1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years

If you're upset about that, I'm sure we would all be happy to ignore you, to make up for it.

 

I've heard it all before.

 

Too bad you can't hear the truth. Brainwashing tends to do that to people.

 

Ahh, so now I've been brainwashed? Tell me, has everyone who doesn't flat out buy everything you're selling without question been "brainwashed"? Are they all "cultists"? You sure do throw out a lot of personal insults for someone supposedly dealing in facts.

 

Nobody cares.

The US is the only nation to meet its goals under Kyoto, despite the fact the US did not ratify Kyoto.

Nobody else even tried.

Nobody cares.

 

Oh right. The "only" nation, if you don't count Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rom_fuel_combustion_between_1990_and_2009.png

Where do you get your information, Taxcutter? Fox News? That would explain a lot.

 

Mine came for the US Department of Energy.

Is there an attribution for your cutesy graph?

 

http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf

 

Oh good! The <sarcasm on> always reliable UN. <sarcasm off> No axe to gring here, much.

 

Look Dick. See Conservative. See Conservative with evidence he doesn't like. See Conservative ignore evidence. Ignore, Conservative, ignore!

You know, taxcutter, when you ignore, you look ignorant.

 

"Look Dick. See Conservative. See Conservative with evidence he doesn't like. See Conservative ignore evidence. Ignore, Conservative, ignore!"

Taxcutter says:
You think that doesn't apply to Warmers as well?

 

Show me where I've ignored evidence, and I'd say you have a point. But I doubt that you can, because I make it a point not to.

 

The fact you are still a Warmer indicates ignoring cogent evidence.

 

And yet somehow, no denier can come up with any actual evidence that I've ignored evidence. Yet again. I guess deniers make it their policy not to deal with evidence, because that might actually require effort.

 

Wow! Circular logic at it's best!!!

All warmers ignore facts = you are a warmer you must ignore facts = you must ignore facts

Show us an example of us ignoring facts

 

LOLOLOLOL.....you sure do try to twist things around.....the enormous amount of evidence supporting AGW and the testimony of the world's expert climate scientists doesn't need to be "sold", nor is it presented "without question". Science is a process of constant questioning. The Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been severely questioned for decades and has held up under all of the scrutiny and is now accepted science. The fact that you reject all of the evidence and the testimony of the experts in favor of the flaky pseudo-science and denier cult myths that are being pushed by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign would tend to indicate that you probably are a victim of this brainwashing campaign, that, BTW, bears a lot of similarity to the disinformation/propaganda campaign that the tobacco companies used to delay for several decades any restrictions or warnings on tobacco products, long after the severe health risks of tobacco smoking were well established facts for most doctors.

The deniers of AGW are now on a par with the Flat Earth Society, another cult of denial of reality.

 

Your own words reveal your inattention to detail and your elevation of scientific theory to near-religous status. You've called me a "denier", accused me of subscribing to "myths", of being "brainwashed", of being a "cultist" and much more yet I defy you to show me where I have ever denied AGW or subscribed to a position either way. I am a sceptic of the highest order. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know one way or the other. I am not a climate scientist and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you aren't either. The issue is clouded by money and politics where both "sides" mostly consist of impish little people who have never taken a science class past high school but are easily swayed by politicians, hysteria, and groupthink.

 

What a weird, wacky, distorted view of the situation. The major scientific conclusions about anthropogenic global warming and the climate changes it is causing are quite clear and well supported by the mountains of evidence that have been collected and analyzed by tens of thousands of scientists all around the world for many decades now. In spite of your uninformed denial, the world scientific community very strongly supports the conclusions of the climate scientists about the reality and dangers of AGW/CC. I would still challenge you to name any major national or international scientific organization that denies or tries to refute those conclusions. I challenged you earlier on that but you ran away.

