Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not even going to read your latest blah, blah, blah! Your unsubstantiated opinion is... your unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more, nothing less!

Oh, victory then! Clearly reason is too strong for your dogma.

[waldo]

how lacking in your own self-confidence and how low must your self-esteem be... for you to need to declare victory?

[-1=e^ipi]

how lacking in your own self-confidence and how low must your self-esteem be... for you to need to declare victory?

How lacking in reason you must be to forfeit the debate.

[waldo]

How lacking in reason you must be to forfeit the debate.

no forfeiture... you're not bringing anything forward to refute my statements/positions/references... anything other than your own personal unsubstantiated opinion. Clearly, your Concern Troll act needs some serious work!

[-1=e^ipi]

you're not bringing anything forward to refute my statements/positions/references...

I just did, and you decided to not even bother to read my post.

[waldo]

I just did, and you decided to not even bother to read my post.

I expect it to be nothing more than the continued nonsense you've paraded forth to-date. I've responded to you at length, numerous times --- you either completely ignore the statements/positions/references, repeatedly throw stoopid strawmen up, continue your CO2 is plant food nonsense, continue your fixation and isolation with non-real world enclosure growth mediums, ignore the findings/statements from reputable organizations like the IPCC, the USGCRP, NASA, NAS, etc, claim bias in papers you can't refute, ignore direct questions/challenges to you... or you simply come back with nothing more than your own continued bluster & fluster (i.e., your personal unsubstantiated opinion), etc., etc., etc.. C',mon... take your self-declared victory and go relish in your denial!

[-1=e^ipi]

I expect it to be nothing more than the continued nonsense you've paraded forth to-date.

You will not know that for sure until you read it, will you?

I've responded to you at length, numerous times --- you either completely ignore the statements/positions/references

Self projection much?

repeatedly throw stoopid strawmen up

Are you not used to people calling you out for your logical fallacies?

continue your fixation and isolation with non-real world enclosure growth mediums

How, pray tell, can one determine the fertilization effects on CO2 on plants if one is not allowed to use studies where one places plants in environments with increased CO2 levels and one is not allowed to use the geological record? Wait till the global CO2 concentrations increase? And ironically, you used the so called 'enclosure growth mediums' that you hate so much are in your claim about the decrease in effectiveness of herbicides (read my post).

ignore the findings/statements from reputable organizations like the IPCC, the USGCRP, NASA, NAS, etc, claim bias in papers you can't refute,

Untrue straw man.

ignore direct questions/challenges to you...

Self projection much?

[waldo]

last word!

[-1=e^ipi]

last word!

Nope. And your post probably violates a forum rule.

Maybe you should try responding to my post or admitting that you are wrong about some earlier claims.

[waldo]

Nope. And your post probably violates a forum rule.

Maybe you should try responding to my post or admitting that you are wrong about some earlier claims.

and yet another of your whineee pissant responses... have you missed your moderator calling? Again, I've responded at length to your nonsense, several times now. Your continued baiting won't work. You've already stroked yourself with your self-declared victory... and yet you still clamor for response and wrongful admission! Just how unfulfilled is your life?

[-1=e^ipi]

and yet another of your whineee pissant responses... have you missed your moderator calling? Again, I've responded at length to your nonsense, several times now. Your continued baiting won't work. You've already stroked yourself with your self-declared victory... and yet you still clamor for response and wrongful admission! Just how unfulfilled is your life?

If you are done with this thread then why do you keep responding? I won the debate and had better arguments, so your desire to give up is understandable.

[waldo]

If you are done with this thread then why do you keep responding? I won the debate and had better arguments, so your desire to give up is understandable.

your self-aggrandizement appears boundless! Now... for the second time... you feel it necessary to declare victory - claim your win! The only, uhhh... "arguments" you had/have are your unsubstantiated opinions. If you keep puffing your chest and self-declaring victory, why do you, as you say, keep responding? Do I validate your worth?

ok, no more time to play - must get to work now. Have another self-declaration on me!

Edited December 2, 2013 by waldo

[-1=e^ipi]

If you want to continue this discussion, then I suggest you actually read and respond to my post. If not then you should leave this thread.

[jbg]

If you want to continue this discussion, then I suggest you actually read and respond to my post. If not then you should leave this thread.

