We have been lied to about Global Warming, but WHY?

[Human]

That is a great quote, because it shows EXACTLY what you've been doing.

I've been asking for an 18 year graph that shows current warming, and current exponential increases, and you've continued to show me a 130 year graph.

Since your assertions say that all this is occurring NOW, your 130 year graph is TOO LARGE for your assertions.


....he says as he waits for a graph that shows massive increased warming in the last 18 years, a graph that he knows doesn't exist since there has been no temperature increase, exponential or otherwise, for the last 18+ years

And as I said, mean average surface temperature records constitute only a SMALL PART of the warming data. Here's one that includes ocean temperatures as well as surface air temperatures. As you can see, the increase in ocean temperature in the last 18 years offsets the decrease or non-change in the air temperatures, to a degree sufficient to show that OVERALL, the Earth has and does continue to warm. Consider that most of the Earth is ocean, and consider the degree to which the ocean temperature has increased.

This is why I said looking at surface air temperatures does not give you a complete picture. The oceans make up THE MAJORITY of the Earth, and THE MAJORITY of the recent warming.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

As we've established, the Earth has, and continues, to warm. See the pdf for more detailed scientific analysis. I doubt you'll read it either though. You could have avoided all this by reading the paper I cited earlier in the thread.

 

[andypro]

Hey, 1960, you're getting closer. But again:

An EIGHTEEN YEAR GRAPH that shows your exponential warming trend.

Since YOU SAY the oceans make up the majority of the earth, and the majority of the warming, then I'm sure you have all the ocean heat temps going back into the past, right? I mean, since YOU CLAIM that most of the recent warming is due to the oceans, you have to have ocean heat records going back a LONG way to know what the normal ocean mean temp is.

You see, you need this because your GISS graph of temperature changes (actually called anomalies) shows how far each year's temperature deviates from the mean. And since the oceans make up the majority of the earth, we need to know what the ocean anomalies were going back a long way. If we don't know that info, then ALL your temp data is meaningless (meaningless if we accept your theory that ocean warming makes up the majority of current warming).

 

[Human]

Hey, 1960, you're getting closer. But again:

An EIGHTEEN YEAR GRAPH that shows your exponential warming trend.

Since YOU SAY the oceans make up the majority of the earth, and the majority of the warming, then I'm sure you have all the ocean heat temps going back into the past, right? I mean, since YOU CLAIM that most of the recent warming is due to the oceans, you have to have ocean heat records going back a LONG way to know what the normal ocean mean temp is.

You see, you need this because your GISS graph of temperature changes (actually called anomalies) shows how far each year's temperature deviates from the mean. And since the oceans make up the majority of the earth, we need to know what the ocean anomalies were going back a long way. If we don't know that info, then ALL your temp data is meaningless (meaningless if we accept your theory that ocean warming makes up the majority of current warming).

I really don't care anymore to be honest with you. I know global warming is fact. If you read the papers you'd know that too. But you prefer to twaddle about on this thread making moot point after moot point. The graph shows you that the Earth's total heat content has increased in the last 18 years. From 18 years ago, it has gotten more. The heat content of Earth is quantitatively greater than it was 18 years ago. That's called global warming. Take it or leave it.

 

[andypro]

Oh, and by the way, please stop lecturing me on the reasons you don't like my GISS average temperature graph. You have wasted EVERY SINGLE word you've typed by doing this. What you are saying is that a graph that goes from 0 to 120 is not proper because it's too big to show the differences.

Thanks for all those paragraphs and paragraphs of explanation. But you could have just said something like this:

"The word your looking for is perspective"

I also said at the time that I could tell you, but I'd rather you find out on your own. Now do you realize that all that stuff you posted on that graph is just the stuff I was trying to get you to see on my very first post on the topic?

Since I'm still pretty sure you've missed the point, here it is:
Yes, if you graph global temperatures on a graph that mostly represents real world temps (0-120), the change is not discernable. THAT IS THE POINT. It is ONLY by making the tiny temperature anomalies appear massive on a graph with a very tiny scale, do you get to the alarmist position. In other words, when you made all those speeches decrying graph scale, you were talking to yourself, about YOUR graph.

