Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Judged:

3

3

2

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
I have political actors and bodies like the UN and domestic US governments militating for global wealth re-distribution, redistributive and Pigolian taxation, increased regulation and restrictions in individual free choice in consumption and economic activities, diversion of public monies to fund sective "green" ventures - all overtly citing AGW THEORY as justification for these political and socioeconomic agendas.
So you are saying these actors and bodies are merely theoretical, and do not actually exist? You are denying that they are citing AGW THEORY explicitly as part of, if not the principal basis for their agendas of political and socioeconomic revolution?
If that's a mere "conspiracy theory" to you, then everything is just another conspiracy theory also, and your argument is no argument at all.
<quoted text>
That's your strawman.
No - accept the science, and having recognized it, accept also that it's then largely irrelevant to the REAL and LARGER political and socioeconomic matters at issue.
<quoted text>
I corrected the double-negative in a post immediately following - but you read this as intended.
No - YOU are talking about the science off in the corner with a few other similarly obsessed nerds.
Everyone else at the party is bored with the science and has moved on to the much bigger topics of Pigolian Carbon taxes, taxing certain "undesireable" industries and economic activity, subsidizing others with public money, redistributing global wealth, etc.- and then throwing out cherry-picked pop AGW "science" as rhetorical support for their various agendas.
<quoted text>
"... the scientific method is apolitical."
Agreed.
Co-opting it for political purposes is not.
Nor is the the scientific method universally applicable to all human and cultural issues and problems - except in the mind of logical positivists like yourself who are only capable of seeing and dealing with the real world through that one lens.
And there is everything wrong with aligning WITH scientific argument when "the scientific method" is hauled out beyond its proper sphere into the political arena, to be used by the POLITICAL contestants as a rhetorical bludgeon to steamroller and suppress other, equally or more valid, viewpoints and and arguments on matters that are not properly matters of scientific inquiry.
Go ahead and do it - but leave your pretended "apolitical" lily-white "scientific" robes at the door when you do.

Judged:

5

5

3

freaking-crazy wrote:

Its only people..... that like 2 through(sic) around the word teabagger & think it will make people cower down 2 your point of view.....

Judged:

4

4

3

GlobeStar wrote:

We can stand to lose a few polar bears, and we don't need that much ice on the north pole anyway. I enjoy warm summers, and lots of sun. I say it's not a big deal - global warming - just something to scare people.

Judged:

3

3

2

steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:

Polar bears..... appear to be in it for the duration, unlikely to disappear any time soon.

Judged:

3

2

2

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
...... says "steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling" who doesn't have a hi skule deegreee, doesn't have mathematics or science background, believes in one survey & NOT the following critique:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090004

Judged:

3

2

2

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
I love that teabaggers are called the tealiban. It portrays the levels of uneducated self-righteousness needed for people to think destroying civilization is a good thing.
& to think it only involves adding one letter!

Judged:

2

2

2

dimlite wrote:

<quoted text>
I love that teabaggers are called the tealiban. It portrays the levels of uneducated self-righteousness needed for people to think destroying civilization is a good thing.
& to think it only involves adding one letter!

Judged:

3

3

2

fishaholic wrote:

Funny how, in your own self righteous way, you don't even know how much you don't know. Talk about uneducated. I LMAO that you have no clue how much of a real idiot you are.

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Your entire premise is based upon there being a great conspiracy that encompasses all the respected scientific academies throughout the entire world. If that were to be true, then all is lost! I understand your thoughts in the political arena but heartily disagree that this is driving the study of climate science throughout the world.

Judged:

3

2

2

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
I love that teabaggers are called the tealiban. It portrays the levels of uneducated self-righteousness needed for people to think destroying civilization is a good thing.
& to think it only involves adding one letter!

Judged:

2

2

2

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Not at all. My entire premise is based only upon the obvious fact that there are long-standing political, social, and economic power struggles going on the world, as old as homo sapiens itself.
Surely you do not deny the truth of this?
As for " ...this is driving the study of climate science throughout the world," I have made no such assertion. I assert only that contestants engaged in the wider political and economic power struggles I refer to have seized upon certain aspects of climate science (which for purposes of this discussion I'm happy to accept is climate science pure as the driven snow, being driven quite independently by whatever drives drives any scientific endeavor) as useful rhetorical weapons to deploy in advancing their political and economic power struggle agendas.
I am aware others on this board have a different view, and feel there is reason to believe the robes of science are not so spotlessly white in this regard, and that the political/social/economic contestants I refer to, having found certain findings of climate science so useful as ammunition, have actively co-opted certain members and organs of the climate science community into spinning up more such "science" ammunition for them, to order.
But I do not have a strong view one way or the other on this question, and I choose to leave it to those others to argue.

Judged:

3

3

3

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course, this is the human condition. Exactly how is this a good argument that the science of global warming is wrong.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
That still reeks of conspiracy.

Judged:

2

2

1

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
..
I'm merely saying that's at most just marginally relevant and pretty much useless in resolving the real issues, which are political, economic, and social ones..

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>OK.
Even a welder, not you, is in this forum to run down science and scientists to the ground. He hates them until the stomach turns.
Why is he into hatred?? Why does he think he can negate science and scientists by posting senseless blogs??

Judged:

2

2

1

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
The answer I suggest lies in remaining open to the possibility ..

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
I am open to any credible possibility. That is because I understand how science works. But you have not shown any evidence or data. You have just promoted 'conspiracy theory' and doubt. The tools of the scammer and fraud artist.