Political Correctness

"My point is that, there are a lot of people out there (evidently yourself included), that are unable or unwilling to countenance alternative "scenario-theories""

I am willing to but the stakes are high and tend more toward one end. Am I able to judge what will happen? No, I don't have the scientifical knowledge to, but when the debate is between scientifics who back up their claims against people who find it nice as they don't like snow and would like to grow oranges in Alaska and don't believe in science anyway. I'm caricaturing here, but there's an underlying truth in my caricature.

"The scientific concensus is not always accurately portrayed in the media, (especially those media with profit-driven agendas), then you get people jumping on the bandwagon, those people take to the cause wholeheartedly, even entering into epic conversations about it, proud of their new-found knowledge."

Show me credible scientifical publications who deny global warming.

"There is no turning back, to contradict any part of their previous diatribe would make them look quite foolish."

A scientific who can refute this "diatribe" has much to gain. 

"your response is an attack on me, and on the source of my information."

Where did I attack you? And yes, I attacked your sources, or more accurately, I put it in doubt, leaving you space to take this doubt away.

"Obviously you don't or haven't read that book, and it is sourced with facts, and verifiable sources of information."

I haven't read it and I'm certainly not going to believe you without sources. Give us some sources for the statements you gave. 

"But I expected your response - it is typical of the greens."

What an argument... er sophism. 

"The greens attack those who disagree with them, by innuendo, and by direct personal attacks, and fail to discourse intelligently about the subject."

Oh! The irony!

"the speed of warming is not significant. 0.07   (zero point zero seven) degree celsius in 10 years is insiginificant."

And who told you it was insignificant? You have to realise that this measure is taken from the last 100 years and that it has always been increasing, this means that the present rate is much higher. And this is a general temperature measurement, the climate change is concentrated in the poles. 

 "besides, the temperature changes from about 50 degrees F at night to about 82 degrees F during the day, and the flora and fauna have NO PROBLEM with that rather sharp change in temperature.  point refuted."

This is the typical argument from people I referred in my caricature at the beginning of my post. Do you really want me to explain you this or can you look it up yourself?

"the point is:  when the soviet union collapsed, (I'll type it slow for you etienne and you read slow please), their temperature recording stations, mostly located in the arctic NORTH , went offline. "

And I will repeat you slowly again what i said, first, soviet datas were only accessible to soviets, so even there it couldn't make any difference. But no need for that argument as it does not matter, for it is irrevelant with the method used to calculate average temperatures. The only possible implication of your statement is that the measurement of the temperature in the arctic is somewhat less precise.

"(not alaska - alaska is part of the United States and did not stop recording temperatures, although several hundred stations in the former soviet union in their northern climes stopped recording - closed)"

I was only humoring your statement... 

"This correlates with the 1990 drastic rise in average "RECORDED/REPORTED" temperatures for the northern hemisphere."

There is no "drastic rise in the 1990" temperature has been steadily increasing  exponentially since the late 1800's. Your argument implies that:

I have 5 stations in arctic all around 5 degrees average, for example, and then I have two of them more south that tells me 10 degrees average. Then we would take (5*5+2*10)/7 = 6.4 to get the average temperature and if we close two of the arctic stations then we would get (3*5+2*10)/5 = 7. It absolutely doesn't and can't work like this.

 "That was cited by algore (look up the definition of algore, by the way); but enough aside of that."

What do I care about Al Gore? (look up the spelling, it's two words). 

"the SOUTHERN Hemisphere had no significant change in number of reporting temperature recording sites, and indeed, the temperature in the southern hemisphere, as expected, has not changed. failure to see the correlation there (northern vs southern) would indicate something about reasoning ability and basic knowledge of statistical and data summarization techniques."

Who is talking about knowledge of stastical and data summarization techniques knowledge here? The amount of recording site will only change the precision and reliability of the data, it won't change the data itself. And maybe you could look up the amount of recording sites after the fall of the USSR and now, and see if your argument still works?

"There is no 'surge' beginning in 1990.  In fact there were several warming trends, and cooling trends, and in fact, in the USA, in the 1970s, we were forced by the imbecilic greens to put PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) valves into our auto engines to reduce/allay the impact of the coming global (predicted but not actual) ICE AGE.  You see, the chicken little types were around even back in the 1970s."

That doesn't refute concrete data.

"american and soviet scientists (not chicken littles, but real scientists) have been collaborating and exchanging temperature record data for many years now.  They postulate ideas, provide their data to independent analysis by sceptics, and stand on their premises - to defend them with facts."

Yes, unlike european and canadian scientists... but oh! still I don't know where your argument leads as pretty much all the scientific world agrees, russian, american, canadian, south american, african, australian, european, name it, they agree.

"yes, the book is validated with numerous and quite satisfactory references and sources.  Should you take the time to look it up, and read it, you might just change your mind about global warming being "created" by man's efforts.  Unlike you, I can cite my source of information, instead of engaging in attacking a contributor to this site for having ideas."

Sorry, seeing your arguments and your failure to find me any source, I will not waste time and money on a "politically uncorrect" "scientifical" book.

"There is considerable evidence that this planet is about to engage in 'self-regulation' regarding its own temperature and that we are embarking on a 3000 year cycle of progressively cooler temperatures (algore notwithstanding).  there will be seasonal and geographic fluctuations everywhere on earth, due to variables beyond forcasting, but the general trend may well be downward - possibly as much as 5 degrees in the next 1000 years or so."

Sources? 

"temperature where I will grew up varied from -20 F in the winter to as much as 105 degrees F in the summertime.  That (temperature variations from year to year) did not seem to disagree with the trees, corn, beans, wheat, alphalpha, apples, cherries, wine-grapes, etc.  rather, most thrived because of the rapid (in one year) temperature variations."

Using a second this argument which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Short term, regulated changes have nothing to do with long term global changes. Do you really think it was that simple to refute global warming?

"    in looking back at your theory about rapid temperature variations and flora not being adaptable, I have to ask:  doesn't the growing season temperature vary considerably from the winter season temperature in most areas of this planet - more than 1500 miles away from the equater - into the temperate climes ???   oh sorry, I wasn't supposed to notice that minor detail."

I'm not sure what you mean here... are you trying to tell me that you believe plants migrate like birds? And that we find the same plants in Canada and in Costa Rica? 

wow.. polemic vs phillipic!

O tempora! O Mores!

 Yeah perhaps. At least I held the place of Cicero for a minute!

 Come on, you know you love to agree with me.

"Then i am Lucius, the voice of moderation"

You mean Lucius Catilina? Of course you are! I wouldn't call it the voice of moderation though

Marcus Tullius was a friend of mine.

He drank whiskey; Cataline drinking wine.

Changed my mind, Crassus suits more

"Are you Tiro? (Batgirl)"

hardly.

What happened to political correctness question..Are all you nignogs out there unable to follow the point of the post. Talk about the Polaks being thick...you should show an irishman two shovels and ask him to take his pick..that's him screwed for a week. By the way, you know why God made womens feet smaller than man's...So she could get nearer the kitchen sink. Some slant eyed short ass told me that. He did!

@Ageiswisdom I would say the sicilian is a better option. But you can use apples and CDs, too.

Wow... how come I always find out about these chats when there are like 5 pages....

You mean predisposed.