For example, you show a graph with what looks like huge temp anomalies. Since you start at 1880 (The end of the Little Ice Age, one of the coldest periods), you have a slope that goes upward for a set period of time. Of course, you then infer that this means that it will keep going up and increasing. The reason you believe this, is that you lack perspective. For example:



Now, if this were a graph of the last 35 years, you'd continue to post it as 'proof' that the planet is warming and that it's warming exponentially, and that it will continue to do so.

But actually it's chopped off your graph, a period from around 1910 - 1945. And even though by your logic the temps should have continued to go up (particularly with the exponential increases in CO2 that started around then), the temps actually decreased pretty substantially for the next 35 years, leading to Time Magazine doing exactly what you're doing now and calling for the next ice age on their cover.

"The word your looking for is perspective"

 

[andypro]

I really don't care anymore to be honest with you. I know global warming is fact. If you read the papers you'd know that too. But you prefer to twaddle about on this thread making moot point after moot point. The graph shows you that the Earth's total heat content has increased in the last 18 years. From 18 years ago, it has gotten more. The heat content of Earth is quantitatively greater than it was 18 years ago. That's called global warming. Take it or leave it.

Look, I get it. I know you've been frantically scouring google after hopefully typing in 'no global warming for 18 years', only to find thousands upon THOUSANDS of links to web pages of all kinds that prove that assertion. It was good try, champ. And you shouldn't beat yourself up over it. It wasn't you who failed, it was the data. There hasn't been any global warming over the last 18 years, and no amount of keyboard mastery here in this board is ever going to change that.

I've enjoyed this time, mostly because I just think it's fun. Heck, if you read my 'About Me', it actually says,
and arguing on the internet with people I've never meant over silly stuff like Global Warming

So, I'll go now, but I do have one serious question for you, and I'd prefer you'd just answer it for yourself:

When you google 18 years with no global warming, you'll find thousands and thousands of results which virtually all agree that there's been no warming for 18 years. But what you'll likely do is you'll look for the relatively few sites who have a way to explain that away and supposedly debunk it. And my guess is that you'll decide to believe what you want to, regardless of the massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. So, here's my question:

When you do this, do you really think that this is the best way to learn? Do you think that this will somehow help you in life?

 

[Human]

Oh, and by the way, please stop lecturing me on the reasons you don't like my GISS average temperature graph. You have wasted EVERY SINGLE word you've typed by doing this. What you are saying is that a graph that goes from 0 to 120 is not proper because it's too big to show the differences.

Thanks for all those paragraphs and paragraphs of explanation. But you could have just said something like this:

"The word your looking for is perspective"

I also said at the time that I could tell you, but I'd rather you find out on your own. Now do you realize that all that stuff you posted on that graph is just the stuff I was trying to get you to see on my very first post on the topic?

Since I'm still pretty sure you've missed the point, here it is:
Yes, if you graph global temperatures on a graph that mostly represents real world temps (0-120), the change is not discernable. THAT IS THE POINT. It is ONLY by making the tiny temperature anomalies appear massive on a graph with a very tiny scale, do you get to the alarmist position. In other words, when you made all those speeches decrying graph scale, you were talking to yourself, about YOUR graph.

For example, you show a graph with what looks like huge temp anomalies. Since you start at 1880 (The end of the Little Ice Age, one of the coldest periods), you have a slope that goes upward for a set period of time. Of course, you then infer that this means that it will keep going up and increasing. The reason you believe this, is that you lack perspective. For example:

View attachment 97707

Now, if this were a graph of the last 35 years, you'd continue to post it as 'proof' that the planet is warming and that it's warming exponentially, and that it will continue to do so.

But actually it's chopped off your graph, a period from around 1910 - 1945. And even though by your logic the temps should have continued to go up (particularly with the exponential increases in CO2 that started around then), the temps actually decreased pretty substantially for the next 35 years, leading to Time Magazine doing exactly what you're doing now and calling for the next ice age on their cover.

"The word your looking for is perspective"

Again, these are SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE graphs. The surface air temperature can decrease all it likes. Look at ocean temps and air temps and atmospheric temps together and you'll see a continuous increase in temperature going back 40 years:

Look at from the industrial revolution and you'll see a gradual increase with some dips (most likely due to high sulfur levels in older fuels, which while having a cooling effect, came with their own set of problems, hence their regulation). As for the reasons why the graph I showed for mean surface air temperature is zoomed in to within a degree or a couple of degrees -- the reason for that is because global mean temperature has not gone outside a certain degree frame in hundreds of thousands of years. It couldn't have.

