This religion was always about the transfer of wealth and power - and it appears that a lot of people and countries have lost their zeal for those articles of faith.

If you actually believe it's a religion, you probably believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, that Obama wasn't born in America, and believe every FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW;FW email that comes into your inbox.

And yet, it's still dying.

Damn, facts died from donations.

That's where the Climategate emails come in. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.



well yes, but for the record - nothing in those emails indicated that 'global warming' was a fraud. what those emails DID reveal was an inner circle of scientists who routinely played politics with their data. they were all very much aware of the political implications of what they found. instead of doing their jobs and filing reports for the political types to use/abuse for policy decisions, they used their data to advance careers, secure further funding and hobble their political enemies.

that said, there IS data enough to suggest (if nothing else) that further investigation of climate change is more than warranted. the problem is that some sort of neutral oversite and clear cut rules on data reporting should be implimented to prevent people from abusing their positions for personal political gain. And good luck figuring out how to accomplish THAT goal!

MeinRS6: This religion was always about the transfer of wealth and power - and it appears that a lot of people and countries have lost their zeal for those articles of faith.

If by that you mean the continued transfer of our wealth to powerful oil company CEOs and shareholders, then yeah, absolutely.

GAT_00: Damn, "facts" died from donations.

FIFY

Or you could have also used "articles of faith" or "politically motivated mumbo-jumbo".

MeinRS6: GAT_00: Damn, "facts" died from donations.

FIFY

Or you could have also used "articles of faith" or "politically motivated mumbo-jumbo".

Even if you could prove that rising CO2 isn't causing global warming, the fact is that the earth is heating up. And when it gets hot out, do you put on a parka? Because that's the equivalent of continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

Marcus Aurelius: Even if you could prove that rising CO2 isn't causing global warming

Which he can't, because he can't disprove radiative forcing or Doppler Broadening. He knows the climate isn't changing, but I guarandamntee he doesn't know what Doppler Broadening is without Googling it, and even then he won't understand it.

Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: GAT_00: Damn, "facts" died from donations.

FIFY

Or you could have also used "articles of faith" or "politically motivated mumbo-jumbo".

Even if you could prove that rising CO2 isn't causing global warming, the fact is that the earth is heating up. And when it gets hot out, do you put on a parka? Because that's the equivalent of continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

You may be missing he point of the article. The global warming religion is dying.

If you could fast forward 4yrs from now, do you think there will be more people in more countries demanding that developed countries send money to undeveloped countries, presumably to somehow lower global temps - or will there be less talking about this?

Climate change deniers are some of the most gullible people on the planet. There's just no reasoning with someone who thinks scientists are in it for the money. Just smile and nod politely and look for the first chance to escape.

BigTuna: Climate change deniers are some of the most gullible people on the planet. There's just no reasoning with someone who thinks scientists are in it for the money.

MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: GAT_00: Damn, "facts" died from donations.

FIFY

Or you could have also used "articles of faith" or "politically motivated mumbo-jumbo".

Even if you could prove that rising CO2 isn't causing global warming, the fact is that the earth is heating up. And when it gets hot out, do you put on a parka? Because that's the equivalent of continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

You may be missing he point of the article. The global warming religion is dying.

If you could fast forward 4yrs from now, do you think there will be more people in more countries demanding that developed countries send money to undeveloped countries, presumably to somehow lower global temps - or will there be less talking about this?

This message brought to you by ExxonMobil.

MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: GAT_00: Damn, "facts" died from donations.

FIFY

Or you could have also used "articles of faith" or "politically motivated mumbo-jumbo".

Even if you could prove that rising CO2 isn't causing global warming, the fact is that the earth is heating up. And when it gets hot out, do you put on a parka? Because that's the equivalent of continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

You may be missing he point of the article. The global warming religion is dying.

If you could fast forward 4yrs from now, do you think there will be more people in more countries demanding that developed countries send money to undeveloped countries, presumably to somehow lower global temps - or will there be less talking about this?

I never viewed the facts or the study of global warming as political. The conclusions of unchecked global warming is where all the political (aka religious) heat is, so to speak. And from my perspective, nestled comfortably into a northeastern US suburb, global warming is going to be very good to me, with the possible exception of some imported products (mostly lamb, seafood, cacao and possibly coffee prices) and that a few of my good friends will eventually lose their oceanfront properties that they let me borrow. Otherwise, no skin off my back. And my heating bills are down already, although the summer A/C bill is up.

All in all, the biggest change I'm likely to see from global warming is a shorter trip to the seashore.

So I'm positively looking forward to it. And it is coming. Whether anyone has "religion" or not.

MeinRS6:

I rattled on that whole time and didn't even answer your question about more people in more countries demanding that developed countries send money to undeveloped countries.

The answer is it will be a cold day in hell when the developed world sends ANY compensation to global warming consequence sufferers. Maybe a few bucks in donations here and there, but that's about it.

Marcus Aurelius: So I'm positively looking forward to it. And it is coming. Whether anyone has "religion" or not.

And any Christian will tell you the same thing about the Rapture. You have your faith and they have theirs.

Your blog sucks.

/didn't RTFA

MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: So I'm positively looking forward to it. And it is coming. Whether anyone has "religion" or not.

And any Christian will tell you the same thing about the Rapture. You have your faith and they have theirs.

Now I'm curious. What evidence do you have that we're not heating up? And by "evidence" I mean peer reviewed science, of course...

Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: So I'm positively looking forward to it. And it is coming. Whether anyone has "religion" or not.

And any Christian will tell you the same thing about the Rapture. You have your faith and they have theirs.

Now I'm curious. What evidence do you have that we're not heating up? And by "evidence" I mean peer reviewed science, of course...

You still are missing the point. There are a million MMGW threads on Fark. I understand that the political Left believes that "the debate is over". That is one of the articles of faith of the GW religion. But this piece isn't talking about the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's predicting something else. Can you spot what that is?

Weaver95: That's where the Climategate emails come in. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.



well yes, but for the record - nothing in those emails indicated that 'global warming' was a fraud. what those emails DID reveal was an inner circle of scientists who routinely played politics with their data. they were all very much aware of the political implications of what they found. instead of doing their jobs and filing reports for the political types to use/abuse for policy decisions, they used their data to advance careers, secure further funding and hobble their political enemies.

that said, there IS data enough to suggest (if nothing else) that further investigation of climate change is more than warranted. the problem is that some sort of neutral oversite and clear cut rules on data reporting should be implimented to prevent people from abusing their positions for personal political gain. And good luck figuring out how to accomplish THAT goal!

Poppycock. They revealed no such thing. The scientific method demands that you ask questions about data presentation. What you're describing is unethical by the objective standard of how good science is conducted. These folks were exonorated of any of that. Check your facts.

And yet actual religions, including some of the most powerful dangerous and destructive forces on the planet, continue to rake in millions and millions from people who want to believe they will one day get to live in paradise.

To conservatives, this is the way things should be.

Weaver95: well yes, but for the record - nothing in those emails indicated that 'global warming' was a fraud. what those emails DID reveal was an inner circle of scientists who routinely played politics with their data. they were all very much aware of the political implications of what they found. instead of doing their jobs and filing reports for the political types to use/abuse for policy decisions, they used their data to advance careers, secure further funding and hobble their political enemies.

I dunno about you, but I'm pretty sure that most of the people who claim Climategate is proof of fraud haven't read a single email chain from that archive. (I've got the whole text file downloaded to my hard drive)

Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: This religion was always about the transfer of wealth and power - and it appears that a lot of people and countries have lost their zeal for those articles of faith.

If by that you mean the continued transfer of our wealth to powerful oil company CEOs and shareholders, then yeah, absolutely.

Awww, play nice. He's hoping that one day they'll let him work inside the house.

MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: So I'm positively looking forward to it. And it is coming. Whether anyone has "religion" or not.

And any Christian will tell you the same thing about the Rapture. You have your faith and they have theirs.

Now I'm curious. What evidence do you have that we're not heating up? And by "evidence" I mean peer reviewed science, of course...

You still are missing the point. There are a million MMGW threads on Fark. I understand that the political Left believes that "the debate is over". That is one of the articles of faith of the GW religion. But this piece isn't talking about the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's predicting something else. Can you spot what that is?

No. I didn't read the article. I saw the URL and automatically assumed it was not peer reviewed science.

Was that wrong of me?

make me some tea: I dunno about you, but I'm pretty sure that most of the people who claim Climategate is proof of fraud haven't read a single email chain from that archive. (I've got the whole text file downloaded to my hard drive)

Also, there wasn't any fraud.

MeinRS6:

OK, OK, I read the article. It seems to say that we don't have to even let the merest thought of global warming enter even the smallest pea brain in society.

Now what?

It's just a piece from the WSJ. It won't hurt you.

Maybe you should take a look so you will know what the hell you are talking about.

//not linked from the WSJ because of the paywall

These are the same people who are Birthers. No use in trying to convince them. All you can do is vote out their party believers and stop giving them air time to yap.

Marcus Aurelius: And from my perspective, nestled comfortably into a northeastern US suburb, global warming is going to be very good to me, with the possible exception of some imported products (mostly lamb, seafood, cacao and possibly coffee prices) and that a few of my good friends will eventually lose their oceanfront properties that they let me borrow. Otherwise, no skin off my back. And my heating bills are down already, although the summer A/C bill is up.

THIS

Except for the part where the world economy is completely farked because dozens of port cities are affected disrupting global commerce.... and the part where food prices quadruple because the climate change has wreaked havoc with agriculture..

Are those things going to happen in 10 or 20 years? No.

So as long as we're happy to say Fark You to our grandchildren, I guess continuing AGW is no biggie.

MeinRS6: It's just a piece from the WSJ. It won't hurt you.

Maybe you should take a look so you will know what the hell you are talking about.

Then you will allow me to retort.

Nadie_AZ: These are the same people who are Birthers. No use in trying to convince them. All you can do is vote out their party believers and stop giving them air time to yap.

I just refer to people with that kind of mindset as Flat Earthers.
Birthers, Climate Change deniers and the rest refuse to believe the sky is blue or the earth is round no matter how much reality disagrees with them. If anything, the more they're proved wrong the more they cling to their crazy beliefs.

Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: It's just a piece from the WSJ. It won't hurt you.

Maybe you should take a look so you will know what the hell you are talking about.

Then you will allow me to retort.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 380x276]

Right..right. I know. The "debate is over"......except for when it's not.

The Republican religion is on its deathbed and may never be heard from again as it slides towards the grave due to stupidity.

These guys are farking geniuses.

First they make a good case that religion is bullshiat:

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers."

Then, elsewhere on their shiatty website they say:

Judeo-Christian Foundation: We believe in the guiding force of moral law as expressed by the Judeo- Christian ethic and contained in the Holy Scriptures of these historic faiths.

MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: It's just a piece from the WSJ. It won't hurt you.

Maybe you should take a look so you will know what the hell you are talking about.

Then you will allow me to retort.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 380x276]

Right..right. I know. The "debate is over"......except for when it's not.

So what exactly are you claiming? Verily I do not understand.

Are you saying that CO2 is not increasing?
Are you saying that global average temperatures are not increasing?
Are you saying we can't possibly affect the climate with hundreds of millions of carbon emitting sources?
Are you saying it doesn't matter?
Are you saying that poor countries will demand compensation and that we'd actually consider PAYING them?

What it is, specifically, that you are saying?

I need some coherence to continue this conversation. Claim something rational for God sakes. Otherwise I'm outta here.

Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: It's just a piece from the WSJ. It won't hurt you.

Maybe you should take a look so you will know what the hell you are talking about.

