The argument above is used above by many ‘deniers’ or whatever but goes nowhere since that logic can be applied to any other research field. It can be applied to the biologists who research cancer, the engineers who research new technologies, even sociologists who research population growth. Corruption is possible in all fields but in scientific fields it can barely stand and is certainly not an excuse to reject the whole thing.

The argument above is used above by many ‘deniers’ or whatever but goes nowhere since that logic can be applied to any other research field. It can be applied to the biologists who research cancer, the engineers who research new technologies, even sociologists who research population growth. Corruption is possible in all fields but in scientific fields it can barely stand and is not an excuse to reject the whole thing.

http://worldnews.msn…ate-change?lite

“‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change.

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too….”

Actually, anthropogenic carbon dioxide is zero times that produced by volcanoes. CO2 doesn’t make people. (You see, the morpheme “-gen-” indicates “making”, not “made by”.)

@52 Nigel and 116 Gunnar,

Global warming doesn’t make people either. However,

@46 Nigel,

Lord help us, the idiots are in charge of the train, and it’s out of control!

Erm, isn’t this better than the idiots being in control of the train?

Best comment out of 142.

I know it was OT, but I’m so glad you posted that link to Heartland’s latest travesty. This might just finish them off quicker than the next El Nino What a way to shoot yourself in the foot!

“Heartland Institute compares belief in global warming to mass murder”
Click my name to read more.

After that, you may want to google “Guilt by association”. After that, if you still want more to read, feel free to look up “Propaganda” in Wikipedia.

Are you really serious, or are you just another poe (a new word that I have added to my vocabulary, thanks to TBC–see our discussions about it above)?

“@ Gunnar: Yes, that is the original definition, but it has been expanded to other, similar situations where someone’s position is so bizarre, contrary to reality, and poorly-argued that there is a question whether the person is being serious.

Besides religious fundamentalism it also is often used in the context of all types of denialism, where fervently-held beliefs make the person immune to reason and blind to the flaws in their own arguments.”

Thanks so much for that explanation, TBC. What you said, especially in the second paragraph, certainly describes Tim and some of the other climate contrarians who have posted here to a T!

We do not fully understand the several (that we can infer so far) mass extinctions which are believed to have occurred. There are many other dynamics not fully understood but I have already supported my position and refuted yours.

Sorry? How have you refuted anything (and what exactly do you purport to have refuted?) with your pigeon droppings back there in post #131?

Until you now prove we as humans, fully understand every dynamic on Earth, you will need to rethink your position. Or I will make your task more simple, just fully explain the dynamics of the known mass extinctions in detail in a manner accepted by all.

Because we all know that science must explain everything 100% (which it can by definition never do) before we can take action on an important environmental issue! What a ludicrous statement, and so full of hubris. Tell me this: aside from the asteroid event that most likely wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million YA (and we can’t even be 100% certain about that) which was a singular episode… could you please provide a citation for evidence of a CO2 increase by ~100ppm in the very short period of 250 years, which mankind has induced since the beginning of the industrial revolution?

We do not fully understand the several (that we can infer so far) mass extinctions which are believed to have occurred.

How is that at all relevant? Knowing about what caused specific mass extinctions hundreds of millions of years in the past, most of which probably had nothing directly to do with climate change, has nothing to do with knowing what is causing current warming were we can directly measure what is going on in real time. In fact there is no proof that any of them were due even indirectly to climate change, at least as a primary contributor.

Also, there hasn’t been “several” mass extinctions, there has been 5 massive ones (called “the big 5″), at least a few other large ones, and a bunch more smaller ones. You obviously don’t even know the first thing about mass extinctions since you haven’t heard of the big 5.

but I have already supported my position and refuted yours.

No, you simply ignored every single response you received. You never even bothered addressing anyone else’s position, not to mention refute it. Unless you are using sockpuppets, that is.

Until you now prove we as humans, fully understand every dynamic on Earth, you will need to rethink your position.

We don’t fully understand every dynamic in the human body, but that doesn’t stop us from using medicine. We don’t understand every dynamic in the atom, but that doesn’t stop us from using chemistry. We don’t understand every dynamic in electric conduction, but that doesn’t stop us from using computers. We don’t understand every dynamic in material science, yet that doesn’t prevent you from walking on the floor. We don’t understand every dynamic of anything, so by your logic we can’t do anything, period.