The global mean temperature cannot be 100 degrees -- . if it were, we, humans, would most likely be dead, barring underground air conditioned cities or some other sci fi scenario. It cannot be, on average, 0 degrees on Earth either, because if it was, we'd most likely be dead. Most life on Earth survives within a very small average temperature range (although the actual temperature ranges vary from below freezing to superheated volcanic springs under the ocean). MOST LIFE ON EARTH REQUIRES A MEAN TEMPERATURE WITHIN A FEW DEGREES VARIANCE, IN ORDER TO LIVE.

The reason global warming is an issue is because the increase we see in MEAN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ACROSS ALL FRONTS (not just mean surface air temperature) stands outside natural variance and as CO2 increases, global mean temperature increases. Look at that graph I just posted, showing the temperature across all fronts for the last 75 years. Look HOW MUCH HEAT CONTENT has increased in the last 15 years compared to the 60 years before it.

That is called exponential increase.

You're dodging that point and circling round it, but THAT GRAPH SHOWS THAT EARTH HAS GOTTEN CONTINUALLY WARMER FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS AND ALARMINGLY WARMER FOR THE LAST 15.

That is an issue. Do you actually know what global temperature rises of another degree can do? Now bear in mind that in the last 15 years Earth's temperature has shot up 0.4 of a degree. Even if the increase doesn't continue to be exponential and stays at current increase levels, that means that in another 15 years we'll be another .4 of a degree. In 30 years almost a full degree.

What will that do?

Surface sea temperatures in the subtropical Atlantic will exhibit at roughly 3 degrees above normal. That means more intense tornadoes and hurricanes and snowstorms along the Eastern Seaboard. The biggest on record, without a doubt. It means severely waterlogged winters for the northeastern US.

It means 20% less rainfall in the Mediterranean and Agaean. It means about 15% less stream flow in most American rivers. It means a 3-400% increase, per degree, in wildfire in hotstpots. It means the collapse of farming in subSaharan Africa, increased heat related health issues in hot areas, massive displacements in overly dry areas, mass flooding in Bangladesh, Northern India, Southern China and Indonesia, alos leading to discplacements. Note that these three areas hold the majority of the world's population. In fact, within the circle of southern India, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Southern Bangladesh, there are more people living within it than outside it.

Billions will be displaced. The results of global warming are also absolutely catastrophic in this regard for ecosystems and sub-ecosystems, particularly in tropical climates and in icy climates.

Now, I've shown there is a definite increase in global average temperature (not just mean surface air temperature), and it continues to increase. CO2 is a heat trap, and is undoubtedly the biggest contributing factor. There are only 53 years of oil left according to British Petroleum, and burning all of it will, by certain reliable estimations, see our temperature rising beyond that which I've laid out here.

Does anybody really want to take the risk, when we're going to have to invest in renewable energy when the oil runs out in 50 years time anyway? Why not just start now and avoid the risk altogether?

 

[andypro]

THAT GRAPH SHOWS THAT EARTH HAS GOTTEN CONTINUALLY WARMER FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS AND ALARMINGLY WARMER FOR THE LAST 15
No it doesn't, it shows ocean heat content has increased. You're confusing your graphs again.

Again, these are SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE graphs.
Interesting that you should mention that the surface air temperature graphs don't tell the whole story, when it was YOU who used the VERY SAME GRAPH as proof of global warming a few hours ago. It's from YOUR graph.

Of course that can only mean that your brand new to using the old 'oceans are taking the heat' trick. But since you're brand new to this and googling like mad, you don't realize your error. Allow me to once again educate you

"Now, I've shown there is a definite increase in global average temperature"
Nope, what you've done is once again shown is that you can take any graph that shows an increase, and then claim it's global warming (hey, you're Michael Mann). If you'll look carefully at your graph, it's shows the change in total heat content (I'll try to go slow, I know you're new to this - but once again, you can't just pick any old graph off the internet and claim it stands for global warming).

But the question isn't "what's the change in total heat content of the oceans", the proper question is "what does an increase of approximately 8.6 times 10 to the 22nd power joules mean for global average temperatures? Please answer that question.

Oh wait, who am I kidding, you have no idea. That's ok, neither did I. Here's a link that explains it for both of us:

The Tempering Effect of the Oceans on Global Warming | Watts Up With That?

