Why You’re a Global Warming Denier
July 24, 2008 · Print This Article
So, you don’t believe that global warming is real. You might fall into the ranks of those who think it’s all a big hoax engineered by Al Gore to take your money, or perhaps you make money off oil, pollution-creating factories or other environment killers. There are a lot of reasons that global warming denial can affect you, and you may experience a broad range of symptoms. These symptoms don’t just affect you; they’re harmful to everyone around you.
Global warming denial hurts. EarthFirst.com can help. Here are some common reasons for global warming denial, and what you can do to treat them.
Because you fear change.
You may be among our country’s elder generations, who share a collective re-imagining of how America used to be in the fabled ‘good old days’. In your mind, America was at its best in the 1950s: a time of wholesomeness, when family values came first. You’ve conveniently forgotten that the reality of this time period doesn’t exactly match up with ‘Leave it to Beaver’ or picturesque Norman Rockwell scenes of burgers and malts at the diner – but that doesn’t even matter anymore. You can’t imagine a future where things vary too much from this idealized model – in your mind, that would be a big step down.
The fear of change is closely related to ‘I’m an American, and You Can’t Tell Me What to Do’ syndrome. You believe that you’re entitled to the things you’ve gotten used to: unlimited use of personal vehicles running on cheap gas, homes far larger than they need to be, hundreds of electronic gadgets plugged into your power outlets, 20-minute showers. Basically, using resources as much as you want because, in your mind, you’ve earned it. What you fail to understand is that you’ve grown up in an era of waste and excess, and now you’re spoiled. The prospect of giving up all of those things to ‘save the planet’ makes you angry or scared because damn it, they’re yours and you don’t wanna.
The first step is accepting that change is inevitable. The world is in constant flux. You can’t freeze it and live forever in a bubble of idealism. Things are going to shift and alter around you in a never-ending stream that will drive you insane unless you just let go. The Roman Empire fell. Periods of prosperity don’t last forever. And for that matter, all of the fierce patriotism you can muster up doesn’t make the way America has been doing things right. You may think of wastefulness and complete disregard of the consequences of your lifestyle as the American Way, but the fact is that the world can’t sustain that lifestyle anymore. For a reality check, we recommend watching the documentary The 11th Hour, which quite effectively explains the need for changes to the way we live. But don’t worry too much – the truth is, the world will go on without you, and younger generations aren’t attached to your unreasonable ideals.
Because you’re too caught up in your petty everyday life.
You’re remodeling your kitchen, planning a wedding, trying to decide whether to change your hairstyle and mentally preparing for that weeklong visit from your in-laws. Tonight, Lisa and Dean are coming over to watch The Hills and help you choose nail polish colors, oh and can you believe what LC said to Brody the other day?! Who has time to care about the environment? You don’t believe in global warming because you don’t have the first idea what it even means. You have way too much going on.
The first step is to turn off the television, for the love of god. We’re a nation of zombies who can discuss the latest episode of Grey’s Anatomy ad nauseum but don’t know the first thing about real problems that affect our lives and our surroundings. You know, stuff going on outside that pane of glass that leads to the real world rather than the one that displays advertising with some mindless prepackaged entertainment thrown in every now and then.
You tend to think that what’s going on in your everyday life is more important than the overall scheme of things. This is called narcissism, folks. To get a feel for what the rest of the world is like, we recommend going on a trip to a place like Africa, India or China to help you understand that the world doesn’t revolve around you. Or, you could just volunteer some time at a local homeless shelter or participate in a clean up in a poor community. It might just help awaken you to the fact that there are more important things than who’s screwing who on Desperate Housewives or what you’re wearing to that party tonight, and that might – MIGHT! – lead to awareness of the world at large and the problems affecting it.
Because you’re uneducated or misinformed.
Your neighbor told you that Al Gore is a swindler and that he and a few companies that stand to profit made up the whole ‘global warming’ thing to rob people of their hard-earned money. An email you got from a co-worker said that climate change is caused by sunspots. You read an article on some website (you can’t remember which) that said the earth is actually cooling down, which obviously disproves the global warming theory, right?
