Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change

[Joseph & Ana 0]

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.

And your argument is "A lot of people believe it so it must be true!"

Beyond amateurish.

[HAL 9000 96]

Can we procure a Bib for that one?

[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.

And your argument is "A lot of people believe it so it must be true!"

Beyond amateurish.

I don't purport to be a professional scientist Joe (I'm sure you're not either) - so "amateurish" is kind of a bizarre argument to make in this context - because it implies that you have knowledge and expertise that you most likely do not.

In point of fact, I said that national and international science associations comprising tens of thousands of members worldwide generally accept the basic theory of anthropomorphic climate change. This is something that is easily and readily proveable - trying to dissect complex science from a layman's point of view isn't. In fact, it is that word you used earlier - amateurish.

I don't see why its unreasonable to use this as a barometer of general scientific opinion, certainly not when good folks like yourself are scoffing at the idea of a concensus. You seem to be confusing concensus with unanimity.

Now you haven't made any arguments on this topic whatsoever aside from jumping in bed with the latest headline to emerge and screeching hysterically about getting one over on the "libs" and shrieking about stealth taxation.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Can we procure a Bib for that one?

Whatever gets your jollies

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

In case you hadn't noticed (which, likely you haven't) no one is trying to debate anything with you, because you don't bring up anything worth debating to this kind of discussion. I for one enjoy ridiculing you though, it's fun.

Yes, moderators, I said it, and I stand by it. Do your worst.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

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.

And your argument is "A lot of people believe it so it must be true!"

Beyond amateurish.

I don't purport to be a professional scientist Joe (I'm sure you're not either) - so "amateurish" is kind of a bizarre argument to make in this context - because it implies that you have knowledge and expertise that you most likely do not.

In point of fact, I said that national and international science associations comprising tens of thousands of members worldwide generally accept the basic theory of anthropomorphic climate change. I don't see why its unreasonable to use this as a barometer of general scientific opinion, certainly not when good folks like yourself are scoffing at the idea of a concensus.

You seem to be confusing concensus with unanimity.

Your argument is still, "A bunch of smart people agree so that makes it true!"

The logic is what is amateurish. If I was a tenured climatologist saying the same thing, it wouldn't matter to you guys anyway. This is your religion.

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.

In case you hadn't noticed (which, likely you haven't) no one is trying to debate anything with you, because you don't bring up anything worth debating to this kind of discussion. I for one enjoy ridiculing you though, it's fun.

Yes, moderators, I said it, and I stand by it. Do your worst.

I'm not pressing charges, so please do nothing..

The real answer is that I bring up things you cannot refute.. So you're all angry, and never address it. Your argument is still "Yes we know it hasn't warmed in 11 years, but a bunch of smart people say its getting warming so we have to believe them"

[scandal 951]

A little more about the CCE

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=1

History

The institution that is today the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) began with a grant in 2000 from the Joyce Foundation, a leading philanthropy based in Chicago known for its innovative approach to public policy issues, which supported the inception, creation, feasibility and design of CCX. The support was provided as part of a series of special Millennium grants made by the Foundation to catalyze, support and reinforce ideas, concepts or institutions of lasting intergenerational significance.

An initial grant of $347,000 was made to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University to provide technical support to Dr. Richard Sandor and colleagues to examine whether a cap-and-trade market was feasible in the U.S. to facilitate significant greenhouse gas reductions, using a voluntary regional Midwest model from which national and international lessons might be drawn.

A second grant of $760,000 was provided in 2001 to proceed with a design phase, which ran through 2002 and involved more than one hundred professionals in the corporate, public, non-governmental and academic sectors, who worked with Dr. Sandor, his colleague, Dr. Michael Walsh, and others to develop a core set of rules, protocols and design elements that would underpin and shape a pilot reduction and trading design.

In 2003, CCX launched trading operations, with the following 13 Charter Members:

* American Electric Power

* Baxter International Inc.

* City of Chicago

* DuPont

* Ford Motor Co.

* International Paper

* Manitoba Hydro Corp.

* MeadWestvaco Corp.

* Motorola Inc.

* STMicroelectronics

* Stora Enso North America

* Temple-Inland Inc.

* Waste Management Inc.

Through their CCX membership, the above organizations were first in the world to make legally binding commitments to reduce all six greenhouse gases, in the world’s first multinational multi-sector market for reducing and trading greenhouse gases.

CCX is a U.S. corporation, and today remains the only emissions reduction and trading system for all six greenhouse gases and the only operational cap and trade system in North America. CCX has nearly 300 Members from all sectors and Offset Projects worldwide. See full Member list.