If you don't wish to read it, in layman's terms it basically says that the oceans are so massive that the final tally for all this increase in ocean heat content is, wait for it----> .03 deg cent/decade. That's POINT OH THREE

So, now that your multi-multi-post ocean gambit has failed, I'll go back to my original request:

Please show an 18 year graph that shows this massive warming you're talking about. (EIGHT-TEEN)

Oh, and one more thing, please spare me all the talk of 'billions being displaced'. Once you prove the earth has massively warmed over the last 18 years, then I'll think about it.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

... to Andy. Nine posts ago. Maybe even Friday afternoon.

 

[Mitspa]

I Have to say Andy destroyed the guy... I feel a little sorry for him

 

[PennEd]

I like how people believe Scientists are conspiring again them...by doing science...

but actual criminal conspiracies of rich corrupt men and politicians gets completely ignored.

It's so obvious the Bush family had ties to an inside job in 9/11, it's almost as if his father was convicted of financing the Nazis. Oh wait... he was...

But that all gets ignored.... because the Scientsts!!!

Wake up people, MONEY Talks in this world, and they are agitating for war for profit.

Kinda noble of David to try and throw the young Brit a lifelong with this "capitalism is evil" post:

Umm Dave, you do know that the big Gov socialists are using a carrot, stick approach with the scientific community. They give vast amounts of funds to scientists and organizations that support the hoax, while simultaneously starving honest scientists, who actually follow the facts, of money. Then they ostracize, defame, and now even threaten honest scientists who refuse to go along with the hoax. VERY small wonder that many scientists try like the devil to manipulate the data to fit the hoax.

The left not only wants Manmade global warming to be true, they NEED it to be. I've spoken to the young Brit before and he honestly believes that he is entitled to free stuff from the gov. and by extension the hardworking taxpayer. It doesn't matter how many times, or how horrific the implementation of socialism is, some people simply NEVER learn from history.

 

[andypro]

Thanks for the well wishes, guys. As you know, defending REAL science can be lonely, particularly in the early morning. Thankfully, this ain't my first global warming rodeo (by the way, 'global warming rodeo' - worst first date idea ever)

If others should wander by here, they may not want to dig through all this, but there is a definite pattern that this discussion shares with most discussions with warmists. The pattern goes something like this:

1. Global warming believer seeks out info to support his 'concerns'
2. Goes to websites that dishonestly present half-truths (graphs are best)
3. Looks at shocking half-truths and becomes even more concerned and outraged
4. Wants to find an outlet to educate all us 'deniers'.

If you look at what was presented here, you'll see the pattern.

* Accepted the 97% study unconditionally
* Accepted the Hockey Stick unconditionally
* Presented Arctic ice graph without considering Antarctic ice
* Missed the obvious on the GISS graph because it didn't look like all the other graphs
* Learned about ocean heat, immediately accepted it as the holy grail for crushing deniers.

Friends, this is what we have to deal with. And as you saw, you have to keep playing whack-a-mole all day. Even though I got caught up in it, we need to always bring it back to simple, if we can. Even though I never got to it, the simplest form of argumentation is something like this

1. Get them to post and 18 year graph
2. Ask them to admit NO WARMING for 18 years
3. Remind them that they INSIST we believe the 97% of experts
4. Ask them how many of the 102% of experts (it grows exponentially) and how many of their models predicted anything CLOSE to the last 18 years

Closing Question: How logical, reasonable, and scientific is it to believe without question a group of people who have been absolutely and utterly wrong for the last 18 years on the VERY TOPIC they insist we take their word for for the next 100 years?

You could throw in that they were not wrong as in "We kind of think this might happen". They were EMPHATICALLY wrong as in the "We are 100% right, the science is settled, EVERYONE is on board, and if you don't believe us you hate science and you're worse than the Nazis"

But you have to steer them back to the last 18 years. That is more proof that they are wrong than anything they've ever presented for their side.

 

[Mitspa]

Kinda noble of David to try and throw the young Brit a lifelong with this "capitalism is evil" post:

Umm Dave, you do know that the big Gov socialists are using a carrot, stick approach with the scientific community. They give vast amounts of funds to scientists and organizations that support the hoax, while simultaneously starving honest scientists, who actually follow the facts, of money. Then they ostracize, defame, and now even threaten honest scientists who refuse to go along with the hoax. VERY small wonder that many scientists try like the devil to manipulate the data to fit the hoax.