The problem is, none of the people who created all of the nonsense you’ve swallowed as truth are scientists. There’s a lot of misinformation out there. We live in a country where email forwards touting ridiculous claims spread like wildfire regardless of whether there’s a grain of truth to them, because nobody bothers to fact-check. People want to believe something so badly that they pass it on as truth, and the more it gets passed on, the more people believe it. But, that doesn’t make it true. Worse yet, there are a lot of people out there paid by lobbyists and/or corporations to pump out misinformation about climate change. Did we not learn from the ‘cigarettes don’t cause cancer’ fiasco?
The answer is to do some research yourself instead of sounding like an uneducated jackass who just repeats lines that have been fed to you. Seek out authoritative sources. And Jesus tapdancing Christ, stop watching Fox News.
Because you make money off dirty products and/or practices.
The factory that makes the widgets your company sells emits dark billowing pollution from its smokestacks on a daily basis. You’re not entirely sure what’s coming out of there, but one thing you are sure of is that it would be expensive for you to change the way your company operates in order to reduce harmful emissions. Or, perhaps your fortune – or the fortune you’re still seeking – is tied to a polluting industry like oil, and you don’t have the balls to be innovative and seek out moneymaking opportunities in the emerging clean energy industries.
Corporations are reckless polluters, and they fear that climate change legislation will affect their bottom line. The ones run by people with a conscience have already begun working on ways to change, while the rest deny global warming because they don’t want to admit that they’re doing something harmful. Hey, it’s understandable that you don’t want to see everything you’ve worked for go down the drain – but the fact remains that there is a clear right and wrong in this case. If you consider yourself to be a good person, taking a critical and open-minded look at how your business might be harming the environment (and along with it, human health) is the right thing to do. If you’re a slimy, greedy jerk who only cares about making money, see the final item below, ‘Because you’re an asshole’.
Because your religion has caused you to believe that it’s impossible.
The bible doesn’t say anything about global warming, and you take the bible literally, not considering the possibility that a) the bible is creative fiction written by people trying to further their own interests or b) the bible was meant as a guide to moral behavior, not a line-by-line manual to the world. Plus, you think that any day now, you’re going to be beamed up into the clouds to sit around a strum a harp all day while the rest of us are tortured in very creative ways back here on earth, so who cares?
Many religious folk intentionally walk around as if they’ve got blinders on because they don’t want to be exposed to information that may cause them to doubt ‘the word’, often believing that science is the tool of the devil. Religion is a tricky thing. It can be a shining light in the darkness for some people, but it’s also a major cause of death and destruction.
Religion and reason aren’t mutually exclusive. If you believe in god, then it follows for you to believe that god left humans in charge of taking care of the planet. Even if you truly believe that god wouldn’t let global warming happen or that ‘The Rapture’ is going to make it all a moot point, don’t you believe that we as the dominant species on the planet are responsible for looking after god’s creations? There are a lot of bad things in this world that humans are responsible for – how could that not include destroying the earth? Furthermore, if you’re a Christian, shouldn’t you be following the advice on your own cheesy bracelets and asking yourself ‘what would Jesus do’? Seems to me like he’d be out there participating in trash cleanups, riding a bicycle and snacking on organic veggies. In fact, you’d probably label him a hippie. Call me crazy.
Because you’re an asshole.
You don’t give a rat’s ass about the generations to come. You’ll happily go on polluting as much as you can during your limited time on Earth, and go out laughing. The ‘asshole qualities’ that cause you to deny global warming may also be caused by greed (see above, ‘Because you make money off dirty products and/or practices’). Or, you just want to do whatever the hell you please and take offense to the idea of having to change your lifestyle, no matter what the reasons are (see above, ‘I’m an American and You Can’t Tell Me What to Do’.)
