Quote from: OlJarhead on February 16, 2010, 11:20:33 AM

Quote from: muldoon on February 16, 2010, 09:32:19 AM

Raindog, I do agree it is politicized, and will not be corrected now that it is in the state it is in. 

Lastly - you also prove your own point.  You are just as non-interested in hearing the arguments against as others are non-interested in hearing the arguments for. 

Exactly my point actually.

English is your first language, right? Are my communication skills really so poor? This is becoming surreal!

I've caught myself suspecting you of deliberately and willfully pretending to obfuscate and misunderstand my every word simply to frustrate me, but realistically there's likely some more mundane element at work in your spectacular failure to comprehend my words, which I would be loathe to speculate about and exploit publicly. So I won't.

Make you a deal. You can believe that you've utterly decimated my position of AGW advocacy with your links from foxnews.com and American Thinker magazine, and in turn you will not force me to repeat EVER AGAIN that I am not, in any shape or form, nor have I ever been, an AGW advocate.

Mmmkay?

So after all this we have concluded that Global Warming Climate Change is a political issue and the science may or may not be valid depending on who you listen to. This would seem to cast some doubt on the whole issue. If there is any doubt then forcing the entire world to radicaly change their lifestyles seems a tad reckless and self serving.

Quote from: RainDog on February 16, 2010, 12:51:38 PM... and in turn you will not force me to repeat EVER AGAIN that I am not, in any shape or form, nor have I ever been, an AGW advocate.

Mmmkay?

Agreed

Quote from: ScottA on February 16, 2010, 01:33:52 PM
So after all this we have concluded that Global Warming Climate Change is a political issue and the science may or may not be valid depending on who you listen to. This would seem to cast some doubt on the whole issue. If there is any doubt then forcing the entire world to radicaly change their lifestyles seems a tad reckless and self serving.

Absolutely - yes!

Quote from: ScottA on February 16, 2010, 01:33:52 PM
So after all this we have concluded that Global Warming Climate Change is a political issue and the science may or may not be valid depending on who you listen to. This would seem to cast some doubt on the whole issue. If there is any doubt then forcing the entire world to radicaly change their lifestyles seems a tad reckless and self serving.

1. There is no debate that climate change is occurring.
2. The debate centers around the influence that humans have upon climate change, namely speeding it up, particularly the warming part.
3. There is strong supporting evidence that humans are drastically influencing the environment, yes there are alternative theories. None of the alternative theories has risen to the top, politics aside, most climate scientists are in agreement and scientists like to disagree.
4. If you do nothing and you are wrong, the odds are good that the "lifestyle changes" inflicted by the climate globally will be much greater than any that we could impose upon ourselves in an attempt to be preemptive.

I'm guessing most people would be okay being preemptive against something that could displace millions and impact crop growth, etc.. Similarly I'm guessing most people's big beef is with the methods proposed for being preemptive, not with climate change itself. Which is where politics come into play, if you don't like the proposals then come up with something better.

Quote from: wendigo on February 16, 2010, 02:09:12 PM

Quote from: ScottA on February 16, 2010, 01:33:52 PM
So after all this we have concluded that Global Warming Climate Change is a political issue and the science may or may not be valid depending on who you listen to. This would seem to cast some doubt on the whole issue. If there is any doubt then forcing the entire world to radicaly change their lifestyles seems a tad reckless and self serving.

1. There is no debate that climate change is occurring.
2. The debate centers around the influence that humans have upon climate change, namely speeding it up, particularly the warming part.
3. There is strong supporting evidence that humans are drastically influencing the environment, yes there are alternative theories. None of the alternative theories has risen to the top, politics aside, most climate scientists are in agreement and scientists like to disagree.
4. If you do nothing and you are wrong, the odds are good that the "lifestyle changes" inflicted by the climate globally will be much greater than any that we could impose upon ourselves in an attempt to be preemptive.

I'm guessing most people would be okay being preemptive against something that could displace millions and impact crop growth, etc.. Similarly I'm guessing most people's big beef is with the methods proposed for being preemptive, not with climate change itself. Which is where politics come into play, if you don't like the proposals then come up with something better.

Ahhh haven't we gone through this already?

Quote1. There is no debate that climate change is occurring.

