Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

It's not true because you say it isn't and put forward no more proof than that. I see.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me. Its on those who claim its true, and want to tax everyone for a carbon footprint. Consensus is not good enough, sorry. It wasn't good enough way back when, and it isn't good enough now. Prove it to the people.

The consensus of the scientific community isn't good enough? What would be good enough? Florida under water?

Move to higher ground.

Thanks for the helpful advice.

buy a boat too

[Joseph & Ana 0]

If we were using the rationale presented in the OP article - second hand smoke would actually be good for kids

One of my favorites: "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do" (Ronald Reagan, 1981).

Its true depending on whose perspective you're coming from. Human? Not true, because we breathe oxygen. Plants? Yes because they absorb CO2. Maybe Ronald was a plant.

[Tahoma 2,298]

So because Oil companies are evil (for some strange reason) - That means Global Warming is true.. I see.

Nobody aside from you made that claim.

Joseph is in deep avoidance-mode.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Since Joe is spelling out the same 'argument' based on crass scientific ignorance- down to the apparently fraudulent, PNAS-knockoff petition signed by '30K scientists', much in the same way GaryC did so months ago- a clear and lucid explanation of the differences between valid scientific procedure, knowledge, and ethically relevant peer-reviewed methodology were provided.

Several OT searches should help clarify, for those in need of clarification as to the differences between weather (what he's whining about) and climate (what he's making ignorant statements about), as well as the science behind the molecular interactions that may or may not be causative in this entire debate.

For those of you sick and tired of the same ignorant crying, that cannot remember those science classes provided here free of charge, now would be a good time to search these threads.

English only outside the regional forums!

[Tahoma 2,298]

No one said Oil companies are evil, but they do have a specific set of interests that they will safeguard for obvious reasons. How hard is that to understand?

Everybody has selfish interests. I don't know why all sides don't understand that, or, perhaps, people really are that niave, especially the true believers.

I doubt whether "everybody" has selfish interests when it comes to global warming. However, it's a good bet that some folks will say anything if the price is right. Fred Singer is a prime example.

[Tahoma 2,298]

No one said Oil companies are evil, but they do have a specific set of interests that they will safeguard for obvious reasons. How hard is that to understand?

It's not difficult to understand at all. In fact, it's easy to understand. It's difficult for Joseph to "understand" only because he was caught with his pants down, and decided to go into avoidance-mode in the hope that he could change the subject and deflect our attention from reality. Fred Singer realizes which side of his bread is buttered, and Joseph knows it.

It's a good thing that this thread is not about second-hand cigarette smoke. Wouldn't Joseph's avoidance-mode sound even funnier when he replied: "so because Tobacco companies are evil (for some strange reason) - That means that second-hand cigarette smoke being bad for your health is true?"

Fred Singer would be proud.

Really a wacko post. It speaks for itself.

Still trying to change the subject I see. You aren't any better at changing the subject than you are at owning your own words.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its a lost cause. Trying to "debate" with Joe is like trying to teach ballet to a caveman.

[Tahoma 2,298]

Since Joe is spelling out the same 'argument' based on crass scientific ignorance- down to the apparently fraudulent, PNAS-knockoff petition signed by '30K scientists', much in the same way GaryC did so months ago- a clear and lucid explanation of the differences between valid scientific procedure, knowledge, and ethically relevant peer-reviewed methodology were provided.

Several OT searches should help clarify, for those in need of clarification as to the differences between weather (what he's whining about) and climate (what he's making ignorant statements about), as well as the science behind the molecular interactions that may or may not be causative in this entire debate.

For those of you sick and tired of the same ignorant crying, that cannot remember those science classes provided here free of charge, now would be a good time to search these threads.

Hi HAL...

I remember the free schooling on the other thread...thanks for your effort. I don't expect you to repeat it here. There will always be some who don't know, and don't want to know, the difference between the weather and the climate. Nor do they care about the distinction between a meteorologist and a climatologist. It would certainly be lost those who follow this pearl of wisdom from Ronald Reagan: "Facts are stupid things."

[HAL 9000 96]

Since Joe is spelling out the same 'argument' based on crass scientific ignorance- down to the apparently fraudulent, PNAS-knockoff petition signed by '30K scientists', much in the same way GaryC did so months ago- a clear and lucid explanation of the differences between valid scientific procedure, knowledge, and ethically relevant peer-reviewed methodology were provided.

Several OT searches should help clarify, for those in need of clarification as to the differences between weather (what he's whining about) and climate (what he's making ignorant statements about), as well as the science behind the molecular interactions that may or may not be causative in this entire debate.

For those of you sick and tired of the same ignorant crying, that cannot remember those science classes provided here free of charge, now would be a good time to search these threads.

Your response to everything is "you don't understand".. You just have a problem with people not accepting the liberal religion of GW without any proof to back it up.

Saying, "you don't understand the molecular reasons" is BS. There hasn't been warming for 11 years, and yet emissions have increased.

Please re-read the post you ignorantly replied to. It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with knowing what it is you're talking about. Which, unsurprisingly, as it pertains to your lack of reasoning, is nothing.

Please search the posts in questions. Not too difficult.

[Tahoma 2,298]

Its a lost cause. Trying to "debate" with Joe is like trying to teach ballet to a caveman.

I didn't know that Joe wanted to learn ballet.

