Something happenedFollow

Heh, of course. It has nothing to do with your predictability and complete inane bias that people are tired of, it's everyone else just being lazy!

Everyone is not "most people". And the motivation isn't about laziness. You're the one who keeps wanting to use that context, not me. It's more about a fear that an examination of ones own positions might result in a realization that they are wrong (or at least not as absolutely correct as once thought). Never underestimate the degrees to which people will go to avoid self examination.

And before you toss the projected "that's what you do!" response, I'm the one who is more than willing to write extensively about my positions and defend them against all who disagree. Whether you agree or disagree with my positions themselves, I'm certainly not avoiding examination of my own positions. Can you really say the same?

I think your mistake is assuming that after discussing an issue with me (or anyone for that matter), that if I don't adopt your position on the issue then the discussion was useless. If your objective is to get me to change my position, then you are going to be frustrated. If your objective is to clarify your own positions and attempt to argue why they're better than my own, then you should not require that I adopt them. I've long since accepted that you can very very rarely actually get people to change their minds about something. You can, however, perhaps influence third parties who are witnessing the discussion but who have not yet made up their minds.


I think that "giving up" isn't going to accomplish that very well. Don't you agree?

Of course, because you're always right and everything else in the universe is wrong. Duh.

It's true because you said so. Like about everything else.

Right. You see the truth, and everyone else in existence that doesn't agree with you fails to.

Please, for the love of god, haven't we been through enough??

NO MORE WORDS.

Your disagreeing with him just proves how correct he is, Xsarus.

No. You're attempting to move them. I have consistently stated that the IPCC predictions used to justify draconian legislative action were wrong. You're the one who keeps inserting the whole "But global temperatures did increase over the last century" bit. And every time you or someone else does that, I will respond by pointing out that that doesn't make the IPCC predictions for the future correct. Because that is the question. Not what temperatures have done in the past, but what they will do in the future, and what effect that will have on the climate, and to what degree CO2 emissions may play a role in any of this.

I'm looking at the legislative proposals and asking "are these necessary or helpful?" I don't care about anything other than that.



Sure. A point I have never disputed and most folks opposed to the political actions being proposed to fight global warming have never disputed. So... grats?



Not collected incorrectly, but analyzed incorrectly. There's a difference between the process of collecting historical data, and the process of using that data to make projections for the future. Please tell me you get this? Because if you don't, then there's no hope for you having any meaningful understanding of this topic. The question is and has always been whether the IPCC projections for future climate change are accurate, and whether their political recommendations are either needed or helpful.


That is the issue. That's the whole issue. Everything else is side issues.



No. That's not a fact. That's a guess. And a questionable one at that. What we do know is that there will be a massive economic effect from the sorts of proposed actions being pushed. What we also know is that most of those proposed actions don't even actually reduce global levels of CO2 emissions at all. Therefore, we can conclude that the political folks are using the science to push an agenda that has little to do with environmentalism and a whole lot to do with socio-economic policy in the first world.


What's so amazing is that it's not even about the climate science at all. Answer this question: What happens to global CO2 emissions of the US passes a strict cap and trade law for CO2? Think carefully and completely about the answer. It's not what you might think.



No. It's not. You keep labeling things as facts, which are really just conjecture. Correlation is not causation, right?





I know this. They are a politically oriented organization which selectively compiles scientific papers in the relevant fields and then uses them to create political proposals for the international community to use. They have a peer review process which is backwards and designed to squelch dissent rather than allow all opinions to be heard. They are absolutely not a scientific organization, yet their recommendations are labeled as "science" by their supporters (loudly and often).



I'm not going to go point/counterpoint on this one, but suffice it to say that the IPCC doubling down on the lack of confirmation of their earlier predictions by creating yet more predictions which claim that things are "even worse that we originally thought" doesn't really impress me. It's yet more BS manipulation of the science. Do we need to go through yet another whole decade where temperatures do not rise as they predicted before enough people will realize that they were wrong that folks like you will stop clinging to this myth?

Why do you suppose that over the last decade the language and direction has shifted from "global warming' (global temperatures will continue to rise unchecked if we don't reduce CO2 emissions), to "climate change" (temperature may not change much, but the climate will change anyway, so we should really reduce those CO2 emissions anyway). They did that because the temperatures were not increasing as predicted. They're hedging their bets. But the only common feature in all of this is a drive to push for legislation to reduce CO2 emissions in first world nations.


It's a political agenda in search of a justification, and it always has been. This is no different than what they tried to do with the Kyoto Accords. Same deal. It's an industrial shell game, designed to hurt first world economies, grow third world economies, and ironically actually increase global pollution along the way. It it not, and has never been about the environment. The environment is used as an excuse for a purely socio-economic agenda.

"Well, now, I know this is just a blog but..."