On Cooks 97% Concensus on Climate Change

I think I will rename the IPCC to the Institute for Political Climate Cash.

 

You are correct.. But the fact that not one of the surveys you posted supports your position would indicate that itis you who is wearing the blindfold. Note I said blindfold since if you were wearing blinders you could see what is directly in front of your face.

 

My guess is that they didn't even start measuring CO2 until someone noticed people dying off from crap in the air. There certainly were coal-fired mills and power generating stations before the 1950s. And there certainly were automobiles and steam engines. All were more polluting than they are now.

 

Read the IPCC. I would think you have read that unless you are relying solely on CAGW alarmists sites.

 

Do I have to read the IPCC to know that there were smokestacks before 1950?

 

Ah, I forget you don't have to know what you are talking about to be right.

 

It only surprised people because ENSO is inherently unpredictable. Climate models which happened to reproduce ENSO also predicted the pause.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html

 

Haven't you heard? Now it is the Atlantic that is the cause.

 

I note that having lost the discussion about the consensus among climate scientists as to the validity of global warming the denying faction has moved to nitpicking the data.

Might be useful for those of you who want to debate against the clear consensus of climate experts to post your qualifications so we can determine your credibility to debate science.

 

Haven't you heard? Climate change has more than one cause. Learning more about one does not mean we know less about the others.

 

Whaaaaat? You mean CO2 isn't the temperature control knob like the alarmists have been crowing about?

 

Just because it isn't the only forcing doesn't mean it isn't the most important.

 

Wow, you better contact the IPCC and the alarmist blogs and let them know!

 

That you think they don't know this simply illustrates how out of touch you are on the subject.

 

What exactly is a " physicalist fulcrum" as it relates to moral judgement?

 

Probably the second time you have asked me this but I have no idea what you are talking about. Ask whoever posted it.

 

It is on the bottom of every post you make. See above #66.

 

LOL, so it does.

Physicalism. (Philosophy) philosophy the doctrine that all phenomena can be described in terms of space and time and that all meaningful statements are either analytic, as in logic and mathematics, or can be reduced to empirically verifiable assertions.

Fulcrum. the support about which a lever turns

 

Afraid the term still doesn't make sense to me in the context "physicalist fulcrum of moral judgement" . Seem like physical fulcrum and moral judgement are contradictory.

 

I cannot help you with your English comprehension but I will try. Is moral judgement derived from the physical world or from God? If from the physical world, what is the 'fulcrum' or on what is it leveraged?

 

Sounds like a great subject for a new thread.

 

The problem is not English comprehension. The problem is the concept of moral judgement derived from the physical world is plainly idiotic. But then it is your post so maybe it does follow.

 

So you agree that moral judgement comes from God?

 

I guess it depends on which God you are referring to. Since there have been hundreds and hundreds of Gods in the course of human history.

On a serious note you are presenting a false dichotomy since moral judgement can come from more sources than god or the physical world. One current theory postulates that moral codes are an evolutionary advantage in gene survival.

 

That would be in the physical world.