The Liberal Climate Change Boogie

Climate-Change-EffectsI came across a self-identified liberal who was arguing for climate change, he was posting all kinds of data to support his claims and he finished it off with, I kid you not, “that’s why humans are solely responsible for climate change”.  Now wait a minute, he never produced a single point of data in all of his argument that even mentioned humans.  He just wanted to assert that in the end because, apparently, liberals cannot separate climate change from human-caused climate change.  To liberals, they are one and the same.  I have my suspicions why this is the case but I’ll go into those later.

What’s worse, if you say you don’t accept that humans are completely to blame for climate change, they will pretend you don’t accept that climate change happens at all.  I’ve seen exactly that claimed many, many times.  In fact, in a recent episode of Cosmos, Neil Degrasse Tyson said essentially the same thing, that it’s all man’s fault that the climate is changing and we have to change our ways or risk the equivalent of an asteroid falling on the dinosaurs.

Note, the asteroid that fell on Chicxulub was not the fault of the dinosaurs, although the liberal climate change crowd would probably find a way to blame them if they could.

A lot of this I find to be a large part of the liberal mindset.  They want someone to blame.  They want to think that man has complete and total control of the world around him, therefore there has to be someone to point a finger at, therefore they can believe that we can fix it, no matter what it is.

That’s not the case, sorry.  If you look at the climate history of the planet, we see many, many instances of change that had nothing whatsoever to do with human activity, in fact, we find many cases that happened before humans even evolved on this planet.  Whether the liberals like it or not, we were not responsible for things that happened before we even existed.  While we may have had some effect on the current climate situation, maybe even a significant effect, we are not the ones to blame for all of it.  It’s not something we can fix.  It’s something we have to try to survive through and if we can’t, then we may go extinct, just like millions of other species have over the years.  That might be a scary thought for a lot of people but scary or not, it is the truth.

Climate Change 12000 YearsLike it or not, this kind of thing happens regularly.  See the chart to the right, it details the climate swings in just the past 12,000 years.  Are we supposed to think that humans, who weren’t even a technological species until a few hundred years ago, were responsible for them all?  Of course not, that would be absurd.  So why are we supposed to think that we’re the cause of all of Earth’s problems now?

I understand that, like the majority of liberal positions, this is based on emotion.  They’re terrified to be powerless.  They’re afraid that we can’t solve the problems.  They’re aghast at the prospect that man’s destiny is not completely controlled by man.  They’re alarmed to realize that they’re a minuscule bit of the universe and that everything doesn’t revolve around us.

And so, they try to blame us for everything but we’re just not responsible for every bad thing that befalls us.  Take extinction for example.  We go to extreme lengths to save species that may go extinct.  Well, the cute species, we’re not as concerned with the rest of the 10,000 species that go extinct each and every year.  And you know something?  Those 10,000 species would go extinct whether we were around or not.  It’s not our fault and it’s not our responsibility.  That’s how evolution works.  Old species die off, new species evolve.  It’s not our job to maintain some kind of planetary stasis  because we don’t want anything to change.  Things change!  That’s how the world works!

And it’s not just the planet, we don’t mean a damn thing in universal terms either.  If we vanished as a species tomorrow, nobody would notice.  Maybe in the distant future, some alien species might consider us an anthropological anachronism but nothing more.  We’re just not important to anyone but ourselves.

We have to face the fact that we, as a species, infest the surface of our planet, just like every other species that we live with.  The planet doesn’t care about us, the planet has no reason to protect us, if we vanished tomorrow, the planet wouldn’t care, not that it’s capable of caring.  I think George Carlin said it best when he said that the planet is fine.  It might be us that is fucked.

We have to learn that our pathetic little existence on this pathetic little planet in a pathetic little galaxy is meaningless in the scheme of things.  All of the poisons we dump into the atmosphere is vastly overwhelmed by a single volcanic eruption.  An average of 55 volcanoes erupt each and every year somewhere on Earth.  We’re just not causing anywhere near the damage to be a major threat.  The sun, when it is on a warming cycle, produces a far, far greater effect than anything we can do.  Are we supposed to believe that we’re responsible for volcanoes and the sun?  Seriously?  What little we do is dwarfed by nature and we cannot change nature.  Nature is so much larger than we are, we’re fundamentally beneath notice.

And all the Prius’ on the planet won’t change that.

187 thoughts on “The Liberal Climate Change Boogie

    1. Liberals are fascists? Roger, you must have failed whatever political science course you took, if you actually took one, in which the different political ideologies were discussed and explained. One cannot be both a liberal and a fascist. To say they can is to propose an oxymoron. It would be a misuse of the word oxymoron to describe you, but the moron part of the word is a fitting and accurate description of you.

      1. Dogma, try to pay attention. Read the comment before you reply to it.
        Where did I say 'liberals are fascists'?

        Liberals in the classic sense want to 'progress' to a more caring and helpful state of government. They see government as a needed solution to help out and that all the citizens should pull together. That's the ideal, it never seems to work out, but they have that idea.

        Fascists are simply out for the control and power. I didn't insult true liberals by calling this bunch anything but fascists for a reason.

        Try to keep up.

        1. First, I did read the article. That should be obvious from the fact that I knew you said something about fascists.

          You implied liberals are fascists. You implied it because Cephus did not refer to some liberals. He kept using the term liberals without any qualifiers. Thus he was speaking of all liberals. So when you respond to his remarks without any qualifiers of your own it was reasonable for me to conclude that you too were referring to all liberals. If this was not your intent then you need to think more clearly about how you phrase a thought. This is not the first time that the way you construct a sentence to represent a thought of yours has been difficult to decipher. In fact you did again in your reply.

          "I didn't insult true liberals by calling this bunch anything but fascists for a reason."

          This sentence reads as though you are saying that you think all true liberals are fascists and you think this for a good reason. I'm guessing this is not what you meant, but this is what the sentence says. It isn't clear to whom the word "bunch" is referring. I have little doubt that your thoughts make sense to you while they are in your head. But you must remember that you are not writing for yourself but for an audience of people who are not inside your head. You have to use clear and unambiguous language. You need to construct a sentence to represent a thought that will be unambiguously read by your intended reader(s) and interpreted the way you saw that thought inside your mind. You frequently don't do this well. You frequently say things that leave your reader scratching their head in puzzlement over exactly what it is you are trying to say. Or, as would appear in this case, it is misunderstood. As a general rule, when a reader does not understand what you wrote, it is not the reader's fault. There are exceptions. It is always the writers responsibility to convey their thoughts with clarity. When this fails to occur it is the writers fault more often then not. I say this because before I became a teacher I was a professional writer. I earned my living from writing. I was trained as a journalist and spent seven years engaged in that profession. I am telling you that your writing is often times unclear.

          1. Then why do you think from my comment I said liberals are fascists?
            Why? From my own words tell me why you think I have that position.

          2. First, it is now clear to me from your first reply above that you did not intend to label all liberals fascists.

            But this latest reply has me wondering if you don't also have reading comprehension problems. I told you why I thought you had said that in my last reply. Did you not read the entire reply? Go back and read it. If you don't understand what I said then ask. But don't tell me I did not at least attempt to tell you why I thought you had said that all liberals are fascists.

          3. I read the entire thing. Using a lot of words isn't the same as actually saying something.
            My training in writing and composition and working with newspaper editors has taught me that surgically editing and honing for the most impact is more important that a long word count.

          4. Fine, you read it. Did you find the answer to your question? You should have because it is there.

            Your training then is failing you. There is something to be said for brevity, but not if it sacrifices communicating with clarity and achieving understanding. Much to often your writing fails at both.

            What training in writing and composition have you had and what newspaper editors have you worked with? I was a newspaper and magazine journalist and editor for seven years before switching careers to become a teacher.

          5. So, when will you start focusing on clarity and understanding?
            And I have to wonder, which failing news outlet did you work for? Newsweek?

          6. I've been doing that all along. You'd know that if you were capable of recognizing clarity and understanding. But given you are incapable of practicing it, no reason to think you are capable of recognizing it.

            Every publication I ever worked for is still around. You'll need to try again.

            However, can you claim to have worked at a publication that was in its day one of the most prestigious journalism outlets in the country? One of the papers I worked for is a recipient of three Pulitzer Prizes. I am not claiming to have been one of the reporters who received any of those Pulitzer Prizes, though I was working for the paper at the time it received them. Untalented hacks don't work for Pulitzer-Prize winning newspapers.

          7. I just to review this thread a moment.

            I made a clear and concise comment in two lines and you got it wrong.
            And you think you are a credible person to decide clarity and understanding?

          8. Just to review, you're a useless troll that doesn't ever add anything but just lurks and pounces like most do.

            Was it boring growling from under the bridge?

          9. No, you did not say it with clarity, though I will agree it was brief. I explained why your comment was not clear.

          10. And you also said that you were wrong in the conclusion you had.

            It was clear, even if you don't like the point I made.

          11. I never said I was wrong in the conclusion I presented. That is a lie. State the exact quote where I said I was retracting my conclusion.

          12. That's all? That's easy.

            "First, it is now clear to me from your first reply above that you did not intend to label all liberals fascists. "

          13. Here you present an example of what I meant when I said you are not clear about things.

            When you said that I admitted I was wrong about my conlusion, I thought you were talking about the conclusion I offered concerning global climate change. If you had made it clear that your comment was about the liberal fascist remark then I would not have asked you to prove I retracted the conclusion. These threads get so long and so much is said that at some point you really do need to make it clear what comment within the thread to which you are referring. This is why I often paste the quote to which I am responding in my remarks.

            So, yes, I did concede that I misunderstood your liberal fascist remark. But I did so only after you clarified the meaning of it. The fact that clarification was needed is evidence that you are not clear in your writing.

            And though I never followed up on it, one of your replies was asking me if you should have used the word progressive instead of liberal. I still don't know why you think this would have made any difference. My point still stands. It is an oxymoron to call a liberal a fascist. One cannot simultaneously be a liberal and a fascist. They are mutually exclusive political theories.

            fascist: a person who supports an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

            liberal: a person who is favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms and favors maximum individual liberty in political and social reform

            Fascism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
            Fascism: http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
            Liberalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
            Liberalism <a href="http://:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/” target=”_blank”>:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

            Read these descriptions and then tell me that a person can be both. But if you do come and tell me this then you'll only look like an obstinate fool.

            There is also this description of the difference between the two.

            "There is a huge difference between liberalism and fascism. Liberalism is based on the idea that all people should be seen as individuals who have rights that must be protected. Liberalism believes that people should tolerate one another's differences. By contrast, fascism is based on the idea that all people should be the same. They should all identify themselves with each other and their ultimate goal should be to serve their country.

            "If you set up schools that were based on these ideas, they would be very different. A liberal school would encourage students to think and to express themselves. There would likely be no dress code and the educational process would emphasize creativity and independent thought. By contrast, a fascist school would emphasize thinking the "right" things and all pulling together for the good of the school and the larger community. Students might be required to wear uniforms. The curriculum would be geared towards teaching students the "right" things and teaching them the idea that they should obey authority and sacrifice for the common good." — http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-differen

          14. Really, I mean really? This is your reply. No rebuttal?
            This is an extraordinarily underwhelming response.

          15. There is no needed rebuttal.
            A lot of words doesn't equate with a lot of argument.

            Your post was extremely underwhelming. So, I answered it in kind.

          16. No you did not answer it in kind. Answering it in kind, regardless of what you thought of it, would have been to offer a rebuttal with some substance. Your reply had no substance.

  1. I see that Roger agrees with you Cephus. Do you feel shame in being in such indistinguished and ignoble company? You should not. You shouldn't. Because in this post you have conclusively demonstrated you belong in such company.

    How does one begin to comment on such a masterful exhibition of ignorance and fallacious arguments woven together by strawmen arguments into a tapestry of stupidity.

