I'm sure the cult will howl in rage and pain but this is an interesting read for anyone really interested. The long history of competing hypothesis on whether the earth is cooling or warming and the results of both of these is discussed in a non judgmental way. One thing that caught my eye was the following which I guess I knew but it did refresh my memory. Lots of good info here. "Since the Northwest Passage was navigated by sailing vessels in 1903-1905 (Gjøa/Roald Amundsen) , and again in 1940-42 and 1944 (St. Roch), this recent reduction in Arctic ice may not be an indicator of warming." http://www.climatecooling.org
Well, this is one way to look at the conversation. I think the OP misses the point however. For those in the cult, it has really nothing to do with modifying climate or not, it's about power, and the ability to redistribute massive amounts of wealth to the non developed parts of the world to ensure they don't accidentally rise up against those with the most wealth today. If the carbon credit market exposes anything about the intent of those who would advocate for it, it tells us that the purpose of legislatively creating and providing an annuity for those with the most wealth to watch as those who don't funnel massive amounts of their wealth to their pet development projects around the world ensuring yet more rents from which they collect from in those areas. This is simply pyramid stuff. Those who run the exchanges get paid on every transaction. Legislated wealth. Why do you think Al Gore is a founding member of the exchange? Why do you think he spends his days promoting carbon credits as a "solution" and still has the stones to purchase beach front housing? It's because he knows that modification isn't the goal, or an expectation of the conversation. The "cult" believe it because they don't have anything else to believe in, and he's at least willing to take advantage of that to his financial benefit.
Agreed. I only posted the link because I found it an interesting read and thought others that are interested in this subject would enjoy it. Never thought I'd change any cultist minds and expect nothing but venomin in response from their closed minds which I will ignore. The whole climate topic is fascinating to me though and I like to learn as much possible about earth and its ever changing climate.
The first thing to jump out here is that only one of these are a 'cult'. But that aside, I would identify members of these groups by the following statements: "I am a scientologist", "I agree with Keynes", and "I am an atheist". How do you identify them?
So, here's an interesting experiment then. If the thermometer says that the temp in the shade is 86F and the thermometer in the parking lot without shade says that the temperature is 108F, which temperature do you record as the accurate temperature?
I don't know. Is that part of your litmus test for whether someone is in the cult or not? Did I pass? Am I in or out?
Excellent point and that I suspect is how the AGW cult comes up with there statistics. You can find what you want to find if you properly select your source data
The admission that you don't know simply means that you don't have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision on the validity of the study data and that you are taking it on blind faith that the data is then accurate.
Yes but ... Is that part of your litmus test for whether someone is in the cult or not? Did I pass? Am I in or out?
Well, good question. You've participated though, so for which I'm sure someone will deliver you a trophy.
Well yes ... it's a good question ... and a very simple one. I have asked you how you, drluggit, identify if someone is in this "cult" you refer to. You are the only person on the planet that can answer that question. But you have yet to do so. I'll ask again ... How do you identify if someone is in this "cult" you refer to in post #2?
Believing in the gospel you are told and ignoring what is observed as fact by others. Such puts the AGW crowd in a cult. What you are told is based on models that are wrong and predictions that always fail, what is fact is what is observed.
Most fools cannot differentiate between climate and weather. Where I live it is not raining today. Yet, Florida is not a desert. It will rain Sunday but on Sunday Florida will not become a rain forest. The two questions: Is the global climate warming; and Is human activity a significant contributor to this warming Have been answered and the answer is yes. To continue denying this simply paints you as one of the fools lied to and manipulated by TrumpCo.
I would add the refusal to understand the benefits of global warming and to articulate a value for a measurement based climate sensitivity of CO2.
So anyone who can't "articulate a value for a measurement based climate sensitivity of CO2." .. is in the cult?? Wow .. that's a big cult ... like 99.9999% of the planet. But at least you have given the first answer (half credit). The others who have attempted it have apparently failed to understand the question.
So IYO anybody who believes man's contribution to climate is minimal and overwhelmed by natural factors is a fool. This is cult this king not scientific thinking. Thank you for making my point that so eloquently
Define significant. If someone defines significant as 25% does that make that person a fool in your opinion ??
Debating facts is not important to the left, but only promoting their narratives, which are part of their political/ideological agenda. They care nothing for reason, or real data, but only juggled or manipulated words or how something can be spun to appear. Truth or scientific methodology are nowhere near the progressive's toolbox, so how can he use them in debate? Made up data, contrived evidence, & blatant lies are the tools of the global warming believer, & no actual facts or evidence will upset his strong faith in this religious cult.
The only fools are those who eagerly gulp down lies & half truths shrouded in techno babble, & then claim to know, 'science!' Significant? What? Distorted data? Contrived studies? Computer models, manipulated to produce the desired results? THAT is folly, not any skepticism of wild claims.
That "opinion" is not based on any reliable scientific evidence. It is based on the lies you've been told by those with an interest in maintaining the status quo. So, yeah, it is the opinion of a fool.
What is the basis for the 25%? If it is not based exclusively on the science the, yes, it is the opinion of a fool. A fool who looks at a weather event like and ice storm and claims it as proof there is no climate warming.