So you're basicely saying: "If you don't spend hours putting togehter your posts with loads of links, you're a hypocrite"?
Well, if that's your definition, then I guess I am. Shockingly enough, it doesn't bother me.
No ill-feelings there. I hope (sure) BT means the same. I guess his point was just to engage a discussion on the substantiated claims, not merely assertions.
The POINT, again, is that you never, ever, back up your claims. It's not just this topic. You did it in that terribly boring discussion about the minigun as well. You just shout something, and then you don't back it up. You expect everyone to defer to your superior knowledge and experience, though so far you have not given any indication that you base yourself on anything tangible. You want to make a claim? You have to prove you're right. Yourself. You don't expect other people to prove it for you.
I'll shouldn't and won't interfere with this, but TrashMan, I feel BT has a point. While you might say the effort isn't worth it in a "stupid Internet debate", perhaps this boils down to a sense of scholarship, if it could be applied here, as substantiating a claim is one of the main tenets of argument crafting.
Wether you believe it or not, I actually have checked out your links. They don't strike me as particualry credible - populists and sensasionalist newspapers and anti-global warming dedicated sites (and I actually hold these in higher regard than those newspapers). It was a interesting read touhg, I'll give you that.
"populists and sensasionalist newspapers and anti-global warming dedicated sites"...
In contrast with free speech accorded by the Internet, aren't all news companies "populists and [sensationalists]"? Their object is to sell news right? And that includes the news outlets that put out global warming propaganda... (Just for the record, propaganda is a technical word not meaning good or bad. It's defined as any organised effort to promote a particular doctrine or course of action. But propaganda becomes evil when it is promoting a lie or when the doctrine being promoting is prejudiced towards the common good.) As for "anti-global warming dedicated sites", I assume you mean GlobalResearch, which is not "dedicated" to lying about global warming, but as an alternative form of news. If you browse through the site, global warming articles are not prominent, considering most visitors are aware of the mainstream lying, and mostly focus on the political malfeasance that is common round the world. That gives it credibility, in my opinion, because having been established as a reliable source of alternative news, their articles have more force than mainstream ones.
If you don't find anti- (lying) establishment news "credible", I am curious to find out what news is "credible" to you. Anyway, I'm glad you found it "interesting". Who knows, you might change your mind in the future.
As George Orwell said, "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is revolutionary." I do have a biased against the mainstream view, largely because of government-sponsored terrorism. When governments are able to lie about killing their own citizens, you are assured that they have no qualms about lying about any other issue. When one goes against the establishment, he is bound to encounter stiff opposition because the majority are heavily influenced by the 'groupthink' of the mainstream media.
Ahh...good question. What IS the truth? I think I know, you think you know. And we're both happy with what we know..Irony is, we don't know for sure 
Yup, life is so full of those little ironies. But, that's the point of having such interesting discussions, or debates if you will, about issues like these. To sift out the credible arguments from whole stack of information. Anyway, last time I checked, I have directly countered the points which you raised without getting a response from you. If it's the same "don't-waste-my-time" argument again, I ask for your indulgence in providing sources that contradict my claim that dissident scientists are discriminated against and harassed and lastly, about that CO2-Temperature non-sequitur.
Global Warming...lets see...the earth has become both cooler, and warmer throughout it's time of existence. We've had ice ages ( several ) and we've also had the reverse. I concede that the earth may at this point "possibly" be warming, but if it is, it's just part of the natural cycle of things. There is only one true source, that dictates how much heat, or how little that this planet receives...and that source is our star. The sun isn't a totally 100 percent constant heat source, sometimes it puts out a tiny bit more / less energy...it is not like a home heating system, where the temp is set and if you leave it alone it never varies.
The Sun varies in it's energy output, and even if it is very marginal in terms of a "galactic" scale, the effect wil indeed become felt here on this planet we are on. Our planets orbit around the Sun is also not 100 completely percent stable either, nor is it in a complete circle, hence the change of seasons. Being such, taken over the course of hundreds of centuries this can also somewhat change our weather patterns. Also, with the above in mind, it's pretty much been proven that the earth's magnetic field has reversed itself "many" times over the course of it's existence. Of course, that field and how it protects us from solar radiation is also a factor to consider...who knows exactly how such a reversal will effect global weather changes and patterns. From what I've read, based on the history / time-line of such changes, many scientist believe that we are "close" to a time for another such shift. Since we were not around, the last time to actually see what happens with the climate during such a shift...
