don't you get it? The scientists told us we are running out of crude, so there isn't enough left to burn to change the climate. And even if we do change the climate, we will be out of oil, so again, problem solved.
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
FC is part of an organized "crusher crew" that attempts to deliberately 'drown out' those who do not accept their alarmist positions.
This can be seen by the similar posts and pattern of behavior from FC and his accomplices all over the web. It appears that Skeptical Science (and some other sites) posts something and then demands that it's organized team post it on designated sites.
It appears that FC is responsible for financial sites. On ET he continually re-cycles the same text and diagrams over and over; very similar postings are evident on other financial websites such as Motley Fool. One example for the text he recently posted on the 'Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon' thread is:
http://boards.fool.com/characteristics-of-denial-30705675.aspx
To see how this nonsense is posted across the web in an organized manner - take the text in the first paragraph in the link, put it in quotes and Google - you will have 2,460 results. You can take more unique text (non-article) that FC posts on ET and also find it on other financial websites.
At this point, it would be very easy to reveal FC's identity due to these many similar cross-postings.
Due to the number and intensity of FCs posts, we can only assume he is either an AGW fanatic or paid shill.
No I'm not paid and I post about other topics but do mostly argue the GW thing because I only have so much time during the day. I have an old degree in environmental science and I currently own a HVAC company. I argue this topic because I know it, am concerned about it and feel it is my civic duty to counter the denier disinformation campaign being waged by entities and interests like the Koch bros.
Am I obsessive about it? Guilty as charged. I tend to be obsessive about my interests.
What truly boggles my mind is how many people don't accept the simple fact that a 40% increase of the most important long term greenhouse gas on earth will, and is, resulting in rising temperatures. It's such a simple thing. Yet so many don't seem to understand it. I can't believe that so many people are so dumb. The thing that most bothers me is how ideology is dominating rationality. As I've said before, if ideology is put before facts, we're all screwed. Just look around the world and see how this is true.
Collecting air samples is supposed to make you more qualified to talk about AGW ? Sorry I don't buy that.
As far as sunspots. I was wrong to say they mean nothing. I was referring to the eleven year cycle which in terms of GW mean nothing, but sunspot activity over longer time periods is a good proxy for TSI and of course solar irradiation has an effect on the climate.
However, since the 70's solar activity is dropping even as temps continue to rise so solar is being overcome by the greenhouse effect. So even if solar were to continue it's decrease, which we cannot predict, the greenhouse effect would overwhelm the small solar drop. And the problem of acidified oceans would still remain even if the sum were turned off..
As far as the right wing meme of cooling predicted in the 70's, we have gone over this many times. Yes, the popular press made a big deal of it, however, the vast majority of scientists, not writers, were predicting warming. Your continuing to ignore this fact is evidence of a closed mind.
Your saying that you were "forced to watch films about global cooling" is highly suspect and probably just a plain lie and is further evidence that you are a partisan drone more than yo are a rational scientific person. Regardless of what was said back then, the fact that you continue to harp on this although it is irrelevant to the current science is disappointing.
I'm tired of right wing guys like you who should know better, appear on the surface to be reasonable, but instead toe the party line.
"clinging to theories that are now in question based on recent and far more accurate evidence produced by modern and improving techniques."
I have no idea what you are talking about here. As time goes on, the science behind AGW just gets stronger. And please don't bring up the 17 year "pause" or I will have to totally write you off as a reasonable person.
I don't follow anybody here, so I couldn't tell you what other topics you post on, only come here like some sick addiction looking at road kill.....but the only time I see your moniker on the forums is in regards to GW.
If you want to say hey, we need to keep this place we all call home, clean - couldn't agree more. But the political and academia CIRCUS that's going on presently, trying to force this agenda has nothing to do with saving the planet.
Your data is flawed, it's been shown repeatedly. Taxing US companies, in which the costs just get passed down to the consumer, while others in the world who are just as responsible go unchecked and that's not even taking into account natural cause and effect ..........
The whole agenda 21 concept is fucked.
Yes the politics of AGW is huge. Our govt is largely owned by the fossil fuel interests.
My data is flawed? Well then NOAA's, NASA's and virtually every related science source of the data is flawed because that's the only one's I post. Not stuff from blogs or TV weathermen. But maybe you could point out the data you have mind.
The economics and world politics are another thing, but before such things can be addressed the science at least needs to be recognized. Ignoring the facts because they are inconvenient is no way to form policy. Imagine if a business did that?
I don't know what this agenda 21 thing is but I'll look it up.
