20/20 - Is there really a global warming consensus?

[someguy]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Please watch this in full before responding. This 20/20 exclusive is very damaging to many arguments for MMGW. Enjoy!

[Clancy]

A three and a half year old commercial for corporatism that has NO science whatsoever doesn't change anything. As recent studies show, the numbers are even worse than the five year old IPCC report being unscientifically slandered in your link. Here's some actual science on the subject;
Economic View - Fighting Global Warming - A Small Price for a Large Benefit - NYTimes.com

Please ask yourself: where are the peer reviewed, scientific studies refuting the IPCC that the Pentagon/oil industry would be flooding mainstream media with if they (and you) had a leg to stand on?

Oh, wait, let me guess, the thousands of scientists on the Pentagon and the oil industry's payrolls must be in on Al Gore's vast global conspiracy too! That Al Gore, he doesn't miss a trick!

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Please watch this in full before responding. This 20/20 exclusive is very damaging to many arguments for MMGW. Enjoy!

[someguy]

Please ask yourself: where are the peer reviewed, scientific studies refuting the IPCC that the Pentagon/oil industry would be flooding mainstream media with if they (and you) had a leg to stand on?

Ahh... yet another great thread where the response doesn't address the subject and content originally posted. Why do I have such a hard time getting people to do that?

Well, it is very hard to prove to negative as you request. That is the reason our courts don't require people to prove that they didn't commit a crime. To debunk the entire IPCC report would be a massive undertaking and a waste of time. So please ask yourself if you are being reasonable.

One thing that you should know that you don't, is that I am not suggesting that all of the IPCC scientists are in on some global conspiracy. In fact, I don't necessarily consider this a conspiracy, except maybe for a very few people at the top of this agenda. These scientists are motivated by fear. Especially since they have been told MMGW is real for a very long time, and they clearly believe it. As Climategate showed us, these scientists, in the name of saving the planet, feel justified in skewing numbers, making assumptions, and/or cherry-picking information to support their theory because they don't want their planet to be destroyed. They believe it is okay, because it raises the awareness of climate change. Because in their eyes, it is for the greater good of humanity. They feel that time is not on our side, and it doesn't matter if the information is accurate or not, they feel an urgency to take care of this problem right now. They want to be heroes. Its not that these scientists are liars or are being paid off by Al Gore, but rather they feel the ends justify the means. They conduct their scientific experiments with the assumption that MMGW already is fact. This is how all of the models are constructed which predict catastrophic climate change. Unfortunately, models don't prove crap. They predict the future based on assumptions, and we all know that predictions have a great possibility of being wrong.

Why is that I have pointed out several times that upon further examination it has been found that temperature drives Co2 production, not the other way around, yet nobody has even tried to dispute this with me? You all just keep saying "we have consensus", and the whole point of this video is that there is not a consensus as you persistently claim. You claim this video has no science, well that wasn't the point of the video. The point was to show you all how ignorant and pathetic it is to persist in the notion that there is scientific consensus. Do I really need science to prove that there are scientists who disagree with your theory? No.

If there really was a consensus, why would you need an IPCC? Especially when this panel consists of professionals appointed by politicians, not independent climate scientists. Should politics and science be in bed like this? In my humble opinion, no. When these two disciplines mix it is usually disastrous. Its like when the USSR promoted the "scientific theory of Lysenkoism" as indisputable fact. They had consensus and all who disapproved were ridiculed. This theory as described by Lysenko originally applied only to plants, but when Stalin picked it up, he wanted to believe it also applied to humans. And so he promoted this absurd theory as fact, and all the countries scientists aligned themselves with him. This is a prime example of politics interfering with just science.

One other thing, is that the IPCC never once in their reports include any opposing information. They never talk about any beneficial effects of climate change, which there are undoubtedly some. They are strictly biased. There only purpose is to prove MMGW and to pass legislation concerning it. That doesn't seem like such a hard task when they won't even consider opposing science. Think about that.

Clancy, if you want to read some peer reviewed scientific literature that opposes the MMGW theory then look it up for yourself. Heres a start: Professor Richard Lindzen M.I.T, or Dr. John Christy. They both have written dozens of Peer reviewed papers on the subject.

[someguy]

Economic View - Fighting Global Warming - A Small Price for a Large Benefit - NYTimes.com

HA. This article is some of the most biased BS Ive ever read. Here is the first sentence:

FORECASTS involving climate change are highly uncertain, denialists assert — a point that climate researchers themselves readily concede.

