The New Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

I don't accept that source, it looks like a blog. What else you got?

Lucky Shot

It's the Weather Channels site about global warming. But, what does the Weather Channel know about climate?

Your sites don't look like blogs, they are blogs.

[Lucky Shot]

Yes it was very funny

But I suggest you read what I said again, so I don't have to flame you back about your poor reading comprehension:

Give me a real source, that last one was a blog. You said blogs were not viable sources or are you operating from two different sets of standards?

Lucky Shot

[Pistos]

We need to work with science and not attack it based on political reasons, forget about the costs, and begin a new modern era of environmentally responsible societies. That is all we can do. If we keep doing nothing and kidding ourselves that these problems don't exist, I have no doubt that the near future for the planet will not include thriving human civilizations.

Your answer seems a little vague to me. Sorry if the question I asked wasn't clear. I'm still curious - if the position you hold is taken as gospel what specifically should happen next?

[GlobalWarmin]

You've defined the answer out of existence. You want a story holding a position that is anathema to anyone with a leftwing slant, but it can't be told by anyone with a rightwing slant, it can't be contained in an editorial, and it can't take any funding from anyone who has a reason to agree with it. It must be reported by a global scientific organization, AND it must attempt to discredit global scientific organizations in their entirety. Disproving the conclusions of global warming alarmists is not sufficient, it must simultaneously disprove every piece of evidence and every model ever associated with global warming.

With THAT list of criteria, is it any wonder you haven't found what you want? Thats about as feasible as the article by the Cookiemonster that Leejo keeps asking you for. You can find plenty of mainstream scientists that agree with projections of anthropogenic global warming, and still don't support the apocalyptic viewpoint that you put forward. Why should they have to be proven wrong before we are allowed to disagree with you personally?

Yes, that's right... every single mainstream media source has a "left wing" slant. Funny how only Neo-Cons think that. It's almost like objective truth and reporting somehow always finds a way to have a left wing agenda. It must be a evidence of a vast socialist conspiracy! According to you then, even Fox News has a leftists agenda because they are partners with Livescience.

I put forth no apocalyptic viewpoint. Change is almost always bad for civilizations, and change is happening now. More changes will happen in the near future. That is all science knows for sure, and that's all I am defending.

Last, I wish you would stop obsessing about what this scientist said or that scientist said. That is irrelevant. Read what the united statements put forth by the largest scientifically-based groups are saying. Read the statements put forth by smaller scientific organizations. Then, try to argue that scientists aren't supporting global warming and it's all media hype and leftist propaganda.

[Kerostasis]

It's the Weather Channels site about global warming. But, what does the Weather Channel know about climate?

Your sites don't look like blogs, they are blogs.

Er...no? Try reading the front page of the site you linked.

If you are looking for the OneDegree that is associated with The Weather Channel [link] please continue reading here anyway as the answers to many crises are right under our noses.

This is just a random blog with a similar name. Nice try though.

[Lucky Shot]

Give me a link, but it can't be to a left wing granola munching policy wonking hippy scientist and then you'll have something. Where's your source?

Lucky Shot

[Kerostasis]

Last, I wish you would stop obsessing about what this scientist said or that scientist said. That is irrelevant. Read what the united statements put forth by the largest scientifically-based groups are saying. Read the statements put forth by smaller scientific organizations. Then, try to argue that scientists aren't supporting global warming and it's all media hype and leftist propaganda.

Right. When you pick your sources carefully enough, you can prove anything you want. Actual facts not wanted here. Who needs facts when you can just swallow the political documents put out by the IPCC without questioning them?

[GlobalWarmin]

Give me a real source, that last one was a blog. You said blogs were not viable sources or are you operating from two different sets of standards?

Lucky Shot

That page wasn't a blog site. There are just blogs on it. I didn't link that for scientific reasons anyways. It was just for fun because the sentence you couldn't read was about the reason they named that site onedegree.com.