    I have never seen such inanity, intellectual ineptitude and misconception so spectacularly and audaciously paraded for public display as is seen in this rambling uninformed piece of flapdoodle.

    If you were trying to establish your bona fides to claim title to the crown of the Kingdom of Intellectually Impaired you have succeeded with this masterful display of incomprehension of the science of and evidence supporting anthropogenic global climate change.

    Your pseudo-arguments have no substance. You completely ignore any discussion of the actual evidence. You offer as a refutation of AGC a confused and vacuous philippic. To those who are as equally or more uninformed on the subject as you, your commentary may well seem like a profoundly and deeply penetrating analysis. To those with even a modicum of familiarity with the subject, we see you for the fool and clown that you are.

    For those of you are actually interested in the science rather than the ideological-driven codswallop Cephus has presented here then you should go to one or more of the following sites and read the reports and arguments. The evidence that (1) global climate change is occurring, and (2) that human activity is the primary driver of this change is overwhelming and easily available to anyone with sufficient intellectual honesty and commitment to intellectual integrity to go find and examine. Something that Cephus gives no evidence of having done.

    (1) http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG
    (Summary of IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: The Physical Science)
    (2) http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report)
    (3) http://www.realclimate.org/
    (4) http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/literacy/c
    (Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Science)
    (5) http://www.skepticalscience.com/
    (Of particular interest is the section on Climate Myths)
    (6) http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/201
    (What We Know: The Reality, Risks, and Response to Climate Change, a publication
    of the American Association for the Advancement of Science)
    (7) http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18730
    (Climate Change: Evidence and Causes. Joint publication of National Academy of
    Sciences and the British Royal Society)
    (8) http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-
    change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/
    (Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts and Choices, National Research Council)
    (9) http://climate.nasa.gov/ (NASA website with climate change information and
    resources)

      1. Now you are just being stupid. The article to which you linked is not evidence that refutes the conclusion that global climate change is occurring nor that humans are the primary agent of this change. The article has no relevance to what is happening now or what has happened over the past 100 years or 1000 years or even 1 million years. It is only relevant to what happened during the long-stretch of time called the Paleozoic. By the way, global climate change is about more than just the warming of the planet, although this is a large part of it. The average temperature of the planet is increased about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in since the mid-1800s, with most of that change having occurred in the 20th Century, and the large share of that temperature rise within the past 40 years.

        Global climate change isn't about the temperatures you experience from one summer to the next. It is a trend shown by the data over decades and over the past century. When you say it is "not all that much warmer", you are mistakenly confusing weather with climate, and treating the temperature component of weather in any one year as though it represents the climate. It does not. You need to educate yourself on the science of climate and weather. You obviously don't know much about either.

        You also need to read some of the material at some of the links I provided. If you are unwilling to actually examine the evidence then you have no credibility when you comment on the topic. And you look the part of a fool when you comment about things from a position of ignorance, which is what you are doing here.

        1. Your comments have no relevance. Especially not compared to the article I linked to.
          I linked to a story telling of the climatic changes in a period before mankind, if that isn't relevant to the slight, and marginal changes now being possible without blaming man, then nothing is.

          1. My comments have plenty of relevance you damn fool. Climate changes that occurred before the existence of humans is not evidence against human influence on climate change occurring in the present. Having once been an Earth Science teacher, I know all about the climate conditions that existed during the long stretch of geologic time called the Paleozoic. But the conditions then are completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not humans are causing climate change today.

          2. I can't say I know for certain why you provided the link to the item on the website skepticalscience about the year 1934. But I suspect you did not read the full item. I further suspect you aren't familiar with this website. You linking to it sure gave me a good laugh at your expense. Read on and find out why.

            If you had bothered to read the full entry at that link you would have found that they were debunking the claim that 1934 was the hottest year on record. Furthermore, the entry posted there provided one piece of the multiple pieces of evidence supporting the conclusion that anthropogenic global climate change is occurrring and that humans are the primary agents of this change.

            If you had bothered to explore that website you would have found that the entire website is devoted to exposing the myths and lies that climate change denialists like yourself keep spreading around. Furthermore, the website authors, all of whom are actual climate scientists who published research on the topic, go to great length in presenting the multiple lines of evidence that leads to the conclusion of anthropogenic global climate change. Furthermore, if you weren't so damn laughably stupid, you would have noticed that the skepticalscience website is one of the ones I listed in my links to climate science websites that provide the evidence for anthropogenic global climate change.

            Here is the full posting at the link you provide. Read it carefully because it does not provide evidence opposed to anthropogenic global climate change. The claim that 1934 was the hottest year on record is a climate myth and is labeled as such on this website.

            "Climate Myth…

            1934 – hottest year on record
            "Steve McIntyre noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McIntyre notified NASA which acknowledged the problem as an 'oversight' that would be fixed in the next data refresh. As a result, "The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place." (Daily Tech)." (This statement is the myth that is about to be debunked.)

            "The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.'s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 49th).

            "Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.

            The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is not an argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year. These happened in the past, and they will continue. The problem with climate change is that on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in global surface temperature."

            So thanks for linking to a website that validates what I have been saying and demonstrates you are too stupid to notice when you are actually using material that supports the other guys position.

            There is no propaganda here. Just science in the form of facts and evidence.

          3. It showed that records from Nasa indicate that 1934 was a hot year.
            That would lead to the fact that we have been warm in the recent past without permanent heat buildup at that time melting and raising sea levels or other long term damage.
            It would lead to the fact that those same nasa numbers don't support your claims for today.

            There is propaganda here.

          4. And let's not forget that in the past couple of years, we're seeing a rebuilding of the Arctic ice pack. The sky isn't falling, it's nature in action.

          5. Please offer a citation for this claim. I have checked several climate science sites and I see no data supporting this claim.

            What we are seeing is not a rebuilding but a replacement of the Arctic ice with thinner seasonal ice. Overall, the Arctic Ice pack is half as thick as it was in past decades.

            From NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/986)
            "The remaining Arctic sea ice cover is much thinner on average than it was years ago. Satellite imagery, submarine sonar measurements, and data collected from NASA’s Operation IceBridge, an airborne survey of polar ice, indicate that the Arctic sea ice thickness is as much as 50 percent thinner than it was in previous decades, going from an average thickness of 12.5 feet (3.8 meters) in 1980 to 6.2 feet (1.9 meters) in recent years. The thinning is due to the loss of older, thicker ice, which is being replaced by thinner seasonal ice.

            "Most of the Arctic Ocean used to be covered by multiyear ice, or ice that has survived at least two summers and is typically 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4 meters) thick. This older ice has declined at an even faster rate than younger ice and is now largely relegated to a strip along the northern coast of Greenland. The rest of the Arctic Ocean is dominated by first year ice, or ice that formed over the previous winter and is only 3 to 7 feet (1 to 2 meters) thick."

            Then there is this, which also contradicts your assertion: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice

            There is is this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-me
            "Satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice extent reveal a rapid decline over the past 30 years, particularly at the end of each year's annual melt season. The downward trend and the increasing difference between seasons are in keeping with predictions of the effects of global warming. As the Arctic warms, the volume of ice in the region gradually declines, making it less likely ice will survive more than one year and thus exposing more open water at the end of each melt season."

          6. You seriously don't see the error in what you wrote?

            First, you appear not to understand what global warming means. The term does not mean that every spot on the planet is warming. It means that the average temperature of the planet is increasing. An average means there are values below the average and values above average. So there are places on the planet where temperatures are increasing and places where temperatures are either static or perhaps even decreasing. But when you average them together you get a global trend of an increasing temperature. In the past century the average temperature of the planet has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

            So it is not surprising that there are some places where the ice is not melting. Local variations of this sort are exactly what we would expect under global warming conditions. But if you look at ice melting on average globally, there are more places where glaciers are melting than not. And when you compare the total quantity or volume of ice in the form of glaciers that covers Earth's surface area to 50, 40 or 30 years ago, there is less today than in the previous several hundred years. The data clearly shows that the vast majority of the worlds approximately 160,000 glaciers (mountain and continental) are shrinking at accelerating rates and probably have been doing so for at least the past 150 to 100 years, if not longer.

            This link to skepticalscience debunks the myth that the world's glaciers are not melting: http://www.skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-globa

            Rise in sea level is correlated with the shrinkage of Earth's glaciers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rihttp://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-in

          7. Glaciers come and go. Even if the planet evolves it doesn't mean the end of ice, just a shift in where it's at. I've shown that there is growing ice someplace else to off set the melts that might happen.

            For you to imagine that somehow after billions of years of supposed evolution that our world will suddenly either become static or man will be the cause of the natural changes is laughable.

          8. "For you to imagine that somehow after billions of years of supposed evolution that our world will suddenly either become static or man will be the cause of the natural changes is laughable."

            I never said that our planet is becoming or will become static. You keep pulling this shit out of your ass. You keep taking things I have said and jumbling them up inside that malfunctioning brain of yours until they come back out looking nothing like what I actually said. What is tragically laughable is your feeble-minded misunderstanding of science in general, and climate science in particular. Humans are quite capable of affecting Earth's climate. The preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates that we are doing so. Your repeated rejection of the science behind climate change, refusal to examine the evidence, and denial of the conclusions based on that evidence displays an appalling inability to think rationally.

            I implore you to do a little metacognition self-reflection and examine the way you are thinking about this subject. Ask yourself some questions? What is it that you actually find so objectionable about accepting the evidence-based scientific conclusion that humans are the leading cause of the current patterns of global climate change? Is there something from your religious beliefs that make it impossible for you to believe that humans can affect Earth's climate? Do you reject the science and the scientific consensus behind it because you don't like its possible implications for public policy? You don't like what the possible political and economic solutions to the problem are so you insist that the science has to be wrong? Whatever is influencing or affecting your critical thinking faculties, one thing is for sure: You are not approaching this as a rational critical thinker does or would. What's worse is you have deluded yourself that you are behaving as a rational critical thinker. I am wasting both my time and my considerable intellectual abilities on you. It is impossible to provide illumination for those whose mind lives in perpetual darkness. To quote an old proverb: "There are none so blind as those who will not see", which itself is thought to be derived from a scripture in the Bible:

            Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21:‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.

            In the context of climate change science if I didn't know better I'd swear that this passage was written solely to describe your inability to understand nearly every thing there is to understand in science.

          9. "Glaciers come and go."

            WOW! Slap a sticker on your head. You actually got something right for a change, even though it has not been a point of contention in this discussion. Of course glaciers have come and gone. No one, including myself, ever disputed this fact. This fact is so obvious that it isn't even worth stating. But after this first sentence you went back to your old habit of being wrong.

            "Even if the planet evolves it doesn't mean the end of ice, just a shift in where it's at. "

            I never said that "even if the planet evolves" it means "the end of ice." That you think I said anything that even remotely implies this reveals again your reading comprehension problem, or that you are reading into my comments things that actually aren't there. That said the total volume of ice on the planet is almost certainly lower today than it was at the start of the industrial revolution and lower than it was 40 years ago.

            The Forbes magazine article to which you linked did indicate that the extent of sea ice surrounding the continental Antarctic glacier did reach a record areal extent in 2013. But this does not refute the evidence that there is a long-term global trend toward decreasing ice on the planet. The fact that global sea level is rising is evidence of this. The article makes no mention of mountain glaciers. While the total mass and volume of these glaciers, which number in the thousands, is less than the mass and volume of the Antarctic glacier alone, it is nonetheless a fact that the overwhelming majority of these glaciers have shrunk substantially in the past 150 years.

          10. "I've shown that there is growing ice someplace else to off set the melts that might happen."

            Nothing you have said or that is said in the Forbes article substantiates this assertion. The Forbes article doesn't even make this claim.