In 2005, CCX launched the European Climate Exchange (ECX), now the dominant exchange operating in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. CCX also launched the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE), a CFTC-regulated futures exchange that offers standardized and cleared futures and options contracts on emission allowances and other environmental products, the world's first environmental derivatives exchange. Since 2006, CCX, ECX and CCFE have been owned by Climate Exchange Plc (LSE: CLE.L), a publicly traded company listed on the AIM of the London Stock Exchange. Richard Sandor is Chairman of Climate Exchange Plc.

[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.

And your argument is "A lot of people believe it so it must be true!"

Beyond amateurish.

I don't purport to be a professional scientist Joe (I'm sure you're not either) - so "amateurish" is kind of a bizarre argument to make in this context - because it implies that you have knowledge and expertise that you most likely do not.

In point of fact, I said that national and international science associations comprising tens of thousands of members worldwide generally accept the basic theory of anthropomorphic climate change. I don't see why its unreasonable to use this as a barometer of general scientific opinion, certainly not when good folks like yourself are scoffing at the idea of a concensus.

You seem to be confusing concensus with unanimity.

Your argument is still, "A bunch of smart people agree so that makes it true!"

The logic is what is amateurish. If I was a tenured climatologist saying the same thing, it wouldn't matter to you guys anyway. This is your religion.

Joe you're falling into that trap again where individuals become "types".

Perhaps you can tell me how scientific opinion on this topic can be measured or observed, from a layman's perspective? Seeing as pointing out the position of professional bodies is somehow invalid.

You're the one scoffing at the idea of consensus with nothing to back up your opinion.

[HAL 9000 96]

Joe is right. A bunch of smart people have produced evidence for the theory. A bunch of smart people that happen to have PhDs and extensive, peer-vetted studies in that same field of study. Who would've known. I suppose that would make them worthy of some sort of doubt-benefit- if not from the irrationally minded then at least from those that can read and think independently.

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

And your argument is "A lot of people believe it so it must be true!"

Beyond amateurish.

I don't purport to be a professional scientist Joe (I'm sure you're not either) - so "amateurish" is kind of a bizarre argument to make in this context - because it implies that you have knowledge and expertise that you most likely do not.

In point of fact, I said that national and international science associations comprising tens of thousands of members worldwide generally accept the basic theory of anthropomorphic climate change. I don't see why its unreasonable to use this as a barometer of general scientific opinion, certainly not when good folks like yourself are scoffing at the idea of a concensus.

You seem to be confusing concensus with unanimity.

Your argument is still, "A bunch of smart people agree so that makes it true!"

The logic is what is amateurish. If I was a tenured climatologist saying the same thing, it wouldn't matter to you guys anyway. This is your religion.

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.

In case you hadn't noticed (which, likely you haven't) no one is trying to debate anything with you, because you don't bring up anything worth debating to this kind of discussion. I for one enjoy ridiculing you though, it's fun.

Yes, moderators, I said it, and I stand by it. Do your worst.

I'm not pressing charges, so please do nothing..

The real answer is that I bring up things you cannot refute.. So you're all angry, and never address it. Your argument is still "Yes we know it hasn't warmed in 11 years, but a bunch of smart people say its getting warming so we have to believe them"

No, I am not angry Joe, not at all. Amused at what you consider important, what you consider is a debate and a talking point is about as much emotion as I can muster.

[HAL 9000 96]

A little more about the CCE

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=1

History

The institution that is today the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) began with a grant in 2000 from the Joyce Foundation, a leading philanthropy based in Chicago known for its innovative approach to public policy issues, which supported the inception, creation, feasibility and design of CCX. The support was provided as part of a series of special Millennium grants made by the Foundation to catalyze, support and reinforce ideas, concepts or institutions of lasting intergenerational significance.

An initial grant of $347,000 was made to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University to provide technical support to Dr. Richard Sandor and colleagues to examine whether a cap-and-trade market was feasible in the U.S. to facilitate significant greenhouse gas reductions, using a voluntary regional Midwest model from which national and international lessons might be drawn.

A second grant of $760,000 was provided in 2001 to proceed with a design phase, which ran through 2002 and involved more than one hundred professionals in the corporate, public, non-governmental and academic sectors, who worked with Dr. Sandor, his colleague, Dr. Michael Walsh, and others to develop a core set of rules, protocols and design elements that would underpin and shape a pilot reduction and trading design.

In 2003, CCX launched trading operations, with the following 13 Charter Members:

* American Electric Power

* Baxter International Inc.

* City of Chicago

* DuPont

* Ford Motor Co.

* International Paper

* Manitoba Hydro Corp.

* MeadWestvaco Corp.

* Motorola Inc.

* STMicroelectronics

* Stora Enso North America

* Temple-Inland Inc.

* Waste Management Inc.