Okay.... Just the fact that this article calls people who support the opposing POV "denialists" makes their biased clear from the beginning. A real reporter would report the facts and not resort to name calling right off the bat. Especially when both sides agree. They just had to throw that "denialist" bit in there to make the progressive reader feel intellectually superior. What a crock.

Organizers of the recent climate conference in Copenhagen sought, unsuccessfully, to forge agreements to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. But even an increase that small would cause deadly harm. And far greater damage is likely if we do nothing.

Look at this paragraph above, the journalist asserts that far greater damage is likely if we do nothing. Is he a scientist, or qualified in any way to make this statement? No. The journalist (if you can call him that) is speaking for one side of the argument. This is not fair reporting by any stretch of the imagination. This is agenda pushing, and propaganda which only serves the purpose of making the progressive reader feel empowered. You call my video a commercial for corporatism (explain your reasoning please) but your article is little more than a commercial for the IPCC.

I can't believe that you'd even post such nonsense.

The little bits of science put forth in this article is all from the IPCC (so unbiased) or based upon computer models (so reliable).

Clancy, if you want to change someones mind, don't post articles that say that person is in denial several times. Thats a great way to piss people off, not to get them to listen to you. Especially when you attack my video for not being scientific enough, (which it wasn't meant to be) when your article isn't that scientific either.

[Clancy]

It's sad watching you discredit yourself. You have NO science to back up your slander of Al Gore and the IPCC.

And you still don't even seem to know the difference between a weather forecast and the subject at hand, like most denialists, which is the point of the first paragraph that you misunderstood.

And here's another clue for you, myriad scientific theories are based on 'models', they are models for the natural phenomena under scrutiny. We can't fast forward the actual atmosphere, or literally look inside the sun, so we use very sophisticated models. 'model' isn't a derogitory term as the RW whackos want you to believe, it's used throughout the scientific world, quite successfully.

Let's see you post some peer reviewed science backing up the oil industry's claims please. When you can't find it, if you have any integrity at all, you'll stop flooding this forum with despicable corporate propaganda.

HA. This article is some of the most biased BS Ive ever read...

[someguy]

It's sad watching you discredit yourself. You have NO science to back up your slander of Al Gore and the IPCC.

And you still don't even seem to know the difference between a weather forecast and the subject at hand, like most denialists, which is the point of the first paragraph that you misunderstood.

And here's another clue for you, myriad scientific theories are based on 'models', they are models for the natural phenomena under scrutiny. We can't fast forward the actual atmosphere, or literally look inside the sun, so we use very sophisticated models. 'model' isn't a derogitory term as the RW whackos want you to believe, it's used throughout the scientific world, quite successfully.

Let's see you post some peer reviewed science backing up the oil industry's claims please. When you can't find it, if you have any integrity at all, you'll stop flooding this forum with despicable corporate propaganda.

I'm not gonna keep accommodating your requests when you never accommodate mine. You simply keep saying I discredit myself, I slander you, blah blah blah. Never do you even think to tackle the real issues I bring forth. Your intellectual integrity has gone out the window, and if or when the Republic falls, you'll be one of the many slaves who contributed to its demise. Good for you. Stay ignorant and keep denying my real points, because you deserve everything you'll get from this.

You are willfully ignorant that temp. drives Co2.

You are willfully ignorant that Al Gore's peer reviewed science fell short in court.

You are willfully ignorant to even look into the scientists that I referred to.

You are willfully ignorant to realize that the IPCC doesn't include or even look for an opposing scientific viewpoint.

You are willfully ignoring my Lysenko point.

You willfully ignore that the oil companies have invested massive amounts of money into biofuels and green technology and that most of these companies stand to profit immensely from MMGW legislation.

You willfully ignore that George Bush and Exxon Mobile played a huge role in getting the current head of the IPCC elected into office, who has done nothing but exaggerate the effects of MMGW.

You run your mouth like nazi youth calling anyone who disagrees with your false consensus a "denier" as if the scientific consensus were god.

Your willfully ignore that there is NOT a scientific consensus.

You demand that I prove a negative, which is completely intellectually dishonest.

Go explore the world guy, that box is awful small.

[Clancy]

HELLO, when you provide actual science supporting your ravings, you won't come off as such a kook. That the Pentagon and oil industry don't provide you (and Rush Limbaugh et al) any should be a huge clue that it doesn't exist.

