Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
You still don't get it. I could care less about attempted insults. You just make yourself look sillier and it's part of the game. I acknowledged those comments from the scientists and said that it bears watching. I also said that I hope I'm wrong about GW. The problem or the entertainment is, depending on how you want to look at it is that you can't see past your illogical political fanaticism. You are like a horse with blinders on.
|
Oh, I don't care either. Insults here mean nothing. If you can't see that alot of "Global Warming" is political, then you aren't paying attention. And there are two sides to it, and I want the people who buy it, want to enact punitive yet selective agreements (like Kyoto) on us to lose. I like common sense pollution controls. But I don't like the fear mongering to sell it. Especially with something as fallacious as man-made "Global Warming". And I did read your last comments on the matter. It is a capitulation of sorts on your part. I understand that. Up to now, you have been unwilling to listen to anyone who disagrees with your doomsday view and have tried to act as though the folks at the National Academy have total and complete consensus. Which they don't. That has always been completely false. And you have no choice now as you see there are disagreeing voices. Educated ones. Alot of them in fact.
And we're seeing innacurate data regarding man-made theories are abundant as well. We're seeing weather doing things which shouldn't happen, if the National Academy and Mr. Gore were correct. They're not. Up to now, in your arguments, nobody has been allowed to question the validity of these false premises, inconsistent scientific theories, and grossly innacurate forecasts. You've thrown pages and pages of temper tantrums and accomplished nothing. You've made me more skeptical. Fanaticism will do that. I'm sure I'm not alone. And the onus is on you to prove your assertions. Up till now, you have not been willing to even question the premises of their theories regarding man-made increased and sustained CO2 emissions resulting directly in higher global temperatures. And over time, runaway thermal conditions. And you have never even shown an understanding of what you know about atmospheric sciences. Instead you have been all about letting the voices you like (doomsday ones) heavily influence your thinking.
Do you even know the composition of greenhouse gases and their cumulative totals? Do you know how man-made emissions tie into it and what their totals are? Do you really think natural emissions are a constant? Do you believe solar radiation and output is a constant? How do you explain global warming on a few of the other planets in our solar system? I know you despise questions, and like others in that movement, refuse to answer any of them. But if you're trying to prove theories of doom, it's up to you to prove it. And when your source's data is erroneous, the source loses credibility. That's how it works. Not "I'll throw out contrived theories, you prove me wrong". That's not how it works. Don't throw a temper tantrum. Prove your arguments. Answer questions. And above all, be ready to lead by example. None of these requirements have been met. Proving the theories have been tried, but the data shows inconsistincies. Don't get mad at me, get mad at your sources for being in error, get mad at nature for not cooperating with you, and get mad at atmospheric scientists who disagree and speak out. Until then, you're going to keep pi##ing in the wind to no avail.