Of course not -- it's been doing it since the dawn of time and who are we to argue that it does not and/or will not continue to do so?  Of course there is climate change.  Saying there is no debate about it is like saying there is air and there no debate about that either?  Of course there is air -- we are alive right?

Winter changes to Summer -- that's climate change.  Noon is warmer then midnight most days -- that's climate change too if you want to get specific....climate is a funny word.

Quote2. The debate centers around the influence that humans have upon climate change, namely speeding it up, particularly the warming part.

Not exactly, the debate centers around whether or not we've experienced any warming at all since 1998 (or 2001 depending on who you are).  The debate also centers around other issues such as whether or not to use the term 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change' that change was made when the very question of warming was significantly challenged.

There is a debate as to the effects of solar activity (like it or not there is this debate) there is even a debate on whether or not the term 'green house gasses' is legitimate or not (since it seems it actually isn't) and of course there is a debate as to whether or not water vapor isn't several times more of an issue then CO2....oh there are so many debates.

The POLITICAL debate, now that is a totally different thing isn't it?  The question there is "throw out the constitution in the USA and force compliance with agreements, treaties or ideas that may or may not be legitimate on the bases that the sky might be falling (ok that's my own version of it but close enough I assure you).

You have on one hand those who support a more 'Marxist view of controlling people' and on the other hand pretty much the rest of us.

So no, the political debate is not about Global Warming or Cooling or Stagnating at all.

Quote3. There is strong supporting evidence that humans are drastically influencing the environment, yes there are alternative theories. None of the alternative theories has risen to the top, politics aside, most climate scientists are in agreement and scientists like to disagree.

Would this be the evidence that Phil Jones talked about changing in order to get it to be more along the lines with what they wanted it to be by injecting false numbers?  Or the evidence gathered from weather stations near smoke stacks?  Or perhaps the faulty satellite images?

I'm sorry, but the evidence is not as you state at all -- that's politics talking not reality.

Quote4. If you do nothing and you are wrong, the odds are good that the "lifestyle changes" inflicted by the climate globally will be much greater than any that we could impose upon ourselves in an attempt to be preemptive.

Says who?  Al Gore?  Sorry but Al is motivated by money and not saving anyones rear end.  Don't beleive what you hear from politically motivated folks.

It is a fact, actually, that man does much better in a warmer world, so your statement is faulty on that basis alone, but beyond that it's also silly to think that we can start to change the climate ourselves for the better or worse without first knowing how to correctly read it.

Now, to be fair, I agree that we should work towards solving the pollution problem but lets do it for the right reasons ok?  And within the bounds of our Constitution and not some new Global initiative.  We have a country that is not ruled by men but by law and the law of this country is the Constitution.  So, before we hack that up in the name of some holy grail we think we might find, let's stick to it instead and start to adress real problems -- like say banning birth control pills.

Wow!  Didn't see that coming I'm sure eh?  What?  You don't know that it's birth control pills that pollute the rivers and kill the fish?  Perhaps a little more reading is in order.

The point is that we really know far less then we are willing to admit as a society much less as individuals.  We assume that since someone opposes the AGW agenda they must be a 'dittohead' or Glenn Beck 912'er or one of those evil Tea Party people!  But in reality it just might be that they have valid concerns and questions that are not yet adequately answered and that they are tired of the whole 'climate gate' which has become nothing short of a farce.

heck, we've had it really. 

Quote from: wendigo on February 16, 2010, 02:09:12 PM

1. There is no debate that climate change is occurring.
2. The debate centers around the influence that humans have upon climate change, namely speeding it up, particularly the warming part.
3. There is strong supporting evidence that humans are drastically influencing the environment, yes there are alternative theories. None of the alternative theories has risen to the top, politics aside, most climate scientists are in agreement and scientists like to disagree.
4. If you do nothing and you are wrong, the odds are good that the "lifestyle changes" inflicted by the climate globally will be much greater than any that we could impose upon ourselves in an attempt to be preemptive.

I'm guessing most people would be okay being preemptive against something that could displace millions and impact crop growth, etc.. Similarly I'm guessing most people's big beef is with the methods proposed for being preemptive, not with climate change itself. Which is where politics come into play, if you don't like the proposals then come up with something better.

Geez, I owe you a debt of gratitude, Wendigo.

