Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

Copenhagen is politics. Global warming is science. Because the politics is a failure changes NOTHING about the science.

Do I think you're gonna misunderstand that too? Yup.

excon

---

Do you honestly think they were talking about science at Copenhagen, Ex, They were talking about gaining economic advantage. What was agreed at Copenhagen, somewhat reluctantly, is that we are all in the same boat and must all contribute, but contribute what? All I can see is an agreement to contribute money.

What science do you think they presented at Copenhagen?

Where are the scientific papers?

What ground breaking discoveries were presented?

The science is not settled, EX, the reasons for climate change are not known and settled beyond reasonable doubt. What we have is a broad set of theories ranging from solar and galactic cycles to emissions, deforestation, global warming and global cooling. Some are contradictary, some are complementary. What there is is a consensus that in the interest of risk management we should reduce a factor which we think we have some control over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Do you honestly think they were talking about science at Copenhagen, Ex,

---

Hello again, clete:

NO. They're politicians. They were talking about POLITICS.

Do you think you're talking about science when you talk about ID?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

NO. They're politicians. They were talking about POLITICS.

Do you think you're talking about science when you talk about ID?

excon

---

This is a waste of your time and mine ex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

This is a waste of your time and mine ex

---

Hello again, clete:

It may very well be.

The climate change deniers on this board, to a man, are believers in ID. I cannot help but notice it when we're discussing scientific issues.

None of you like it too much that I do that... Oh, well.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

It may very well be.

The climate change deniers on this board, to a man, are believers in ID. I cannot help but notice it when we're discussing scientific issues.

None of you like it too much that I do that... Oh, well.

excon

---

Not quite all, Ex. I'm very much a Darwinian, hence my views on the western Asian conflicts. The Caliphate is not survival oriented.

The prophets of climate change doom are not using science, they're using religion to influence politics. They got you, and I normally respect your skepticism.

It looks like Obama will go down swinging.

He put the prestige of POTUS on the line for olympics in Chicago. Strike one!

He's done it again in Copenhagen. Strike two!

Will 3 strikes put him out? One can only hope.

Excon doesn't believe me when I tell him that I fully support the Darwin theory and only point out that ID does raise legitimate unanswered questions about evolution.

Because of that he completely discounts the evidence I and others have presented that shows there was a legitimate flaw in the gathering and examination of AGW evidence .

And it is becoming clearer by the day that there was a systematic attempt to manipulate the evidence to support a predetermined conclusion.

He can say that only a few of them did it and it doesn't represent the majority of the warming proponents . That may be true also ;but the evidence most often cited;and is at the core of the political controversy has been proven to be the evidence gathered and manipulated by the hucksters. If it can't be independently and honestly duplicated it fails the test .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

It may very well be.

The climate change deniers on this board, to a man, are believers in ID. I cannot help but notice it when we're discussing scientific issues.

None of you like it too much that I do that... Oh, well.

excon

---

C'mon, Ex,

It seems like when you can't answer evidence AGAINST man's responsibility for any perceived climate change, you bring up ID.

That seems like a sidestep to me.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

I don't argue the science with you because I'm not a scientist. The only thing I DO argue about, is whether the science is believable... You're no different, only you supply some stats you found to bolster your argument. That has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

And, THAT'S what we argue about here - politics....

Because, it's POLITICS that has you believing in ID - not the science... And, as long as you believe ID is science, you have NO credibility with me in these conversations. So, cite all the stats you want. Ain't gonna change nothing.

excon

---

That is exactly the point of the e-mails documenting selective data inclusion and exclusion.

I don't know how you always bring up ID, but during this cold spell along the east coast, did the homo sapiens "evolve" a layer of fat and fur to deal with the cold or do the INTELLIGENT ones wear clothing DESIGNED for winter weather?

Evolution is based on genetic mutations that are naturally selected for. The actual science demonstrates that it is genetic mutations that lead to cancer, not new genetic information.

http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/cosmic/


G&P

Hello again:

Well, that gotcha going, huh?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

It may very well be.

The climate change deniers on this board, to a man, are believers in ID. I cannot help but notice it when we're discussing scientific issues.

None of you like it too much that I do that... Oh, well.

excon

---

Ex in case you haven't noticed I have tried to discuss scientific issues with you but when ever I do you talk about throwing trash in the atmosphere as if I want climate change to happen. I am like everyone else, I want the minimum impact on my lifestyle, whether that be climate change or paying for someoneelse's mistakes. I have been green for years, built a solar house in the eighties, drive a four cylinder car, stopped burning wood for heating years ago, recycle, even watch television in the dark. Why should I pay just because some tree hugger in Europe, who may never have been out of a city, and who has a bigger carbon footprint than I do, thinks he should be able to pass on the costs of living in the wrong place. I greatly regret that Tuvalu and the Maldives are going to sink beneath the waves but logic says that if that is going to happen and you know it is, move, you can be easily accommodated in a number of places..

Tuvalu are a coral reef ring sitting atop a sinking volcano . Maldives are coral islands sitting atop a volcanic ridge . As you know ;the rise and sinking of volcanic islands is a naturally occurring event. When and if the volcano's that formed the islands become active again they will again arise.