And you slandered Al Gore and the IPCC, not me, try to focus.

I'm not gonna keep accommodating your requests when you never accommodate mine. You simply keep saying I discredit myself, I slander you, blah blah blah...

[Barry]

[someguy]

HELLO, when you provide actual science supporting your ravings, you won't come off as such a kook. That the Pentagon and oil industry don't provide you (and Rush Limbaugh et al) any should be a huge clue that it doesn't exist.

And you slandered Al Gore and the IPCC, not me, try to focus.

See you still think the oil industry doesn't favor MMGW legislation. You ignore the facts.

You also refuse to do a simple google search of the scientists that I named for you to look up, and insist I do it for you. I'm not your bitch, if you wanted to really know, you'd have already looked it up instead of demanding I do it for you. Trust me, the peer reviewed science your looking for is there, just do some work yourself. Dr. Christy was at one point an IPCC scientist, you know, the guys you love. Richard Lindzen is a highly respected M.I.T atmospheric physicist with lots of peer reviewed published papers regarding this subject. Do some leg-work. I won't do it for you on matter of principal. You need to get out of your comfort zone and actually try to understand the other side. I have.

Yes I should focus. It was an error. I didn't mean you, I meant your sources. My bad. I will focus more if you focus on my points.

[Sciguy]

Someguy, I have a hard time understanding your frenetic insistence on denying the scientific validity of the consensus on climate change (CC).

On a personal note, I am put off by your use of the acronym MMGW. The usual way of introducing an acronym is to use the full term and put the acronym in parentheses to show its meaning as I did above. I can figure out the GW probably means global warming but I don't know what the MM means. You seem to be using it to assert some familiarity with arcane arguments that you pretend to know better than anyone else.

I looked up Richard Lindzer on Wikipedia at Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I see that he is a climate scientist who does not agree with the IPCC policy statement because it was written with the input of policy makers, rather than only scientists. Apparently he doesn't have as much objection to the IPCC work and consensus itself. He also doesn't believe that cigarette smoking is associated with lung cancer and puffs away to show his contempt for that claim. They don't go into his arguments much but he seems to think that clouds and water vapor are not adequately taken into account. The idea amazes me since these are prominent factors in any model and are extensively discussed. But he has a long list of credentials so he most likely knows something I haven't been reading about. However, so what? So you can dredge up one or two scientists who don't agree with the thousands of other scientists. Aren't scientists human? If you prick them don't they bleed? (Sorry, couldn't help it). Science is hardly divine guidance. There are always controversies in the early days of any study. There are still people trying to show that both Einstein and Newton are wrong. And they may turn out to be right. String theory makes that claim without any evidence and yet it has become mainstream. But no one would launch a real satellite without using both gravity and relativity for the calculations. CC claims are made on probabilistic bases, not dead certainty. A couple of contrary views don't destroy the best consensus we have for trying to save our fragile habitat.

What I can't figure out is how you can see this as such an intense argument. Bringing in Lysenko is a bit nuts. Setting up Al Gore as a devil is nutty too. And to imagine that the profits of the oil companies depend on green legislation - what tree have you been sleeping under for the last decade? Saying that Clancy is ignorant that temperature drives CO2. I have no idea what you are talking about. And finally, attacking others for asking you to prove a negative? What is that about? No one is asking you to prove a negative. It is not for you to simply show that the IPCC is wrong. What you need to do is to provide a better alternative view of what is happening among all the relevant measured parameters - a positive. Of course you can't do that. Thousands of scientists with a million man years of education and experience and delicate tools for specialized measurements have spoken. The best models they can devise have shown them that global warming is largely anthropogenic. They know that they may be missing some subtle but controlling effect that someone will point out yet but until that effect is identified, the models speak.

If you were to invoke reflected radiation from Venus or cosmic rays or the subtle effects of dark energy, maybe those could be taken seriously. But then they would be studied, or at least responded to and probably dismissed in a few sentences, but who knows? Anyway, at least there would be something to consider. But just arguing against CC because you dislike the conclusion? That's not productive.

