What about non-melting glaciers? Glaciers in the Himalayas were said to be melting, and that was blamed on AGW. When it turned out they weren't, well, AGW.
I've got a better one. Let's pretend the Holocaust didn't happen, and then we can associate anyone who doesn't believe in the Holocaust with those who don't believe in climate change, thus totally discrediting them.
You do realize that the "lobby groups" have spent as much in the entire course of their existence as is granted to climate scientists in a few months, right?
If you are going to use the "money corrupts" argument, then you had best apply the same standards to your own side.
Ah, the fallacy of the false dichotomy. What happens when the politicians and the scientist are the same people?
Would you trust a German scientist, circa 1938 who claimed genetic superiority among certain populations of humans? The same forces are at work here, though perhaps not to the same degree. This is why you have to trust SCIENCE, rather than trusting SCIENTISTS who may be biased by their funding agencies.
THANK YOU. Yes, CO2 is a poor explanation for any global warming that may be happening. Increased humidity, on the other hand, might just be a better one. That one would be easier to fix too, though it would require different types of action (require reflux condensers on new vehicles and power plants, improve drainage in urban areas, etc).
Ah, yes, AGW and anti-AGW as religion. It is a perfect fit, and leaves no space for any alternative explanation or thought beyond the two accepted theories. It's like a group of cave-dwellers at war with another group of cave dwellers. One group says that they sky they have never seen is yellow, while the other says it is green. What do they do when someone actually goes and looks, and sees that it is sometimes blue, sometimes red, and sometimes black with little white sparkles?
Why, call the messenger a madman and execute him, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't look up correspondence bias. Fail.
Were all the scientists in Germany lying when they spouted nonsense that supported the Party's political goals?
Eyup.
Those people laughing behind their backs don't really know much either. If they did, they wouldn't be laughing.
What about non-melting glaciers? Glaciers in the Himalayas were said to be melting, and that was blamed on AGW. When it turned out they weren't, well, AGW.
World gets warmer, global warming.
World gets colder, global warming.
World stays about the same, global warming.
Himalayan glaciers are melting, global warming. Himalayan glaciers aren't actually melting, global warming.
When your theory is able to equally explain any set of circumstances, you don't have a theory, you have phlogoston.
I know right, posting an argument instead of just an insult. What a stupid moron!
I've got a better one. Let's pretend the Holocaust didn't happen, and then we can associate anyone who doesn't believe in the Holocaust with those who don't believe in climate change, thus totally discrediting them.
Invisible, not "indetectable" (sic).
You do realize that the "lobby groups" have spent as much in the entire course of their existence as is granted to climate scientists in a few months, right?
If you are going to use the "money corrupts" argument, then you had best apply the same standards to your own side.
Ah, the fallacy of the false dichotomy. What happens when the politicians and the scientist are the same people?
Would you trust a German scientist, circa 1938 who claimed genetic superiority among certain populations of humans? The same forces are at work here, though perhaps not to the same degree. This is why you have to trust SCIENCE, rather than trusting SCIENTISTS who may be biased by their funding agencies.
But the climate scientists are largely politicized. This happens when you get your paycheck from politicians, and people appointed by politicians.
This is why you have to listen to the SCIENCE, rather than the SCIENTISTS.
You will be among the first to die, with that attitude. Humans cooperate for a reason, dipshit.
But they CAN'T! Not unless the planet is warming EVENLY, which is not the case, according to AGW proponents.
Perhaps get less of your talking points from B movies?
THANK YOU. Yes, CO2 is a poor explanation for any global warming that may be happening. Increased humidity, on the other hand, might just be a better one. That one would be easier to fix too, though it would require different types of action (require reflux condensers on new vehicles and power plants, improve drainage in urban areas, etc).
Al Gore keeps saying it. It's really annoying, and it SHOULD be annoying to EVERYONE, no matter where you stand on the issue.
Sort of like Pat Robertson with Katrina.
Correspondence bias. Look it up.
Ah, yes, AGW and anti-AGW as religion. It is a perfect fit, and leaves no space for any alternative explanation or thought beyond the two accepted theories. It's like a group of cave-dwellers at war with another group of cave dwellers. One group says that they sky they have never seen is yellow, while the other says it is green. What do they do when someone actually goes and looks, and sees that it is sometimes blue, sometimes red, and sometimes black with little white sparkles?
Why, call the messenger a madman and execute him, of course.
Got bailed out with $9 trillion in secret loans from the Fed AND IT'S GONE! *Poof*
You just accidently your whole comment.
Sure, but only after we stop all the wars and fold up our military empire.
Think again.
Who gives more to your congressman? Google, or all the other ISPs in the US.
More likely they would change the law to tax it at 99.5%.
I can't believe I had to scroll this far to find someone who gets it. And it's an AC.
Slashdot, I am disappoint.
You go ahead and rig up the transmission cables and call us when you get it done.
We can't make airplanes more safe. The explanation for why they should be abandoned is pretty simple: Amelia Earhart.