Changing opinion on Global Warming

[Bugeye]

Are they peer reviewed or are they just opinion pieces by biased political talking heads with absolutely no formal scientific training?

Seems to me you wasted 400 hours breh.

ha ha ha, it wasn't my 400 hours! If you read the article before spamming up the thread you would know that the author (a self proclaimed Democrat environmentalist) spent 400 hours researching this and changed his opinion from alarmist (high end of the range) to skeptical (low end of the range). The author links to more than 1000 peer reviewed articles that do not support the alarmist position.

Please continue spamming, it is funny.

 

[see4]

That's a good question. I guess it would have to occur at the grass roots level with everyone doing more to conserve and being willing to pay a bit more for products that are more energy efficient.

That's not a solution, that is a behavior. "Willing" is not "doing".

 

[Bugeye]

That's not a solution, that is a behavior. "Willing" is not "doing".

I agree, but as close to a solution as I could come under the thought exercise of a purely free market solution.

 

[see4]

Is it important to you to paint your responder as angry? Climate change exists in that article. You should read it. How many of the points do you take the conservative view?<-rhetorical

What do you think about the hockey stick fraud?

More points to ponder...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/30/twelve-reasons-paris-climate-talks-total-waste/

LOL breitbart. You used breitbart as a point of factual reference. Now THAT is some funny shit right there.

I know exactly where you stand on the "intelligent discussion" scale.

 

[see4]

I agree, but as close to a solution as I could come under the thought exercise of a purely free market solution.

Well that's the problem isn't it? Everyone tosses around the term "free market", but when posed a direct question, about how a "free market" can solve a problem, and provide an example, nobody really can.

The idea that we [humans] can come together [virtually overnight] and solve a massive globally scaled problem by will and determination [and free markets] is disingenuous, dishonest and dangerous. There are far more people who would rather take advantage than there are who genuinely want to help.

 

[abandonconflict]

changed his opinion from alarmist (high end of the range) to skeptical (low end of the range)..

All science is skeptical. Skepticism is a key facet of science. You would know that if you were reading and citing peer reviewed articles to start threads instead of opinion pieces by biased political talking heads with no formal scientific training.

 

[Bugeye]

Well that's the problem isn't it? Everyone tosses around the term "free market", but when posed a direct question, about how a "free market" can solve a problem, and provide an example, nobody really can.

The idea that we [humans] can come together [virtually overnight] and solve a massive globally scaled problem by will and determination [and free markets] is disingenuous, dishonest and dangerous. There are far more people who would rather take advantage than there are who genuinely want to help.

Sounds about right. "Free market" is a theoretical term is it not? I'm not aware of any real world examples, at least not of scale. I think a certain level of law and regulation makes a market stable and is beneficial.

 

[abandonconflict]

Capitalism is not possible in the absence of gov't.

 

[Bugeye]

All science is skeptical. Skepticism is a key facet of science. You would know that if you were reading and citing peer reviewed articles to start threads instead of opinion pieces by biased political talking heads with no formal scientific training.

Do you feel like you add a lot to discussions of articles you haven't read? Obviously I'm not going to force anyone to read anything, just seems sort of comical that you would post so much of so little consequence in a thread about an article you haven't read.

 

[abandonconflict]

Do you feel like you add a lot to discussions of articles you haven't read? Obviously I'm not going to force anyone to read anything, just seems sort of comical that you would post so much of so little consequence in a thread about an article you haven't read.

Funny you would post an article by a biased political talking head and not a peer reviewed study when starting a thread about a settled science, naming the thread "Changing opinion on Global Warming" and concluding the thread starting post with "Settled Science?". Why so upset?

Protip: if you want to cite a peer reviewed article, I would read it.

 

[VirtualHerd]

It's a religion to some at this point. Holding on to faulty statistics to push a global agenda. No doubt a lot of money at stake though..

 

[abandonconflict]

It's a religion to some at this point. Holding on to faulty statistics to push a global agenda. No doubt a lot of money at stake though..

Were you going to cite a peer reviewed study contradicting Anthropogenic Global Warming?

 

[Bugeye]

Funny you would post an article by a biased political talking head and not a peer reviewed study when starting a thread about a settled science, naming the thread "Changing opinion on Global Warming" and concluding the thread starting post with "Settled Science?". Why so upset?

Protip: if you want to cite a peer reviewed article, I would read it.

Not upset at all. I guess it saves a lot of time to not read the stuff being discussed?

The author did change his opinion and he referenced "settled science" in the title of his piece.

It might help if YOU made it clear that you are commenting on things you have not read.

 

[abandonconflict]

Not upset at all. I guess it saves a lot of time to not read the stuff being discussed?

The author did change his opinion and he referenced "settled science" in the title of his piece.

It might help if YOU made it clear that you are commenting on things you have not read.

You seem so certain I have not read it. Odd for you to pursue such a line of reasoning considering that we're talking about climate science, yet you refuse to cite peer reviewed studies by actual climate scientists.

The fact is, failing to present even the slightest shred of worthwhile evidence in the form of a single peer reviewed study (versus the tens of thousands for) which refutes AGW. Particularly of the "I'm a devout democrat/liberal/vegan/bleedingheartleftist but I'm not convinced" variety. The only thing it proves is the political bias of the author. Science is not political, it is skeptical.

You bitch and moan and cry about free speech and your right to post your garbage opinion on the settled science, but also, paradoxically, bitch and moan and cry about my right to retort to your fallacies.

 

[god1]

Were you going to cite a peer reviewed study contradicting Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Why do you keep yelling for a peer reviewed citation? Are you telling us that you're to damn stupid to figure out the physics for yourself to determine if the claims are even plausible?

I happen to agree with you, you are way too damn stupid.

Continue with your religion. The machine needs people like you.

 

[Bugeye]

You seem so certain I have not read it. Odd for you to pursue such a line of reasoning considering that we're talking about climate science, yet you refuse to cite peer reviewed studies by actual climate scientists.

The fact is, failing to present even the slightest shred of worthwhile evidence in the form of a single peer reviewed study (versus the tens of thousands for) which refutes AGW. Particularly of the "I'm a devout democrat/liberal/vegan/bleedingheartleftist but I'm not convinced" variety. The only thing it proves is the political bias of the author. Science is not political, it is skeptical.

You bitch and moan and cry about free speech and your right to post your garbage opinion on the settled science, but also, paradoxically, bitch and moan and cry about my right to retort to your fallacies.

I'm laughing.

I SUSPECT you did not read it. Unless of course you have terrible reading comprehension skills. Is that the case?

But you are also a known troll that enjoys going in circles so who knows?

I guess one dude's view of "bitching and moaning" is another man's view of "high as fuck from rosin dabs and loving life!"

 

[abandonconflict]

Why do you keep yelling for a peer reviewed citation? Are you telling us that you're to damn stupid to figure out the physics for yourself to determine if the claims are even plausible?

I happen to agree with you, you are way too damn stupid.

Continue with your religion. The machine needs people like you.

Deciphering...
"I hate science, why would I want to cite something scientific in a discussion about science?"

 

[Bugeye]

You seem so certain I have not read it. Odd for you to pursue such a line of reasoning considering that we're talking about climate science, yet you refuse to cite peer reviewed studies by actual climate scientists.

The fact is, failing to present even the slightest shred of worthwhile evidence in the form of a single peer reviewed study (versus the tens of thousands for) which refutes AGW. Particularly of the "I'm a devout democrat/liberal/vegan/bleedingheartleftist but I'm not convinced" variety. The only thing it proves is the political bias of the author. Science is not political, it is skeptical.

You bitch and moan and cry about free speech and your right to post your garbage opinion on the settled science, but also, paradoxically, bitch and moan and cry about my right to retort to your fallacies.

PS - see post 85.

 

[abandonconflict]

troll that enjoys going in circles

Notice how I snipped your comment down to the one part which was not something I have not already addressed and which conveys something I can respond to.

I'm not going in circles, I am staying on point, you posted an opinion piece by a biased political talking head and I have had to repeat this to you many times because you have a habit of using fallacious arguments and moving the goal posts when I shoot your BS down.

Science is not alarmist, reactions are.

 

[Bugeye]

Notice how I snipped your comment down to the one part which was not something I have not already addressed and which conveys something I can respond to.

I'm not going in circles, I am staying on point, you posted an opinion piece by a biased political talking head and I have had to repeat this to you many times because you have a habit of using fallacious arguments and moving the goal posts when I shoot your BS down.

Science is not alarmist, reactions are.

Yes, the author is politically biased! Glad you are starting to see the point. A vegan enviro dem changed his opinion on AGW from that of believing everything to being skeptical of the worst case scenarios after doing 400 hours of research and posting to many many links of peer reviewed science that he relied on. Glad to finally get you straight on that after 6 pages. As such, your call for stuff that invalidates AGW is ridiculous because that position was never argued by anyone. Get it?