Luckily, the global warming deniers who are truly assholes aren’t nearly as common as the other types. It’s nearly impossible to rehab a born-and-bred jackass. The rest of us will just step around them and leave them to die out like the fear-of-change generation, because they’ll be proven wrong before too long.
Related Posts:
CNN Meteorologist Calls Man Made Global Warming ‘Arrogant’Global Warming Deniers are on Thin Ice
BBC Investigated After Global Warming Denier Claims Program ‘One-Sided’
It’s Cold Out – Global Warming Must be a Scam!
New Jersey Assemblyman Fighting State’s Global Warming Response Act
I love it! Haha. Hopefully this will inspire some individuals to take a greater responsibility over our environment. I came across a website http://www.simplestop.net that stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment.
Hey I’m a global warming “denier”, let me address some of these for you. (By the way, f**k you for the holocaust connotation. It’s sick and degrading to the people who lost their lives. If I was religious I’d say you were going to hell for that.)
Because you fear change.
I’m trying to think of a political view I have that isn’t against the status quo, and I’m really struggling. I’m a classical liberal, otherwise known as a libertarian. Fail.
Because you’re too caught up in your petty everyday life.
I’ve never had a TV, I have utter contempt for celebrities, I read purely non-fiction and about 15 off them a year. More over, I spend a good 2 hours a day on the web reading news and researching topics. Fail again.
Because you’re uneducated or misinformed.
Refer partly to the previous response. I went to Eton College for high school, arguably one of the best in the world. I’m also about to complete a masters degree in theoretical physics from the 5th best university in the world (according to The Times ranking). Had my IQ measured 2 years ago at 148. Another fail.
Because you make money off dirty products and/or practices.
All the money I have at the moment is in gold, and my job this summer is working with a venture capital company in California on clean tech. Yet another fail.
Because your religion has caused you to believe that it’s impossible.
I’m an atheist. Fail.
Because you’re an asshole.
To people who relate me to holocaust deniers? Absolutely.
Edward, I’d love to know where you see a Holocaust connotation, because I didn’t write one into this story.
The phrase was born from a female English MP’s insistence that global warming skeptics are equivalent to holocaust deniers. I forget her name off the top of my head.
Whether you realised it or not, the term is still blatantly pathetic demogoguery in an attempt to ridicule critical thinking and all those who oppose your views without anything of substance. How would you like it if you were refered to as a “global warming gullible”?
Edward…I agree with your viewpoint..
I’m also a college educated engineer (unlike many of the emoting libs on these websites) who look at the facts and there is nothing but controversy as to what the cause of global warming is. It’s far from conclusive that it’s anthropogenic.
If only the left leaning liberals would take some time to look do some research, rather than the sad pictures of polar bears clinging to ice sheets, they would realize that we don’t control the weather; there are forces far greater than ours. There are far too many factors that control the temperature, CO2 being one of the minor factors.
I’ve never seen such an organized revolt against the truth. I know liberals hate the facts, but this is amazing. . An organized attack on facts..and a lot of emotion.
Did you know that 95% of Green house gases are from water vapor? Only 3% is from CO2. And the evidence is very controversial that it is from human activity and that it even matters. There are Sun activities, geological plate shifting, inaccuracy of models, inaccuracy of land based data monitors – which are prone to “urbanization effects” (especially when Satellite data has shown no change in the last 18 years in temperature) and many other factors that contribute to changing climate. Did you know that today CO2 levels are about at 380 ppm and that during the Paleozoic era it was at over 4000 ppm when temperatures were the same as today? But libs love to ignore the facts, or more likely they don’t know them.
Do we want to spend trillions of dollars when we don’t even know if we are contributing? This just shows that many scientists still disagree as to what our role is, if any.
Steve
Oh wow, we have a real life college educated engineer here. The room already feels smarter.
I’d like to invite Edward and/or Steve to write an article on why Global Warming is bullshit. Put your 148 IQ and college learnin’ where you mouth is and help us poor deluded lefties understand how we’ve been snookered. Email me at shea@earthfirst.com if you’re game.