Bullet Points or Numbered Lists of key ideas in short phrases are so easy to read that it's virtually impossible for anyone but the most severely reading-challenged or willfully inattentive to pick up on at least your basic premise.

I further note that when you fell back into standard prose that the propositions contained within were ignored completely and were not addressed, which supplements my conclusion.

I'll try to keep that in mind in the future. Thanks again.

Quote from: OlJarhead on February 16, 2010, 03:27:27 PM
heck, we've had it really. 

It doesn't appear to me that you have raised any argument other than "but there are dissenters, I hate AL Gore, personal freedoms, let's change the topic, etc."

None of which does a single thing to discredit the hypothesis that global climate change is currently being substantially impacted by man, in a manner that may have significant consequences for (wo)man.

I could pick apart your responses, and give you first hand evidence of rapid climate change (20-30 years) in the Arctic, but I get the sense you wouldn't want to hear it. I would encourage you to inform yourself of the topic, though avoid if at all possible any website, or opinion piece, go straight to the journals as much of what you mention can be or is accounted for. Mostly I would advise you to look into ocean temperatures, though I am biased as a fish biologist, as they hold far more energy than is reflected by air temperatures, and the implications of the oceans warming is a bit alarming, imho.

Quote from: wendigo on February 16, 2010, 04:41:03 PM

Quote from: OlJarhead on February 16, 2010, 03:27:27 PM
heck, we've had it really. 

It doesn't appear to me that you have raised any argument other than "but there are dissenters, I hate AL Gore, personal freedoms, let's change the topic, etc."

None of which does a single thing to discredit the hypothesis that global climate change is currently being substantially impacted by man, in a manner that may have significant consequences for (wo)man.

I could pick apart your responses, and give you first hand evidence of rapid climate change (20-30 years) in the Arctic, but I get the sense you wouldn't want to hear it. I would encourage you to inform yourself of the topic, though avoid if at all possible any website, or opinion piece, go straight to the journals as much of what you mention can be or is accounted for. Mostly I would advise you to look into ocean temperatures, though I am biased as a fish biologist, as they hold far more energy than is reflected by air temperatures, and the implications of the oceans warming is a bit alarming, imho.

Ocean temperatures don't say one way or another who or what caused the warming they experienced.

In fact, recently a study was done based on the last two hundred years which showed warming -- of course it did, as stated before any study that looks at only one span of time and discounts previous periods can be done to prove one point or another.  Now, looking at levels going back 700 years might show a different picture but as I beleive Phil Jones points out we don't really have good data beyond 1979 -- so um, 20-30 years only shows that period.

I'm not disputing, for the record, that we have experienced warming (or cooling) that would be silly.  Of course we have on both counts.  I'm only disputing the cause which has clearly not been definitively established.

This could be argued until doomsday with no solution. The bottom line is until the climate change gurus are willing to publish the entire study including the raw data so it can be checked by anyone their argument is no better than mine. I'm sorry but, belive it because they say so isn't going to cut it. If this topic is so critical why can't I personaly see the data or atleast a resonable cross section? All they show is charts and graphs, several of which are being challenged by other researchers. Publish everything. Give it time to be examined. Then I'll belive it.

Do you want surface or upper air databases?
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/metobsdata_databases.htm

How about a collection of raw and processed data?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

You know this stuff isn't kept in a locked vault right?


Looking forward to seeing the results of your validated models!

Quote from: wendigo on February 16, 2010, 06:16:04 PM
Do you want surface or upper air databases?
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/metobsdata_databases.htm

How about a collection of raw and processed data?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

You know this stuff isn't kept in a locked vault right?


Looking forward to seeing the results of your validated models!

OK let me get this straight becuase I'm somewhat dense I guess:

1.  You actually believe in what the EPA posts and believe that they have no agenda at all right?

2.  You don't see realclimate.org as a biased source right?

That's great. Where's the data for the last 7-10 years? All the surface and upper air databases are 7-10 years or more out of date and only go back to the early 1980's. Hardly enough to get an accurate picture but I'll do my best to find the missing data.  