...If the earth is indeed changing ( and I'm not convinced that it is ), it's most likely the result of a normal cyclic change based on what I've written above. A change we can have no control over...
We know so VERY LITTLE about how this earth system really works, yet as humans we continue to think we know "everything." Heck half the time they can't even predict accurately what the weather 2 days from now is going to actually be doing...yet the so called "experts" know 100% for sure we ( humans ) are without a doubt causing our planet to warm up. LMAO...25 years ago, Ted Danson, said "All life in the Oceans will be dead in ten years"...guess he was just a "tad" wrong.
Holy crap, 15 years ago all the "experts" were telling me that drinking my morning coffee was bad for me. Now those same experts and others have switched their viewpoints, now they say actually it's now good for me, and that they were wrong the last time.
Haha, thank you Falion for joining the discussion. You're right that the Sun is a major factor in climate science. Not only does its huge solar output, many many times (As Trashman says, Google it, I'm too lazy to check) the total power output from humans, but solar rays determine the amount of clouds that are formed which is a controlling factor of how much heat reaches the Earth. Thus, solar activity has a significant bearing on the Earth's climate. Also, I read something about a Milankovich solar cycle which determines how much heat the Earth receives in seasonal cycles. Not sure about that one. Perhaps some one could explain that in greater detail?
As I said before, the scientists at the IPCC are unable to factor in the huge amounts of variables in their climate models. Climate prediction is like a blank cheque. Only difference is, whatever the IPCC says today won't be remembered by most people in 10 years time. That's how they get away from it.
I'm also repeating this point that Falion made. The 20th Century has seen climate fluctuations that pointed towards global warming and ice ages several times. From 1895 to the 1920s, the media warned of a coming Ice Age, then from the 20s to the 60s, it was global warming, when CO2 levels were much lower due to lesser industries, and then until the mid-1970s, it was an ice age, and today of course, its global warming. This information was taken from Senator's Inhofe's work which I referred to in my earlier posts. How ironic that just as the Earth's climates fluctuates naturally, the media scaring also fluctuates and people just swallow it like dumb dogs.
Ok, for those of us living in the USA, take into account, that over the last 2-3 decades ( while not perfect ) we have made immense strides in cleaning up our own house. This country is cleaner now by far than it was just 20 years ago, yet even so...we are told almost daily, that by us living our normal lives we are destroying our planet. Perhaps so, perhaps not...but I refuse to believe that we humans just driving around going to work ( and other things ) are causing this massive ( over time ) climate change that is going to "doom us" all to oblivion. It's just fear mongering, by politicians wanting ever more power and control over the general populace. Fear is a HUGE motivator when it comes to controlling and manipulating people...a scared or worried person will almost give up his soul if he / she thinks it will save himself.
... I'm just saying, I think "much" of this current "doom and gloom" scenario could indeed be just "another" way those in power ( who ever and whatever they may be doesn't really matter ) can have more control over people.
One thing, that has for sure held true throughout human history, those in power "always" want more, and fear is just one tool that is used to accomplish such. Or course all of the above is just "my opinion" based on rational thought...which doesn't validate me as being right. However, fear has been used in the past to control the masses...it's being used currently ( in one form or another ) and will be used until the end of time, or the end of us as the human race. What better way to convince someone they need to "change" or behave in a certain way, then if they do not they are going to be the end of us...
Yup, you're right. I absolutely agree. We got to remember that the object of power is power. Governments throughout history right to the present have committed acts of terror which they use as an excuse to gain more power. A case in point would be Hitler's burning down of his own parliament and blaming it on the communists before going dictator. Then during WWII, FDR let Pearl Habour take place, it has been acknowledged, in order to get public opinion behind the war. In 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged to accelerate US involvement in Vietnam. NSA has admitted that it never happened. It was a LIE. The 1993 WTC bombings was directed by one Emad Salem, who was a FBI informant and ex-Egyptian intelligence agent, having been provided with explosives by the FBI who told him the were carrying out a training exercise. This story never made the mainstream news who hyped up terror scares. And I'm sure I don't have to elaborate about 9/11, the smoking gun of government-sponsored terrorism, and the subsequent attack on civil liberties it entailed.
In other words, such events are carefully orchestrated to get the people to demand their own slavery. In accepting the global warming lie, perhaps we could forget about the science for one moment and focus on the political and social repercussions. As the French said, "Cui Bono" or who benefits?