The left not only wants Manmade global warming to be true, they NEED it to be. I've spoken to the young Brit before and he honestly believes that he is entitled to free stuff from the gov. and by extension the hardworking taxpayer. It doesn't matter how many times, or how horrific the implementation of socialism is, some people simply NEVER learn from history.

Al gore was literally setup to be a billion-air if he could have gotten all the regulations passed that he was trying to get passed through all his lies about global warming.... This whole thing is basically a "make a liberal rich" scam!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

andypro, as someone who believes the aggregate of scientific data shows that global warming is occurring and that this is in line with earth's historical warming and cooling cycles (and that it can be exacerbated somewhat by human activity); I'd love it if you would take an hour or two and write a summary blog article http://christianchat.com/blogs/andypro/ sharing those scholarly sources you believe are most relevant to your position.

I'm not interested in debating this topic (except when people assert that 97% of all scientists in the world insist global warming is rapidly escalating due to human activity as the primary driver because it's so blatantly false) so much as correctly understanding it and that would help me and others as well.

Afterwards, pop into this thread and let us know your blog article is done so we can go retrieve the data and analyze it. A BIG thank you if you take the time to do that for us.

P.S. No slight to Human whatsoever as he argued with integrity using sources he honestly believes are genuine. That's very good. That's the way people are suppose to debate and he did so. I expect his position hasn't changed BUT he has new information to consider which is another benefit of a healthy debate. Human, may be back for more. And that's find too. Peace.

Thanks for the well wishes, guys. As you know, defending REAL science can be lonely, particularly in the early morning. Thankfully, this ain't my first global warming rodeo (by the way, 'global warming rodeo' - worst first date idea ever)

If others should wander by here, they may not want to dig through all this, but there is a definite pattern that this discussion shares with most discussions with warmists. The pattern goes something like this:

1. Global warming believer seeks out info to support his 'concerns'
2. Goes to websites that dishonestly present half-truths (graphs are best)
3. Looks at shocking half-truths and becomes even more concerned and outraged
4. Wants to find an outlet to educate all us 'deniers'.

If you look at what was presented here, you'll see the pattern.

* Accepted the 97% study unconditionally
* Accepted the Hockey Stick unconditionally
* Presented Arctic ice graph without considering Antarctic ice
* Missed the obvious on the GISS graph because it didn't look like all the other graphs
* Learned about ocean heat, immediately accepted it as the holy grail for crushing deniers.

Friends, this is what we have to deal with. And as you saw, you have to keep playing whack-a-mole all day. Even though I got caught up in it, we need to always bring it back to simple, if we can. Even though I never got to it, the simplest form of argumentation is something like this

1. Get them to post and 18 year graph
2. Ask them to admit NO WARMING for 18 years
3. Remind them that they INSIST we believe the 97% of experts
4. Ask them how many of the 102% of experts (it grows exponentially) and how many of their models predicted anything CLOSE to the last 18 years

Closing Question: How logical, reasonable, and scientific is it to believe without question a group of people who have been absolutely and utterly wrong for the last 18 years on the VERY TOPIC they insist we take their word for for the next 100 years?

You could throw in that they were not wrong as in "We kind of think this might happen". They were EMPHATICALLY wrong as in the "We are 100% right, the science is settled, EVERYONE is on board, and if you don't believe us you hate science and you're worse than the Nazis"

But you have to steer them back to the last 18 years. That is more proof that they are wrong than anything they've ever presented for their side.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Pooling resources to realize a more desirable result isn't always bad PennEd. We do so to provide for a common defense, for example. There are many other examples where having the government collect resources from "the people" and distribute them to accomplish a greater good for "the people" while ensuring any and all efforts to do so are squarely under the control and authority of "the people" is desirable. They are as diverse as law enforcement, air traffic control, public libraries, etc...

The baby; however, should not be thrown out with the bath water. It's undesirable.

That said, make no mistake that as a form of government; I reject socialism, communism, Marxism and every other related -ism same as you for all the right reasons.

In fact, I argue the left is guilty of materially steering the U.S. off its foundation in favor of government socialism and that's why we see the serious and costly problems we do in those areas.