Your intensity to deny the scientific consensus is troubling. We are all familiar with political, commercial and psychological agendas for getting worked up over overwhelming conclusions. Are you being paid to do this? Do you need to be on a crusade at any cost? Did you invest in oil stocks? If you just want to bring out the truth, why don't you have any truth to put forward, other than claims? Hell, I'm on a crusade myself, for Zero Waste redesigns, but I put forward compelling arguments, actual analyses and examples of applications. I also deny the reality of the consensus on recycling as being desirable. But I can show why I'm right and the recyclers are wrong and most people, when they hear what I have to say, have to agree with me. Where is your analysis or argument? All I hear are your denials, joined to desperate ragtags of invocations. That's why you have earned the title of "denier".

Paul Palmer

I'm not gonna keep accommodating your requests when you never accommodate mine. You simply keep saying I discredit myself, I slander you, blah blah blah. Never do you even think to tackle the real issues I bring forth. Your intellectual integrity has gone out the window, and if or when the Republic falls, you'll be one of the many slaves who contributed to its demise. Good for you. Stay ignorant and keep denying my real points, because you deserve everything you'll get from this.

You are willfully ignorant that temp. drives Co2.

You are willfully ignorant that Al Gore's peer reviewed science fell short in court.

You are willfully ignorant to even look into the scientists that I referred to.

You are willfully ignorant to realize that the IPCC doesn't include or even look for an opposing scientific viewpoint.

You are willfully ignoring my Lysenko point.

You willfully ignore that the oil companies have invested massive amounts of money into biofuels and green technology and that most of these companies stand to profit immensely from MMGW legislation.

You willfully ignore that George Bush and Exxon Mobile played a huge role in getting the current head of the IPCC elected into office, who has done nothing but exaggerate the effects of MMGW.

You run your mouth like nazi youth calling anyone who disagrees with your false consensus a "denier" as if the scientific consensus were god.

Your willfully ignore that there is NOT a scientific consensus.

You demand that I prove a negative, which is completely intellectually dishonest.

Go explore the world guy, that box is awful small.

[someguy]

Someguy, I have a hard time understanding your frenetic insistence on denying the scientific validity of the consensus on climate change (CC).

On a personal note, I am put off by your use of the acronym MMGW. The usual way of introducing an acronym is to use the full term and put the acronym in parentheses to show its meaning as I did above. I can figure out the GW probably means global warming but I don't know what the MM means. You seem to be using it to assert some familiarity with arcane arguments that you pretend to know better than anyone else.

I looked up Richard Lindzer on Wikipedia at Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I see that he is a climate scientist who does not agree with the IPCC policy statement because it was written with the input of policy makers, rather than only scientists. Apparently he doesn't have as much objection to the IPCC work and consensus itself. He also doesn't believe that cigarette smoking is associated with lung cancer and puffs away to show his contempt for that claim. They don't go into his arguments much but he seems to think that clouds and water vapor are not adequately taken into account. The idea amazes me since these are prominent factors in any model and are extensively discussed. But he has a long list of credentials so he most likely knows something I haven't been reading about. However, so what? So you can dredge up one or two scientists who don't agree with the thousands of other scientists. Aren't scientists human? If you prick them don't they bleed? (Sorry, couldn't help it). Science is hardly divine guidance. There are always controversies in the early days of any study. There are still people trying to show that both Einstein and Newton are wrong. And they may turn out to be right. String theory makes that claim without any evidence and yet it has become mainstream. But no one would launch a real satellite without using both gravity and relativity for the calculations. CC claims are made on probabilistic bases, not dead certainty. A couple of contrary views don't destroy the best consensus we have for trying to save our fragile habitat.

What I can't figure out is how you can see this as such an intense argument. Bringing in Lysenko is a bit nuts. Setting up Al Gore as a devil is nutty too. And to imagine that the profits of the oil companies depend on green legislation - what tree have you been sleeping under for the last decade? Saying that Clancy is ignorant that temperature drives CO2. I have no idea what you are talking about. And finally, attacking others for asking you to prove a negative? What is that about? No one is asking you to prove a negative. It is not for you to simply show that the IPCC is wrong. What you need to do is to provide a better alternative view of what is happening among all the relevant measured parameters - a positive. Of course you can't do that. Thousands of scientists with a million man years of education and experience and delicate tools for specialized measurements have spoken. The best models they can devise have shown them that global warming is largely anthropogenic. They know that they may be missing some subtle but controlling effect that someone will point out yet but until that effect is identified, the models speak.

If you were to invoke reflected radiation from Venus or cosmic rays or the subtle effects of dark energy, maybe those could be taken seriously. But then they would be studied, or at least responded to and probably dismissed in a few sentences, but who knows? Anyway, at least there would be something to consider. But just arguing against CC because you dislike the conclusion? That's not productive.