Realclimate.org has been shown to be well, somewhat biased and isn't exactly a scientific organization without an agenda -- that's my take on it anyway.  But here are some links just to show how easy it is to find something (in mere seconds) which put in doubt what might be found there:

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/08/a-definitive-thumping-of-realclimateorg.html

QuoteThe global warming promoting website RealClimate.org, is under fire yet again from a prominent scientist for presenting incorrect climate information. Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. publicly rebuked the website in a June 30, 2009 article for "erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving." Pielke, the former Colorado State Climatologist and currently a senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, countered Real Climate's claim that warming was "progressing faster than expected" with the latest data on sea level rise, ocean heat content and Arctic ice.

http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs

QuoteRealclimate.org continues with its same line of attack. Wishfulclimate.org writers try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.

As for the EPA, that's like quoting the Federal Government -- oh wait that is EXACTLY what it is.  Never mind.

QuoteRealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

Quoting realclimate.org isn't helpful.

ISHD Data is through 2003.
You asked for links to RAW data, I provided them.
Not liking the source for data does not invalidate the data.
Show me the RAW data that supports the argument against climate change, and I will adjust my views accordingly. Actually show me processed data, because I know for certain that I do not have the background to interpret the raw data. Do you?
Or is supporting the opinion of people with similar political viewpoints more important than examining the data for its own merits?

From what I can see it was about 4/10 of a degree Farenheit warmer in 2004 than it was in 1954. Temperature readings before that are suspect at best. What times of day where the readings taken? Where they taken at the same times every day? The temperature in a single day can vary by 80 degrees or more. It's hardly enough to be called an emergency. But I'll look into a bit more. Here's the thing that gets me though. It was as warm or warmer in medieval times as it is today. Did they produce alot of CO2 back then too? How do we know for sure how warm it was to within +/- .1 degree? This could take a while to sort out.

Showing a source that shows an argument against Climate Change is like trying to show a source which refutes water freezing at 32 degrees Fahrenheit -- of course there is climate change.

A source that refutes MAN MADE Global Warming on the other hand is certainly doable.  If of course you are willing to consider it.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
This article specifically sites research done previously which shows a cooling trend.  This graph:
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg
reportedly shows data gathered from

QuoteAll four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS)

So assuming you believe those sources then the question has to be asked:  if man is causing the warming we experienced up to 1998 then how is it possible we cooled since then?

Now this article suggests cooling also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

Another interesting read is this:  http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:vanishing-sunspots-prelude-to-global-cooling&catid=1:latest

I guess the point is that it isn't that simple and there is science out there that puts everything into question if you are willing to consider it.

wendigo, great additions to this post, thanks and I hope you keep contributing.  This is not a contest and I hope you dont see it that way.  All of us in our own way are trying to understand and learn, although we all bring our own biases to the table. 

That being said, I think the topic of un-trustable data has been discussed to death above. 

I have another question, and to some extent I am taking this thread in a new direction.  Yet something that I never understood at a scientific level and would love to hear a response from others in the know. 

The notion that as artic sea ice bergs melt, the seas will rise.
As I understand it, 99% of iceburgs are underwater.  As I understand it, water in a frozen state is more dense than water in a liquid state. 

To use a poor analogy, when my bourbon, ice and water melts I have a level of liquid that is lower than when the ice is solid.  When I worry about pipe freezing it is because ice is more dense and takes up more space (thus breaking pipes) than as a liquid. 

If these ice chunks are melting, shouldn't the sea levels actually rescind and not rise?  This is a serious question, something  I have never been able to put my knowledge of the mechanics and practical experience into seeing the GW statement. 

If the ice is reduced in density by melting, would melting icecaps actually reduce the water displacement and lead to lower sea levels?  I honestly do not understand that concern, it just does not fit my understanding.   I would welcome any help on this. 

I read somewhere that the rise of warming ocean water may be more due to the expansion of water as it warms, than to any ice that may melt; that cold water occupies less space than warm.   I don't know how true that is, I never took time to research it. I almost hate to write it down in case it is wrong and someone reads it and takes it as gospel truth. 

 Muldoon is correct in that if only sea ice, such as icebergs, melt, there would not be much of a change in sea levels. However, ice sheets and glaciers, which constitute the greatest reservoir of fresh water on Earth, sit on land surface. As global temperatures increase, they will begin to melt and flow into rivers and the sea, raising the level.

MountainDon refers to thermal expansion. In the same way that air expands when it is warm, warm water expands and takes up more space than cold water. Even if land ice didn't melt at all the sea levels will still rise, because as the seas warm, the water will expand.