Me challenging you to provide this evidence is a joke for me, because I already know it's impossible. Like I've been trying to explain to you, guiding you by dozens of links from all the major science and news sources available on the Internet, that global warming is real, happening right now, and the science is settled enough that the world is taking action.

[Lucky Shot]

That page wasn't a blog site. There are just blogs on it. I didn't link that for scientific reasons anyways. It was just for fun because the sentence you couldn't read was about the reason they named that site onedegree.com.

Me challenging you to provide this evidence is a joke for me, because I already know it's impossible. Like I've been trying to explain to you, guiding you by dozens of links from all the major science and news sources available on the Internet, that global warming is real, happening right now, and the science is settled enough that the world is taking action.

It is a blog and has a link to other blogs at the bottom. So according to your previous standards, it's unacceptable. What else you got?

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

Right. When you pick your sources carefully enough, you can prove anything you want. Actual facts not wanted here. Who needs facts when you can just swallow the political documents put out by the IPCC without questioning them?

You mean like how I am picking from only major news and science sources? Prove that any of the links I have provided get their funding by overt anti-conservative groups, Communists, cults of people who want to destroy the world, or whatever you claim makes them bias.

No one has YET to provide any evidence to strongly support their position that is not a blogger site or simply a comment by a scientist. What is the hold up? Search CNN, MSNBC, PBS, Fox News (even though it's a fake news channel), Livescience, ABC News, NBC News, NY Times, BBC News, or any major news or science source that I didn't think of for "global warming". I've done this dozens of times, but none of you are bothering to read through all that information, and keep acting like I haven't provided it yet. The game is over, but the ball is in your court.

If like you say, one can prove anything they want by handpicking sources, do you think I could prove to you that the Earth is flat? Might your knowledge of science and personal experience make that impossible?

I haven't quoted a single thing from the IPCC. And if you want to claim that the IPCC is some corrupt, Commie group where all the scientists and leaders we drugged to give fake reports and false conclusions, there is no point in trying to talk about science or politics with you. Show me one shred of evidence that the findings of the IPCC are highly questionable and their motives have a high probability of trying to push an anti-GOP agenda for political gain, by ANYONE except transparent right-wing propagandists and bloggers. Good luck, have fun.

You have 3 things to prove or provide evidence for to have a shred of credibility.

[Nikolas]

Dood, there have been a zillion links posted in this thread.

[Kerostasis]

What you ask for has been provided a hundred times over in the last 44 pages of the thread. You refused to even read the first 35 pages, and in the next 10 pages you simply glossed over any evidence contrary to your own position. I guess you figure if you simply claim that your opponents have no evidence loudly enough and often enough, eventually people will think you're telling the truth. Fortunately, our community here is too intelligent to fall for such a simple trick.

[GlobalWarmin]

It is a blog and has a link to other blogs at the bottom. So according to your previous standards, it's unacceptable. What else you got?

Lucky Shot

Move on or declare the Weather Channel to be ignorant about the weather, and to be an unreliable source of information about climate change. That should really strengthen your argument that you are well informed about science and not just an ideologue.

I didn't say anything about that site, just linked it for fun. Focus.

[Lucky Shot]

I am still lacking your proof apart from windbagging. If you don't have proof that is acceptable I can live with that. Convince me.

Lucky Shot

[Kerostasis]

Move on or declare the Weather Channel to be ignorant about the weather, and to be an unreliable source of information about climate change. That should really strengthen your argument that you are well informed about science and not just an ideologue.

I didn't say anything about that site, just linked it for fun. Focus.

Ok, seriously Warming, read your own link! You only said one thing about the site, that it was "run by the weather channel". Well, that one thing happens to be false. We don't have to declare the Weather Channel to be ignorant about the weather, because you didn't actually link the Weather Channel. You linked a random blog that has a similar name.

Clearly you don't spend nearly as much time checking the credibility of your own sources as you do blasting the credibility of ours. So why should we give YOU any credibility on the issue?