            "Observational results about change in glacier mass (mass balance) collected since the mid-20th century in many mountain and subpolar regions on Earth present clear evidence that the volume of the Earth’s glaciers is being reduced, with substantial reductions since the mid-1970s and even more rapid loss since the end of the 1980s." — (http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386a/pdf/notes/7_glaciermass_508.pdf)

            "Earth's glaciers and ice caps outside of the regions of Greenland and Antarctica are shedding roughly 150 billion tons of ice annually, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder." — (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120208132301.htm)

            Also, sea ice is not the same as glacier ice. You have presented no evidence that the the Antarctic glacier itself is increasing in mass or volume. You have presented no evidence that the Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets are becoming thicker. The available evidence lends support to just the opposite.

            "We reconstructed the Greenland ice sheet total an- nual mass budget from 1958–2007. The ice sheet was losing mass during the warm period before the 1970s, was close to balance during the relatively cold 1970s and 1980s, and lost mass rapidly as climate got warmer in the 1990s and 2000s with no indication of a slow down." (– http://www.ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/erignot/files/

            "The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet has begun to decline. From 1979 to 2006, summer melt on the ice sheet increased by 30 percent, reaching a new record in 2007. At higher elevations, an increase in winter snow accumulation has partially offset the melt. However, the decline continues to outpace accumulation because warmer temperatures have led to increased melt and faster glacier movement at the island's edges. To learn more about research on the Greenland Ice Sheet, visit former CIRES Director Konrad Steffen's research Web page." ( — http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets….

            "Most of Antarctica has yet to see dramatic warming. However, the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into warmer waters north of Antarctica, has warmed 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1950. A large area of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, probably because of warmer water deep in the ocean near the Antarctic coast. In East Antarctica, no clear trend has emerged, although some stations appear to be cooling slightly. Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice, but so far the process has not become as quick or as widespread as in Greenland." (– http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets….

            If you had bothered to research beyond the Forbes article, which presented some factually correct information in a deceptive and dishonest way, you would have found that what was reported in this article does not lend support to your position in this discussion. It does not, as you mistakenly think, serve as evidence to refute the scientific conclusion and consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. It would have been advisable for you to consult the actual NASA statement from which Mr. Taylor drew his information. Here is the link to the NASA release about this data: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id….

          11. No where in the NASA release upon which the Forbes article is based is there any statement that the growth of sea ice around the Antarctic ice sheet refutes global warming. No where in that release does NASA say, after presenting the data, "Okay folks, mea culpa. We got it wrong. Global Warming isn't happening and the data we present here proves it." No, they did not say anything like this. Now if there is a global-wide conspiracy to foist upon the citizens of the world a climate change hoax, for what conceivable reason would NASA report data that would prove the world's scientists, including NASA scientists, wrong? They didn't. The data they reported does not refute global warming. Doesn't a conspiracy involve not sharing the truth with people and instead present information that is intended to deceive and mislead? I await what I am sure will be some serious mental gymnastics and masturbation on your part. I suspect I am about to get a conspiracy-theorist type response to the effect that being honest about the information is a part of the diabolical master-minded plot behind global climate change. I actually hope to be disappointed on this, but won't be surprised if I am not.

            "There is also variation from place to place around the continent. The Ross Sea sector has had a significant positive trend, while sea ice extent has actually decreased in the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Seas. In short, Antarctic sea ice shows a small positive trend, but large-scale variations make the trend very noisy." — http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOf

            So while the areal extent of the Antarctic sea ice was a record in 2013, it is obvious that it was not a large increase and that there is loss of sea ice in other places along the coast of Antarctica.

            You assert that the fact that ice isn't melting everywhere on the planet is proof that global warming isn't occurring. Here again you are wrong. All that is necessary to demonstrate global warming using ice and glacier data is to show that there is an overall long-term global trend of decreasing ice on the planet's surface. The data shows just this.

            With all this said, even if the ice and glacier data did not support the conclusion of global warming this would be of little significance given the fact that the evidence for global warming and global climate change comes from multiple converging lines of evidence. What is happening with sea ice and glaciers is only one of these multiple lines of evidence.

            The fact that you don't know these various details and keep repeating only snippets about the science, distorted ones at that, reveals that you are out of your league in discussing this topic. The quantity and quality of what I know about the climate change science is magnitudes above what you know. In addition, where you refuse to actually investigate the science beyond what little you do know and understand, I actually research both my statements before I make them and do additional research on the shit you keep offering up as evidence. Your knowledge and understanding of climate change science is incredibly poorly informed, shallow, flawed, employs logical fallacies and is presented in a propaganda fashion.

          12. Yes, it was a hot year in the United States. But it was not the hottest year on record for the planet as a whole, as so many climate change denialists keep claiming. The year 1934 was the 49th hottest year on record in terms of the global average temperature. Climate science is about examining trends and patterns over multiple decade time periods, not from one year to the next or comparing one particular year to another. The evidence clearly shows a long-term trend of rising temperatures. The evidence clearly shows that this long-term trend is accelerating compared to temperatures during prior periods. For example each of the the past three decades have shown average global temperatures that were higher than the previous decade. So the temperature trend for the planet was increasing at an accelerated rate during the years 2001 to 2010 compared to the period 1991 to 2000, and this decade showed an increase compared to the previous decade of 1981 to 1990. And the evidence based on analysis of carbon dioxide isotopes in the atmosphere clearly establishes that this trend over the past 30 years is due primarily to human activity involving the burning of fossil fuels.

          13. Your links were not more on target. They were totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Jesus Christ! Have you experienced some kind of serious head trauma that has had a serious adverse affect on your brain function?

          14. Only because you drew the wrong conclusions from them.

            I never intended them to make the artificial point you want to think I was.

            It showed that the earth has been warmer, life survived and it all happens as natural cycles.

            You still haven't shown that after billions of years natural cycles suddenly become a monkey on our back.

          15. Are you really so dense. It doesn't matter how cold it was in one part of the United States versus another in the context of this discussion about global temperature patterns. I have repeatedly told you that temperatures for the United States or any part of it do not represent temperatures for the entire planet. The average global temperature in any given year is NOT dependent upon nor determined solely by the temperatures in the United States.

            And the effect of temperatures and weather on milk prices has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

          16. Why? It's one big interdependent planet, the butterfly effect and all…

            Or is it suddenly the other way too, depending on the talking points you're pushing at the moment?

  2. I have been to each of the sites I listed above. I have read several of these reports in their entirety. For others I have read most or part of the information at the site. The evidence and arguments presented in these reports and sites is compellingly persausive. I suggest you spend some time at some or all of them. What's more there have been literally thousands of scientific research articles published in peer-reviewed journals, more than 97% of which supports and confirms the conclusion that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. I obviously haven't read all this research, but I have read a sizable portion of it. My training in science has over the years aided me in examining and evaluating this evidence. (I have a degree in geology and taught high school science for 22 years). My training in skepticism and critical thinking has aided me in evaluating the evidence. The science behind global climate change and humankind's role in it is robust in quality and overwhelming in quantity. Anyone who applies rational critical thinking to the examination of this evidence is almost certain to come away convinced by the preponderance of evidence. And if you are not, then it is highly likely you are examining the evidence through a politically-based ideological filter. I have no doubt this is what Cephus continues to do every time he posts on this topic. The evidence of this is the many strawman arguments he presents and the almost complete absence of an argument based on an evidence-based examination of the actual body of climate change evidence.

    Then there are these articles published by The Skeptics Society (www.skeptic.com)
    (1 )http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/
    (2) http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/ (How We Know Global Warming is Real
    and Human Caused)

    There also many books available that do a very good job of summarizing and explaining the evidence for global climate change. Some also address the political controversy surrounding the science of global climate change. There is no scientific controversy surrounding the science, despite the claims to the contrary by various ideologically-driven political pundits. Sure, there are a relative handful of climate scientists who reject the science and its conclusions. But none of them have offered a rebuttal or evidence that even remotely comes near to being sufficient to refute the scientific consensus on the subject.

    (1) The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines by Michael
    Mann
    (2) The Inquisition of Climate Science by James Lawrence Powell
    (3) The Climate Crisis: An Introductory Guide to Climate Change by David Archer and
    Stefan Rahmstorf

    If you wish not to present yourself as foolish, colossally uninformed, and intellectually inept as Cephus does here do yourself an enormous favor and go educate yourself before you jump on board the train that Cephus is taking to the Land of Stupidity.

      1. Oh, we can certainly influence climate change, but the liberal whine that the sky is falling is a bit absurd. Climate change is a constant, we go through regular heating and cooling cycles that exist whether man is burning fossil fuels or not so the idea that we're suddenly completely responsible for it is ridiculous. If man went extinct today, climate change would continue, with or without us.

        1. Yes, climate change is something of a constant in that there have been both major and minor changes in the climate throughout Earth's history. Yes we do go through periodic heating and coolings cycles, if by this you are referring to the coming and goings of ice ages. And yes, there have been times in Earth's history, such as during the Jurassic and Triassic periods when climates were warmer. One of the reasons for this because there were greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. None of the scientists are disputing nor claiming that there have not been periods in Earth's history when the global average temperature was higher. But none of this is relevant to the change that is occurring now. Human activity has accelerated the rate at which climate change had been occurring over the course of the past 1000 years at least.

          Again, you repeat the strawman argument after I corrected you. No liberals or scientists are saying that humans are "completely responsible" for the climate change that is occurring. What the science reveals is that we are the primary agent of the pace at which the change is occurring now. Stop misrepresenting what scientists are saying. It is intellectually dishonest of your.

          The fact that climate change would continue "with or without us" if our species went extinct is not a refutation of the scientific evidence-based conclusion that human activity has accelerated the normal pace at which climate change occurs. And again, you don't offer any arguments that address the evidence. You just present these assertions based on wildly inaccurate representations, fabricated inside your head, of what scientists are saying. And as I pointed out in one of my replies to you, it isn't just liberals who accept that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Though survey results show that a larger percentage of liberals accept ACG, at least 24% of conservatives also accept the scientific conclusion. So if you are going to continue incorrectly argue that liberals accept the science because they are just bags of emotionalism who like to whine about things, you'd better add in at least a quarter of your fellow conservatives as well.

          But as I said in one of my replies, none of this matters. It is irrelevant what liberals or conservatives think or say. Scientific conclusions are not determined on the basis of political ideology. Scientific conclusions are not evaluated on the basis of political ideology. What matters is what the scientists, regardless of their particular political persuasion, are saying based on the evidence and research. And it really only matters what the climate scientists are writing and saying. And there is a 97% consensus among the world's climate scientists that human's have affected and are affecting the Earth's climate systems in ways that will present a host of problems in the not-do-distant future. Some of effects are already being experienced.

          1. That huge group of scientists you refer to are not the one's whose expert opinion counts. I've seen the list to which you refer. Only a handful of those on that list are climate scientists. What a physicist or an astronomer or a chemist, etc. says is irrelevant. They aren't the ones conducting the climate change research and publishing it in professional peer-reviewed climatology journals.

            So you have a few climate scientists who disagree with the worldwide consensus versus thousands of climate scientists who say climate change is occurring and that human activity is the leading cause of both the type of change occurring as well as the pace at which it is occurring. Dozens of scientific organizations have issued statements supporting the science behind and the conclusion of anthropogenic global climate change. The consensus supporting this conclusion is large. Ninety-seven percent of the world's climate scientists are in agreement with this conclusion. Go to this website and read what is there: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. Also read the report co-authored by scientists at two of the world's leading scientific organizations, The National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society. You can read a press release about the report at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsit…. You can download and read the actual report (which I have done) here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18730. Go read the report before you open type anothr word on the subject. Otherwise you are just going to keep proving true the Forrest Gump line, "Stupid is as stupid does." In fact, spend some time a some or all of the websites I linked to in one of my replies. If you don't familiarize yourself with the evidence you'll just keep demonstrating how truly ignorant you are on the subject.

