"How many DA deniers have to be told over & over Man Made GW is a proven reality, ones who block real answers?"
Its a version of confirmation bias ......... ask a question and block any reply that disagrees with your own bias
The evolution denier industry has been doing it for decades
>>Some DA deniers like to ask dumb questions<<
I actually wish that was the case. It would be better if every Denier was a scientifically literate liar.It is scarier that most of them really do not know that they are stupid and are asking dumb questions.
On the other hand, Deniers who understand science and who have looked at the evidence already know the truth - regardless of what they might say publicly. My guess is that most of that group has already jumped off of the Denier bandwagon, at least to the extent that they are not saying much one way or another. Most people with any intelligence are too smart to tell stupid lies - and stupid lies are really all that the Denier movement has left.
Consider the "data have been altered, erased, eaten by Phil Jones' dog, etc." claim that is still going strong. All that Deniers need is just a single example - where one original (raw data) temperature measurement - from one climate station - anywhere in the world - that has ever been used by any climate scientist in the world - that did exist has now "gone missing."
Such evidence has never been provided - because the accusation is a lie. There is not a single climate recording station from anywhere in the world that has ever reported a single instance of any climate scientist ever physically taking (removing) any of their raw data.
You would think that out of all the individual temperature measurements ever recorded by all of the thousands of climate stations located all over the world, if the Deniers' accusation of data manipulation had any basis in reality - then they should be able to find al least one Goddamn number that cannot be accounted for.
"How many DA deniers have to be told over & over Man Made GW is a proven reality "?
It doesn't matter how many times you say something, that doesn't make it true.
The real problem lies in people's individual perception of what (Anthropogenic) Global Warming means. It isn't defined in any authoritative manner, and is largely determined by what's presented in the media... which is NOT objective.
Media content (including advocacy groups) aims to attract viewers and readers, it is typically sensational rather than rigorous. Scientific papers tend to be rigorous rather than sensational.
If you believe that "global warming" will be catastrophic for humanity, and that "the end is nigh" then you have formed your opinion based on what is circulated in the media, not on what the research shows. The research papers do not project the demise of humanity, or anything approaching it.
You can tell me as many times as you like that "GW is a proven reality", but until you declare what you mean by "global warming", we are likely to remain at cross purposes forever.
Edit CR. re: "What would you consider to be "catastrophic"? Of course the notion of all life being killed off by global warming, or Earth turning into Venus or Waterworld is absurd. Most of Earth's land surface is to high to be flooded by rising sea levels. But that does not mean that global warming is not extremely serious."
That's exactly my point. There's no definition. GW means entirely different things to different people. To some it's catastrophic, to some it's serious, to others it's concerning.
When someone like Ian or a certain Royal Society guy block you, that is because they know that they lost the argument.
Dave H
What would you consider to be "catastrophic"? Of course the notion of all life being killed off by global warming, or Earth turning into Venus or Waterworld is absurd. Most of Earth's land surface is to high to be flooded by rising sea levels. But that does not mean that global warming is not extremely serious.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w...
i know , all you have to do is look at science . the last time atmospheric CO2 when to just above 360 ppm , it took 2 million years for the seas to absorb enough for temps to come back down to a livable level . atmospheric CO2 levels are now at 380 ppm . when they hit 400 ppm , that is the tipping point , after which the earth goes into a slow irreversible permanent greenhouse effect , noon temps of 700 degrees F , the seas boil off into space and humanity turns to dust . money won't help . the secrect government bunkers won't help . the deniers die too .
see you on the other side .
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Quotes by Sagebrush (a self proclaimed Christian and ardent AGW denier) :
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA"
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch!"
Well I used to be a global warming believer, but not now, it's just not happening, temperatures are not going up, period.
There are some real eminent climatologist's who don't believe either.
if you are open minded and want to listen to both sides, check out Watts up with that
What does DA mean?
Secondly, don't just tell us. Prove it. You greenies have lied so many times, you can be glad there is no Pinocchio affect. Start telling the truth and stop calling us liars every time you get caught. Then maybe we can believe you.
EDIT:
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Justice and equality are code words for communism. And I don't want to be reoriented. I love the US Constitution and would like to live the way our forefathers intended.
Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."
Quote by Jack Trevors, Editor-in-Chief of Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: "The capitalistic systems of economy follow the one principal rule: the rule of profit making. All else must bow down to this rule…The current USA is an example of a failed capitalistic state in which essential long-term goals such as prevention of climate change and limitation of human population growth are subjugated to the short-term profit motive and the principle of economic growth."
Quote by Judi Bari, an American environmentalist and labor leader, a feminist, and the principal organizer of Earth First!: "I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically,"
Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
Paranoia as defined by dictionary.com, "baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others. "
When some one comes out and says that communism is the only answer to AGW, then believing what they say is not baseless. I truly believe they mean what they say and you align yourself with these types.
Why don't you come right out and say "Dumb A$$", confession is good for the soul.Besides that haircut you refer to is known as 'Duck A$$'.
Name calling is one of the first signs you are losing the argument.
Some DA deniers like to ask dumb questions but are afraid of real answers, but you know who you are.
