Global warming?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

Just clicking through and pulling some of the 117 papers from 2010.

Computer models that predicted where the moon would be were in error. That proves the Eagle could not have land on the moon - your GCM reasoning.

If any model has an error, then it proves the entire conclusion is wrong? That only the reverse is true? Let's see. It did not predict the increased temperatures in the Andes. That proves global cooling is occurring? Why use that logic? Because your every claim is by denial; not by providing facts.

Arguing by denial says zero facts and lots of opinions. Arguing by denial is how propaganda, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News lie. Since you are an honest person, you have no problem quoting specific number from at least ten of those 117 papers that show climate change is not occurring. After all, an honest person would never cite 117 papers without first reading and grasping every one. You will quote the specific numbers in each of ten papers due to honesty. Obviously it's not difficult. You read all 117 papers before recommending them. Therefore you already know where those numbers are. Only fools and liars would recommend 117 papers because a political agenda ordered them to believe. Clearly you are honest – you would not recommend something without first studying it – would you?

Citing 117 papers recommended by extremists without reading them is only what brainwashed people do. People easily told how to think only recite rhetoric. An honest person will cite from at least ten papers, number by number, that shows no temperature increases. Honest science says you will not use arguments based in denial. Honest science says you have and will quote real data. Good. Otherwise you would have only been insulting people.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

Because your every claim is by denial; not by providing facts.

OK, let's flip your constant argument against you. You say global warming is occurring. And from your point of view it is caused by humans. (And I am not saying the Earth is not warming, I AM saying that carbon emissions are not causing it.)

Where is your proof? From University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU)? From World Meteorological Organization? From Al Gore?

My "denial" argument is showing that the proof is wrong. Your proof is costing us money and creating legislation to control our access to energy. My "denial" is to free us from an over powering government trying to control our life.

Show me your argument and I will show you the paper that says it's wrong.

As for the comment, "Did you read all 117 papers?" Where are your papers. Show me the ones you read to prove that mankind is heating up the Earth leading to natural disasters so you pass legislation that says I can't enjoy a clearly lit room, or buy an SUV, or must tax me and spend 90 Billion of my dollars on "clean" energy.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,...83,00.html?dbk

Your proof is costing us and your proof is based on faulty science. I HAVE to take the denial proof because the science I read says, "You can't prove your results with a cause and here is why." Yet you act like you know exactly what is happening, why it is happening and what we need to do to fix it and you are flat out wrong.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Coign

... Your proof is costing us money and creating legislation to control our access to energy. My "denial" is to free us from an over powering government trying to control our life.

The money you keep referencing, $50 billion over 20 years or an average of $2.5 billion/year, amounts to less than one half of one percent of the budget annually. And not just for climate research but also for clean energy research, subsidies for regulatory compliance, etc.

I would also suggest that regulating offshore drilling or drilling in environmentally sensitive areas or regulating emissions is hardly controlling your life and has a positive economic impact, as does investing in clean energy technology.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

OK, let's flip your constant argument against you.

So you were lying all along. To avoid being labeled a liar, you want to flip the argument. You will post anything to avoid reality: you never read nor understood any of 117 papers that you recommended. You recommended 117 papers because extremist political types tell you how to think. How curious. Hitler also needed people just like that to gain power.

So easy, if you were posting honestly. Post numbers that prove no global warming. You cannot? You were lying? Your 117 papers do not say what you posted? Then why were you insulting everyone while wasting bandwidth?

An honest Coign easily posted numbers from ten papers ... if those papers prove that global warming does not exist. If you made a recommendation without reading them, then you lied. Are you despicable? Avoiding the label is easy. Just post numbers from ten papers that prove your claims?

It is called integrity. Only an honest Coign would immediately quote numbers from ten of those 117 papers that prove global warming does not exist. Because an honest Coign worries about his integrity. Liars never do.

Will Coign insult everyone in the Cellar by avoiding a simple challenge? You read and understood 117 papers before you recommended them – as any honest person would do. So an ethical Coign easily posts numbers from ten papers. An extremist Coign cannot. Will post argumentatively to avoid the challenge. Are you a liar? Or do you post numbers from ten papers. Time to find out who you really are. Honest or ‘brainwashed by soundbytes’? Which is you?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Coign

OK, let's flip your constant argument against you.

Where is your proof?

Show me your argument and I will show you the paper that says it's wrong.
I HAVE to take the denial proof because the science I read says, "You can't prove your results with a cause and here is why." Yet you act like you know exactly what is happening, why it is happening and what we need to do to fix it and you are flat out wrong.

Originally Posted by tw

So you were lying all along. To avoid being labeled a liar, you want to flip the argument.

Just prove global warming tommy, and all should be fine. Whats the problem?
No need to insult the poor chap just because he disagrees with you. I thought you reserved that treatment just for me.
Now I feel slighted.

[Spexxvet]

Here we go again.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

So you were lying all along. To avoid being labeled a liar, you want to flip the argument. You will post anything to avoid reality: you never read nor understood any of 117 papers that you recommended. You recommended 117 papers because extremist political types tell you how to think. How curious. Hitler also needed people just like that to gain power.

So easy, if you were posting honestly. Post numbers that prove no global warming. You cannot? You were lying? Your 117 papers do not say what you posted? Then why were you insulting everyone while wasting bandwidth?

An honest Coign easily posted numbers from ten papers ... if those papers prove that global warming does not exist. If you made a recommendation without reading them, then you lied. Are you despicable? Avoiding the label is easy. Just post numbers from ten papers that prove your claims?