          2. Okay, opinion was the wrong word to use. Experts base their conclusions on the facts and evidence. And the fact is that 97% of the world's climatologists, the people who actually conduct and publish the research on global climate change, agree that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. This consensus position is based on the facts and evidence.

            As for the article to which you linked, it is only a further demonstration of your severe stupidity. If you rthinking faculties weren't so diminished by this stupidity you would have seen what is wrong with the article. Read this excerpt:

            "2012 Didn’t Crack The Top Ten For Record Maximums: ‘NOAA has inflated 2012 record maximum number by adding new stations which didn’t exist during the hot years of 1930s” — ‘That is a completely illegitimate approach. An apples to apples comparison uses only the same stations. When that is done, 2012 doesn’t even crack the ten hottest years.’"

            The authors claim that an apples to apples comparison uses only the same stations is really, really stupid in this case. The fact that there were fewer temperature stations available from which to take readings in the 1930s means there was less temperature data to analyze and accurately determine what the true average global temperature was. The more recent temperature readings, based on a larger data set, are more reliable. This is how science works. More data, not less, is better.

            Furthermore, the data from the 1930s to which this article refers is data almost exclusively from the United States. Since the United States is not the entire world, its temperatures do not necessarily reflect what the global average was or is. And global climate change is about what is happening on a global scale, not what is happening in the United States alone nor any other particular region.

            "1934 used to be the hottest year on record in the USA (2012 is now the hottest by a wide margin), but the USA only comprises 2% of the globe. According to NASA temperature records, the hottest years on record globally are 2005 and 2010." ( (http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm)

            "Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest." (http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm, the same site you so stupidly thought bolstered your position.) Notice that they are talking about global temperature patterns. The cherry-picked 1930s data is only for the United States.

            "The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is not an argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year. These happened in the past, and they will continue. The problem with climate change is that on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in global surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet." ( (http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm)

          3. I think we're probably making it worse but certainly all of the blame cannot be laid at the feet of man. For 300 years, between 1550 and 1850, we had the Little Ice Age, a period of global cooling. Are we supposed to believe that man was responsible for that too? And if so, why did it stop? We certainly never altered our carbon dioxide output.

          4. "I think we're probably making it worse but certainly all of the blame cannot be laid at the feet of man."

            There you go again, telling a lie. There are no climate scientists who have said that humans are entirely to blame for climate change. I challenge you to produce a link to any sources where a climate scientist has said this. Provide the evidence for this or stop repeating this lie.

          5. No, this is not what my statement says. While there are no climate scientists who are saying that humans are solely (entirely) to blame for the current climate change patterns, the consensus of climate scientists is that humans are very likely the primary cause of these climate changes. I have been saying this for several days now. Pay attention. And work on improving your reading comprehension.

          6. So we're not entirely at blame, but we're the one you demand change, and then act as if, although we're not to blame our life style is going to kill us all even if the planet has been in cycles before and survived.

            And yes, that is why I posted the link about the tree rings, we can prove that the warmer climates have been here and didn't kill us all.

          7. The Little Ice Age (also known as the Medieval Warm Period) is not a credible argument in opposition to climate change. This is one of many climate myths debunked at the skepticalscience website:
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-per

            "How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

            "While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

            "Climate Myth…
            Medieval Warm Period was warmer
            The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made."

            The above excerpt is a statement of the myth which is debunked by the following:

            "One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

            "Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

            "Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

            "Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

            "Overall, our conclusions are:

            a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

            b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming."

          8. Sure it's credible.
            And man didn't cause it. It was a natural variance.

            And you can't show that this isn't the same thing.

          9. Of course man did not cause the Medieval Warm Period. I never said humans did. You obviously have again failed to comprehend what was written because of the ideological blinders affecting your thinking faculties. I clearly pointed out that the Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. There were some parts of the planet that were warmer. But overall, the evidence shows the planet as a whole was cooler than now. And I did show this in the post above.

          10. So you admit we have had shifts before that we were not responsible for, and now want us to believe that it's because of our life style?

            You need to find better proof if you want to make that argument.

          11. Yes, there have been climate changes occur that did not involve human activity. But the above is not the first time in this discussion I have acknowledged this point. It is not a point of contention, and never has been except in that convoluted mind of yours. But since the development of an industrialized culture we humans have begun to affect the climate. It's a fact, whether you believe it or not.

            I have provided a substantial body of proof. Just because you choose to remain ignorant of this evidence does not make the evidence go away.

          12. So all sorts of variations happened but this one time it's our fault?

            That's very convenient for the administration that wants to seize control of the economy, in fact it's tailor made for this administration.

            How convenient, not convincing, but convenient.

          13. What horseshit. Evey one of the climate scientists who are part of the 97% consensus are infinitely more honest about the science than are you or any of the climate denialists, Cephus included.

            All of the climate scientists acknowledge that the Earth's climate has experienced changes over its 4.5 billion history. No one is saying that climate change is a new phenomenon. It is dishonest for you to imply that they are. What climate scientists are saying is that the pace of the climate change in recent time and the type of change that is occurring cannot be accounted for solely by natural mechanisms. The evidence convincingly – that is convincingly to anyone who examines the evidence without the prejudice of some ideology – demonstrates that the change occurring in our time is largely the result of human activity.

          14. Back to name calling?

            I trust those that look at the models and realize it's not getting hotter. That's one of the reasons the name was changed to climate change over global warming.

            Even the NOAA admits there are other things to watch for. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

            And now experts are detailing why the warming has stalled. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/02/27/has-globa

            Either you need to show there is actual warming for global warming to be more than natural variations or its a man made hoax.

          15. Where in my previous post did I call you a name? You are making shit up. I did say that you were being dishonest in your representation of what climate scientists are saying. This is not name calling.

            The ones who are entering the data into the models are the ones who are looking at the models. And they say the evidence from the models indicates the planet is warming at an accelerated level. I don't know who you are referring to whom are looking at the computer models and are saying the models don't show the planet getting hotter. Perhaps you'll provide their names. I'm quite confident that once you do I can show that these are not the people who actually run the models and analyze the data. They are more likely mostly non-scientist climate denying political hacks working for or funded by institutions such the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Searle Freedom Trust, Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil and others (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/22/3099141/climate-denying-groups-funding/).

            Here are twos article written by climate scientists detailing the reliability of the conclusions of climate models that climate change is occurring. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-bahttp://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-we-trust-comp

            Where in the link to the NOAA website does it say that NOAA "admits there are other things to watch for." Here is what you see when you go to the link above:

            "Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well."

            Nothing in there remotely like what you said. This said, I have repeatedly said that no scientists have been saying that there are not other factors also influencing climate change. I have made a point of saying that climate change is affected by multiple factors. But the scientific evidence clearly establishes that humans are the most significant of these factors. This is discussed in this entry written by climate scientists at the website Skeptical Science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-interm

            It is true that if you cherry-pick 1995 as the starting year, the data appears to show a state of temperature stasis. But periods of stasis during a long-term trend of change is not unusual and in fact is easily accounted for in the science that supports the conclusion of anthropogenic global warming. The article o which you link does not actually support your claim that climate change is not occuring and that the planet is not warming. A close reading of its shows support for just the opposite. This excerpt for example:

            " In the past 15 years, surface temperatures have not warmed as quickly as they did during the 1980s and 1990s. The surface of the planet is where we live and have amassed the best climate measurements and so it tends to be where we pay most attention. However, the planet is a big place. Global warming affects many parts of the climate system, and the accumulated energy in the climate system due to man-made global warming is going mostly into the oceans. The oceans are still warming at the rate we would expect from increasing greenhouse gasses. However, natural variations in climate can affect where heat is stored in the oceans over years to decades."

            The articles linked below were written by climate scientists and discuss this issue in more detail and explains what is wrong with picking 1995 as the starting point. This is a dishonest tactic of climate change denialists.
            (1) http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warmin
            significant.html
            (2) http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-n
            since-1995.htm

            I have repeatedly provided you with links to the evidence that global warming is occurring and that the current pace of this change is not due exclusively to natural variation. That human activity is playing a large part in causing this change. The fact that you refuse to examine the evidence with objectivity instead of ideological prejudice is a shortcoming in your critical thinking faculties.

          16. This is too easy. Don't you remember posting this one?

            1 day ago @ Bitch Spot – The Liberal Climate Ch… · 3 replies · +1 points
            "I could take the time and put together a comprehensive, well-constructed rebuttal to all the bullshit in that article. But the time would be wasted because assholes like you simply reject evidence and logical argument. You would simply say that all I had offered was opinion. This is how the mind of a conspiracy theorist works: The conspiracy is true so any contrary evidence is wrong and is just part of the cover-up."

            That is name calling.
            And you still haven't shown that the past was different and that the difference is caused by man's activity. I've shown that it was a natural cyclical event that didn't kill life. Want to try again?

      2. On the contrary, it has been convincingly demonstrated with evidence that humans can and have and are influencing the climate. The fact that you don't know this and can sit there at your keyboard and type such an idiotic and uninformed sentence only reveals that you have not made yourself familiar with the evidence nor the science of global climate change. It is easy to dismiss evidence-based conclusions when you aren't yourself familiar with that evidence and so speak from a position of ignorance.

        1. If you want to lower this to insults, I can do that. Ask Poof.

          Do you want to go there?

          You haven't shown anything other than you are sold on the idea of climate change hinging on mankind even though history has shown it to happen even more violently without man.

          This is a demonstration of your willful ignorance and idiocy.

          1. You have shit for brains. Climate change in the past has no bearing on whether humans are or are not influencing climate change in the present. Yes, there have been periods when Earth's climate was different and humans weren't present on the planet. And yes, there have been periods when the climate was warmer and colder than the present. But none of this is evidence that humans are not playing a role in the climate change that is currently occurring. This can be determined only by examining the climate change that is currently happening and through research determining what is causing it. The research overwhelming shows that is it is highly likely that humans are the leading cause of the current climate change trends and patterns. Read the fucking evidence at the links I provided. Stop this stupid insistence that climate change in long-ago geologic time periods is relevant evidence to apply to an understanding of the causes of climate change occurring today.

            As for the insults, give it your best shot. I know you think my comments are insults. But they are in fact descriptions of your ability to think and evaluate evidence and analyze scientific conclusions based on the ignorance and idiocy displayed in your comments.

            Lastly, if you think that my last remarks actually contained one or more insults, then (1) you have a low-threshhold for what constitutes an insult, and (2) you ain't seen nothing yet.

            Yes, I am in a manner of speaking "sold on the idea of climate change." But this is so because the evidence supporting this scientific conclusion is overwhelming large. I base my acceptance of claims and conclusions on the preponderance of evidence. You show no signs of doing this. I am thinking an behaving rationally. You are not.

          2. No, I am combining facts with insults, not overlooking them. The article to which you linked makes the same mistake as the other one to which you linked.

            The year 2012 was the warmest year globally. The author of this article is discussing the average temperature for the United States alone in the year 2012 and then comparing it to the 1930s, and then mistakenly drawing conclusions about global average temperatures. This is comparing apples to oranges. Again, the 1930s temperatures are for the United States only. This data does not represent the global average. So you can't take this regional data and draw conclusions about what was happening globally. The temperature data that supports the claim that 2012 was the warmest year on record is data for the entire planet, and thus the claim represents a claim about the global average temperature. If you can't understand this then you once again demonstrate stupidity.

          3. Prove it. Don't tell me it was the warmest year, show me.
            That's what journalists do, they don't tell and indoctrinate, they explain and lay out a case.

          4. I have provided you links to articles written by climate scientists which provide the evidence that 2012 was a warmer year globally than 1934.

