Climate Change in the Coloradan Mind

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

It's impossible to deny that publicized advocacy and/or financial interest weigh heavily against any "scientist's" ability to remain objective.

What does "objective" mean, to you?

Was it wrong for the M.D.'s who studied the effect of smoking on health to advocate for restrictions on cigarettes? Why?

What "financial interest"? Do you really believe climate science is chock-full of corrupt scientists, getting rich while spreading lies for money? I know that's what Limbaugh and the other trogs tell you, but they're simply full of crap.

If you doubt that, just reference your second to last post. You're basically making that very same argument.

So, you support the idea that scientists should only talk about their science, and anything else they state is mere advocacy and suspect, so they should just STFU.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by W*GS

What does "objective" mean, to you?

Was it wrong for the M.D.'s who studied the effect of smoking on health to advocate for restrictions on cigarettes? Why?

What "financial interest"? Do you really believe climate science is chock-full of corrupt scientists, getting rich while spreading lies for money? I know that's what Limbaugh and the other trogs tell you, but they're simply full of crap.



So, you support the idea that scientists should only talk about their science, and anything else they state is mere advocacy and suspect, so they should just STFU.

By that logic, the medical examiner who testified for the defense in the Zimmerman trial was an activist.



I love how Beavis continually gets in arguments with people who work in the field and thinks he has a leg to stand on. He's a jackass of all trades, but a master of none.

Originally Posted by W*GS

What does "objective" mean, to you?

Was it wrong for the M.D.'s who studied the effect of smoking on health to advocate for restrictions on cigarettes? Why?

What "financial interest"? Do you really believe climate science is chock-full of corrupt scientists, getting rich while spreading lies for money? I know that's what Limbaugh and the other trogs tell you, but they're simply full of crap.

Would you consider it your position that the Government-funded anti-smoking lobby never engages in hype or exaggeration?

Similar to many public debates, you had the Tobacco lobby 'scientists' telling the public that 1 pack a day was A-OK. And you had the government-funded grievance machine telling the public that they had to ban smoking virtually everywhere, because if some hapless wanderer accidentally tripped through a puff of smoke, it would take years from his life.

In reality, right in line with common sense, the truth was (and is) somewhere in between.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Would you consider it your position that the Government-funded anti-smoking lobby never engages in hype or exaggeration?

Similar to many public debates, you had the Tobacco lobby 'scientists' telling the public that 1 pack a day was A-OK. And you had the government-funded grievance machine telling the public that they had to ban smoking virtually everywhere, because if some hapless wanderer accidentally tripped through a puff of smoke, it would take years from his life.

In reality, right in line with common sense, the truth was (and is) somewhere in between.

Have you seen this site from NASA?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

It's all about scientific consensus. Check it out.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Have you seen this site from NASA?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

It's all about scientific consensus. Check it out.

So is this.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree

Check it out.

[Garcia Bronco]

7 inches of Global Warming this week with no end in sight (literally) today.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah. Springtime in September. Sweet!

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

7 inches of Global Warming this week with no end in sight (literally) today.

Yes, funny how many are linking the flooding in Boulder to global warming but when the Big Thompson Canyon flooded in 1976 and killed 140, it was just a freak act of nature that happens every 100 years or so.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Yes, funny how many are linking the flooding in Boulder to global warming but when the Big Thompson Canyon flooded in 1976 and killed 140, it was just a freak act of nature that happens every 100 years or so.

Who are these "many" making the link?

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Who are these "many" making the link?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fww...-climate-punch

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

[...]

One news story from a journalist counts as "many"?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Yes, funny how many are linking the flooding in Boulder to global warming but when the Big Thompson Canyon flooded in 1976 and killed 140, it was just a freak act of nature that happens every 100 years or so.

The Big Thompson flood was in July when it is normal (or always had been) to get the heavier rains (May is the heaviest). We're in mid-September, which normally has one of the lowest precipitation averages.

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The Big Thompson flood was in July when it is normal (or always had been) to get the heavier rains (May is the heaviest). We're in mid-September, which normally has one of the lowest precipitation averages.

Rightard: "what global warming? It's flooding...derp"

[houghtam]

And two more conservatives demonstrate their mastery of the concept of climate vs. weather.

You guys should teach a class.

Originally Posted by houghtam

And two more conservatives demonstrate their mastery of the concept of climate vs. weather.

You guys should teach a class.

You do realize you kiddies blame just about every kind of bad anything on Global Warmins.

Drought. Heavy Rains. Snow. Lack of Snow. Wildfire. Floods. It's all been laid at the feet of the Warmins by Scientological Apocalysts at one time or another.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

You do realize you kiddies blame just about every kind of bad anything on Global Warmins.

Drought. Heavy Rains. Snow. Lack of Snow. Wildfire. Floods. It's all been laid at the feet of the Warmins by Scientological Apocalysts at one time or another.

No.

When there are trends, however, people tend to say those things.

You guys, on the other hand, are captains of the "NURRRR It's 70 in July...where's da global warming, guys? NURRRR" club.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

You do realize you kiddies blame just about every kind of bad anything on Global Warmins.

Drought. Heavy Rains. Snow. Lack of Snow. Wildfire. Floods. It's all been laid at the feet of the Warmins by Scientological Apocalysts at one time or another.

You do realize you simply ignore what doesn't fit your agenda.

Originally Posted by houghtam

No.

When there are trends, however, people tend to say those things.

You guys, on the other hand, are captains of the "NURRRR It's 70 in July...where's da global warming, guys? NURRRR" club.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...-global-4.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...ding-0540.html

Please, go on.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...-global-4.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...ding-0540.html

Please, go on.

Changes in climate can impact weather events.

You just learned something. If it sank in.

[houghtam]

And once again, Beavis demonstrates why he's a lost cause.

How many times do you have to post an article without reading it before you just give up?

Just highlighting how virtually any natural event anywhere can feed this perfect circle of confirmation bias you guys have built for yourself.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Just highlighting how virtually any natural event anywhere can feed this perfect circle of confirmation bias you guys have built for yourself.

No, you highlighted how you are talking out of your ass and have no real understanding of the issue, just like you have so many times.

Congrats, Beavis.

You're the new cutthemdown.

Originally Posted by houghtam

No, you highlighted how you are talking out of your ass and have no real understanding of the issue, just like you have so many times.

Congrats, Beavis.

You're the new cutthemdown.

Coming from The Quintessential Asstalking Virtuoso, that really means something.

To somebody.
Somewhere.
Maybe.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by houghtam

No, you highlighted how you are talking out of your ass and have no real understanding of the issue, just like you have so many times.

Congrats, Beavis.

You're the new cutthemdown.

Beavis' argument is that the sheer volume of signs leading to the confirmation of AGW is proof that it can't be true.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Beavis' argument is that the sheer volume of signs leading to the confirmation of AGW is proof that it can't be true.

It's not the sheer volume of signs that indicates a problem. It's the number of places alarmists keep looking for signs.

If your search for global climate truth lands you looking around a certain town or state with some flooding, you're not really looking for truth in the first place.