Please keep scale in mind. The tiniest and most inconsequential rise in a vessel the size of a glass of water (or bourbon if you're in the mood) would represent, in a volume as large as the Earth's oceans, a comparatively massive swell.

Quote from: muldoon on February 16, 2010, 11:20:42 PM
This is not a contest and I hope you dont see it that way.

I know you are addressing wendigo, but please understand that it can't help but rankle a bit when one realizes that he's spent his personal time and energy typing out reasoned responses and sourcing data, only to have the person he's been addressing explicitly state that the gold standard of evidence, peer-reviewed scholarly work and research, not only from climatologists, but from scientists of all the periphery fields, geology, astrophysics, etc, has no more scientific credibility than a two paragraph op/ed blurb on some conservative political blog. When the same tired memes are repeated over and over in spite of all evidential proofs provided against them. When it becomes obvious that no consideration whatsoever is being made to one's arguments, or when it's apparent that they weren't even read at all.

"That don't mean nothin!" may go quite a way toward convincing cronies at the corner bar, but in the realm of reasoned debate it is virtually worthless.

When it becomes glaringly evident that you're dealing with simple obstinance and willful ignorance of an issue, there's nothing left to say. One must throw up his hands, laugh, and walk away from the discussion, but of course at the same time it's a little irritating on a personal level to realize you've flushed your time and energy down the toilet.

It doesn't help much when, as you resign in dismay, there's the sense that the antagonist is poking out his chest in triumph, in contempt of all logic.

It's not surprising at all if a little bit of that exasperation bleeds out onto the thread, in spite of best intentions.

When faced with cognitive dissonance, when our long held belief systems fail to stand up to evidence, there's always a tendency to cover our ears and deny. We've all done it at one time or another. Nevertheless, that doesn't make it any less tiresome and vexing for those attempting to shed light on an issue to face.

Quote from: RainDog on February 17, 2010, 08:03:00 AM
Muldoon is correct in that if only sea ice, such as icebergs, melt, there would not be much of a change in sea levels. However, ice sheets and glaciers, which constitute the greatest reservoir of fresh water on Earth, sit on land surface. As global temperatures increase, they will begin to melt and flow into rivers and the sea, raising the level.

MountainDon refers to thermal expansion. In the same way that air expands when it is warm, warm water expands and takes up more space than cold water. Even if land ice didn't melt at all the sea levels will still rise, because as the seas warm, the water will expand.

Please keep scale in mind. The tiniest and most inconsequential rise in a vessel the size of a glass of water (or bourbon if you're in the mood) would represent, in a volume as large as the Earth's oceans, a comparatively massive swell.

Quote from: muldoon on February 16, 2010, 11:20:42 PM
This is not a contest and I hope you dont see it that way.

I know you are addressing wendigo, but please understand that it can't help but rankle a bit when one realizes that he's spent his personal time and energy typing out reasoned responses and sourcing data, only to have the person he's been addressing explicitly state that the gold standard of evidence, peer-reviewed scholarly work and research, not only from climatologists, but from scientists of all the periphery fields, geology, astrophysics, etc, has no more scientific credibility than a two paragraph op/ed blurb on some conservative political blog. When the same tired memes are repeated over and over in spite of all evidential proofs provided against them. When it becomes obvious that no consideration whatsoever is being made to one's arguments, or when it's apparent that they weren't even read at all.

"That don't mean nothin!" may go quite a way toward convincing cronies at the corner bar, but in the realm of reasoned debate it is virtually worthless.

When it becomes glaringly evident that you're dealing with simple obstinance and willful ignorance of an issue, there's nothing left to say. One must throw up his hands, laugh, and walk away from the discussion, but of course at the same time it's a little irritating on a personal level to realize you've flushed your time and energy down the toilet.

It doesn't help much when, as you resign in dismay, there's the sense that the antagonist is poking out his chest in triumph, in contempt of all logic.

It's not surprising at all if a little bit of that exasperation bleeds out onto the thread, in spite of best intentions.

When faced with cognitive dissonance, when our long held belief systems fail to stand up to evidence, there's always a tendency to cover our ears and deny. We've all done it at one time or another. Nevertheless, that doesn't make it any less tiresome and vexing for those attempting to shed light on an issue to face.