Your intensity to deny the scientific consensus is troubling. We are all familiar with political, commercial and psychological agendas for getting worked up over overwhelming conclusions. Are you being paid to do this? Do you need to be on a crusade at any cost? Did you invest in oil stocks? If you just want to bring out the truth, why don't you have any truth to put forward, other than claims? Hell, I'm on a crusade myself, for Zero Waste redesigns, but I put forward compelling arguments, actual analyses and examples of applications. I also deny the reality of the consensus on recycling as being desirable. But I can show why I'm right and the recyclers are wrong and most people, when they hear what I have to say, have to agree with me. Where is your analysis or argument? All I hear are your denials, joined to desperate ragtags of invocations. That's why you have earned the title of "denier".

Paul Palmer

MMGW= Man made global warming. The reason I use that acronym is because typing this in takes forever. I'm sorry if you didn't understand but I've used it many times before in other threads and people have had no problem understanding what I'm referring to. Also, this thread was never meant to dive into the science of MMGW, but rather to demonstrate that there are many scientists with great credentials who disagree with the so called "consensus" making it a non-consensus, since they all don't agree, right? But this basic premise is too much for some. And I have gone into the science here on wacco before, and nobody dared touch it completely. I spent hours upon hours writing about the science and posting scientific work etc.. All for nothing but frustration from people who refused to consider it.

I am glad you talked about recycling. This is a good example of how consensus goes wrong. Same with Lysenko. So is it safe to say that consensus means very little? I think so. But others disagree. I can't see why since historically consensus based science hardly holds to its reputation.

I guess, as much as I didn't want to, but since we have a new person who has shown some true interest in my POV I'll throw out some science to back my claims. https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...rt_july_09.pdf

I also want to make one thing clear, I did not say or imagine that "the profits of the oil companies depend on green legislation", but rather I said that the oil companies have massive investments in green technology and biofuels. For them, this is a win-win situation. One other aspect to consider is of course peek-oil. Now if you were a smart CEO of an oil corporation and you knew your product was going to become extinct sometime in the near future, wouldn't you look for another product to sell? Major oil companies investments in biofuels | Yahoo! Green


When I say temperature drives Co2 I can prove it. Al Gore can prove it too. Just watch his movie and the part where he pulls out that massive graph that shows the red line of temperature and the blue line of Co2 and how they match up perfectly. Well he implied that Co2 drove temperature along with it, but the truth is (and this has been proven in court mind you) his very own graph proved that temperature drives Co2. You can look this up for yourself. In fact, Ive posted a thread on this court case before. That was a fun thread, https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...tml#post105931 Nobody that posted on that thread even read the courts findings before attacking me. In fact Hotspring44 said he didn't need to read it. Why? presumably because of the almighty consensus. Whatever.

Page four of the publication Ive provided is clear and directly stomps out any hope for the MMGW theory. Check it out. We can discuss it if you like. The reason this graph stomps out MMGW is that professor Lindzen's graph is based on actual real life data, all the other graphs (which are clearly wrong) are based on the UN's computer models.

And last but certainly not least. Do you really think a 24 year old guy living in Guerneville, posting on WaccoBB, is being paid off by the oil industry? Do you really think a guy who makes barely enough to scrap by has money invested in oil? Come on. I don't think your trying to be rude, so I won't tear you a new one. I post this information here because I am deeply concerned with people's reliance upon experts and consensus for everything. I am also very concerned with the policies that Al Gore and many others around the world want to enact. Lastly, I am concerned with possible taxation of natural element. Could air be taxed? Water maybe? How far are we willing to go? Check out the science.

[someguy]

I guess, as much as I didn't want to, but since we have a new person who has shown some true interest in my POV I'll throw out some science to back my claims. https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...rt_july_09.pdf

Here is the actual peer reviewed paper by Lindzen and Choi if you want to get in deep: https://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen...i-GRL-2009.pdf

[Barry]

MMGW= Man made global warming.

Thanks, I wondered what that meant as well.

Lastly, I am concerned with possible taxation of natural element. Could air be taxed? Water maybe? How far are we willing to go?

It's about taxing a form of pollution. It's an "externality" as covered in any economics 101 class. Capitalism is real good about achieving the optimal economic result given all the price signals. Since pollution does not have a price, it is not properly considered when making economic decisions.

