Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 07/02/2009 8:34:28 AM PDT by Starman417
It's not easy living in the DC area. The place is a 60 square mile enclave bordered by reality, where the phrase "I voted for George Bush" gets you looked at like you have two heads, while being a gay vegan is considered perfectly normal. No, really!
You can imagine how irritating it gets when out trying to enjoy a beer and one of Al Gore's cult followers begins proselytizing to the cause of Global Warming. But I've discovered that like the followers of any other religion, debating someone's belief system is pointless. Pointing out how Climate Change is based more on belief than fact quickly sets them off, and they usually proceed to cite heavily flawed studies or quotes from an equally unreliable source. You could go back and forth all day, or you can end the conversation fairly quickly - simply state that you don't debate religion, and if you're to be expected to treat it like science, your green friend has to do so first. They can accomplish this by answering three simple questions:
1) Given the age of the planet and how widely the temperature has fluctuated over time, what is the ideal temperature that the Earth must be, and how will we maintain it over time?
2) One of the foundations of scientific theory is that it stands up to defeating theories that prove it wrong. We've heard how shrinking glaciers prove global warming, growing glaciers prove global warming, more storms prove global warming, and fewer storms prove global warming. What events prove their theories false?
3) Every few years a new threat comes along that threatens our very existence unless drastic action is taken yesterday. Of course, the media provides sensational screaming headlines backed up by irrefutable scientific evidence to promote these scares. Off of the top of my head here are a few from the last 40 years:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
Every few years a new threat comes along that threatens our very existence unless drastic action is taken yesterday. Of course, the media provides sensational screaming headlines backed up by irrefutable scientific evidence to promote these scares.
::::::::
It is how the radical left survives. As long as there are ignorant and stupid people who believe their lies and scams, we will have liberal “opportunists” and liars, who capitalize on those very human failings along with a complicit media.
>> while being a gay vegan
Gay vegan? I thought they ate pork and fish.
I just tell them to do their part and stop breathing every breath they take releases deadly corbon dioxide then explain to them its their fault for being a carbon based life form ....Tell them they need to change !
There, fixed it
Don’t forget how the media spazzed out during the so call “Swine Flu” outbreak. Now you barely hear about it.
During the Ice Age, North America was covered under a mile thick sheet of ice. How did it melt?
My favorite question for the average Al Gore cult follower is (with sincere tone) “How would you explain the melting ice caps on Mars?”
It’s been good for a few blank looks.
Liberals, as exemplified by Rahm Emanuel, look for or create crises so they can demand greater government involvement to further enslave the serfs.
btt
It has been cold and rainy for a month up here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. Not hearing much from the global warming crowd in Cambridge lately.
That's actually a crusher right there, but then most people who recognize the need for falsifiability in a scientific theory aren't Global Warming advocates either precisely for that reason.
It works like this: descriptive model, predictive model, normative model. There are any number of perfectly fine descriptive models, both in computers and on paper, but none of them have been able to anticipate - predict - the current temperature data from past behavior; if you have condition A, B will happen next. The real difficulty is that the modelers are attempting to proceed from that to a normative model: i.e. if you want B to happen, you have to adjust A. That will fail.
It has been cold and rainy for a month up here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. Not hearing much from the global warming crowd in Cambridge lately.
Hmmmmm...Perhaps you have not received last year's memo.
The term 'global warming' became the punch line for so many jokes, for so many rebuttals...that the watermelon crowd now utilizes the term 'climate change'.
Too hot..too cold, / floods versus droughts / too much snow, not enough snow / record hurricanes, lack of hurricanes ...ALL now attributable to 'climate change'.
The catch all phrase that's sure to support their every evolving position.
Easiest:
What caused the glaciers to recede?
Ask them why it was so warm during the Roman Empire that grapevines and wine production in England was tops. It is too cold to grow grapes and make wine in England today.
As them why there are tropical ferns and other vegetation under the ice in Greenland?
Hi, my name is Al Bore. I have some credits to sell you. They are for carbon, that stuff you expel when you breathe. That stuff is bad, and you need to buy carbon credits from me. I am after all the worlds foremeost authority on global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it. All I know is you have to purchase these from my company. You know how I got this great job? I convinced the House of Representatives, that my schtick was real. Hey, if you need to read sometime, then you can come by my house. I use enough energy for 200,000 households a year.
Thanks Al Bore
It's not "every few years" -- it's CONSTANT.
Just think of the term "housing crisis," for example. When home prices were ridiculously high, this nation had a "housing crisis" because homes were increasingly unaffordable for people. When the residential real estate market collapsed and home prices declined steeply, we now have a "housing crisis" because too many people can't afford their mortgages.
In other words, we'll be facing a "housing crisis" for as long as the media want to cover such a thing.
>> pork or fish
Indeed.
Not from the AGW crowd. None of their models can "predict" the past, which is what a proper descriptive model must do. They have to fudge data, look at very limited time frames, and ignore lots of exceptions, in order to pretend that their descriptive models are meaningful.
The idea is that if a model isn't adequately predictive it can't proceed to being normative, which is what the AGW crowd is trying to do. I think we agree there if I understand your point correctly.
They said it was supposed to hit 80 today in Central MN. Currently 68.
Ah. I see. You’re right. I missed the memo. But...haven’t we always had climate change of one kind of another?
Some FReeper did a thread on it yesterday, I believe. Still screaming that we are all going to die from it.
pinging this one.
Bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.