For me its a clinginess to 19th century notions like “empirical analysis”, “data” and “falsification”. I have a strange fascination with numbers, especially with those numbers working with each other. I just didn’t jump on the pomo consensus science that does away with those pesky 19th century notions of truth.
Fact is that by my modernist conception of data global warming just does not add up. There is no hotspot in the upper atmosphere, the poles are not warming faster than the equator, the oceans are not warming more rapidly than the atmosphere, and satellite data (even after corrections for instrumentation) seams to directly contradict the predictions of the climate models.
That is why I am a denier, my pesky refusal to embrace the postmodern fraud that is consensus science and sadly, my eccentric belief in empirical reasoning.
I already wrote one 15 months ago. It doesn’t really even begin to scratch the surface, but it is a relatively decent summary. You can find it here:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article805.html
No response Shea?
Good article. It misses one cause of AGW denial: Dunning Kruger effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
Edward is a great example. He has convinced himself he knows more than scientists with decades of knowledge in a specialist subject. If anyone is even momentarily convinced by anything he has written at the link he provided, just spend some time reading http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics and http://www.realclimate.org/. It’ll soon become apparent that Edward is just another confused and delusional person, denying massive scientific consensus. He’s the equivalent of a creationist denying evolution.
No MA, im convinced that people who claim that all the scientists agree on AGW are simply liars.
I’ve spent plenty of time at realclimate.org etc. their arguments are countered and frequently off-base.
Thanks for the irrelevant and fantastic equivalence to creationists. You are the equivalent to a devout religious nut who has given up his judgement to a claimant authority.
Edward: “im [sic] convinced that people who claim that all the scientists agree on AGW are simply liars.”
Who are these people that claim *all* scientists agree? I’ve never heard that claim other than as a straw man argument from deniers of reality, such as yourself. Perhaps you’re confused with the statement: “the vast majority of climate scientists agree on the cause of recent climate change, and it is anthropogenic”?
We can also claim that “every national science academy of every industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity”, and back it up with evidence – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (no, the evidence is not Wikipedia, it is the references and citations listed).
Edward: “…realclimate.org etc. their arguments are countered and frequently off-base.”
Ah, the vague, hand-waving dismissal. With each post, you appear less of the scientist and towering intellect that you claim to be. Evidence, dear boy, evidence.
Point- MA.
And…. fight!
Edward, you are the one bringing up the Holocaust as an argumentum ad captandum & argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy.
Regardless of the topic, if a person can provide referenced works that validate their claim or unanswered questions, they are a skeptic. If they provide nothing but bluster, they are a denier.
Whining that you’re being compared, in your own mind, to a Holocaust denier in an attempt to dismiss the accumulated scientific knowledge is utterly pathetic.
As for your article:
Mann’s work, i.e. the “hockey stick”, is valid science. There were statistical shortcomings, but they were small in effect.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=3
It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
Are you actually denying the greenhouse effect? That is akin to denying evolution, as it is older (discovered by Jacob Fourier in 1824 & quantitatively studied by Svante Arrhenius in 1895) & just as well, if not more, independently & repeatedly validated.
All of your other points are just as commonly put forward and are answered at http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php with references to peer-reviewed scientific journal papers.
MA, I take your point. I haven’t seen anyone significant stupid enough to claim *all* scientists agree since that would be so easily falsifiable. However, the claim that the “vast majority” agree is also a bullshit. Further, it is a statement of ignorance on the scientific method. There has never been a great scientist in history who’s views were in step with any “consensus”.
And it goes without saying that wikipedia is bad source, but particularly with an issue like this. Heck, I’ve even seen contributors from realclimate.org trawling related articles and removing stuff that’s fully referenced.
Shea, nice to see you’ve taken it upon yourself to be some kind of referee. I’m still waiting for you to respond to the article I linked for you.