All that is needed is for a society to assign a price for the creation of the "bad" while business goes about creating "goods" so business will optimize (minimize) the pollution impact along with its other costs.

[Sciguy]

Barry:
Actually, with due respect for your excellent intentions, with the earth depleted and groaning, I think we need to go beyond Economics 101.

Putting a price on pollution has not worked. The underlying concept is that we simply legalize a certain level of pollution. The cost is internalized and then charged for. Then we have thousands of different kinds of pollution (there are five million chemicals alone) and each one has a chokehold on its slice of our environment. Have you ever thought what would happen if you took the allowable limits of contamination for water or air and for every possible pollutant. I wouldn't be surprised if it totaled to more than 100%. That's an exercise I've been hoping to get to for years.

I think we need to go back to the front end and stop being lazy, just leaving it up to industry to throw the next trial pollutant at us. We need to be willing to grab the bull by the horns and take on the job of designing the kind of industry and products we DO want, rather than the industry and products we don't want. And we need to stop listening to the whining of economists and marketers who are unwilling to take on the task of meeting requirements of NO pollution at all. You will find endless hordes of apologists and defeatists to tell you, with no identifiable basis, that zero pollution is impossible, and in particular situations maybe that could be true for the moment. But the the goal needs to be zero emitted pollutants. This doesn't imply unattainable perfection; it has to do with the way that processes are designed at a particular nexus with the environment. I urge people to have the boldness to make this kind of commitment, rather than declaring failure in advance, which is what I see a lot of.

Paul Palmer

Thanks, I wondered what that meant as well.

It's about taxing a form of pollution. It's an "externality" as covered in any economics 101 class. Capitalism is real good about achieving the optimal economic result given all the price signals. Since pollution does not have a price, it is not properly considered when making economic decisions.

All that is needed is for a society to assign a price for the creation of the "bad" while business goes about creating "goods" so business will optimize (minimize) the pollution impact along with its other costs.

[someguy]

So Clancy... The science is posted. Are you gonna continue being ignorant of it, or are you gonna take it on? Let's see what you got buddy. Its already been a day and nothing. Whats the hold up big guy? You've been nagging and whining in three posts for me to throw out some science, and its here, so what now?

Will you now concede that there is no scientific consensus?

Will you now understand how the oil industry profits either way?

Will you acknowledge that putting more Co2 into the air has benefits to it? (ask any plant grower)

Of course I know the answer is going to be no. I think thats safe to say. Because when it really comes down to it, you are the denier. You deny all of my concerns and write them off because you view me as the denier. You come up with all kinds of funny names for me, kook, corporate propagandist, RW whacko... Way to go. I hope you feel proud of that. The truth is sir, I guarantee I know a hell of a lot more about this subject than you. I research this subject almost daily and I try to be as objective as possible (in fact, I used to subscribe to your POV on MMGW), and I would say that my opinion about MMGW has nothing to do with denial. While your little jabs and talking points are straight from the MMGW (Rothschild/Gore) propaganda machine.

What is one to do to convince you that MMGW isn't real when you can just fall back on the fact that my position is not that of the majority? "It doesn't matter what that kook says, we have a scientific consensus gosh darn it." If I can't beat that then whats the point of fighting? Its like bashing my head against the wall.

And when are you going to wrap your head around the fact that consensus based science, when looked at historically, proves it to be junk scientific justification? Whats it going to take for you to stop falling back on that point so religiously?

Now is your time to focus Clancy on the points I make. Its time for you to acknowledge your beliefs for what they are, beliefs, not facts. Lets see you write something thoughtful this time. No more of your religious ranting, name calling, and ridiculous claims. You wanted this thread to be about the science, not me, so lets see what you've been dying to say about the science all this time.

[Valley Oak]

The arrogance of youth, oh my my. How repulsive when it is draped in ignorance, fanaticism and a simplistic black and white mentality. Not to mention the ulterior motives, which he tellingly refuses to own up to, just like all Climate Change deniers.

So Clancy... The science is posted. Are you gonna continue being ignorant of it, or are you gonna take it on? Let's see what you got buddy. Its already been a day and nothing. Whats the hold up big guy? You've been nagging and whining in three posts for me to throw out some science, and its here, so what now?

Will you now concede that there is no scientific consensus?

Will you now understand how the oil industry profits either way?