The Catskill mountains close to where I live are the cyclical remnants of the rise and erosion of the Acadian Mountains . The earth is not static .It is in a constant state of change. That is why Washington State where Excon lives is constantly under earthquake hazard and the top of Mount St. Helen blew it's top off in 1980 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tuvalu are a coral reef ring sitting atop a sinking volcano . Maldives are coral islands sitting atop a volcanic ridge . As you know ;the rise and sinking of volcanic islands is a naturally occurring event. When and if the volcano's that formed the islands become active again they will again arise.

The Catskill mountains close to where I live are the cyclical remnants of the rise and erosion of the Acadian Mountains . The earth is not static .It is in a constant state of change. That is why Washington State where Excon lives is constantly under earthquake hazard and the top of Mount St. Helen blew it's top off in 1980 .

---

Tom You really should read what is said, I don't need a geography lesson.

Quote:

---

I greatly regret that Tuvalu and the Maldives are going to sink beneath the waves but logic says that if that is going to happen and you know it is, move, you can be easily accommodated in a number of places..

---

I didn't suggest trying to stop the process, just that the people should move just as EX should if it bothers him, or you should. I used to live at the foot of Mt. Buckaroo, an extinct volcano, beautiful wild place. There is a time and a place for choosing to live on the edge and there is a time to go. I don't think I should have to compensate the people of the Maldives or Tuvalu for their life style choices but if they need rescuing we should rescue them by relocating them. We should not play King Canute and try to stop the tide.The same goes for people in Africa. No use bringing them here though as this place is going to become as hostile as their own, it is already struggling under long term drought conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

Well, that gotcha goin, huh?

excon

---

Understood, Ex.

Who would we argue with if not for you?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tom You really should read what is said, I don't need a geography lesson.

I didn't suggest trying to stop the process, just that the people should move just as EX should if it bothers him, or you should. I used to live at the foot of Mt. Buckaroo, an extinct volcano, beautiful wild place. There is a time and a place for choosing to live on the edge and there is a time to go. I don't think I should have to compensate the people of the Maldives or Tuvalu for their life style choices but if they need rescuing we should rescue them by relocating them. We should not play King Canute and try to stop the tide.The same goes for people in Africa. No use bringing them here though as this place is going to become as hostile as their own, it is already struggling under long term drought conditions.

---

I don't think I should have to pay for aid that helps bushfire victims. They moved to the bush in the first place. They are the idiots who live amongst trees. Don't complain when your house burns down. I don't want to know about it or pay for it. But, I do. And fortunately for the world that's how it works and how it should work.

We can't just dismiss the Pacific Islands as an insignificant bunch of savages. Just like we can't dismiss the people who live in rural Victoria who's entire lives were wiped out last year.

One right winger (well center right I suppose) is making a bit of sense.

It’s reckless to be a sceptic on global warming | Malcolm Turnbull - Times Online

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

I don't think I should have to pay for aid that helps bushfire victims. They moved to the bush in the first place. They are the idiots who live amongst trees. Don't complain when your house burns down. I dont want to know about it or pay for it. But, I do. And fortunately for the world that's how it works and how it should work.

We can't just dismiss the Pacific Islands as an insignificant bunch of savages. Just like we can't dismiss the people who live in rural Victoria who's entire lives were wiped out last year.

---

I think you really need to review your priorities because you seem confused. As a person who has fought bushfires I can tell you I didn't have to do it but if I didn't my house might be next so go tell it to the greenies with their tree preservation orders. The environment in Victoria was ripped apart because common sense does not prevail in these areas, not because people live in the wrong place, too much pettifogging officialdom and all this garbage about arresting climate change is more of the same. It only took a couple of years to see the folly in Victoria, unfortunately none of us will be alive to see the folly of climate change exposed. I haven't dismissed the people of Tuvalu as insignificant savages (your words not mine), I say time to move before you are washed away by one big wave, just as I would say to the people of Kings Lake, when you see smoke time to go. Trying to arrest climate change is as futile as trying to stop the Victorian bushfires once they started.

Do you really think climate change and rising sea levels is a recent event? Things change, central Australia was once under water and will be again and there is nothing we can do to stop it. The present sea level is the result of the last ice age and the slow retreat of the ice

And I say time to move from the bush before your house is wiped out by fire and the taxpayer has to foot the aid bill.

P.S. I applaud your bravery as a volunteer fire fighter. I'm not at all questioning the heroics of fire fighters. Just the mindset of people living in trees complaining about fire.

We have these idiots living in southern California that on a yearly basis live with the threat of massive wildfires. After the fires the rain comes and makes it one big mudslide. Why would you live there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

We have these idiots living in southern California that on a yearly basis live with the threat of massive wildfires. After the fires the rain comes and makes it one big mudslide. Why would you live there?

---

In all honesty there are parts of the world I would not live in for various reasons, mainly associated with extreme weather conditions, but then how are the tornados down your way. People get used to anything, the threat only turns into reality once or twice in a lifetime