Wah. These threads melt into each other, can't help but feel I've read it all before.

Read mookiemookie here

I'm loving the tone, by the way. I'm glad you're willing to listen to disagreement, unlike that nasty bradclark.


You posted an article entitled "Year of global cooling" on the previous page. Written by a chap called David Deming who works for the National Center for Policy Analysis.
The article itself the usual "it was cold today, obviously the earth is cooling" rubbish that Jeff Jacoby's article (posted by August) promoted, although Jacoby was a lot more even-handed and accessible, at least to me. I had a poke around on the internet and discovered that those Jacoby quoted in the article have been proven *wrong* many times before.
Nevermind the arguments of the WPost article, lets investigate this National Center for Policy Analysis. It's a conservative think-tank, which automatically sets off alarm bells: I'm weary of politically-minded institutions positing theories on science. Reminds me of Fred Thompson.
Anyway, where do they get their money?

• DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
• El Paso Energy Foundation
• ExxonMobil Foundation

OH yes, and the Koch Foundation donated. That sounds charitable. Where do they get money from?

Quelle surprise.

You are so deep in your us vs. them, win vs. loose mentality I almost feel sorry for you. I have always been willing to listen, thats why I always research your finding and came to the conclusions that they were mostly garbage as I and many others have pointed out numerous time to you. Don't be so up on yourself that the one article changes the world. I said it bears looking at and tracking. Take at face value, nothing less and nothing more.

Uh, yeah. You have never even been able to answer any questions to explain your beliefs. You have never answered any questions which pertain to your commitments to live up to your beliefs. You haven't answered any questions to explain the hypocrisy of actions taken by the major water carriers of this stuff. And you've never demonstrated any knowledge on your part of how the GW "science" actually works, therefore would not be able to see how inconsistent it all is. In the Al Gore thread this pretty much started because you were unwilling to see or acknowledge that there are voices in dissent and there is no consensus as some of your sources assuredly claim. At this point, this is major back-peddling on your part. This is the first post you've actually done that shows any kind of semi-open-mindedness. Before this, it's pretty much been blind faith, and temper tantrums because not everyone agrees with you. And that it is wise to question data which is erroneous, and question theories when the results predicted in them show innacuracies. Even if that data and those forecasts come from organizations like the National Academy, they are not infallible. We're at a point now where more people are just pointing that out.

:lol: Yeah, okay Sea Demon. Whatever you say.

Nice try. ;)

Semi-open-mindedness is much more than I can say for your posts. I take it you have a lot of stock in the big energy companies? It's the only thing that can really explain what I see as someone defending his position out of fear of change.

What do you mean? The very roots of this was the question of whether or not there are dissenting voices to the theories or total and complete consensus of "man-made global warming". I have only wished to show that there are dissenting voices, reasonable ones at that, and that there are flaws in the global warming theories being pushed. By the way, the onus to prove those theories are on the individuals espousing them in the first place. Not the other way around. I have always sought for those who push these theories to prove them. And they continually come up well short of the mark. And it always seems to turn into "I'll throw out the theories, you prove me wrong" with them. And in the real world, that's not how it works. You bet, I'm unreasonable about allowing flawed theories without any type of challenges. Especially when advocating potentially damaging "fixes", if you can even call them that. I'm not talking about what you do Peto. Like getting off the grid, reducing your personal energy consumption, advocating less pollution and such. I'm for those things myself, and consider myself someone who seeks less pollution and better methods of manufacturing. I'm talking about the Kyoto garbage here and things like that. I have no fear of change as you say. But here, the change is only so necessary as to improve quality and standards. Reducing pollution is a necessary goal as well. You won't get me to argue that. But the change sought by Kyoto, at that level, is selective, punitive, and it has been admitted by many scientist who push warming theories themselves to be futile. Yet, many others are "full speed ahead" on it. There could be many problems retooling economically to support all these newer alternative sources of energy. And it may bring unforeseen problems if grids are replaced too quickly without testing them, seeing how they perform, analyze their drawbacks, and analyze any other potential unforeseen impacts. And if reverting your economy to sustain alot of this new stuff, what do you do with your old infrastructure? Throw it all in a landfill? What about those impacts to environmental degradation? How about costs to do all this and who pays? If mass producing new infrastructure you have to create emissions, right? Alot of them in fact. In other words, there are alot more things to consider than just "full speed ahead". That kind of change is not feasible. And that is what I seek to dissuade. It is this lack of thought from the warming movement that I challenge.

Alright SD--I'll back off and give you this round ;). I just like to stir the pot a little and your answer does make sense. And I agree that we don't really have enough information to be able to place Climate Change squarely on man. There is not enough precedent with solid scientific data to make any assumptions of any kind.

I just though you were still going after bradclark1 a bit hard after he had acknowledged the info you had brought forth as something to look into and consider. So I threw a firecracker into the barrel. And I respect your response!

:up: