Skeptical Scientists decend upon UN conference

[Fash]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... f67ebd151c

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK)

"Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.

[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) & "New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th Century' (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" LINK ]

‘IPCC is unsound'

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

‘Dangerous time for science'

Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

Carbon trading ‘fraud?'

New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.

"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.

"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.

‘Simply not work'

Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.

"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said. (LINK)

"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.

"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.

‘Nothing happening at this conference'

Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.

"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said. (LINK)

"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.

Ahh, my favorite topic... the skeptical scientists, who some think do not exist, and the IPCC, a single politically-driven organization which somehow has a monopoly on climate science. Cue the believers who think we're killing the planet.

Science is like religion in the sense that you must be able to question and scrutinize it. There are valid questions, poor datasets, and holes in climate theories that cannot be overlooked. Don't blindly accept what the IPCC spoon-feeds you, and look at any solutions they devise with the utmost suspicion.

[Boogahz]

Why didn't you Bold this part?

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

[Sylvus]

Sweet, it's been a few days since we had this conversation!

[Funkmasterr]

But, BUT! IF THE IPCC SAYS IT, IT'S TRUE!! YOU IDIOT..

Seriously, the number of scientists saying the IPCC is full of shit is growing by the week - but it's funny how quick people are to dismiss it.

[Animale]

Again this is a problem of disconnect with science and policy. Scientists will disagree, often vehemently, about the consequences of their data. Now, in this case the data is clear, we are increasing CO2 loads in our atmosphere. The question is, what does that mean long term - and should we do something about it.

Modelers are suggesting (read IPCC about this) that this will result in catastrophic global warming. Most modelers are leaning toward this. If the numbers are treated differently, you can arrive at a neutral conclusion as well. Now, modeling isn't an "exact science" as often it's garbage in garbage out. But if a large majority of modelers feel one way, then perhaps we should begin to consider their conclusions as a matter of public policy. Nothing in predicting the future is ever 100% agreement.

Now, as for this so-called "article." It was written by Marc Morano, who was among the first sources for the Swiftboat fiasco http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano. We all know how true and factual that stuff was. In my opinion, he is dramatically over-reporting the dissenting views (and also pointing out the so-called hypocrisy of having a conference in a tropical resort) because he doesn't agree with it in the first place. This is a very slanted piece by an individual who has an axe to grind - not that all reporting needs to be middle of the road but people always need to consider the source.
In conclusion, this is an OPINION piece masquerading as reporting journalism, nothing less, nothing more.

Animale

[Funkmasterr]

Again this is a problem of disconnect with science and policy. Scientists will disagree, often vehemently, about the consequences of their data. Now, in this case the data is clear, we are increasing CO2 loads in our atmosphere. The question is, what does that mean long term - and should we do something about it.

Modelers are suggesting (read IPCC about this) that this will result in catastrophic global warming. Most modelers are leaning toward this. If the numbers are treated differently, you can arrive at a neutral conclusion as well. Now, modeling isn't an "exact science" as often it's garbage in garbage out. But if a large majority of modelers feel one way, then perhaps we should begin to consider their conclusions as a matter of public policy. Nothing in predicting the future is ever 100% agreement.

Now, as for this so-called "article." It was written by Marc Morano, who was among the first sources for the Swiftboat fiasco http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano. We all know how true and factual that stuff was. In my opinion, he is dramatically over-reporting the dissenting views (and also pointing out the so-called hypocrisy of having a conference in a tropical resort) because he doesn't agree with it in the first place. This is a very slanted piece by an individual who has an axe to grind - not that all reporting needs to be middle of the road but people always need to consider the source.
In conclusion, this is an OPINION piece masquerading as reporting journalism, nothing less, nothing more.

Animale

Dude you are a seriously talented spin artist. How is it you don't understand that the same logic you are using to dismiss facts or opinions of scientists/others that don't agree with the IPCC can be sent right back the other way.

Every week there are more people speaking out with opinions like this one (scientists included) - and I would think this would warrant a logical person that is just letting the IPCC spoon feed them bullshit to consider this as a possibility.

Let's weigh this out- on one hand you have the IPCC, who could have a lot to lose/gain from this situation due to political pressure on them. On the other hand you have people who don't have anything to lose or gain due to their standpoint on the issue pointing out that the IPCC has a political agenda that is clouding this issue.

[Noysyrump]

ya know, the globe has been warming since 10,000 bc, the last ice age. OMGzoRz weeza keelin da planet!~

[Animale]

Dude you are a seriously talented spin artist. How is it you don't understand that the same logic you are using to dismiss facts or opinions of scientists/others that don't agree with the IPCC can be sent right back the other way.

Every week there are more people speaking out with opinions like this one (scientists included) - and I would think this would warrant a logical person that is just letting the IPCC spoon feed them bullshit to consider this as a possibility.

Let's weigh this out- on one hand you have the IPCC, who could have a lot to lose/gain from this situation due to political pressure on them. On the other hand you have people who don't have anything to lose or gain due to their standpoint on the issue pointing out that the IPCC has a political agenda that is clouding this issue.

Yes, there is a lot of political pressure on the IPCC... AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING!!!!
Where are the current moneyed interests? - The oil/energy industry.
Who stands to gain the most from the status quo? - The first world (and related oil/energy industry)
Who is fighting the most against the scientific results? - (See answers 1 and 2)

To say that the political pressure is FOR the current IPCC report is just plain wrong-headed. The actual scientific messages have been quite diluted from outside political pressure - but not in the direction you seem to think it is. How can you be so naive? Yeah, sure, the reason this report is so damning for man's activities on the planet is that the limited-money environmentalists have somehow bought the scientists - while competing with an industry whose profit each year is multiple billions of dollars. It couldn't actually be that it's the consensus of scientific data - no way, it doesn't say what we want it to!

If you are really saying that environmentalists have/had more political sway in the world than the energy interests - well, then I'm just flabbergasted. I mean... seriously?

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Dude you are a seriously talented spin artist. How is it you don't understand that the same logic you are using to dismiss facts or opinions of scientists/others that don't agree with the IPCC can be sent right back the other way.

Every week there are more people speaking out with opinions like this one (scientists included) - and I would think this would warrant a logical person that is just letting the IPCC spoon feed them bullshit to consider this as a possibility.

Let's weigh this out- on one hand you have the IPCC, who could have a lot to lose/gain from this situation due to political pressure on them. On the other hand you have people who don't have anything to lose or gain due to their standpoint on the issue pointing out that the IPCC has a political agenda that is clouding this issue.

Yes, there is a lot of political pressure on the IPCC... AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING!!!!
Where are the current moneyed interests? - The oil/energy industry.
Who stands to gain the most from the status quo? - The first world (and related oil/energy industry)
Who is fighting the most against the scientific results? - (See answers 1 and 2)

To say that the political pressure is FOR the current IPCC report is just plain wrong-headed. The actual scientific messages have been quite diluted from outside political pressure - but not in the direction you seem to think it is. How can you be so naive? Yeah, sure, the reason this report is so damning for man's activities on the planet is that the limited-money environmentalists have somehow bought the scientists - while competing with an industry whose profit each year is multiple billions of dollars. It couldn't actually be that it's the consensus of scientific data - no way, it doesn't say what we want it to!

If you are really saying that environmentalists have/had more political sway in the world than the energy interests - well, then I'm just flabbergasted. I mean... seriously?

Animale

If you're seriously saying you don't think that any large organization doesn't have political sway, then I'm jusy flabbergasted. I mean....seriously?

Oh, and, people are making billions on the green scare. BILLIONS!

[Zaelath]

But, BUT! IF THE IPCC SAYS IT, IT'S TRUE!! YOU IDIOT..

Seriously, the number of scientists saying the IPCC is full of shit is growing by the week - but it's funny how quick people are to dismiss it.

Source? Oh, none, just your passionate desire to be right shaping reality again.

[Zaelath]

Every week there are more people speaking out with opinions like this one (scientists included) - and I would think this would warrant a logical person that is just letting the IPCC spoon feed them bullshit to consider this as a possibility.

Source? Fact fairy again eh?

Let's weigh this out- on one hand you have the IPCC, who could have a lot to lose/gain from this situation due to political pressure on them. On the other hand you have people who don't have anything to lose or gain due to their standpoint on the issue pointing out that the IPCC has a political agenda that is clouding this issue.

This is either the most bald faced lie, or the most naive statement I have seen on these boards. Gratz!

[Animale]

They have sway, but to say that environmentalist political power even on the same magnitude as the oil/energy interests is being willfully ignorant. Maybe the people will be able to shift the level of power, but as of right now the main game in town is those interests (who are utilizing this crisis to trick people into making even more money for themselves - carbon offsets anybody?)

That doesn't mean we should do nothing, however. The data is out there, and the interpretation of that data is largely agreed upon. I say we do something tangible based on that interpretation - others prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and "lah, lah, lah" about it.

"Business as usual" is not really an option here. In such a scenario, CO2 levels will continue to increase, to above 1000 ppm by 2100 or so. This is ~3x higher than now. What that will result in climate-wise is only model-based speculation, but since it is within our powers to do so I don't really want to do that experiment. Even with fairly large worldwide changes, we still will only stabilize CO2 levels at ~500 ppm (which is still unprecedented in recorded history). In that sense, we've made our bed and need to sleep in it for a while. Hopefully it isn't too warm.

In order for this to work we need to monetize end-stream CO2 production in order to let market forces work on the problem. That can only be done on an intergovernmental level, and for better or worse the only tool that operates on that scale is the UN. Unregulated "conservation" such as carbon offsets (a big fucking joke by the way in order to make people "feel better") does not solve the problem. Intergovernmental regulation is required here, as it's the only way to solve the problem. (any pithy Reagan quotes aside)

Animale

[Bagar-]

It's almost as if Funk makes posts without facts or strongly based logic to back them up... As if, perhaps, he doesn't know what in the fuck he's talking about.

[Funkmasterr]

They have sway, but to say that environmentalist political power even on the same magnitude as the oil/energy interests is being willfully ignorant. Maybe the people will be able to shift the level of power, but as of right now the main game in town is those interests (who are utilizing this crisis to trick people into making even more money for themselves - carbon offsets anybody?)

That doesn't mean we should do nothing, however. The data is out there, and the interpretation of that data is largely agreed upon. I say we do something tangible based on that interpretation - others prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and "lah, lah, lah" about it.

"Business as usual" is not really an option here. In such a scenario, CO2 levels will continue to increase, to above 1000 ppm by 2100 or so. This is ~3x higher than now. What that will result in climate-wise is only model-based speculation, but since it is within our powers to do so I don't really want to do that experiment. Even with fairly large worldwide changes, we still will only stabilize CO2 levels at ~500 ppm (which is still unprecedented in recorded history). In that sense, we've made our bed and need to sleep in it for a while. Hopefully it isn't too warm.

In order for this to work we need to monetize end-stream CO2 production in order to let market forces work on the problem. That can only be done on an intergovernmental level, and for better or worse the only tool that operates on that scale is the UN. Unregulated "conservation" such as carbon offsets (a big fucking joke by the way in order to make people "feel better") does not solve the problem. Intergovernmental regulation is required here, as it's the only way to solve the problem. (any pithy Reagan quotes aside)

Animale

Of course the oil industry has a lot of sway, but the whole green movement is starting to encroach on that, particularly with the democratic party and keeping it's current momentum it will surpass it down the road. I was talking more in terms of, um... A presidential candidate being the public facing douchebag (that is the most fitting word to describe him).

You keep saying the interpretation of the data is largely agreed upon.. You realize that the IPCC scientists all agreeing with each other != largely agreed upon, right?

I'm sorry if I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon with you behind a group of scientists who have a president pumping their research and probably promising them some kind of favor in return if they can manipulate data enough to get the world behind him (not that the man that invented the internet should need this added support anyways, right?!)

And seriously, why is it that these sad pathetic fucks don't ever make a post that isn't in direct response to mine (I don't have to even read them to know I'm right, how's that for blind faith motherfuckers?) I don't care about you, what you have to say, or your criticisms toward me - you are fucking retards and it's funny to me. I did not add you assholes to my ignore list to click on "display post by ignorant, uninformed douchbag #2" every time one of you assholes post, YOU ARE FUCKING TALKING TO YOURSELF, I AM NOT READING YOUR BULLSHIT, MOVE ON WITH YOUR MISERABLE INTERNET GEEK LIVES FOR FUCKS SAKE.

[Sylvus]

Of course the oil industry has a lot of sway, but the whole green movement is starting to encroach on that, particularly with the democratic party and keeping it's current momentum it will surpass it down the road. I was talking more in terms of, um... A presidential candidate being the public facing douchebag (that is the most fitting word to describe him).

Seriously? The green movement gets a lot of press these days, but that doesn't mean that it is or ever will come close to having the political influence that the oil and energy companies currently wield.

And seriously, why is it that these sad pathetic fucks don't ever make a post that isn't in direct response to mine (I don't have to even read them to know I'm right, how's that for blind faith motherfuckers?) I don't care about you, what you have to say, or your criticisms toward me - you are fucking retards and it's funny to me. I did not add you assholes to my ignore list to click on "display post by ignorant, uninformed douchbag #2" every time one of you assholes post, YOU ARE FUCKING TALKING TO YOURSELF, I AM NOT READING YOUR BULLSHIT, MOVE ON WITH YOUR MISERABLE INTERNET GEEK LIVES FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Apparently you don't understand how ignoring someone works. You're supposed to not respond to posts that they make. You can't see what they write, in effect. But that doesn't mean that they can't see what you write and can comment accordingly, much to the delight or chagrin of everyone else who does not have them ignored. Either take him off ignore and get in a literary tickle-fight with him, or actually ignore him. It's pretty lame to constantly draw attention to the fact that you have your fingers in your ears and are shouting "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU. WHY ARE YOU STILL TALKING TO ME? OMG STFU, I PUT YOU ON IGNORE!!!!!"

[Boogahz]

And seriously, why is it that these sad pathetic fucks don't ever make a post that isn't in direct response to mine (I don't have to even read them to know I'm right, how's that for blind faith motherfuckers?) I don't care about you, what you have to say, or your criticisms toward me - you are fucking retards and it's funny to me. I did not add you assholes to my ignore list to click on "display post by ignorant, uninformed douchbag #2" every time one of you assholes post, YOU ARE FUCKING TALKING TO YOURSELF, I AM NOT READING YOUR BULLSHIT, MOVE ON WITH YOUR MISERABLE INTERNET GEEK LIVES FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Apparently you don't understand how ignoring someone works. You're supposed to not respond to posts that they make. You can't see what they write, in effect. But that doesn't mean that they can't see what you write and can comment accordingly, much to the delight or chagrin of everyone else who does not have them ignored. Either take him off ignore and get in a literary tickle-fight with him, or actually ignore him. It's pretty lame to constantly draw attention to the fact that you have your fingers in your ears and are shouting "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU. WHY ARE YOU STILL TALKING TO ME? OMG STFU, I PUT YOU ON IGNORE!!!!!"

but it is funny how they continue to do exactly what he said

[Funkmasterr]

Of course the oil industry has a lot of sway, but the whole green movement is starting to encroach on that, particularly with the democratic party and keeping it's current momentum it will surpass it down the road. I was talking more in terms of, um... A presidential candidate being the public facing douchebag (that is the most fitting word to describe him).

Seriously? The green movement gets a lot of press these days, but that doesn't mean that it is or ever will come close to having the political influence that the oil and energy companies currently wield.

And seriously, why is it that these sad pathetic fucks don't ever make a post that isn't in direct response to mine (I don't have to even read them to know I'm right, how's that for blind faith motherfuckers?) I don't care about you, what you have to say, or your criticisms toward me - you are fucking retards and it's funny to me. I did not add you assholes to my ignore list to click on "display post by ignorant, uninformed douchbag #2" every time one of you assholes post, YOU ARE FUCKING TALKING TO YOURSELF, I AM NOT READING YOUR BULLSHIT, MOVE ON WITH YOUR MISERABLE INTERNET GEEK LIVES FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Apparently you don't understand how ignoring someone works. You're supposed to not respond to posts that they make. You can't see what they write, in effect. But that doesn't mean that they can't see what you write and can comment accordingly, much to the delight or chagrin of everyone else who does not have them ignored. Either take him off ignore and get in a literary tickle-fight with him, or actually ignore him. It's pretty lame to constantly draw attention to the fact that you have your fingers in your ears and are shouting "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU. WHY ARE YOU STILL TALKING TO ME? OMG STFU, I PUT YOU ON IGNORE!!!!!"

It's just obnoxious as hell, I ignore them because they annoy me, and they continue to try and annoy me. Then people like you come to their defense and make them think that they are not the retards that they really truly are - and effectively draw attention away from the pathetic reality that they seriously don't make posts about anything other than responses to me, even after I've ignored them. That is truly pathetic, and people should be ridiculing them for it, not defending them.

EDIT: edited out a unnecessarily harsh word about you.. It's them that annoy me, not you and I wasn't right to displace my frustration, I apologize.

[Fash]

I don't think this is about the 'green' movement having more political sway than big oil... I think this is about politicians and big government, using this straw-man to take more power and make more money. This is about the UN's move for globalization under false pretenses.

[Bagar-]

And seriously, why is it that these sad pathetic fucks don't ever make a post that isn't in direct response to mine (I don't have to even read them to know I'm right, how's that for blind faith motherfuckers?) I don't care about you, what you have to say, or your criticisms toward me - you are fucking retards and it's funny to me. I did not add you assholes to my ignore list to click on "display post by ignorant, uninformed douchbag #2" every time one of you assholes post, YOU ARE FUCKING TALKING TO YOURSELF, I AM NOT READING YOUR BULLSHIT, MOVE ON WITH YOUR MISERABLE INTERNET GEEK LIVES FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Apparently you don't understand how ignoring someone works. You're supposed to not respond to posts that they make. You can't see what they write, in effect. But that doesn't mean that they can't see what you write and can comment accordingly, much to the delight or chagrin of everyone else who does not have them ignored. Either take him off ignore and get in a literary tickle-fight with him, or actually ignore him. It's pretty lame to constantly draw attention to the fact that you have your fingers in your ears and are shouting "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU. WHY ARE YOU STILL TALKING TO ME? OMG STFU, I PUT YOU ON IGNORE!!!!!"

but it is funny how they continue to do exactly what he said

No, the only funny thing is that he continues to pay attention to the people he is "ignoring" despite having ignored them, thus causing furthur grief to himself (and then bitching about it, even though he does it to himself).

Personally, I think he's a dimwitted fuckbag blindly following the only person on this forum that has any tolerance for him (Midnyte) in opposition to the people that acknowledge that he's a dimwitted fuckbag (nearly everyone else). Everything he says is based upon his dislike for people on this forum and anything he associates with liberalism, thus most things he says are angsty and generally invalid, and not based on facts or logic. Whenever someone makes a relevant post, he redirects it back to his emotion-driven replies that contain no more factual data that a fucking Mad Magazine, or he ignores it. Why would people ACTUALLY TRY AND DEBATE/ARGUE WITH HIM? It's a lot more fun, and arguably more productive, to piss him off and watch him whine about how people dislike him.

I won't deny that he makes good points from time to time(kind of like how from time to time an asteroid will collide with the moon), but generally his posts are filled with screaming, childish hissy-fits to either prove his point or insult everyone that doesn't agree. Is he the only one? Nope. Is he the most pronounced one? Probably. Is he the most fun to fuck with? Most certainly. The fact that he puts people on ignore (aside from maybe me, since I never actually bothered to try to reason with him) shows his lack of willingness to actually debate or argue points, and that he only wants to hear what he wants to hear. Zae and others (who else does he have on ignore anyhow?) never really harrassed him, they tried to argue with him and threw insults in, such as the nature of this forum, but at least they actually tried to debate with his stupid fuckhead ass.

Also, since others CAN'T put him on ignore, it's not really fair that he expects people not to reply to him, as everyone can see his posts.



Now i'll add some relevance to my post.

I don't see any logic behind the green movement having more sway than the oil and energy industry, but if that's true i'd love to see some proof.

I'd like to see some kind of proof that the IPCC are recieving political pressure from Al Gore, and how signifigant this pressure is. I'd hypothesize that it isn't very, if at all.

The fact is that while doing nothing may be just as effective as doing something, the likelyhood of doing something fucking us over is a lot higher than doing nothing fucking us over is. Does that make sense?

I'm not calling for a global energy revolution, just gradual, progressive steps towards a cleaner environment and earth in general.

Tell me, what in the fuck is wrong with that logic?

[Boogahz]

I'm not calling for a global energy revolution, just gradual, progressive steps towards a cleaner environment and earth in general.

Tell me, what in the fuck is wrong with that logic?

That's the part of the posts you have missed. Nobody has said this is not the way to go about it.

[Animale]

You keep saying the interpretation of the data is largely agreed upon.. You realize that the IPCC scientists all agreeing with each other != largely agreed upon, right?

Umm, that's exactly what it means. IPCC contains a large majority of global climate scientists either writing the reports or on the committees that provide data for the technical reports or are members of the scientific review boards for the reports. The summary report is a different beast (since it's more about policy and less about science), but the technical reports are reviewed papers that reflect the best science done in their respective fields. They are the largely agreed upon scientific consensus, to say otherwise is you not knowing what's going on. Maybe you should go read one of the technical reports, see what it actually says instead of spouting off some right wing hackjobber's articles as "fair and balanced" truth-telling.

If you want to see the process behind how the report is written (and all the peer reviewing and why it is a consensus scientific study) here's a link to a flowchart of the process.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm
Here's a link to the scientific basis technical report in case you can't use google.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Go get edumacated or I'm done here (I go read your shit and find the background of it, least you can do is reciprocate)
Animale

[Truant]

And seriously, why is it that these sad pathetic fucks don't ever make a post that isn't in direct response to mine (I don't have to even read them to know I'm right, how's that for blind faith motherfuckers?) I don't care about you, what you have to say, or your criticisms toward me - you are fucking retards and it's funny to me. I did not add you assholes to my ignore list to click on "display post by ignorant, uninformed douchbag #2" every time one of you assholes post, YOU ARE FUCKING TALKING TO YOURSELF, I AM NOT READING YOUR BULLSHIT, MOVE ON WITH YOUR MISERABLE INTERNET GEEK LIVES FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Apparently you don't understand how ignoring someone works. You're supposed to not respond to posts that they make. You can't see what they write, in effect. But that doesn't mean that they can't see what you write and can comment accordingly, much to the delight or chagrin of everyone else who does not have them ignored. Either take him off ignore and get in a literary tickle-fight with him, or actually ignore him. It's pretty lame to constantly draw attention to the fact that you have your fingers in your ears and are shouting "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU. WHY ARE YOU STILL TALKING TO ME? OMG STFU, I PUT YOU ON IGNORE!!!!!"

but it is funny how they continue to do exactly what he said

Why? They don't have him on ignore, and they're not in this thread to converse ONLY with him.

[Bagar-]

I'm not calling for a global energy revolution, just gradual, progressive steps towards a cleaner environment and earth in general.

Tell me, what in the fuck is wrong with that logic?

That's the part of the posts you have missed. Nobody has said this is not the way to go about it.

Nods, no one has said this isn't the way to go about it, because they're arguing over which scientist is the most credible.

[Funkmasterr]

You keep saying the interpretation of the data is largely agreed upon.. You realize that the IPCC scientists all agreeing with each other != largely agreed upon, right?

Umm, that's exactly what it means. IPCC contains a large majority of global climate scientists either writing the reports or on the committees that provide data for the technical reports or are members of the scientific review boards for the reports. The summary report is a different beast (since it's more about policy and less about science), but the technical reports are reviewed papers that reflect the best science done in their respective fields. They are the largely agreed upon scientific consensus, to say otherwise is you not knowing what's going on. Maybe you should go read one of the technical reports, see what it actually says instead of spouting off some right wing hackjobber's articles as "fair and balanced" truth-telling.

If you want to see the process behind how the report is written (and all the peer reviewing and why it is a consensus scientific study) here's a link to a flowchart of the process.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm
Here's a link to the scientific basis technical report in case you can't use google.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Go get edumacated or I'm done here (I go read your shit and find the background of it, least you can do is reciprocate)
Animale

I will read them when I get home if it will make you clean your ears out and listen to me. I DON"T TRUST THEM, I have too much skepticism about how this is being used as a political tool and I just don't trust it, unless you can prove my doubts 100% wrong, I can read every damn thing they have ever written on global warming but it's not going to change the base of things for me, which is in caps above (for reference.)

[Boogahz]

And seriously, why is it that these sad pathetic fucks don't ever make a post that isn't in direct response to mine (I don't have to even read them to know I'm right, how's that for blind faith motherfuckers?) I don't care about you, what you have to say, or your criticisms toward me - you are fucking retards and it's funny to me. I did not add you assholes to my ignore list to click on "display post by ignorant, uninformed douchbag #2" every time one of you assholes post, YOU ARE FUCKING TALKING TO YOURSELF, I AM NOT READING YOUR BULLSHIT, MOVE ON WITH YOUR MISERABLE INTERNET GEEK LIVES FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Apparently you don't understand how ignoring someone works. You're supposed to not respond to posts that they make. You can't see what they write, in effect. But that doesn't mean that they can't see what you write and can comment accordingly, much to the delight or chagrin of everyone else who does not have them ignored. Either take him off ignore and get in a literary tickle-fight with him, or actually ignore him. It's pretty lame to constantly draw attention to the fact that you have your fingers in your ears and are shouting "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU. WHY ARE YOU STILL TALKING TO ME? OMG STFU, I PUT YOU ON IGNORE!!!!!"

but it is funny how they continue to do exactly what he said

Why? They don't have him on ignore, and they're not in this thread to converse ONLY with him.

Correct, but they address him directly as usual.

[Funkmasterr]

I'm not calling for a global energy revolution, just gradual, progressive steps towards a cleaner environment and earth in general.

Tell me, what in the fuck is wrong with that logic?

That's the part of the posts you have missed. Nobody has said this is not the way to go about it.

Nods, no one has said this isn't the way to go about it, because they're arguing over which scientist is the most credible.

Apparently ignore doesn't work when you see posts that have been made between you hitting reply and submitting yours, so I was this one.

I would like you to maybe think this one over a bit more. No one is arguing (myself included) over the fact that being more conscious about our energy usage/emissions would be a good thing, and no one is arguing over which scientist is the most credible.

What I am arguing, and what I have a problem with is the implications that are coming with this certain set of scientists reports and from the politicians, etc that are adopting this data. I do not believe we have anywhere near the amount of data collected over anywhere near the amount of time that it would take to really be sure that our actions will have the adverse reaction from the Earth that is being implied by this research.

I also think that certain politicians are seeing that the people are going to be demanding that we find more earth friendly energy sources, and that in the near future that demand is going to be screaming too loud to ignore it. I think that they are getting in on this early to lay the groundwork for this being a largely profitable industry down the road when things go that direction.

Then I see people getting behind these politicians, and talking about how great they are and how much they are doing for the environment, etc etc, completely missing that they are POLITICIANS. They don't give a shit, they ALWAYS have an ulterior motive, nothing is ever face value with them. Then these same people talk down on others who can see beyond the bullshit and don't buy into it.

In short, I believe we should do everything we can to start better processes and to research alternate energy sources, but I do not like the scare tactics being used to get people on board with this line of thinking, and I absolutely WILL NOT support it. Make sense?

[Nick]

Oh look, it's another thread where Funk feels the need to be an absolute attention whore.

Why is it not possible to have this idiot on ignore?

[Spang]

If I time this just right, Funkmasterr will see it and it wil annoy him.

[Zaelath]

It's just obnoxious as hell, I ignore them because they annoy me, and they continue to try and annoy me.

As we needed more of an example of how retarded you are: In Freakmasterr world, ignoring someone isn't obnoxious, them still talking when you have told them your not listening is obnoxious. What the fuck are you 5?

[Zaelath]

And seriously, why is it that these sad pathetic fucks don't ever make a post that isn't in direct response to mine (I don't have to even read them to know I'm right, how's that for blind faith motherfuckers?) I don't care about you, what you have to say, or your criticisms toward me - you are fucking retards and it's funny to me. I did not add you assholes to my ignore list to click on "display post by ignorant, uninformed douchbag #2" every time one of you assholes post, YOU ARE FUCKING TALKING TO YOURSELF, I AM NOT READING YOUR BULLSHIT, MOVE ON WITH YOUR MISERABLE INTERNET GEEK LIVES FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Apparently you don't understand how ignoring someone works. You're supposed to not respond to posts that they make. You can't see what they write, in effect. But that doesn't mean that they can't see what you write and can comment accordingly, much to the delight or chagrin of everyone else who does not have them ignored. Either take him off ignore and get in a literary tickle-fight with him, or actually ignore him. It's pretty lame to constantly draw attention to the fact that you have your fingers in your ears and are shouting "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU. WHY ARE YOU STILL TALKING TO ME? OMG STFU, I PUT YOU ON IGNORE!!!!!"

but it is funny how they continue to do exactly what he said

Not at all, I know for a fact I respond to other people's posts. There are few other people on here that post such moronic drivel that they practically require refutation, but there are lots of posts on this board from myself that are not in response to Fartblasterr.

Perhaps you're saying that because he can't stop clicking the read this post button, it's my responsibility to stop responding to his bullshit? Note, I primarily respond to his posts in the same way that you nudge your wife/flatmate/cat and make a comment about how hillariously stupid something a third person has said, they might be on TV even and aren't required to hear or respond to the comment.

[Zaelath]

Oh look, it's another thread where Funk feels the need to be an absolute attention whore.

Why is it not possible to have this idiot on ignore?

Doesn't really matter, for a while there I had Midnyte on ignore because his constant vomitting of blue-collar homily as fact was irritating. However, I quickly discovered that quoting defeats ignore and it's not really possible to enter a debate when you have an entire team on ignore.

[Zaelath]

I'm not calling for a global energy revolution, just gradual, progressive steps towards a cleaner environment and earth in general.

Tell me, what in the fuck is wrong with that logic?

That's the part of the posts you have missed. Nobody has said this is not the way to go about it.

Nods, no one has said this isn't the way to go about it, because they're arguing over which scientist is the most credible.

Apparently ignore doesn't work when you see posts that have been made between you hitting reply and submitting yours, so I was this one.

I would like you to maybe think this one over a bit more. No one is arguing (myself included) over the fact that being more conscious about our energy usage/emissions would be a good thing, and no one is arguing over which scientist is the most credible.

What I am arguing, and what I have a problem with is the implications that are coming with this certain set of scientists reports and from the politicians, etc that are adopting this data. I do not believe we have anywhere near the amount of data collected over anywhere near the amount of time that it would take to really be sure that our actions will have the adverse reaction from the Earth that is being implied by this research.

I also think that certain politicians are seeing that the people are going to be demanding that we find more earth friendly energy sources, and that in the near future that demand is going to be screaming too loud to ignore it. I think that they are getting in on this early to lay the groundwork for this being a largely profitable industry down the road when things go that direction.

Then I see people getting behind these politicians, and talking about how great they are and how much they are doing for the environment, etc etc, completely missing that they are POLITICIANS. They don't give a shit, they ALWAYS have an ulterior motive, nothing is ever face value with them. Then these same people talk down on others who can see beyond the bullshit and don't buy into it.

In short, I believe we should do everything we can to start better processes and to research alternate energy sources, but I do not like the scare tactics being used to get people on board with this line of thinking, and I absolutely WILL NOT support it. Make sense?

It would, if you had anything to base it on other than a handful of scientists that are running "outlier" campaigns and your gut.

[Truant]

And seriously, why is it that these sad pathetic fucks don't ever make a post that isn't in direct response to mine (I don't have to even read them to know I'm right, how's that for blind faith motherfuckers?) I don't care about you, what you have to say, or your criticisms toward me - you are fucking retards and it's funny to me. I did not add you assholes to my ignore list to click on "display post by ignorant, uninformed douchbag #2" every time one of you assholes post, YOU ARE FUCKING TALKING TO YOURSELF, I AM NOT READING YOUR BULLSHIT, MOVE ON WITH YOUR MISERABLE INTERNET GEEK LIVES FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Apparently you don't understand how ignoring someone works. You're supposed to not respond to posts that they make. You can't see what they write, in effect. But that doesn't mean that they can't see what you write and can comment accordingly, much to the delight or chagrin of everyone else who does not have them ignored. Either take him off ignore and get in a literary tickle-fight with him, or actually ignore him. It's pretty lame to constantly draw attention to the fact that you have your fingers in your ears and are shouting "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU. WHY ARE YOU STILL TALKING TO ME? OMG STFU, I PUT YOU ON IGNORE!!!!!"

but it is funny how they continue to do exactly what he said

Why? They don't have him on ignore, and they're not in this thread to converse ONLY with him.

Correct, but they address him directly as usual.

Again, they don't have him on ignore, and he keeps posting. What do you expect?
If someone posted something you felt was wrong/incorrect, you'd probably express your opposing opinion/viewpoint no?
Yeah, they're responding to what he says...because he keeps saying the same things he was saying before he put them on ignore. By quoting him, I wouldn't assume that they're speaking directly to him (some may be), rather that they are trying to convey points to the rest of us that are for or against what he said. They're using him as referrence for their posts, not as a target.

[Funkmasterr]

If that wouldn't be what you would assume, you would be wrong. Just look, my last post was not inflammatory in any way, shape or form - I clearly explained my good reasons for feeling the way that I do - and below me there are like 8 or 9 posts in a row that are from people I have ignored.

I can almost garuntee you if I were to look at all of those posts, at very least half of them would be directed at me. In case you aren't familiar with how this works, if they are responding using words like "you" "you're" etc, that means they are directing what they are saying at me, not using my post as a point of reference.

Keep making excuses for their childish bullshit though, cause that is going to accomplish.. um... what? Anyways, is what most of you want really a current events forum where you can all just share the same liberal, idealistic views on everything and just discuss that one side of the equation while patting each other on the back? Pretty pathetic if so, and it sure seems that way.

God forbid there are all of three or four people on this site that have the nerve to interject an opinion they know damn near everyone will disagree with, we should totally all berate them and try to make them stop!

[Zaelath]

Regardless of who posts, there are those of us that understand the difference between fact and opinion, and those that don't.

And here's the thing, if you want to have an opinion, you're free to do so, and I encourage it. What shits me is when people back up their opinion with "facts" made up from whole cloth. Then when you ask for sources, they just rant on at some random tangent about being persecuted and their right to an opinion, which hasn't been questioned.

I do get a kind of delicious schadenfreude in Funk a) showing off his over-inflated ego that all posts following his must be about him, b) knowing that the "read this post" button infuriates him with the not knowing.

[Spang]

Funkmasterr is adopted and he smells bad.

[Bagar-]

I want to take a shit in Funk's mouth.

Read it, bitch.

[Xyun]

rofl. I love this thread.

Keep making excuses for their childish bullshit though

hahahahahhaahahhah. Funk, you are by far the most childish person on this forum.


On topic: What is so funny about the anti-climate warming movement is that they assert that they are actually FOR consciously trying to clean and improve the environment, but they are skeptical about scientific data because it might be politically driven. Are you fucking kidding me??? rofl.

These people couldn't identify politically driven propaganda if it was being spoon-fed to them on a daily basis. Sadly, that happens to be the case. They eat it up, ask for 2nds, then regurgitate it on this forum, as is proven by their stance on climate change. Pathetic. Ironic. Tragic. Hilarious.

[Funkmasterr]

rofl. I love this thread.

Keep making excuses for their childish bullshit though

hahahahahhaahahhah. Funk, you are by far the most childish person on this forum.


On topic: What is so funny about the anti-climate warming movement is that they assert that they are actually FOR consciously trying to clean and improve the environment, but they are skeptical about scientific data because it might be politically driven. Are you fucking kidding me??? rofl.

These people couldn't identify politically driven propaganda if it was being spoon-fed to them on a daily basis. Sadly, that happens to be the case. They eat it up, ask for 2nds, then regurgitate it on this forum, as is proven by their stance on climate change. Pathetic. Ironic. Tragic. Hilarious.

Why is it every post of yours is about how superior your intellect is, you are a fucking moron dude, you are just as guilty of half the shit you accuse other people of and you are too fucking arrogant and stupid to realize it (that and it might be a language barrier thing, I'm not sure.)

[Nick]

Keep avoiding the questions there Funk (you fucking embarrasment).