Another Denier Wakes up and smells the coffee,,

ask the moderators, they should be able to check out the IPs.

 

Strangely on the topic of global warming (man made versus natural - faith in evolution, faith in gods - dems on one side neocons on the other christians on the side of the neocons blah blah blah) though I usually stay out of the mix because of how folks line up and often get nasty:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Any one ever heard of the Billionaire Koch Brothers? I suppose if I were an oil stock holder, I'd love 'em. I suppose if I were a man made GW'er I'd hate 'em. OK, so I understand that the "NO man-made GW" AND oilies want less pollution controls, and thus want less man made GW doctrine being spread. I understand that people who believe in man made GW want to regulate GW and thus diminish the oilie's profits. I (think I) understand that the oilies believe their opponents are simply trying to do a power grab ... THEIR power. It seems like the man made GW people would need a better motive though ... to me. I certainly wouldn't want to have to face off with these Koch brothers. Just a thought.

.

 

But you dont bother to do any research into whether or not the science is credible or a hoax.
You just blindly accept and reject information.Thats why you think theres no point in debate.
Whereas my position is open.
If I see any reliable proof of AGW induced catastrophe,Ill change my position.
I was once an Gore believer.

 

I can almost accept the idea that you can deny the anthropomorphic part of AGW (yes, almost) and still be a believer in the scientific method. Denying GW is just playing ostrich.

That being said, the impact of global warming is so life-threatening that I hope its mostly anthropomorphic. If its just a natural cycle, as some claim, I foresee a lot of expense trying to protect billions of people and trillions of dollars, yen, euros etc of property from rising seas. Not that I'm worried about rising seas here but I don't know how many more Katrina style refugees we need! I want it to be AGW so we can do something about it...

 

Interesting article.Ive been saying since their inception, that the Tea Party movement had libertarian influence.
I never dreamed how.
Those Tea Party voters are too stupid to realize the ideology they are embracing,and may be in for a shock when they find out what libertarianism entails.
As for Koch backing AGW skeptics,they do it because theyre looney libertarians , not necessarily because theyre oilmen.

 

I seem to recall that we had a 'Koch funding' thread here a while back. But as the primary 'expose' was by greenpeace and prepared in a rather lurid manner, it did not convince all readers.

Anyway, an interesting flip side to this thread's title comes from Judith Curry. Pretty easy to pick up on that situation by web-searching her name. No one else seems to have mentioned it around here yet. Share and enjoy (as the saying goes).

 

Completely agree with this point. The fact that Dan Coats(?) was able to air a statewide advert in Indiana that warned senior citizens that voting for democrats would mean that they would be forced off of Medicare and onto Obamacare shows what an ignorant lot they are. The fact that he wasn't pilloried (metaphorically, of course) for that advert shows how ignorant people are.

 

Most the oil industry accepts AGW and are diversifying into alternative energies as well. They're not going to go down the same path as many tobacco companies went when they were spending millions of dollars trying to disprove the health implications of smoking..and not diversifying. Look at how BP had the whole Beyond Petroleum campaign(and had ads about how green they were and so pro American...even though they were originally British Petroleum, and then just had the gulf episode). Also look at how much oil mogul T. Boone Pickens spent on ads during the last election cycle to try to get his natural gas/wind power venture to get more acceptance.

Funny, the only research I've seen from you are tabloid sources that get their funding from the heartland institute. I'm still trying to see your true position as you claim to be a democrat who believes in AGW....yet you first said you don't believe in "runaway" global warming, then even that manmade pollution doesn't have an effect on global warming (which directly contradicts what anthropogenic global warming means). Since you distrust the majority of environmental scientists (who you think are all just funded by Gore and Enron), citing all the scientific papers on the subject is a waste of time. One of the best links just for showing concise points for the AGW theory is this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

Just look at how much NG Pickens owns. Fwiw, I think he is right to promote a wind/NG near term future, but in his case the solution just followed what he has to sell.

 

Indeed, the green movement has a lot of oportunists right now. Over a year ago, I saw an alarming interview with the CEO of a start up venture company (not sure if it was Better Place). He was describing his venture company that's developing swapable battery stations. The catch: you would also lease the cars from them too.

 

The thing that gets overlooked about NG is how massively polluting the compression stations are. Apparently the compression stations in TX create more air pollution than all of the cars in the state.

 

Pardon me if you are mentally deficient,but this is the FOURTH time you mischaracterized my position.
Unless you are truly mentally disabled ,I have to assume you do this on purpose.
SO F#CKIN KNOCK IT OFF.

 

For those who like Youtube videos to learn their climate science

 

funny butt do you have any proof or study on that statemant?:nono::nono: reads like something from a pups fiction novel.:washing:

 

No, if you had a stated position, I would be able to follow it!!! I have literally seen you say you believe in AGW, yet not AGW....to global warming, but not "runaway" global warming. Please tell us what your true position is!

Claiming to be a scientific minded democrat, but then citing right wing think tank links really doesn't make your position any clearer BTW.

 

If you dont understand someones position,do not invent one.
Four times youve put contrary words into my quotes.
Its BullSh!t pure and simple .
Dont ever do that again .
UNDERSTAND?

Since you asked Ill repeat.
I believe the Earth is warming.(but I also believe temps are being enhanced by fraud)
I believe humans contribute to warming by producing CO2.
I believe its a negligible amount.
I believe current warming is mainly due to natural causes.
I believe AGW CO2 will raise the Earths temp
2.1 degrees F in the next 100 years,unless I see other evidence which is compelling.To date their is NONE.



Do not