Jeremiah, the term “global warming denier” is offensive and disrespectful to millions of dead Jews because of its origin, as I explained. I can feign ignorance about the origin of the word “nigger” and go around calling people it, but it would still make me a f**king asshole. Just an ignorant one.
Mann’s hockey stick has been thoroughly debunked. They even fed random numbers from a phone book into his algorithm when the slimey guy finally released it years later to prove that any random set would create the same graph shape. The guy is a fraud. As per the last 400 years, yes the last few decades have been the warmest (averaged over the entire globe, not necessarily for every area, eg USA). We just came out of the “little ice age”. And as per the greenhouse effect, I simply said it is a very misleading name since it does not act like a greenhouse.
Edward, I take it upon myself to do just about anything I want ’round here. It’s good to be publisher.
And don’t worry, we’ve got our response to your article in the works, should be ready soonish.
lol, looking forward to it. guess I’ve gotta go dig out the counter arguments to gristmill, which is probably where you’re reading.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denier
Denier: a person who denies
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME;]
Try reading the reference I provided rather than denying its existence.
Nggr: prsn f frcn rgn.
stp bng tt Jrmh, ‘m dn xplnng ths fr y.
(Pub note: bizam!)
Shea,
I just skimmed over Edward’s article again. It simply does not read like a scientist wrote that.
To start, he signs himself ‘Edward Townes (Libertarian)’. Where’s the PhD – or whatever he claims to be? It immediately sets the expectation that this is a non-scientist whose political ideology takes precedence over scientific reality and fact.
The rest of the article does not disappoint – it’s a litany of scientific illiteracy and the same tired, discredited arguments that the denial gang have been regurgitating ad nauseum for years. It’s got the Oregon Petition (!), Vikings in Greenland (!!), and the usual evidence-free, tinfoil hat conspiracy theory of massive global collusion between politicians and scientists in order to extract money from the ‘honest working man’.
Also, all of his science-free references are taken from blogs and sideshow whackaloons. He even references the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not realising that the graph is laughing at *him*.
Note that he quotes Christopher Landsea (one-time IPCC contributor). He misses, of course, another quote from Landsea: “…I have no doubt a portion of that [ocean and atmosphere warming], at least, is due to greenhouse warming.”
I’ll look forward to the demolition of this silly article. The phrase “shooting fish in a barrel” springs to mind.
I’d say that his 148 IQ is defective and needs to be returned for a refund….
MA,
Try to keep your silly personal insults to yourself, they only degrade your arguments and I will simply stop responding to you the next time it happens. If you are interested in debating this subject with me then I’m genuinely happy to, but I’m not obligated to tolerate offensive people. And I don’t. Up to you.
I never claimed myself to have a PhD, if you think I did please show me where. Nor did I ever claim my article was a rigorous scientific submission. It is simply an article. In fact, I did submit it to my professors in december this year when they asked for an article on popular science and got an A grade.
Politics is very deeply involved in the Global Warming Fraud. It would be impossible to fully illustrate what’s going on without acknowledging the political motivations. I mean, if you want to bury your head in the sand that’s fine, but it doesn’t change the reality of why you’re being taken for a ride.
Edward,
You didn’t introduce anything new in your article. All of your talking points are just that – talking points for the ill-informed, the willfully & pridefully ignorant & the duplicitous shills.
Do you have anything besides duplicitous partial truths, sophistic semantics, outright myths, bluster & politicized ad hominems?
If you are actually interested in science, try studying peer-reviewed science journals rather then listening to radical talk show hosts and getting your information from oil company funded think tanks.
http:www.skepticalscience.com
You are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. A high IQ and competence in one field does not equate to competence in a different field.
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Are you serious saying that you got an ‘A’ in a Masters level physics course for a 3300 word article filled with opinionated hyperbole sourced from blogs, a duplicitous petition, a piece of sarcasm & a oil company funded think tank?
Yes, we were asked to submit a 3,000 word essay in the style of a popular science article. I’m serious.