There's a world[view] difference between a people using their government to pool resources to accomplish specific necessary/desirable objectives in a cost-effective manner within the context of a constitution, bill of rights, human rights, etc... and the Orwellian Marxism we observe presently subverting our federal constitutional republic.

Kinda noble of David to try and throw the young Brit a lifelong with this "capitalism is evil" post:

Umm Dave, you do know that the big Gov socialists are using a carrot, stick approach with the scientific community. They give vast amounts of funds to scientists and organizations that support the hoax, while simultaneously starving honest scientists, who actually follow the facts, of money. Then they ostracize, defame, and now even threaten honest scientists who refuse to go along with the hoax. VERY small wonder that many scientists try like the devil to manipulate the data to fit the hoax.

The left not only wants Manmade global warming to be true, they NEED it to be. I've spoken to the young Brit before and he honestly believes that he is entitled to free stuff from the gov. and by extension the hardworking taxpayer. It doesn't matter how many times, or how horrific the implementation of socialism is, some people simply NEVER learn from history.

 

[PennEd]

Pooling resources to realize a more desirable result isn't always bad PennEd. We do so to provide for a common defense, for example. There are many other examples where having the government collect resources from "the people" and distribute them to accomplish a greater good for "the people" while ensuring any and all efforts to do so are squarely under the control and authority of "the people" is desirable. They are as diverse as law enforcement, air traffic control, public libraries, etc...

The baby; however, should not be thrown out with the bath water. It's undesirable.

That said, make no mistake that as a form of government; I reject socialism, communism, Marxism and every other related -ism same as you for all the right reasons.

In fact, I argue the left is guilty of materially steering the U.S. off its foundation in favor of government socialism and that's why we see the serious and costly problems we do in those areas.

There's a world[view] difference between a people using their government to pool resources to accomplish specific necessary/desirable objectives in a cost-effective manner within the context of a constitution, bill of rights, human rights, etc... and the Orwellian Marxism we observe presently subverting our federal constitutional republic.

I know your'e trying hard to unbiasly examine the evidence, and that is laudable, but I'm surprised to see the strawman you erected in your 1st paragraph here. I don't understand how you derived anything close to me being against taxation for purposes enumerated in the Constitution. I do not, nor have I ever, advocated anarchy as a form of gov.

 

[PennEd]

[h=1]WHY I SO TOTALLY LOVE BEING CALLED A ‘CLIMATE DENIER’[/h]



[h=2]A New Mexico physicist has launched a petition - signed by 22,000 Klimate-Kool-Aid-drinkers, and counting – demanding that from henceforward climate sceptics be referred to in the media by their proper name.[/h]That proper name, apparently, is “climate deniers”.
Among the signatories – and really this tells you all you need to know about the credibility of the petition – is the self-styled “Science Guy” Bill Nye.
Though the petition has caused a certain degree of discombobulation in climate sceptical circles, what I say is “bring it on.”
It’s not like it doesn’t happen already: all too often at the BBC, for example, the term “deniers” is already used interchangeably with “sceptics”, for all the world as if it were a respectable, reasonable and accurate epithet.And what I like about it – indeed why I prefer it to the more neutral “sceptic” – is that it tells us so many helpfully negative things about the person who uses it.
It tells us how low they are prepared to stoop in their petulant desperation to slur the opposition, by tacitly equating sensible and valid doubts about the robustness of current climate science groupthink with the far less intellectually tenable position of denying the existence of the Holocaust.It also tells us how little they value the scientific method and how poorly they grasp the history of science and the philosophy of science. Had they bothered acquainting themselves, for example, with Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, they would understand that scientific knowledge advances in fits and starts. One generation’s “consensus” is the next generation’s phlogiston.
We no longer believe, for example, that malaria (literally “bad air”) is transmitted by the miasma from swamps or that stomach ulcers are caused by stress. But for a period, these beliefs were as much a part of mainstream scientific thinking as “anthropogenic global warming” theory is today. Presumably, had the internet existed back then, there would have been petitions calling for the purblind fools who opposed those theories “bad air deniers” or “ulcer stress deniers”. Those petitions wouldn’t have made those hateful “deniers” any less correct in their novel hypotheses, though, would they?Above all, though, it tells us how sorely ill-equipped intellectually these upholders of the alarmist “consensus” are to deal with their opponents’ arguments. If “man-made global warming” theory really were such a slam-dunk case there would be absolutely no need to try to silence the opposition with disparaging epithets. Their position would be demonstrably so foolish that no sensible person would be taken in for a second by their anti-scientific nonsense.But it hasn’t quite worked out that way, has it?
For one thing, more and more evidence seems to be emerging that the ‘science’ behind global warming theory is about as trustworthy as Enron’s annual reports.
And for another, that pesky global weather appears to be proving stubbornly resistant to the warmist narrative.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm not accusing you of anything whatsoever. I'm just sharing my own position on a topic and chose your post as a springboard to do so because you mentioned it. Notice that I don't cite anything you said whatsoever. The reason for that is because I'm not arguing with you. I'm just sharing. But we argue so much in this world sometimes it's difficult to know where the arguing stops and the sharing begins. Love your posts brother whether or not I agree with all of them. Peace.