            I will insert a correction at this point. I mistakenly misread a scientific article about 2012 being the warmest year globally. It actually was the 9th warmest year globally (http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/01/16/nasa-2012-was-9th-warmest-year-on-record-the-9-warmest-years-have-all-occurred-since-1998/), but was the warmest year in the United States (NASA: 2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record. The 9 Warmest Years Have All Occurred Since 1998.). I mistakenly thought the report I read was saying that 2012 was the warmest year globally. I have since learned that that distinction belongs to the year 2010. In any event, both 2012 and 2010 were warmer globally than 1934. The latest data and research shows that the 10 warmest years on record globally have all happened since 1998 (See http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10… Furthermore, recently analyzed data shows that 2013 was tied with 2003 as the fourth warmest year on record globally (See; http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-….

            You don't even know the job description of a journalist. A journalist is not a person who advances arguments. Journalists, for the most part, are writers who report the news. They report things that happen, or what the newsmakers and decision-makes say and do. It is true that newspapers have an editorial department where a handful of the newspaper's writers are engaged in writing editorials in which they write opinion pieces on behalf of the paper. But the overwhelming majority of journalists working at newspapers and magazines simply write about the news, they don't make arguments. You would know this if you actually had training as a journalist and worked full-time at a newspaper or magazine. I have a degree in journalism and worked full-time as a journalist for seven years, Neither you nor I are practicing journalism on this forum. So it is absurd for you to tell me behave like a journalist here, when journalism is not what either of is doing here. Writing and posting on a blog does not make you a journalist.

          5. So? How does that prove man made climate change?

            You still lose the debate because it's a theory that isn't supported by the facts, I've linked to a government study about how warming has 'stalled'.

            Want to try again?

          6. "You still lose the debate because it's a theory that isn't supported by the facts,…"

            I know you don't like being called an idiot, a moron, or stupid. But what is a person to do when you keep making idiotic, stupid and moronic statements like this one. You have been told by me and others here and in other conversations what a scientific theory is. Yet you still make incredibly uninformed remarks like the one above.

            Scientific theories are composed of facts. Scientific theories are composed of evidence derived from experiments. Scientific theories are composed of scientific hypotheses that have been repeatedly tested and confirmed. A scientific theory is an explanation that weaves together a set of related facts, observations, hypotheses, scientific laws and both empirically and experimentally derived evidence and data. So you are so incredibly wrong in the statement above. Not only is a theory supported by facts, but the theory for a given set of related facts explains those facts.

            Here are some links to definitions and discussions of what a scientific theory is. Read them and learn. Stop making statements that show a deep level of ignorance about a subject.

            "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." — (http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html)

            "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." — National Academy of Science

            (1) http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-f
            (2) http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scient
            theory.html
            (3) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
            (4) http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscien

          7. "I've linked to a government study about how warming has 'stalled'."

            And I linked to items written by climate scientists, some of them working for NASA or NOAA, both government agencies, explaining the bogus use of the data in the way that you have been presenting. Sure, the government site to which you linked reported that since 1995 or 1998, whichever year you want to start with, there has been a stasis in global temperature. But nowhere in the article at the link you provided did officials repudiate all of the science that supports anthropogenic global climate change. There is not a single government website you can go to in which you will read anything where the scientists have said, based on this period of stasis, that they have changed their view and now think that global warming is not occurring.

            You are engaging in propaganda when you cherry-pick data, as is done in using 1995 as a starting point, then use that data to misrepresent the science. Though the average global temperature of the planet has shown a "stalled" pattern in recent years, this does not overturn the data that shows that there is a long-term trend, represented by data going back more than 40 years, showing that the average temperature of the planet is increasing and doing so at an accelerated rate.

            So you try again, but this time do your best, as intellectually challenging as that is for you, to get it right!

          8. And I posted links too.

            How does it feel, knowing you have to ignore all evidence and all debate in order to maintain your failed position?

            Failed? Yes, the warming has stalled.

      3. The article to which you linked is filled with misrepresentations and misconceptions, all of which have been fully examined and refuted in the Climate Myths section at the website http://www.skepticalscience.com/ as well as at the website http://www.realclimate.org/ . Some of them are also addressed in the several different reports from scientific agencies and bodies to which I linked earlier, including the National Academy of Sciences and British Royal Society. Show some intellectual integrity and read the materials at these websites.

        1. And unless you can show from you site that no changes happen before mankind, it doesn't support your current position that man is doing this.

          More idiocy?
          Now, do you want to keep showing your lack of integrity or do you want to get back to civil discussion?

          1. Of course, that can't be shown because we know that changes did happen before man, and before man became a technical entity. The idea that primitive man with their burning campfires 20,000 years ago was causing global climate change is absurd.

          2. What the hell is this suppose to mean. It is nonsense. What relevance does it have to the subject being discussed?

          3. It was sarcasm.

            When the left is stuck with an undependable position they resort to name calling and those are two that come up frequently.

          4. Racist and bigot have nothing to do with the discussion about climate change. These two words, however, are not insults if they are actually true.

            As for climate denialist, there is no context in which that label is an insult. It is a description of a person who claims to be a climate skeptic but denies the science of climate change by misusing and misrepresenting the data, usually because of some prejudice about the science due to their political ideology. It is a term that aptly describes you. It is not an insult. It is a description. See these links for discussions and descriptions of what constitutes denialism as it applies to science:

            (1) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denialism
            (2) http://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.html
            (3) http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/

            Here is one excerpt from the Science Blogs link:

            "Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

            Examples of common topics in which denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism, Holocaust denial, HIV/AIDS denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, Tobacco Carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship. Chris will be covering denialism of industry groups, such as astroturfing, and the use of a standard and almost sequential set of denialist arguments that he discusses in his Denialist Deck of Cards.

            5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic."

            Reading this should feel like looking in the mirror for yourself.

          5. Racism wasn't used.

            I realize you are on high dudgeon. But Sarcasm was used, and when you recall the things the liberals call conservatives it was deserved.

          6. Now you are joining the chorus of stupidity. No one is claiming that "primitive man with their burning campfires 20,000 years ago was causing global climate change." This indeed would be an absurd claim. But the only place where the idea that anybody is making this claim exists is inside that dysfunctional brain of yours.

            The climate change that is bolstered by an enormous quantity of data is what has been occurring for the past century or so compared to what was occurring 20,000 or 10,000 or 1,000 years ago. The data unequivocally shows a pattern of accelerated temperature increases due to human activity since the industrial revolution of the 1800s, with the greatest amount of that accelerated change having occurred in the past 40 years.

          7. The evidence shows that 1934 was a hot year in the United States, but not particularly hot globally. As I said 1934 ranks 49th among the warmest years globally. I even provided a link to a climate science cite that more than adequately demonstrates the truth of this. I have to assume you did not read it. Typical for someone who isn't actually interested in engaging the evidence for a proposition. In fact, 1934 wasn't even the hottest year in the United States. That distinction goes to the year 2012. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806

            "Warm temperature trends continue near Earth’s surface: Four major independent datasets show 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record, ranking either 8th or 9th, depending upon the dataset used. The United States and Argentina had their warmest year on record."

            You can download the full scientific report and read it. Plenty of evidence supporting my position is presented in the report.

            (I have to acknowledge here that I misstated the data in an earlier reply when I said that 2012 was the warmest year globally. I misread a report as speaking about the planet when it was speaking about the United States.)

            By the way, I see that you have retreated from your original assertion that 1934 was the hottest year on record, which of course it was not, neither globally nor in the United States.

          8. I read the article to which you linked. Nowhere in that article does it say that global average temperatures during the time periods discussed in the article were higher than average global temperatures since the industrial revolution. In fact, the article states the following that contradicts your statement above:

            "Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution."

            and this excerpt from the same article you linked to:

            "The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age."

            So this article, contrary to you incorrect interpretation of it, actually endorses the idea that human activity since the start of the industrial revolution has actually caused the planet to warm up at an accelerated rate. That is twice now in this discussion that you have posted a link to an article that you mistakenly provided evidence against global climate change when it actually endorsed the idea of global climate change. You are not at all good at this debate thing.

          9. It shows evidence of a natural cyclical variation.

            And you admit man didn't cause it then, and haven't shown that man is causing it now, and if we are causing it that our actions could have any substantial effect.

            In fact with your evolutionary view of the planet what you suggest we do could short circuit the evolutionary process of our world and damage the outcome.

            Why do you want to risk that?

          10. "And you admit man didn't cause it then, and haven't shown that man is causing it now, and if we are causing it that our actions could have any substantial effect."

            It is true that I acknowledged that humans were not responsible for any climate changes that occurred millions, hundreds of thousands, or ten of thousands of years ago. Nothing controversial there. But this is not evidence that hunans are not now causing climate change, nor is it evidence that, as you have claimed, humans are incapable of causing climate change. You have been repeatedly using a logical fallacy in this claim.

            Contrary to your claim, I have in fact provided evidence that humans are responsible for a significant portion of the climate change that has occurred over the past 100 years, the past 40 years in particular. I have linked to many, many sites where scientific reports laying out the evidence for this is available for anyone with even a modicum of education and intelligence to read and understand. My guess is you have ignored 95% or more of the links I have provided. You have failed, so far as I can tell, to read any of the scientific reports I linked to in my first reply in this now very lengthy thread. You are the perfect example of a climate change denialist.

            As for my evolutionary view of the planet this is a whole lot of nonsensical bullshit. You clearly don't understand the concept of evolution as it applies to biological species or the planet in general. First of all, science clearly establishes that there is no pre-ordained outcome to any of Earth's processes. So there is no pre-determined outcome to change.

            Secondly, as a sentient, self-aware, intelligent species, we have every right to do what we can to preserve our species. There is no rule or law written into the way the universe works that prohibits us from doing this. There is nothing that demands that we sit passively by and just let happen to us whatever chance may bring. What kind of a foolish philosophy have you adopted? It is absurd.

            I am risking nothing. But if we follow your prescription and do nothing then we are risking a great deal.

          11. No, you haven't provided that proof.
            You have paraded other people such as yourself making the same vague claims but you haven't presented proof or evidence.

          12. "It shows evidence of a natural cyclical variation."

            I have never denied that there are natural cyclical variations. What is at question here is human impact on those natural cyclical variations. The climate change science shows that human activity has accelerated the warming trend that began some 30,000 or so years ago, resulting in the retreat of the large continental ice sheets. The rate at which the planet was warming up was substantially slower from about 18,000 years ago until about 150 years ago, when it began to accelerate by a substantial amount due to human activity.

          13. Yes, civil discussion is good. As you are incapable it, you ought to step away from the keyboard. Perhaps go into the spare room and play your cymbals.

          14. "And unless you can show from you site that no changes happen before mankind, it doesn't support your current position that man is doing this."

            Simply wrong. This is an irrational position. Any change that did or did not happen before the presence of humans on the planet is not and can not be evidence in favor of or in opposition to any change that is occurring now. You need to take some time and think very deeply about the idiotic remark you made.

            What is the point of civl discussion with a person who keeps exhibiting a total lack of knowledge about and understanding of the evidence on the subject of anthropogenic global climate change? When I say you are ignorant on the subject, I am not doing so to insult you. I am stating a fact about the state or level of knowledge you have on the subject. The word ignorance means lack of knowledge or information. You have repeatedly demonstrated that this word applies to you.

            When I call you stupid it is not with the intent to insult you. I am making an observation about your ability to learn because despite repeated attempts to correct you ignorance about climate change you keep repeating the same uninformed and incorrect things..The word stupid means lacking intelligence and/or unable to think clearly. The only explanation for why you have failed to learn from what I have tried to teach you must be because of an intelligence deficit on your part and/or an inability to think clearly.

            I have used the word idiot or idiocy, again not as an insult, but rather to more forcefully make the point that keep making stupid remarks about climate change. The term idiocy means extremely stupid behavior. I have already explained why the term stupid applies to your remarks. Since you keep repeating pretty much the same remarks and using the same arguments repeatedly, even after having been corrected. you are displaying an extreme form of stupidity, hence the use of the word idiocy.