[HAL 9000 96]

Since Joe is spelling out the same 'argument' based on crass scientific ignorance- down to the apparently fraudulent, PNAS-knockoff petition signed by '30K scientists', much in the same way GaryC did so months ago- a clear and lucid explanation of the differences between valid scientific procedure, knowledge, and ethically relevant peer-reviewed methodology were provided.

Several OT searches should help clarify, for those in need of clarification as to the differences between weather (what he's whining about) and climate (what he's making ignorant statements about), as well as the science behind the molecular interactions that may or may not be causative in this entire debate.

For those of you sick and tired of the same ignorant crying, that cannot remember those science classes provided here free of charge, now would be a good time to search these threads.

English only outside the regional forums!

You can't explain everyone to have a basic understanding of science.

Since Joe is spelling out the same 'argument' based on crass scientific ignorance- down to the apparently fraudulent, PNAS-knockoff petition signed by '30K scientists', much in the same way GaryC did so months ago- a clear and lucid explanation of the differences between valid scientific procedure, knowledge, and ethically relevant peer-reviewed methodology were provided.

Several OT searches should help clarify, for those in need of clarification as to the differences between weather (what he's whining about) and climate (what he's making ignorant statements about), as well as the science behind the molecular interactions that may or may not be causative in this entire debate.

For those of you sick and tired of the same ignorant crying, that cannot remember those science classes provided here free of charge, now would be a good time to search these threads.

Hi HAL...

I remember the free schooling on the other thread...thanks for your effort. I don't expect you to repeat it here. There will always be some who don't know, and don't want to know, the difference between the weather and the climate. Nor do they care about the distinction between a meteorologist and a climatologist. It would certainly be lost those who follow this pearl of wisdom from Ronald Reagan: "Facts are stupid things."

Yeah... I won't be repeating that class here.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

HAL's typical responses "go search" because he can't provide any proof himself...

TAHOMA - Not worth responding to. Go back to the CHOPFVCK thread

Good to see my fanbase is increasing... I would respond to all my fans but I just don't want to - I'd end up with a post longer than BY ever dreamed of.

The bottom line is, there has been no warming for the last 11 years. Libs realized this and changed the terminology to "Climate Change" as they frequently do to change the perceptions. "I never said Global Warming!" or "I'm not liberal i'm Progressive!!" or, "Its not government takeover its Reform!" Anytime a term describing liberalism or a liberal sacrament becomes a negative or something people become numb to, they change the terminology to make it sound "new". Unfortunately it has never worked.

Its a lost cause. Trying to "debate" with Joe is like trying to teach ballet to a caveman.

Trying to debate with me is so frustrating because you get creamed every time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The bottom line is that this is one subject that's been done to death - and there is plenty of info in the archives if you're so inclined.

Contrary to what you might think - you haven't advanced anything in the way of an actual argument. Just mindless parroting of news headlines.

[HAL 9000 96]

I guess the whole thing about class already having taken place didn't resonate with that one.

[scandal 951]

Just not in the name of GW, and not with Cap and Tax, which wouldn't help the environment.

You are harping quite a lot on the subject of what you refer to as "Cap and Tax" - which is in fact an economic exchange model called "Cap and Trade".

Your premise is, apparently, that Cap-and-Trade equates to a (hidden) tax, used to pay for the efforts corporations put into reducing their emissions as part of a Cap/Trade system.

I wonder if you are aware that Cap/Trade is already in effect quite extensively in the US on a voluntary basis, and has been for years?

Did you know that emission credits (and future contracts on those credits) are actively traded on the Chicago Climate Exchange?

Member firms participate on a strictly voluntary basis at this point, since there is no US legislation requiring participation as exists in Europe.

Nonetheless, any firms which join are required to reduce their emissions by specific target amounts, or else purchase offsets to counter their excess emissions.

Moreover, since the system is voluntary it means that within a given industry some firms may participate while others don't. You would think that puts participants at

an unfair disadvantage since they're incurring costs their competitors don't. Nonetheless, quite a 'who's who' collection of US firms are CCE members and participating in cap/trade. They can't be passing on costs to you and me as consumers, since that would price them out of their competitive marketplace.

So what gives?

-Some of them are little symbolic companies, as well as municipalities and universities. They don't "count".

-Some are regulated utilities which have no competition to worry about.

-Many are on CCE as a public relations gimmick so that they can "prove" how green and environmental. In some cases they may even be making a business decision that higher costs to curb emissions are worth it to increase market share from "green" consumers.

But there are enough big industrial companies that don't sell direct to consumers yet will have a real effort to limit their emissions. Why would they do it? Perhaps because they see the writing on the wall, and believe that mandatory legislation is coming - so better to get on board early. But I think it's likelier that it really isn't that much of a cost burden after all. Businesses are always striving for operating efficiencies. Lowering emissions can often be achieved as a byproduct of modernizing equipment and having more efficient production and manufacturing and transportation processes. In other words - going green can make good sound efficient business sense, and not cost the company or its customers anything extra.

Here's a link to the CCE membership list: http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=64

Here are some notable large industrial members. If this is a "cap and tax", why would such notable firms voluntarily submit themselves to an extra "tax"?

Dow Corning

DuPont

United Technologies Corporation

Ford Motor Company

Eastman Kodak Company

Robert Bosch LLC

Motorola, Inc.

Sony Electronics Inc.

Cargill, Incorporated

Monsanto Company

Boise Paper Holdings, LLC

Domtar Corporation

International Paper

Bayer Corporation

Honeywell International Inc.

IBM

Intel Corporation