Through their CCX membership, the above organizations were first in the world to make legally binding commitments to reduce all six greenhouse gases, in the world's first multinational multi-sector market for reducing and trading greenhouse gases.

CCX is a U.S. corporation, and today remains the only emissions reduction and trading system for all six greenhouse gases and the only operational cap and trade system in North America. CCX has nearly 300 Members from all sectors and Offset Projects worldwide. See full Member list.

In 2005, CCX launched the European Climate Exchange (ECX), now the dominant exchange operating in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. CCX also launched the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE), a CFTC-regulated futures exchange that offers standardized and cleared futures and options contracts on emission allowances and other environmental products, the world's first environmental derivatives exchange. Since 2006, CCX, ECX and CCFE have been owned by Climate Exchange Plc (LSE: CLE.L), a publicly traded company listed on the AIM of the London Stock Exchange. Richard Sandor is Chairman of Climate Exchange Plc.

And yet I walk down the streets here on the South Side and I have to keel over from breathing toxic fumes... LOL

Dang communists, all of them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The real answer is that I bring up things you cannot refute.. So you're all angry, and never address it. Your argument is still "Yes we know it hasn't warmed in 11 years, but a bunch of smart people say its getting warming so we have to believe them"

The real answer is that you provide nothing of any consequence that adds to a discussion and spend all your time bellyaching about alleged "liberals".

Edited October 13, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[Joseph & Ana 0]

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.

And your argument is "A lot of people believe it so it must be true!"

Beyond amateurish.

I don't purport to be a professional scientist Joe (I'm sure you're not either) - so "amateurish" is kind of a bizarre argument to make in this context - because it implies that you have knowledge and expertise that you most likely do not.

In point of fact, I said that national and international science associations comprising tens of thousands of members worldwide generally accept the basic theory of anthropomorphic climate change. I don't see why its unreasonable to use this as a barometer of general scientific opinion, certainly not when good folks like yourself are scoffing at the idea of a concensus.

You seem to be confusing concensus with unanimity.

Your argument is still, "A bunch of smart people agree so that makes it true!"

The logic is what is amateurish. If I was a tenured climatologist saying the same thing, it wouldn't matter to you guys anyway. This is your religion.

Joe you're falling into that trap again where individuals become "types".

Perhaps you can tell me how scientific opinion on this topic can be measured or observed, from a layman's perspective? Seeing as pointing out the position of professional bodies is somehow invalid.

You're the one scoffing at the idea of consensus with nothing to back up your opinion.

It wouldn't matter. Its your religion, so therefore there is nothing anyone can do to suade you. You don't disagree that is gotten cooler over 11 years. THis is the coldest fall on record in many many areas. Many areas recorded the coolest July and August. But you'll only look at the evidence where something has warmed and post it here as proof of Warming. I'm sorry "Climate Change" wouldn't want to point you in only one direction. Then after 30 years of cooling, you'll say, its "Climate Change" and we have to do something about it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh boy...

[Joseph & Ana 0]

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.

And your argument is "A lot of people believe it so it must be true!"

Beyond amateurish.

I don't purport to be a professional scientist Joe (I'm sure you're not either) - so "amateurish" is kind of a bizarre argument to make in this context - because it implies that you have knowledge and expertise that you most likely do not.

In point of fact, I said that national and international science associations comprising tens of thousands of members worldwide generally accept the basic theory of anthropomorphic climate change. I don't see why its unreasonable to use this as a barometer of general scientific opinion, certainly not when good folks like yourself are scoffing at the idea of a concensus.

You seem to be confusing concensus with unanimity.

Your argument is still, "A bunch of smart people agree so that makes it true!"

The logic is what is amateurish. If I was a tenured climatologist saying the same thing, it wouldn't matter to you guys anyway. This is your religion.

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.

In case you hadn't noticed (which, likely you haven't) no one is trying to debate anything with you, because you don't bring up anything worth debating to this kind of discussion. I for one enjoy ridiculing you though, it's fun.

Yes, moderators, I said it, and I stand by it. Do your worst.

I'm not pressing charges, so please do nothing..

The real answer is that I bring up things you cannot refute.. So you're all angry, and never address it. Your argument is still "Yes we know it hasn't warmed in 11 years, but a bunch of smart people say its getting warming so we have to believe them"

No, I am not angry Joe, not at all. Amused at what you consider important, what you consider is a debate and a talking point is about as much emotion as I can muster.

Good for you.

The real answer is that I bring up things you cannot refute.. So you're all angry, and never address it. Your argument is still "Yes we know it hasn't warmed in 11 years, but a bunch of smart people say its getting warming so we have to believe them"

The real answer is that you provide nothing of any consequence that adds to a discussion and spend all your time bellyaching about alleged "liberals".

I know you gave up a long time ago. This is your default response.