I know your'e trying hard to unbiasly examine the evidence, and that is laudable, but I'm surprised to see the strawman you erected in your 1st paragraph here. I don't understand how you derived anything close to me being against taxation for purposes enumerated in the Constitution. I do not, nor have I ever, advocated anarchy as a form of gov.

 

[Human]

Kinda noble of David to try and throw the young Brit a lifelong with this "capitalism is evil" post:

Umm Dave, you do know that the big Gov socialists are using a carrot, stick approach with the scientific community. They give vast amounts of funds to scientists and organizations that support the hoax, while simultaneously starving honest scientists, who actually follow the facts, of money. Then they ostracize, defame, and now even threaten honest scientists who refuse to go along with the hoax. VERY small wonder that many scientists try like the devil to manipulate the data to fit the hoax.

The left not only wants Manmade global warming to be true, they NEED it to be. I've spoken to the young Brit before and he honestly believes that he is entitled to free stuff from the gov. and by extension the hardworking taxpayer. It doesn't matter how many times, or how horrific the implementation of socialism is, some people simply NEVER learn from history.

If I pay taxes, I'd rather they were spent on initiatives that benefit other members of the society I live in, and also benefit me. I don't consider, for instance, grotesque military expenditure to be a public cost I'm happy to contribute to. I do consider public healthcare a cost I'm happy to contribute to. If you look at the NHS for instance, it costs the UK gov't less per head than the US spend public funding on healthcare per head. Our healthcare costs in regard to point of service and procedure, are cheaper than the US per head, and of course, our healthcare does not cost any UK citizen at the point of service.

That, for me, is a cost worth investing in with taxes.

Taxes are used to fund many things, in both the US and UK -- state primary and secondary education; road maintenence; military expenditure; healthcare subsidization; government employees salaries, military expenditures.

So, paying taxes is sort of about ''getting things in return'', or ''paying for things that benefit the entire populace''. I simply believe that the things that my taxes are spent on should be of particular kind -- educational, healthcare related, infrastructure maintenance related.

In regards to healthcare, education and funding scientific studies and research in particular, these three are very high on my list of ''things taxes should be spent on''.

I'd be interested to know what you think taxes should be spend on -- helping people? Killing people? What?

 

[Mitspa]

If I pay taxes, I'd rather they were spent on initiatives that benefit other members of the society I live in, and also benefit me. I don't consider, for instance, grotesque military expenditure to be a public cost I'm happy to contribute to. I do consider public healthcare a cost I'm happy to contribute to. If you look at the NHS for instance, it costs the UK gov't less per head than the US spend public funding on healthcare per head. Our healthcare costs in regard to point of service and procedure, are cheaper than the US per head, and of course, our healthcare does not cost any UK citizen at the point of service.

That, for me, is a cost worth investing in with taxes.

Taxes are used to fund many things, in both the US and UK -- state primary and secondary education; road maintenence; military expenditure; healthcare subsidization; government employees salaries, military expenditures.

So, paying taxes is sort of about ''getting things in return'', or ''paying for things that benefit the entire populace''. I simply believe that the things that my taxes are spent on should be of particular kind -- educational, healthcare related, infrastructure maintenance related.

In regards to healthcare, education and funding scientific studies and research in particular, these three are very high on my list of ''things taxes should be spent on''.

I'd be interested to know what you think taxes should be spend on -- helping people? Killing people? What?

Well you guys have us to protect you...and don't need to spend on defense.

 

[Human]

Well you guys have us to protect you...and don't need to spend on defense.

I don't want your ''protection''. Please keep it. Get out of my country.