials?

For that matter, what are Al Gore's credentials?

And what are yours?

[Mark@Sea]

Ah, yes, the smoking pea-shooter study.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I never claimed to have any, straw man. Usually that's the kind of responses one gives when he

runs out of arguments.

[Guest clsutton21]

I never claimed to have any, straw man. Usually that's the kind of responses one gives when he

runs out of arguments.

Oh, is that what straw man means?

[Guest clsutton21]

Ah, yes, the smoking pea-shooter study.

I never said that global warming was as severe as the media has portrayed it to be. What John Daly failed to mention in his article is that Fig 1 and Fig 2 have two different scales, one is temperature in Kelvins and the other is radiance which, in laymen terms, is the amount of light allowed to pass through an area. You can't compare the lines of the two graphs, it would be absurd to think they should correlate. That would be like graphing a line in 2d with the normal x and y axes and comparing it to a 3d graph where you only measured the x and z axes.

Furthermore, John Daly hasn't had anything published since 1993, only submitted articles. What makes him able to interpret scientific data, you may ask? Oh, in his obituary

Intellectual restlessness however, took him to the university at Aberystwyth where he took out an honours degree in economics.

(John Lawrence Daly 1943 - 2004) Maybe you should evaluate your sources better next time?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I just spent the last half hour talking with my son about scientific inquiry and global warming.

Just so you know, he still thinks he is a liberal, but that appears to be changing. Proves to me

he is open minded and appreciates honest science, not "concensus science", which he agrees

with me that there has to be more on methodology and correct data than politics.

Concensus is a political term.

Mark, you need to make sure John Daly has a superior enough credential for sutton. He will

debunk it with something.

[Guest clsutton21]

Mark, you need to make sure John Daly has a superior enough credential for sutton. He will

debunk it with something.

I beat you to it, John Daly has no scientific credentials.

I'm not sure what your point is to your story about talking with your son other than to say your son doesn't believe in "consensus" science.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You sure get hung up with that "publishing" word, sutton. Maybe you should open up your mind

and continuing your studies. Your remarks appear very closed minded. Character assassination doesn't

cut it.

oops, he already did.

[Guest clsutton21]

You sure get hung up with that "publishing" word, sutton. Maybe you should open up your mind

and continuing your studies. Your remarks appear very closed minded. Character assassination doesn't

cut it.

oops, he already did.

Anything scientific worth a grain of salt is worth publishing. It's the entire basis of science, publish an article, have other scientists corroborate the findings, establish it as theory.

And what is character assassination when the character in question has no character relevant to the study.

You never told me why your story with your son is relevant. Continue my studies? What did you complete your studies in?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It was in reference to his understanding and teachings of science, which instead of science by concensus,

he understands that that ain't so. He just graduated with a mechanical engineering degree from UTK,

and is working on his masters there. At this point, he could argue your case better than you are. Yeh,

maybe I'm bragging.

Argue your case. I'm not any expert. This should be easier for you.

The funny thing is, I have no scientific credentials, either.

[Mark@Sea]

The man is dead (and his passing caused no end of glee amongst the warmists).

Apparently if one shouts loudly enough, engages in personal attacks, claims skepticism has no place in science, and (especially) ignores contradictions between data and theory, it becomes an antisocial, nay, criminal act to disagree.

Still, the emperor has no clothes. Sutton isn't here for the facts, he is here to defend his faith, and score points. Let him debate the wind.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's exactly what he's doing. I hear Al Gore is looking for new disciples.

[Guest clsutton21]

It was in reference to his understanding and teachings of science, which instead of science by concensus,

he understands that that ain't so. He just graduated with a mechanical engineering degree from UTK,

and is working on his masters there. At this point, he could argue your case better than you are. Yeh,

maybe I'm bragging.

Argue your case. I'm not any expert. This should be easier for you.

The funny thing is, I have no scientific credentials, either.

Lol, you think mechanical engineering is a science? Your son is definitely gifted in math, but he is no physical scientist. I'm graduating in the Spring with my dual degree in Microbiology and Biochemistry and have applied to multiple Ph.D. programs. "Yeh, maybe I'm bragging."

This isn't easy to argue with close-minded people. We might as well be arguing creationism vs big bang. You're going to have your staunch view on the subject no matter what facts are laid at your feet. There is no point in attempting to penetrate the thick layer of conservatism blocking the intelligence channels in your brain. You can be happy that tonight you can get down on your knees and pray to your poster of Glenn Beck because I am done with attempting to convey what science really is to a population of belters. It is people like you that keep this country well behind the rest of the civilized world in scientific endeavors. Thank you.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There you go again. Does it not involve any science? Your air of superiority baffles me.

I hope you get accepted in one of those programs.

Belters? Pray to my poster of Beck? That's all you can do? Spew?

You're welcome!

[Guest clsutton21]

There you go again. Does it not involve any science? Your air of superiority baffles me.

I hope you get accepted in one of those programs.

Belters? Pray to my poster of Beck? That's all you can do? Spew?

You're welcome!

This isn't an argument for against global warming, so I will respond to clear up something.

I never meant it to sound like I was trying to say your son is better or worse than me, even though you attempted to tell me that he is better than me.

All I said is that Engineering isn't a science in the way that chemistry, biology, and physics are. Yes, engineering does involve physics, but it is not physics.

That being said, I couldn't be an engineer, I don't understand the calculus with the intimacy that is required. Different people are made for different paths in life.