It is called integrity. Only an honest Coign would immediately quote numbers from ten of those 117 papers that prove global warming does not exist. Because an honest Coign worries about his integrity. Liars never do.

Will Coign insult everyone in the Cellar by avoiding a simple challenge? You read and understood 117 papers before you recommended them – as any honest person would do. So an ethical Coign easily posts numbers from ten papers. An extremist Coign cannot. Will post argumentatively to avoid the challenge. Are you a liar? Or do you post numbers from ten papers. Time to find out who you really are. Honest or ‘brainwashed by soundbytes’? Which is you?

Where are YOUR numbers? Where is YOUR proof?

Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

Does that work? Is that how I win an argument with you? That is certainly how you are trying to convince me otherwise.

I post 900 papers, quote numbers from 3 of them, give links to a large amount of website summarizing them so you DON'T have to read through all 900 pages and yet you keep repeating over and over, "show me the numbers or you are just lying."

I gave you NINE HUNDRED PAGES of numbers. Where are your numbers?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

Where are YOUR numbers? Where is YOUR proof?
Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

Why are you repeating extremist rants complete with juvenile chants? You told everyone in the Cellar that 117 papers prove global warming does not exist. Nobody else made those claims. Only you claimed those 117 paper prove global warming does not exist.

An honest Coign would easily cite numbers from ten of those 117 papers. Apparently Coign did not read or understand any of those papers. So again Coign using infantile behavior to avoid what is obvious. The obvious: Coign was lying to everyone in the Cellar.

Of course, Coign could repair his integrity. He could post numbers from ten papers that prove global warming does not exist. If Coign really was honest, he would have done that. After all, an honest Coign would have read all 117 papers before recommending them. Only brainwash disciples would boorishly recite political rhetoric. Coign could easily quote numbers from ten papers ... if Coign was being honest. Much harder is to post those numbers when 117 papers were not read and do not say what he claims.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

Why are you repeating extremist rants complete with juvenile chants? You told everyone in the Cellar that 117 papers prove global warming does not exist. Nobody else made those claims. Only you claimed those 117 paper prove global warming does not exist.

An honest Coign would easily cite numbers from ten of those 117 papers. Apparently Coign did not read or understand any of those papers. So again Coign using infantile behavior to avoid what is obvious. The obvious: Coign was lying to everyone in the Cellar.

Of course, Coign could repair his integrity. He could post numbers from ten papers that prove global warming does not exist. If Coign really was honest, he would have done that. After all, an honest Coign would have read all 117 papers before recommending them. Only brainwash disciples would boorishly recite political rhetoric. Coign could easily quote numbers from ten papers ... if Coign was being honest. Much harder is to post those numbers when 117 papers were not read and do not say what he claims.

This is my last post in this thread because you win. Your constant droning of inane nonsense has overcome my ability to try to post arguments, numbers, proof, and logical disagreements to your parroting of the same argument of, "you're lying" without ever doing your own independent research, looking at the material I try to shove under your nose, or actually posting anything of substance other than repeating that I am lying with all my figures, research and facts against your argument.

I honestly fear for this country and I can only hope that you are a) not an American or b) to lazy to get off the couch to vote.

Once again I leave you with two sites I really hope you open and just read through the "soundbites" and summaries and try to understand that bullshit you were fed by Al Gore was a money making scheme.

http://climategate.tv/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

On that note, I go back to my lying extremist thinking friends trying to fight to return our country back to a law-abiding-republic instead of the social-democracy that F&B and TW are trying so hard to create. I honestly wish you would just move to the EU where you would find like-minded people and leave us rebels on this side of the ocean alone.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Coign

I post 900 papers, quote numbers from 3 of them, give links to a large amount of website summarizing them so you DON'T have to read through all 900 pages and yet you keep repeating over and over, "show me the numbers or you are just lying."

Another perspective on those 900 papers:

...a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organizations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-linked contributors.

Once you crunch the numbers, however, you find a good proportion of this new list is made up of a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry.

Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil

***

However, our analysis also shows that many of the papers do not focus on human-induced climate change - and so have little relevance to the theme of the list.

Furthermore, some of the authors featured on the list surprised us, so we contacted a selection to see whether they supported this interpretation of their work - the responses confirmed their work is being misappropriated by inclusion in lists such as this.

“Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.”

Much like Climategate which turned out to be all hot air and no substance.

And much like the Global Warming Petition Project of several years ago which claimed to have 500 scientists signing their petition denying global warming, but many didnt even know their name was on the list and others were just outright bogus.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I would also suggest that regulating offshore drilling or drilling in environmentally sensitive areas or regulating emissions is hardly controlling your life and has a positive economic impact, as does investing in clean energy technology.

Well you are right about that! Look at how well the millions invested in clean energy technology has benefited the Pacific Northwest!

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...-energy-sector

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well you are right about that! Look at how well the millions invested in clean energy technology has benefited the Pacific Northwest!

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...-energy-sector

Right.

Lets fall further behind China and now Germany in investing in clean energy technology.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...clean-energy/1

Very forwarding thinking if we want to remain competitive in a global economy.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Right.

Lets fall further behind China and now Germany in investing in clean energy technology.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...clean-energy/1

Very forwarding thinking if we want to remain competitive in a global economy.

Well my example proves how flawed the thinking is in the current market. And the calls to just pour money into clean energy for the sake of not "fall(ing) further behind China and now Germany" is typical of this administrations approach to most issues. And the unemployment rate remains at 9%. Maybe they can create some "Shovel Ready Jobs" in clean energy.