Gee thanks -- since we all know you were addressing me (or at least addressing the responses I had to yours) you might as well call a spade a spade.

What's funny, however, is that this seems like a case of bruised 'self importance'.  I'm sorry Raindog, because you're a helpful individual here on CountryPlans but this is pure blustering.

The reason I don't give any more credence to one reference or another is that it's become clear the so called 'peer reviewed' articles are simply not.  In fact, there is plenty of evidence out there to prove the total lack of peer reviews in the AGW community.

Furthermore, the in the vein of 'if the shoe fits wear it' I contend that there is valid evidence that proves a current cooling trend which in and of itself demonstrates a total lack of understanding on the part of the AGW crowd.  How can they, for example, claim CO2 levels are directly impacting global temperatures and forcing them to rise (green house effect) when at the same time temperatures are dropping?  It's ludicrous.

Of course, it's easy to see that if a person is in the AGW camp and has something at stake there (millions of dollars in funding perhaps) then they must work to either prove themselves wrong (not going to happen) or find ways to muddy the water so to speak.  Muddying the water seems to be the course of the day.

So, to recap, if CO2 is creating a green house effect which is warming the earth then it isn't possible that while continuing to spew forth massive doses of CO2 the earth could cool significantly.  It has.  The climate models have been proven to be broken, the hockey stick graph has been debunked, the polar ice caps are not shrinking etc etc etc

So at what point do we begin to accept that maybe, just maybe, all those scientists had some other agenda in mind?  The flat earthers were in fact the establishment – these scientists are the establishment.  See a pattern?

Lastly, in the 70's these same 'the sky is falling' folks were screaming 'Ice Age Ice Age'...seems to me we should not commit massive resources, hurt our economy (any worse than it is) and completely destroy our constitution based on some have brained testimony by Al Gore and his neophytes.

And yes, I know, you will come back with "where's your proof" which only proves my point that much more.  After all, anyone really interested in a discussion rather than some one sided blathering contest would acknowledge that:

A:  The AGW side is asking to change the world – I'm not – so that's the side that needs to look at ALL data presented and consider its source and validity.
B:  The AGW side is running around yelling "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" so it stands to reason that they must address each and every concern with honor and dignity not name calling and belittling tactics.

And of course, it doesn't matter if you are an AGW supporter or not.  You're rather energetic defense of their position in this discussion puts you in position A and B.

I've posted some links to some articles demonstrating something not acknowledged by the AGW side but certainly from credible sources – seems to be the honorable thing for you to do would be to read them and consider them – rather than blather on about how rude I am.

OlJarhead,

Man, if you really want to know the answers to questions, you're gonna have to do some legwork yourself. I'm plumb worn out with your "'peer reviewed' articles are simply not" silliness.

There's credible research, scientific consensus, empirical evidence all available freely on the web for your perusal. I suggest you take the time to check it all out, instead of having it provided on a silver platter to you only to say it doesn't count. Every planet in the solar system is not warming, solar cycles do not cause global warming, global temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were not higher than today, the planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998... you're just gonna have to look it up, whether or not it flies in the face of what you just heard on TV or read in your favorite gossip rag.

Fox News is easier, though, I know.

My bet is that tomorrow or the day after, when one of your "pretty smart" friends brings up the subject, you'll be repeating the same dis-proven memes you were yesterday and the day before.

Speaking to your "bruised ego" scenario, your obstinacy doesn't affect my self-esteem in the least. I was simply explaining to muldoon, who doesn't strike me as being woefully demagogic, of why someone might be a little ticked at having scientific research considered highly credible by any measure, as well as their own time and energy, tossed aside without any due consideration.

I'm done with you as far as this particular topic goes. It's a complete waste of time. You've had your preconceived conclusions handed to you by the climate denial industry, it's mouthpieces, and dupes, and have exhibited no real interest in honest discussion or evidence.

RainDog,

What's a meme? I Know I can look it up, but it's probably quicker to have you answer it for me. I'm being facetious, but I'm trying to lighten the mood a bit. If I've failed, forgive me, the attempt was made in kindness and not meant to offend. Having said all that, I really don't know what "meme" means. Sad, isn't it?


By the way, I see your point of view.

 Dammit, PC!  

It's an idea that passes from person to person, replicating all the while. Y'know, much as a virus does?