The "issue" is quite clear scientifically and is only "clouded" in the political arena where the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign has been somewhat effective in creating doubt in the public mind about the fact that the science is pretty well settled as far as the experts are concerned. Exactly the same way the tobacco companies used propaganda and misinformation to deceive the public about the clear medical evidence on the dangers of smoking for two decades - or long enough to make another few billion dollars getting kids addicted to their drug and to kill a few hundred thousand more people from lung cancer and emphysema. Rather interestingly, the fossil fuel industry has employed and used some of the same corrupted scientists who had earlier stooged for the tobacco companies. Check out Fred Singer sometime.

It is clear to anyone who actually understands the science and evidence on AGW that we will collectively be severely threatening the stability of our current human civilizations, damaging the biosphere and ecology of the Earth (perhaps irreparably on a human time scale), and creating great hardship and decline for future generations of humans for centuries to come if the human race doesn't begin very soon to greatly curtail our carbon emissions. Nevertheless, the greedy fools in the fossil fuel industry and their rightwing toadies and stooges are doing everything they can to delay or prevent any effective international or American efforts to switch over to non-carbon emitting energy sources as quickly as we possibly can. They do this in order to keep on getting that old trillion dollar a year profit stream (that they enjoy so much) to keep on flowing for another decade or two, regardless of the consequences to people, the environment, future generations, or the stability of our world.

You fancy yourself to be a 'skeptic' but you display none of the characteristics of an actual skeptic, as far as I can see.

"Skeptics are those who acknowledge the scientific evidence, but thoughtfully maintain doubt based on some small evidence or logic that, though meagre, is nonetheless reality based. They are honourable people who push science forward through their constant, reasoned questioning and thoughtful critiques of the dominant paradigm.

Skepticism is a disciplined intellectual activity based on facts. Just what it means in the modern sense is explored intelligently at places like the Skeptics Society and here. No doubt there are many more, but those give you a sense.

By contrast those who distort and lie, who demonstrate no understanding of the science, who have no evidence or rational logic for their position but persist in denying the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence, can only be called Deniers."
- (source)​

LOL. Denying the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence is pretty much all you've done on this thread, using the standard tactics of the deniers - cherry-picking the evidence and the quotes.

 

The above is exactly why I say you've nearly elevated your beliefs to those of a religion. Note that I challenged you to find where I have denied AGW and you failed to do so.

 

Well everyone knows that my "religion of science" says "the germ theory of disease" is that germs cause disease and that is just religion. Disease is caused by evil sprirts and demons. Germ theory is just a theory.

You remind me of the guys that think steel has water in it...because when you heat it water magically apears on the surface...therefore steel has water in it. It is just a "theory" that water from the air condenses on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Well everyone knows that my "religion of science" says "the germ theory of disease" is that germs cause disease and that is just religion. Disease is caused by evil sprirts and demons. Germ theory is just a theory.

You remind me of the guys that think steel has water in it...because when you heat it water magically apears on the surface...therefore steel has water in it. It is just a "theory" that water from the air condenses on it.

 

"...any actual evidence that I've ignored evidence."

Taxcutter says:
I (and others) have posted mountains of evidence. You have chosen to ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit your agenda of increased taxation, increased regulation, and pouring US money down the UN rathole.

 

You've missed the point. I'm not saying that a belief in this or that scientific theory is like religion. I was saying that this particular poster's propensity to be overly defensive and immediately mislabel and attack anyone who dares to question his statements about his beliefs is reminiscent of Bible thumpers who can't accept any questioning of their interpretations and go around calling people heretics over even minor points of contention.

 

I happen to agree with most of what "this particular poster" has to say. Having lived a fwe years I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. I remember when Mt. fuji was covered in snow year round. The same with Mt. Kiliminjaro. I have also seen evidence in my own backyard. That is why I ask about the ice fishing in Indiana. I can also remember when lake Chad in Africa was an inland sea with large ships on its waters.

People are concerned about AGW because the future of mankind is being threatened. Living on earth is like living in a fishbowl. Without a filter the fish die. The only difference is the fish have no clue... and we do.

 

Some of us do.

 

You can believe whatever you want and agree with whomever you like, that has nothing to do with my comment. I was addressing his absurd rhetoric and unwarranted personal attacks.