Since I wrote that article some 15 months ago I’ve seen quite a few places where some of my points are tackled. Some of those arguments were convincing, some of them were really not. Like I said before, people praise realclimate.org but honestly a lot of their posts totally sidestep the issue. Further, I then went and found counter-counter arguments to what was being said.
I ultimately came to the near-certain conclusion that this stuff is a fraud not because I can claim to have examined all the science, but because I’ve now seen how hideously corrupt the people who are leading this movement are, how it mutually benefits those involved most in peddling it, and how ultimately most environmental movements are politically based. I’ve become what you might call an “anti-environmentalist” in the last year. The more you look at their high profile campaigns, the more you realise how little they care about scientific fact. It’s all about emotive reasoning, outright lies, and general anti-capitalist behaviour.
Yes, just like the AGW deniers, there are “green” megalomanic shills spinning hype for their own benefit and ill-informed dupes lapping it up. The prideful ignorance is the same. The lack of any semblance of refuting the accumulated scientific knowledge is the same.
Ignore the high profile campaigns. I haven’t seen Gore’s movie, and have no desire to. I knew about the science before that movie was produced. It was first quantitatively researched at the end of the 19th century, and was further repeatedly validated in the 1950s.
If you expect to be a good scientist, try basing your opinions on the science reported in peer-reviewed journals rather that the “emotive reasoning” spewed in blogs. Your own stance is based on nothing more than emotive, politically-based reasoning. Please show me anything relevant, e.g. peer-reviwed journal papers or *complete* basic datasets, to dispute this.
By the way, I’m a libertarian too. It is possible to acknowledge the science while believing in a free market.
Best article I’ve read in weeks, from any source.
Cheers.
Edward: “Politics is very deeply involved in the Global Warming Fraud.”
First, you continue to state as fact something for which you have not provided the slightest proof – this supposed fraud. You can continue throwing out the cutesy, right wing labels that make it easy for Joe Sixpack to understand what he should think. You can even capitalise them. It still won’t make it reality.
Please provide details of the global conspiracy, involving tens of thousands of individuals, that has enabled every scientific academy of every industrialised planet to issue statements confirming the reality of anthropogenic climate change (as you refuse to follow references from Wikipedia – http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf). It seems that only your massive ignorance and delusion can make it work.
Second, politics has no influence on scientific reality. None. Whatsoever. You really need to grasp this concept.
You’ve evidently been blinded by your rabid political ideology which has taken precedence over scientific truth. This will not help you in your claimed scientific career – unless, of course, you plan on working for a right wing ‘think tank’, where it will be of great benefit.
P.S. If you start waving your allegedly impressive IQ around, don’t be surprised to be mocked openly for it – more so when you keep saying silly things. Scientifically honest and scrupulous people don’t care about whether an individual has 80 or 180 IQ points to play with – they care about evidence and reality. You’re lacking both.
P.P.S. A grade ‘A’?! You don’t go to Bob Jones or Oral Roberts, do you?
P.S. Site admin: this windowed comment section is not nice – why make us read and post in a little window?
Just remove ‘max-height:50em;’ from ‘.comments’ to fix it. TIA
And I will speak my mind. First, I think you’re a little spoiled snot. Your introduction has made me mad enough to spit.
Did your mommy run you all over town so you could be a athletic little league hero or did you hop on your bike and pedal across town to join a pick up team and have just as much fun. You certainly got a low view of Granny and Granpa. We weren’t a bunch of fat slobs like our younger generation. The fifties were’nt so hot at all. I got drafted into an ideological war to protect America’s way of life. Yeah, right. And that was just the beginning. We have gone along with one of these wars ever since. Besides the death and deprivation of millions of human beings think of the pollution and waste involved. If you are so concerned about global warming stop being so concerned about Granpas spoiled habits and get off your fat butt and walk to work or take the bus.
Just want to let you guys know I haven’t forgotten about you, I’m simply too busy to reply properly at the moment. At an Austrian economics conference.