            In summary, the words ignorance, stupid and idiocy (idiot) all are words that describe you based on the ignorant, stupid, idiotic things you have said and keep saying. These words, in other words, apply to you based empirical observations.

          15. It is rational and it's the pivotal flaw in your argument.

            If you want to blame this fraudulent global warming on man, then show he has that influence or that it didn't 'happen before man.

            I've shown it has. In summary, you're a fraud that lost this debate due to the evidence you can't lay out.

          16. Of course climate change has occurred before the arrival of humans. But you again mistakenly and stupidly assume that any climate change that pre-dates humans is evidence that humans can't impact the climate. This is, as I have already said, a logical absurdity. The evidence clearly indicates that humans are impacting the planet's climate.

            I have laid out and/or referred you to tons of evidence via the many links I provided. You simply refuse to examine the evidence. You are the fraud. You are the person pretending to be applying rational thought and critical thinking.

            But I am now done attempting to educate you. Your stupidity is so firmly fixed in you that it is useless to attempt to fix it. You are a prefect example of the truth of the statement Stupid Can't Be Fixed. So I shall stop trying. I will respond to no more of your inane and assinine arguments until you have read every bit of the evidence and materials at the various links I provided early on in this thread. Once you have familiarized yourself with this material, and can demonstrate to me that you have by actually referring to and discussing this material and the evidence it contains, then I will be happy to converse with you on this subject again. I have wasted more than enough time on your ignorance, stupidity, idiocy and irrational thoughts.

          17. Fine, you want to lower the debate to insults I can go there. I'd rather not, but if SFB like you can't figure out how to actually debate the facts instead of trying to make it about personality? Well, what choice do I have.

            I realize that you have that brown ring around your neck from Obama's backside. That the agenda of controlling all actions of man is more important than anything else. It's obvious.

            I realize that you cling to bonafides that don't show up in your posts. It's also obvious.

            But try to pretend you can reason for a moment.
            If man wasn't there to cause earlier swings in climate then why is this last slight and temp blip in the temp readings our fault? It's not even bad as far as historical climate shifts go, (unless you can prove otherwise). But you again mistakenly and stupidly assume that because propaganda is being spit out that we will ignore this rather cold winter and pretend to go along with the mantra.

            This is, as I have already said, a logical absurdity. When you can predict the weather and it comes true, then come back to us and start whining again.

            Again, I realize you are beyond education, you have been indoctrinated. Your stupidity is so firmly fixed that while you can't prove any links are wrong you attack them on personality. Your stupidity is so firmly fixed you won't even look at the facts.

            But unlike you, I don't stop trying. That may be the biggest difference between us.

          18. Nobody is doing insults here anymore, anyone who throws out an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the discussion will have their comment deleted permanently. I've been doing a lot of that lately and some people here ought to recognize that a lot of their comments are just vanishing. If people can't behave like civilized adults, they can go elsewhere.

          19. "I realize that you have that brown ring around your neck from Obama's backside."

            You said that you are not a racist, yet you make racist remarks. It is racist to use a persons skin color as part of an insult.

          20. It's not racist HUA is a saying going back far before this marxist president.

            Don't try that race card, it's all worn out.

          21. "If man wasn't there to cause earlier swings in climate then why is this last slight and temp blip in the temp readings our fault?"

            The fact that humans were not there in past epochs to affect climate change does not serve as an argument that humans can't possibly being affecting Earth's climate systems now. I just can't understand why this is such a difficult idea for you to grasp. Humans are pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. For you to think that this has no impact other than a minor blip is about as irrational and foolish as a person's thinking can be.

          22. Yes it serves as that argument.

            So, you go on the attack since you are outclassed by a 'lesser' mind.
            How does that feel?

          23. "But you again mistakenly and stupidly assume that because propaganda is being spit out that we will ignore this rather cold winter and pretend to go along with the mantra."

            You are engaging in propaganda. It is you who keeps using facts and data that has been cherry-picked and then misrepresenting and misusing that data. Data or facts by themselves are not propaganda. But when they are used in such a way as to twist their meaning and misinform others then they are being used as propaganda. This is what you have repeatedly done. The climate change scientific data that can be used to deceive has been used by you and those whom you keep linking to do this. Worst part of it, tragic actually, is that you have come to believe the deceptions yourself. The evidence that you and other climate denialists are unable to contort for you purposes of deception you simply ignore or dismiss it as lies.

            Again, you show your ignorance. Weather and climate are not the same. You can not draw conclusions about climate change by using weather data from a single year. Climate and climate change is determined on the basis of long-term patterns and trends, spanning over multiple decades or more. This past winter's coldness says nothing about climate change. That you think it does only again reveals how little you actually know about climate and weather and the difference between them.

          24. I am trying to distract you from the lame talking points with a few simple points and you get upset and fail to show they are wrong.

          25. "This is, as I have already said, a logical absurdity. "

            The absurdity is the errors you keep parading out as scientific facts and truths because of your ignorance about the difference between climate and weather. I taught this stuff for 22 years. I can state with absolute certainty that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

            "When you can predict the weather and it comes true, then come back to us and start whining again."

            Predicting the weather has nothing to do with climate. The depth to which your ignorance extends just becomes more and more obvious with each remark you type.

          26. You call them errors, I call your comments propaganda.

            So, why don't you just explain why you want to halt the evolution of the planet.

          27. "Again, I realize you are beyond education, you have been indoctrinated."

            Me, beyond education on the subject of climate and weather? I was a science teacher. I taught Earth Science, which included the subjects of weather and climate for 22 years. It is laughable that you think you know more about this subject than do I.

            "Your stupidity is so firmly fixed that while you can't prove any links are wrong you attack them on personality. Your stupidity is so firmly fixed you won't even look at the facts."

            How very creative and original of you. You can't think of your own insults so you simply recycle the ones I used on you.

          28. Yes, beyond education.
            You ignore everything said, every point made and keep circling back without proving anything.

            Why do you want the evolution of the planet halted, and you haven't proven we can do that.

          29. "But unlike you, I don't stop trying. That may be the biggest difference between us."

            It is true that you don't stop trying. Problem is that your best effort at trying is failing miserably. You aren't succeeding because you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You are so deeply uneducated on the subject of science in general, and climate science (not to mention evolution and biology) in particular, that there is no basis for meaningful or productive conversation. It is like trying to have a conversation with a jackass, one participant (me) is educated, intelligent and well-versed on the subject, while the other participant (you) can only stand there without any comprehension of what is being said, occasionally braying or hee-hawing.

            Throughout this conversation you have been provided with more than enough evidence to convince a reasonable person who possess a fully functional set of critical thinking faculties. Yet you have continued doggedly to dismiss this evidence. This itself is evidence that you are neither a rational thinker nor a critical thinker

            Your think, as represented by the many things you have said, is muddle-headed. Either by choice or as the result of a very poor education you are completely clueless as to the proper way to evaluate evidence or present an argument.

            You have continuously shown that your mind is a place where little or no light shines. There is, I believe, more illumination in a darkened cave than can be found in your mind. There is more clarity to be had looking to see the far shore of a lake through a dense cloud of fog than there is in the thoughts that spill from your mind.

            The fact that I am now going to end debating with you is most certainly not the biggest difference between you and I. The biggest difference is that I have a fully functional set of critical thinking faculties and you have not; that I am a rational thinker and you are not; that I understand science and you do not; that I am intellectually equipped to evaluate evidence and data and scientific conclusions and you are not. I am weary of intellectually sparring with a person who comes to the match so inadequately prepared and equipped.

          30. You can keep repeating the propaganda all the time.

            But you're failing because in spite of the intellectual pretensions you haven't shown that this time (as opposed to all the times before) that the temperature cycling up and down is due to us, or that our influence might stop it.

            Why do you want to stop the evolution of the planet?

          31. "And unless you can show from you site that no changes happen before mankind, it doesn't support your current position that man is doing this."

            This would not be possible to show since, as I have already stated, the climate has changed during those long-ago periods of Earth history during which humans were not present. But as I have stated, any past climate changes are not evidence of any kind for climate change occurring in the present. You claim that pre-human climate changes are evidence that humans can't be responsible for climate change now is a logical absurdity.

            But even if I could show that there had been no climate change prior to the evolution of humans, this would not be evidence that could support any claim about the impact of humans on Earth's climate since our evolution as a species. Again, if you are incapable of understanding this then it is only because you truly are stupid. It is because whatever critical thinking faculties you may have had at one time are either gone or so badly damaged that they are not working. It is obvious you simply do not know how to analyze and evaluate data and evidence in a scientific manner. Your ability to do this has been deformed by whatever political and/or religious ideological filters through which you are viewing the evidence.

          32. Let's see… millions of years without man have shifts.

            We've been here for how long? Not long and all of a sudden the same things that have been going on before us are now our fault?

            Yeah…. Not really. It's a flawed position particularly when the climate shift isn't more than a blip.

          33. There has never been a climate shift as fast as we are seeing now, and it started the exact year of the industrial revolution.

          34. Your article doesn't refute what I said,.

            And all science agrees what I said. Your propaganda is weak.

        1. Want to try again, with a link that is more fact and less propaganda?
          Science isn't settled by consensus but by the results of experiments to determine facts.

          1. Actually, everything at that site is fact. The propaganda that has been used in this discussion has all come from you. And I suspect you are getting much of it from individuals working for or funded by various climate denying organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, ExxonMobil, The Sarah Scaife Foundation and others.

            Furthermore, you don't understand what scientific consensus means. The scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring is based on the results of experiments and the accumulation of facts and evidence. You need to educate yourself on what the phrase scientific consensus means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

            From The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism, page 11 http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Ske

            "The case for human-caused global warming isn’t based on a show of hands but on direct observations. Multiple, independent lines of evidence all point to the same answer.

            "There’s a consensus of evidence that humans are raising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. This is confirmed by measuring the type of carbon in the air. What we find is more of that carbon is coming from fossil fuels.

            "There’s a consensus of evidence that rising CO2 is causing warming. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space. Surface observations find more heat returning to Earth. This is happening at the exact wavelengths where CO2 traps heat – a distinct human fingerprint.

            "There’s a consensus of evidence that global warming is happening. Thermometers and satellites measure the same warming trend. Other signs of warming are found all over the globe – shrinking ice sheets, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and shifting seasons.

            "The pattern of warming shows the tell-tale signatures of an increased greenhouse effect. Nights are warming faster than days. Winters are warming faster than summers. The lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling.

            "On the question of whether humans are causing climate change, there’s not just a consensus of scientists – there’s a consensus of evidence."

          2. No, the tree ring data is not propaganda. The misleading and deceptive way in which you are using this data to support your climate denialism is the propaganda.

          3. No, it's not propaganda. It's science showing what happened.

            For you to play it down while using less scientific evidence is profound, and that is propaganda.

  3. The comment that humans are solely responsible for climate change is incorrect. But humans are most definitely a significant contributor to climate change. The fact that this person produced no data to support his claim does not mean that data supporting the large human role in climate change does not exist. It does. The evidence is in isotopes of the carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere. Several excerpts from the publication Climate Change: Evidence & Causes, published by the National Academy of Sciences
    (http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf)

    ""Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences."

    "Direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere and in air trapped in ice show that atmospheric CO2 increased by about 40% from 1800 to 2012. Measurements of different forms of carbon (isotopes, see Question 3) reveal that this increase is due to human activities. Other greenhouse gases (notably methane and nitrous oxide) are also increasing as a consequence of human activities. The observed global surface temperature rise since 1900 is consistent with detailed calculations of the impacts of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 (and other human-induced changes) on Earth’s energy balance."

    "Human activities have significantly disturbed the natural carbon cycle by extracting long- buried fossil fuels and burning them for energy, thus releasing CO2 to the atmosphere."