Will you acknowledge that putting more Co2 into the air has benefits to it? (ask any plant grower)

Of course I know the answer is going to be no. I think thats safe to say. Because when it really comes down to it, you are the denier. You deny all of my concerns and write them off because you view me as the denier. You come up with all kinds of funny names for me, kook, corporate propagandist, RW whacko... Way to go. I hope you feel proud of that. The truth is sir, I guarantee I know a hell of a lot more about this subject than you. I research this subject almost daily and I try to be as objective as possible (in fact, I used to subscribe to your POV on MMGW), and I would say that my opinion about MMGW has nothing to do with denial. While your little jabs and talking points are straight from the MMGW (Rothschild/Gore) propaganda machine.

What is one to do to convince you that MMGW isn't real when you can just fall back on the fact that my position is not that of the majority? "It doesn't matter what that kook says, we have a scientific consensus gosh darn it." If I can't beat that then whats the point of fighting? Its like bashing my head against the wall.

And when are you going to wrap your head around the fact that consensus based science, when looked at historically, proves it to be junk scientific justification? Whats it going to take for you to stop falling back on that point so religiously?

Now is your time to focus Clancy on the points I make. Its time for you to acknowledge your beliefs for what they are, beliefs, not facts. Lets see you write something thoughtful this time. No more of your religious ranting, name calling, and ridiculous claims. You wanted this thread to be about the science, not me, so lets see what you've been dying to say about the science all this time.

[someguy]

The arrogance of youth, oh my my. How repulsive when it is draped in ignorance, fanaticism and a simplistic black and white mentality. Not to mention the ulterior motives, which he tellingly refuses to own up to, just like all Climate Change deniers.

What ulterior motives? Name them.

[someguy]

Since so many of you find MMGW (man made global warming) to be such a pervasive global problem, could you please tell me what you are doing specifically to reduce your consumption of fossil fuels? I for one, as you all know, don’t believe in MMGW, but I am not and never have been a proponent of the oil industry. I too yearn for a pollution-free environment. I despise mountain-top removal, and the oxymoronic “clean coal” industry which Obama enthusiastically supports BTW. I am sick of factory farm waste, and toxic chemicals poisoning our ecosystem. Our ocean is a garbage dump, and our cities are suffocating in a smoggy doom. We all could do our part to reduce these pollutants, and one of the most effective ways is changing the way you eat. In Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, he goes over very thoroughly the incredible amounts of fossil fuels that factory farming consumes. Now we can disagree as to whether or not burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change, but we can all agree that this stuff is nasty and its destroying our world in many ways, some of them economic, some humanitarian and some environmental. All of these negative impacts are definitely worth our time to investigate and eradicate. If you are truly concerned about this issue of fossil fuel pollution, well then here are some ways that we can work together and have an impact.

Michael Pollan says that 20% of Americas petroleum consumption goes to producing and transporting food. So obviously we should buy local foods and products as much as possible. This is good for our local economy, and the planet, and not so good for Cargill. The next thing would be to eat organic whole foods as much as possible to cut down on the excessive production of processed foods. These foods would not exist if we didn’t buy and eat them. Moreover there is increasing evidence that eating processed foods is detrimental to our personal health.

The third thing would be to switch to grass-fed and pastured meat and eggs, if you do eat meat. Id recommend going a step further and buying your meat and eggs directly from local farmers, such as Felton Acres in Sebastopol. We all know “free-range” means next to nothing, right? Feed lot beef uses an incredible amount of fossil fuels due to the corn and soy that is used in nearly all animal feed. In contrast, grass fed beef takes its energy directly from the sun. No fossil fuels involved.

Lastly, buy seasonal. Its an easy concept, but so difficult here in America where bananas and mangos are in our face year round. But its actually kind of fun and aids you in becoming more creative in your food menu. It may even save you a good amount of money, as foods that are in season cost less. And be sure to cook at home for most of your meals, as there are very few restaurants that use high quality ingredients that can’t be traced back to fossil fuels.

By doing these small simple things, you’ll be creating a healthier planet, less dependant upon corporations and fossil fuels. You will be creating a healthier, more sustainable community. Plus, you will directly benefit from eating a local whole food diet. These are the kind goals we should be striving for, not ridiculing each other. If all of the people concerned about MMGW made a pact to stop eating all processed foods and by as seasonal and local as possible, that would cut down a substantial portion of our fossil fuel intake, not to mention the benefits of restructuring our food system.