Gosh, Edward, we’re all just SO impressed at how incredibly IMPORTANT and SMART you are.
Look, if you lot don’t get this pathetic bug out of your ass then I’m really not going to bother. If you call all global warming skeptics uneducated and uninformed, then don’t be surprised or derisive when proved otherwise.
Seriously, decide here and now, are you going the grow the fuck up and continue this debate? Or are you intent on wasting our time with irrelevant ad hominem snipes? I’m easy either way. I enjoy debating this subject, but you’re really giving yourself too much credit if you think I’m going to tolerate nasty spiteful comments that have nothing to do with the topic.
Edward, don’t you get it? We’re having fun knocking you around. We don’t really need to prove you are wrong, that’s a given. You amuse us, with your 148 IQ and ‘A’ grade skepticbabble papers. You are our toy, the foil which we turn to in order to work off frustration over the dumbassery of the rightwing denial squad.
Keep telling us how smart and important you are and we’ll keep making fun of you for it.
Have fun at the conference!
Global warming skeptics aren’t uneducated and uninformed. Global warming deniers are.
Skeptics pose unanswered questions and present research to support their point. Deniers ask the same trite questions endlessly, despite receiving full explanatory answer each time, and present politicized bluster, partial truths, outright myths & juvenile ad hominems.
Present research that supports your point or unanswered questions, and I will call you a skeptic.
Stephanie didn’t post an ad hominem swipe, she posted a bit of derisive sarcasm. If you’re going to point out logical fallacies, learn the difference.
Ok, I get the picture.
Good luck discovering the truth about this, I rather think that for you lot that won’t happen until the media reports it :p Great thing about science is that in the end truth does win, so my hopes are high and I believe the time is approaching quite fast actually.
Anyway, I hope you feel suitably silly and shamed when you do figure it out, seeing as you are pretty unpleasant to people who disagree with you. Good bye.
Ooh. Impressive. That can be used in place of a coherent argument backed up with evidence.*
Oh, is that what you’ve been doing? It looks more like intellectual dodge ball to me.
* sarcasm
I ask for peer-reviewed journal papers or basic datasets and you throw your hands up & call me media-blinded. Brilliant!
Thank you for showing your political ideology based denial like a spotlight.
Your belief & whining does not refute the accumulated scientific knowledge.
Nice work Edward and nice article. I especially like the part when the snide one dares you to write an article and you reply that you already had one. I didn’t see any responses other than the lazy dismissal. I find the deception the AGW proponent will sink to fascinating.
Here’s a radical idea:
We all stop sniping at each other and clean up our planet anyway. (That is, stop spewing excessive amounts of gunk into the atmosphere.) That way, those of us who believe in global warming can be happy that we’re doing something and those of us who don’t can continue to deny everything. Because while this is an impressive debate, it’s a complete waste of time and doesn’t get anything done, as the believers aren’t likely to stop believing and the nonbelievers aren’t likely to start.
Is it so bad for us to do something just for the heck of it?
[...] article was Written by Stephanie Rogers with Earthfirst.com. I ran across it last week, and have been wondering weather or not to post it. EarthFirst has [...]
ahh yea. not sure if anyone noticed but the temperature on all of the planets in the galaxy is increasing – so what we need to do is raise awareness about the galactic problem and maybe we can pay a tax to try to reduce the carbon production on Saturn and all of the other planets. or we can just look at the source for all the heat in the galaxy and figure out that the sun creates the heat – and increased solar activity is a direct result of increased temperatures throughout the galaxy. but hey the government knows how to spend my money better than i do – so i will be happy to give them my money anyway. Taxation is Slavery.
Look could you please stop your blasphemy and keep Jesus Christ out of this! I am a christian and I beleive in global warming, but being a christian is not about believeing or not believing in global warming!!!! If you would read the Bible you will clearly see that being a christian means that you have accepted Christ as your God and Saviour! Why does the whole world have a problem with christianity, but not with other religions! Makes you think hey!