    "The CO2 level in 2012 was about 40% higher than it was in the nineteenth century. Most of this CO2
    increase has taken place since 1970, about the time when global energy consumption accelerated.
    Measured decreases in the fraction of other forms of carbon (the isotopes 14C and 13C) and a small
    decrease in atmospheric oxygen concentration (observations of which have been available since 1990)
    showthattheriseinCO islargelyfromcombustionoffossilfuels(whichhavelow13Cfractionsandno 2
    14C). Deforestation and other land use changes have also released carbon from the biosphere (living world) where it normally resides for decades to centuries. The additional CO2 from fossil fuel burning and deforestation has disturbed the balance of the carbon cycle, because the natural processes that could restore the balance are too slow compared to the rates at which human activities are adding CO2 to the atmosphere."

    "Comparison with the CO2 levels measured in air extracted from ice cores indicates that the current concentrations are higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years (see Question 6)."

    Evidence of the role of humans in global climate change is also discussed here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidenc

  4. "He just wanted to assert that in the end because, apparently, liberals cannot separate climate change from human-caused climate change."

    It is relatively unimportant what liberals, conservatives, libertarians or ignoramuses say about global climate change and the role of humankind in it. What matters is what the actual science and expert scientists say. The science is unambiguous and robust: global climate change is occurring and humans have been the primary agent of this change, and are continuing to play a significant role in it. There are numerous reports from the world's leading scientific bodies all saying the same thing: global climate change is real and humans activity is the primary agent of this change. There have been thousands of scientific papers published in a variety of peer-reviewed scientific journals, with all but a handful clearly indicating that global climate change is real and that human activity is the primary agent of this change.

  5. "To liberals, they are one and the same.  I have my suspicions why this is the case but I’ll go into those later."

    Science is not a matter of politics. Scientific conclusions are not based on political ideologies. Scientific evidence is not evaluated using liberal or conservative politics as the metric. This said, the science of global climate change is not supported by only liberals. There are many conservatives who also agree with the science that global climate change is occurring and that humans are the primary agent of this change. So it isn't just a liberal thing. Just recently the EPA administrators under Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon testified before Congress and said that the science supporting the conclusion of global climate change and humankinds role in it is no longer up for debate. They also published a piece in the New York Times saying the same thing (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=0). All this said, it is important to repeat that political persuasion does not determine the science. A person with a sincere commitment to intellectual integrity follows the evidence wherever it leads no matter how uncomfortable a fit it may have with their political persuasion.

    A Pew Research study found that 50% of Republicans accept the conclusion that global climate change is occurring and that 24% of them also accept that human's are largely the cause of it.

    "In 2009, 35% of Republicans, 53% of independents and 75% of Democrats said there was solid evidence of rising temperatures on earth. Today, half of Republicans (50%), 62% of independents and 88% of Democrats say this, according to our October, 2013 survey." (http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/)

    "Two-thirds of Democrats (66%) say that warming is mainly because of human activity, up nine points from earlier this year. Fewer independents (43%) and Republicans (24%) than Democrats say that human activity is the primary cause of global warming." (http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/)

    So global climate change can hardly be a liberal, left-wing conspiracy. Nor is acceptance of it confined to just liberals, as you appear to be implying.

  6. "What’s worse, if you say you don’t accept that humans are completely to blame for climate change, they will pretend you don’t accept that climate change happens at all."

    This is horseshit. This is a strawman. Maybe there are some liberals who make such claims. But this is not all, or even most liberals. I am a liberal and I don't make such claims. Humans aren't "completely to blame for climate change", but we certainly are the primary agent of that change. The science clearly establishes this to be the case.

    More importantly, the bulk of climate scientists (97% in fact) agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are the primary agent of this change. None, to my knowledge, are agrung that human activity is solely responsible for climate change. For you to imply otherwise is the creation of a strawman; it is a misrepresentation of the consensus position within the scientific community. It is also a misrepresentation of the view held by knowledgeable non-scientists. I am one of them. I have examined the evidence. I have read many of the reports, including the one recently published jointly by the National Academy of Science and the United Kingdom's Royal Society, as well as the IPCC report. The evidence supporting the conclusion that global climate change is occurring is robust, compelling, and convincing, at least for anyone who is not filtering the science through their political ideology. The evidence that humans are the primary cause of the global climate change now occurring is also nearly equally as strong.

    ""It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." — IPCC Fifth Assessment (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans)

  7. "I’ve seen exactly that claimed many, many times.  In fact, in a recent episode of Cosmos, Neil Degrasse Tyson said essentially the same thing, that it’s all man’s fault that the climate is changing and we have to change our ways or risk the equivalent of an asteroid falling on the dinosaurs."

    Tyson never actually said that the dangers we face from global climate change are the equivalent of the dinosaur extinction event. This is an exaggerated characterization of his remarks invented in your head; created not to present a debate about the actual realities but as a polemic tool. Tyson also did not say in the Cosmos episode that humans were solely responsible for climate change. He said what all scientists have been saying, that our activity worldwide is the leading agent of this change.

    "Note, the asteroid that fell on Chicxulub was not the fault of the dinosaurs, although the liberal climate change crowd would probably find a way to blame them if they could."

    Note: Not a single scientist or supporter of the science of global climate change has ever implied that the dinosaurs were to blame for the asteroid. This is an absolutely stupid and irrelevant comment and point to make.

  8. "A lot of this I find to be a large part of the liberal mindset."

    The scientific evidence that leads to the conclusion that anthropogenic global climate change is occuring is neither liberal nor conservative. It is not based on this phantom liberal mindset to which you refer. It is just science. You claiming or implying that global climate change science is a liberal conspiracy is nothing more than you politicizing the science because you don't like the conclusions of that science nor the possible implications of it for economic and political policy issues related to the science. You are the one behaving as an ideologue.

    "They want someone to blame.  They want to think that man has complete and total control of the world around him, therefore there has to be someone to point a finger at, therefore they can believe that we can fix it, no matter what it is."

    This is utter horseshit. The science is what it is. None of the scientists involved in studying and investigating climate change have argued or stated this. No one is arguing that "man has complete and total control of the world around him." It is yet another misrepresentation on your part driven by your political ideology.

  9. "That’s not the case, sorry.  If you look at the climate history of the planet, we see many, many instances of change that had nothing whatsoever to do with human activity, in fact, we find many cases that happened before humans even evolved on this planet."

    This is such an obvious point that it borders on idiotic for you to state. No scientists have ever denied that there have been many instances of climate "change that had nothing whatsoever to do with human activity…." In fact, the scientific community has made a point of stating this. Afterall, it was science that has informed us about everything we know about past climates. The fact, however, that there have been climate changes in the past that were not influenced by human activity is not evidence that the climate change occurring in the present is not influenced by human activity. For you to imply otherwise is to engage is sophistry, not rational argumentation.

  10. "Whether the liberals like it or not, we were not responsible for things that happened before we even existed. "

    Not a single liberal – whether that liberal be a scientist or non-scientist – has ever claimed anything to the contrary. Again, you are engaging is strawman arguments. For a person who claims to be a rational thinker, you should know better than to use logical fallacies like this. If you truly believe that liberals have made this claim, then provide the evidence. Provide links to sources where I and others can read for ourselves where liberals have actually said this.

  11. "While we may have had some effect on the current climate situation, maybe even a significant effect, we are not the ones to blame for all of it."

    Again, strawman. I can't speak for what some liberals may be saying, but no scientist involved in climate research, nor anyone even moderately familiar with the science and the evidence, has said this. The latest IPCC report says that there is a 95% probability that it is "extremely likely" that humans have played a significant role in the global climate change that has occurred in modern times.

    "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}" (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf)

  12. "It’s not something we can fix. It’s something we have to try to survive through and if we can’t, then we may go extinct, just like millions of other species have over the years. That might be a scary thought for a lot of people but scary or not, it is the truth."

    Yes it is something we have to try to survive. But we don't do this by doing nothing, you moron. Part of the plan for surviving this is taking steps to mitigate the effects of the change is has already occurred and the change that is yet to come. Part of this mitigation strategy must include enacting policies to curb our carbon dioxide emissions.

  13. "Like it or not, this kind of thing happens regularly. See the chart to the right, it details the climate swings in just the past 12,000 years. Are we supposed to think that humans, who weren’t even a technological species until a few hundred years ago, were responsible for them all?"

    Of course not. But the science is unequivocal: we are largely responsible for the climate change that has been occurring since the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800s, and the science is even more unequivocal about our role in global climate change over the past 40 years. Only a dunce does not see this and only an ideologue rejects the evidence when it is so overwhelming and abundant. Neither being a dunce nor being an ideologue are traits of a rational critical thinker.

    "Of course not, that would be absurd."

    So glad you understand this. Now stop portraying all those who are convinced by the evidence supporting the conclusion of global climate change and the significant role of humans in this process as advocating this specific position. It is a flat-out lie. Yes, I am calling you a liar.

  14. So why are we supposed to think that we’re the cause of all of Earth’s problems now?"

    Because the evidence unambiguously leads to and supports the conclusion that we largely responsible for global climate change and for many other environmental problems, such as water pollution, air pollution, soil pollution and erosion, just to name a few. But your statement above is another strawman characterization. No one is saying humans are responsible for "all of Earth's problems." Just some of them.

    "I understand that, like the majority of liberal positions, this is based on emotion."

    No, you dummy, it is based on evidence. Do you seriously think that humans are not the leading cause of water pollution or air pollution, for example? Are you really that blinded by your political dogma? Your rants against liberals is greatly based on an emotional dislike of them.

  15. "They’re terrified to be powerless."

    No we are not. Unlike you we are sincerely concerned about the impact we have on the environment and the consequent impact that has on other human beings and other species.

    "They’re afraid that we can’t solve the problems."

    No we are not. We are the ones looking for the solutions to the problems. You are just sticking your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich. We know the problems can be solved. You do to. You just don't want to solve them because the solutions actually needed don't fit your political ideology. You are approaching these problems in a very irrational manner, completely out of touch with reality.

    "They’re aghast at the prospect that man’s destiny is not completely controlled by man."

    No we are not. This is a strawman, again. You want to believe for ideological reasons because then it means you can dismiss our offered solutions without actually discussing the merits of these solutions. You have nothing of substance to offer.

  16. "They’re alarmed to realize that they’re a minuscule bit of the universe and that everything doesn’t revolve around us/"

    No, we educated liberals actually understand reality, which is more than I can say for you. You love to engage in bombastic hyperbole as a mask to cover the fact that you haven't anything rational or substantative to offer.

    "And so, they try to blame us for everything but we’re just not responsible for every bad thing that befalls us."

    Who is the us? Oh, I see you are feeling threatened, are you. Trying to play the victim. This is not an issue of blame. Humans are the leading cause of global climate change. That means all of us, we liberals included. When we point the proverbial finger at humanity we are also pointing it at ourselves. But unlike you, we are working to do something about it instead of engaging in childish blame game discussions such as you have offered here. Nothing you have said constitutes an actual argument or rebuttal of the science that supports what we know about global climate change and the influence of humans Earth's climate system.

  17. "Take extinction for example. We go to extreme lengths to save species that may go extinct."

    Now you have shifted focus from climate change to species extinction? Well, you are just as ignorant here as you were in your pretend discussion of global climate change.

    "Well, the cute species, we’re not as concerned with the rest of the 10,000 species that go extinct each and every year. And you know something?  Those 10,000 species would go extinct whether we were around or not."

    Actually, you are wrong. The 10,000 species per year rate you quote is not the background extinction rate. It is the current rate, which represents by most scientific estimates a rate somewhere between 1000 and 10,000 times the normal and historical background rate of extinction (http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/). Why is the rate so much higher now than at most times in Earth's past. Yep, you guessed it (or in your case failed to grasp what the answer actually is). Humans.