Then you will allow me to retort.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 380x276]

It's nicer with the longer graph:



And today we are at 390 PPM.

I can't change your mind on this thread. I wouldn't waste the typing to try. You are probably young enough to be around 20yrs from now - maybe we can talk again then and see which of us is more likely correct. If you recall the GW predictions from the 1980s, much of the world's beaches should already be under water in 2011 - and we can all see how that turned out. So write down your favorite current GW predictions now(I know I have) and we'll talk in a few decades. You can either keep pitching me your religion then, or you can wise up.

What was interesting about this piece is how economics entirely change a lot of peoples' perception of the coming doom from MMGW. The longer that continues, then more your religion will struggle.

MeinRS6: You are probably young enough to be around 20yrs from now - maybe we can talk again then and see which of us is more likely correct.

20 years from now you and your handlers will be saying that it was you who were trying to save us all along and it was those stupid lib scientists that wouldn't listen to you.

MeinRS6: I can't change your mind on this thread. I wouldn't waste the typing to try. You are probably young enough to be around 20yrs from now - maybe we can talk again then and see which of us is more likely correct. If you recall the GW predictions from the 1980s, much of the world's beaches should already be under water in 2011 - and we can all see how that turned out. So write down your favorite current GW predictions now(I know I have) and we'll talk in a few decades. You can either keep pitching me your religion then, or you can wise up.

What was interesting about this piece is how economics entirely change a lot of peoples' perception of the coming doom from MMGW. The longer that continues, then more your religion will struggle.

Actually I was born before 1960. I just plan on being around for awhile.

What is "MMGW"? I know GW=global warming, but what is "MM"?

MM= man made

Marcus Aurelius: What is "MMGW"? I know GW=global warming, but what is "MM"?

I've never seen it before, but I'm guessing man-made global warming. Which isn't the whole story, because the slowing of the Gulf Stream will slightly cool Europe.

This whole "debate" is just hilarious.

On the one hand you have almost every scientist, climatologist, and meteorologist on the planet talking about what will happen when (not if) the temperature rises one, two, three degrees. The rising water has the government in Micronesia looking for places to settle their people when their nation is under water. Growing regions for various crops are already shifting.

Then on the other hand, there are the people who go "ZOMG religionz you SCIENTISTS ARE IN IT TO LIVE LARGEZ ON THE GRANTZ omg you libruls lie AL GORE HAS CARS!"

And somehow the media grants relatively equal hearing to both of these "points of view"

Man Made - Anthropogenic for people who don't like words with more than one syllable.

MeinRS6: MM= man made

Ah.

And what, precisely, would you change about my mind?

Which conclusion?

Just bear in your mind that all of my strongly held conclusions are based on lots of data that I put into my mind very carefully. It's a failing I developed at a young age.

MeinRS6: I can't change your mind on this thread. I wouldn't waste the typing to try. You are probably young enough to be around 20yrs from now - maybe we can talk again then and see which of us is more likely correct. If you recall the GW predictions from the 1980s, much of the world's beaches should already be under water in 2011 - and we can all see how that turned out. So write down your favorite current GW predictions now(I know I have) and we'll talk in a few decades. You can either keep pitching me your religion then, or you can wise up.

This would make for an interesting wager. Maybe make it interesting?

I'm all for that. It's a long bet though.

If Marcus is coming in at 350lbs and smoking a couple packs a day, he might not make it.

RexTalionis: MeinRS6: I can't change your mind on this thread. I wouldn't waste the typing to try. You are probably young enough to be around 20yrs from now - maybe we can talk again then and see which of us is more likely correct. If you recall the GW predictions from the 1980s, much of the world's beaches should already be under water in 2011 - and we can all see how that turned out. So write down your favorite current GW predictions now(I know I have) and we'll talk in a few decades. You can either keep pitching me your religion then, or you can wise up.

This would make for an interesting wager. Maybe make it interesting?

Perhaps $10,000.00?