  18. "It’s not our fault and it’s not our responsibility."

    Oh, but it is our fault. You'd know that if you bothered to actually research the topic. Instead you take the lazy way toward your conclusions and assume that any thought you have that fits into your ideological narrative has to be correct.

    "That’s how evolution works. Old species die off, new species evolve."

    Good to know that you know at least some science. But we are not debating this point. The current rate of species extinction is so high that many scientists think we may actually be in the midst of a mass extinction event, you know, one of those events where a much larger than normal percentage of species go extinct in a relatively short geologic time period. And it ain't no asteroid causing it.

  19. "It’s not our job to maintain some kind of planetary stasis  because we don’t want anything to change."

    No one is claiming that it is. Again, your are creating strawmen because they are so much easier for you to attack than the real arguments we liberals are offering.

    "Things change! That’s how the world works!"

    Well, of course they do. How so obvious and trite a thing for you to say. You seriously believe that we liberals don't know this? How foolish of you.

    "And it’s not just the planet, we don’t mean a damn thing in universal terms either."

    Again, a very undisputed and not-profound thing to say. I'm sure it makes you feel superior and smug to say this and think you are telling us liberals something profoundly true. But it actually only shows you to be a fool.

  20. If we vanished as a species tomorrow, nobody would notice.  Maybe in the distant future, some alien species might consider us an anthropological anachronism but nothing more.

    Holy shit! Cephus is such a profound thinker. I do declare. Seems you have struck upon yet another deeply profound truth that the rest of us didn't know. Slap a sticker on your forehead.

    "We’re just not important to anyone but ourselves.
    "We have to face the fact that we, as a species, infest the surface of our planet, just like every other species that we live with."

    How is it that you have not made all the talk shows with these pearls of wisdom. Amazing that your genius has gone unrecognized and unappreciated. Those of us familiar with the science of global climate change and the environmental issues are facing the facts. You are the one who is not facing the facts. You are the one not facing the evidence. You are the one dealing with the facts and evidence in an intellectually dishonest manner.

  21. "The planet doesn’t care about us, the planet has no reason to protect us, if we vanished tomorrow, the planet wouldn’t care, not that it’s capable of caring."

    And again with the not-profound pseudo-wisdom. But you go ahead and keep on instructing us Cephus. We will just keep laughing at your pretentious buffoonery.

  22. "I think George Carlin said it best when he said that the planet is fine.  It might be us that is fucked."

    Funny routine and gets a lot of laughs. But Carlin is not a credible source of information on science topics such as global climate change.

    "We have to learn that our pathetic little existence on this pathetic little planet in a pathetic little galaxy is meaningless in the scheme of things."

    Have you recorded all this wisdom in a book available for purchase. Just don't understand why no one before you ever thought of this stuff. Oh, wait. Some have.

  23. "All of the poisons we dump into the atmosphere is vastly overwhelmed by a single volcanic eruption. An average of 55 volcanoes erupt each and every year somewhere on Earth. We’re just not causing anywhere near the damage to be a major threat."

    Wrong. We are causing sufficient damage to the environment that we present a threat to ourselves and other species on the planet.

  24. "The sun, when it is on a warming cycle, produces a far, far greater effect than anything we can do."

    The sun is not on a warming cycle. The sun's energy output and surface temperature has been pretty damn constant during the past century, the very time during which global climate change has been occurring at an accelerated pace.

  25. "Are we supposed to believe that we’re responsible for volcanoes and the sun? Seriously?"

    You think what you want. But no serious thinker thinks this. No thinker with even a moderate ability to think thinks that liberals think this. No one, including liberals, has even said this. Only a fool such as yourself would think that anyone would think this, let alone even say it. You sure do lover those strawmen. But you are simply wrong and display an amazing ignorance about Earth. We are capable of affecting the rate at which some natural processes, such as climate change, occur. We're doing so now and the science that supports this conclusion is considerable in its quantity and quality.

    "What little we do is dwarfed by nature and we cannot change nature. Nature is so much larger than we are, we’re fundamentally beneath notice."

    More bullshit piled onto ignorance.

  26. "And all the Prius’ on the planet won’t change that."

    I was going to ignore this comment because at first it appeared to be the only statement you made that comes close to being accurate (though you did, to your credit, have a couple of facts right in this post, but that was all). But as I thought about it, you are wrong in at least one sense. While it is true that if everyone on the planet who owns and drives a car were to swap their less fuel-efficient car for a Prius it would not change nature as a whole, it would diminish our impact on the Earth's climate system.

      1. Wow. What an incredibly powerful and rational refutation of the arguments and evidence supporting the scientific conclusion of anthropogenic global climate change.

        Keep offering such idiocy in place of actual arguments. It is entertaining to see you make such a fool of yourself. If this is the kind of arguments you think are going to convince people that you are right and know what you are talking about and that liberals are wrong and don't know what they are talking about, then I look forward to seeing the outcome of this strategy. You are not the rational person you keep bragging that you are. On the topic of climate change you are very irrational and quite emotional.

      2. They often talk about our 'infesting the planet' so it makes sense.

        But they always seem to want everyone but them to take that last final solution.

        1. By "They" are you referring to all liberals? If so, then you are again displaying your idiocy. Provide a link to a sizable number of liberals who have said this. Perhaps there are a few who have made such a silly and stupid remark. But if so a few liberals do not represent all liberals. To establish that this is a position widely held among liberals you will need to provide data showing that a large number of liberals have said this. Otherwise, it is just an opinion.

          "Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance." — Hippocrates

          And as I pointed out in a previous post ignorance is something you have in abundance.

          1. The author of this article, Steve Jones, is obviously a conspiracy theory lunatic. See the following for a list of the characteristics of such people: http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html. See also this article by Michael Shermer on how to detect a conspiracy theorist: http://www.michaelshermer.com/2010/12/the-conspir

            Are you saying you agree with the author of this irrational diatribe? Are you a conspiracy theory nut? That would explain some of the really stupid things you say.

          2. If the author is all that, then it shouldn't be hard for you to prove him wrong.

            I'd suggest that man made climate change is a conspiracy. So, let's just all disregard it.

          3. I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy, I'd say that it, like a lot of other things, plays right into the liberal "who is to blame" model. It's "let's find a problem, we'll make up a solution and then we'll try to force everyone to follow our solution, whether or not it actually works". The same thing is true of sexism, racism, sexual orientation, etc. All of the liberal solutions are geared toward pushing their own agenda and worldview, not actually solving the problems. In fact, they need the problems to stick around so they can continue to forward their agenda some more.

          4. Too bad they don't actually solve things that are real problems,

            There are a lot of unemployed or under employed folks that want business to grow and hire them again.

          5. Are you assuming that the author of that conspiracy article is a liberal? If so, you have no basis for this assumption, other than your idiotic and irrational view that if it reads as irrational then it had to be a liberal or libertarian who wrote it. In your demented mind it isn't possible for a conservative to say something irrational, or at least you have deluded yourself into believing that you can never be wrong because you are a conservative.

            Ya, right. Only Cephus the genius has the solutions to everything. Only conservatives are rational thinkers. There is a whopper of a logical fallacy in there. If you've any intellectual ability at all you'll figure out what it is.

          6. Why? I suggest that the climate debate is a conspiracy, you are the one that jumped to the conclusion that the author needed to be liberal.

            Words mean things. If conspiracy has been defined and you have a theory that you push in keeping with that definition, viola!

            Solutions don't care about left and right. They do care that they work, when liberals come up with working solutions I'll be the first to cheer you on. I don't see the power grab over the economy and the tactics to rob us of industry is part of that.

          7. You just make up shit and pull it out of your ass without any sense of dishonesty about doing it. I never said the author of the article was a liberal. I never said anything that assume the author was a liberal. If I did then point out the quote where I did this.

          8. I could take the time and put together a comprehensive, well-constructed rebuttal to all the bullshit in that article. But the time would be wasted because assholes like you simply reject evidence and logical argument. You would simply say that all I had offered was opinion. This is how the mind of a conspiracy theorist works: The conspiracy is true so any contrary evidence is wrong and is just part of the cover-up.

          9. I did not define conspiracy. I provided a link to the characteristics of a person who engages in conspiracy thinking. In the post above I stated how the mind of a conspiracy theorist works and how they handle evidence. They don't actually address the evidence. If you think the body of anthropogenic climate change evidence that has been accumulated through the research of thousands of climate scientists, and endorsed by most of the world's leading scientific organizations, represents a conspiracy and offer no evidence of the existence of the conspiracy, then you are a perfect example of a conspiracy theorist. Such people offer irrational assertions masquerading as actual evidence-based argument. You are such a person.

          10. You did try to define the mechanism for conspiracies, when you said this:

            "This is how the mind of a conspiracy theorist works: The conspiracy is true so any contrary evidence is wrong and is just part of the cover-up."

          11. Yes, I did say that and I also said that that description applies to you as evidenced by the comments you keep posting in this discussion.

  27. "I understand that, like the majority of liberal positions, this is based on emotion. They’re terrified to be powerless. They’re afraid that we can’t solve the problems. They’re aghast at the prospect that man’s destiny is not completely controlled by man. They’re alarmed to realize that they’re a minuscule bit of the universe and that everything doesn’t revolve around us."

    Thankfully, our Lord and Savior has figured it all out for us. : )

    1. Unfortunately, that's a thread that runs through a majority of liberal thought. They want someone to blame, they want to feel that they can fix the problems, even if they can't. They're always looking for a scapegoat for anything that goes wrong. Bad stuff doesn't just happen, there's got to be someone at fault.

      1. When are you going to offer some data or an actual analysis of liberal thought that clearly demonstrates this assertion? You are deluded if you think anything you have said thus far even comes remotely close to doing this.

        You are okay with smith's statement that "our Lord and Savior has figured it all out for us"? So you will cozy up with a believer so long as the believer shares your unsupported, irrational opinion of liberals?

        I notice that you have as of yet not offere a rebuttal argument to anything I said here. You have failed to actually offer any argument that addresses the evidence for anthropogenic global climate change. You did not do this in your original piece as well.

      1. Why are you such a hypocrite? Personal attacks are not allowed? Says the phony.

        "You're an obnoxious hypocrite."
        "It\'s just more empty and absurd claims from Roger."
        "Or are you just making more shit up as usual?"
        "We're not even convinced that Roger speaks for himself."
        "Roger doesn't play well with reality, you know that."
        "Your ignorance is absurd."
        "Stop being a troll."
        "Roger is an idiot."

        All of these comments after you said, "Nobody is kicking you off, you are choosing to leave because I'm no longer going to allow you to post attacks and insults on another user."

        Cephus is a liar. Go fuck yourself.

    1. Alinksky please stop providing these idiots food for the bullshit they keep dumping all over the place . Humans are not the only cause of the climate change that is occurring. The science is as clear on this as it is on the actual fact that humans are the primary cause of current global climate change.

      1. Let's say everyone accepts that as fact (although clearly they done). "Humans are the primary cause of global climate change … right now."

        What now? What should we, as a still dominant but declining empire, do about it? Does the fact that our economic well-being is deeply challenged enter into the equation. Do we take action without fully appreciating the causes or consequences? Should we all start driving hybrids? Do we unilaterally take measures to reduce America's carbon footprint, knowing that nations that do not will use that short term economic advantage to gain ground to the detriment of our citizens?

  28. I can't believe how dumb this article is. Men and women are destroying the planet, scientists all know it's because of humans, and this twit is worried about the liberal mindset.

    Ridiculous conservatives.

    This guy thinks he is smart because he can debate some wacky Christians.

    "All of the poisons we dump into the atmosphere is vastly overwhelmed by a single volcanic eruption. An average of 55 volcanoes erupt each and every year somewhere on Earth. We’re just not causing anywhere near the damage to be a major threat. "

    What complete BS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)