I rarely defend Waldo but if everyone in a thread were on the same side there would be no board, or it would be totally boring. Even a buffoon (and I don't consider Waldo to be one) enliven the proceedings.

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks JBG. To add: the values we look for in posters here are reflected in the Rules & Guidelines, ie. debate honestly, with the ability to back up your posts, and move the discussion forward.

[waldo]

I rarely defend Waldo but if everyone in a thread were on the same side there would be no board, or it would be totally boring. Even a buffoon (and I don't consider Waldo to be one) enliven the proceedings.

and for this comment, I acknowledge you being the 'better man'... for the duration of this comment

[waldo]

To add: the values we look for in posters here are reflected in the Rules & Guidelines, ie. debate honestly, with the ability to back up your posts, and move the discussion forward.

yes - clearly, moving the discussion forward is key. If all one has to offer is a continued ream of nothing more than personal unsubstantiated opinion, that is not moving the discussion forward. Silly buggar acts are not honest debate.

[Michael Hardner]

and for this comment, I acknowledge you being the 'better man'... for the duration of this comment

I think the final step of merging your consciousness with this website (I think Star Trek TNG called it 'the borg') occurs when you admonish posters WITH WHOM YOU AGREE for their flimsy arguments. After ten years of this constant pounding of the surf of ideas... the rocks of ideas on the beach of my brain have been smoothed down so much.

I can now argue any point of view with civilians (ie. non MLW people) and occasionally do.

[Michael Hardner]

...and adding: this should be what our representatives do - with the end result being the 'best of breed' political response that satisfies the proverbial 80/20 rule.

[-1=e^ipi]

Oh look at all these touchy-feely comments. And here I thought that this was a thread to discuss climate change, not a thread to boost everyone's self-esteem. Am I the only one left who has a desire to discuss climate change?

I rarely defend Waldo but if everyone in a thread were on the same side there would be no board, or it would be totally boring. Even a buffoon (and I don't consider Waldo to be one) enliven the proceedings.

There is a difference between disagreeing with someone, and backing up your position with evidence/reasoning compared to ignoring half of someone's reply, strawmaning the other half, repeating the same talking points over and over, then leaving the conversation once you get backed into a corner and might actually have to concede that you were wrong about something.

[TimG]

Oh look at all these touchy-feely comments. And here I thought that this was a thread to discuss climate change, not a thread to boost everyone's self-esteem. Am I the only one left who has a desire to discuss climate change?

The psychology of climate change is fascinating. You have a lot of "believers" who have no desire to actually think about the issues and are simply looking for talking points that confirm their pre-determined positions.

From the perspective of people who actually want to understand the issues waldo is a buffoon that does not understand the skeptical arguments being made and is incapable of actually addressing them. He covers his tracks with snark, ad homs and strawmen that is good enough to fool people looking for alarmist pablum.

Edited December 2, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

The psychology of climate change is fascinating. You have a lot of "believers" who have no desire to actually think about the issues and are simply looking for talking points that confirm their pre-determined positions.

From the perspective of people who actually want to understand the issues waldo is a buffoon that does not understand the skeptical arguments being made and is incapable of actually addressing them. He covers his tracks with snark, ad homs and strawmen that is good enough to fool people looking for alarmist pablum.

is that you? Wanting to, as you say, "understand the issues"? Your fake skeptical arguments, ala your favoured fake skeptic/denier blogs, simply don't stand the test of scrutiny. You truly believe that your post-modern blog "science" is a legitimate platform to undercut/counter published science. It's heelarious to read you suggest your favoured charlatans simply choose not to publish!

[cybercoma]

TimG isn't a skeptic. He believes in global warming and climate change. He even believes humanity is responsible for a portion of it. He just doesn't believe we need to do anything about it.

[-1=e^ipi]

TimG isn't a skeptic. He believes in global warming and climate change. He even believes humanity is responsible for a portion of it. He just doesn't believe we need to do anything about it.

Yes, you would think after 30 pages waldo would understand this.

[waldo]

Yes, you would think after 30 pages waldo would understand this.

are you lookin for more luvin? I said 'fake skeptic'... actually your kind of like Concern Troll. His positions are "flexible" depending on... the winds over his favoured fake skeptic/denier blogs - or sumthin! In the past, when facing junkyard dog persistence, he's actually stated he doesn't accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the... principal... source of the relatively recent warming. Of course, this bumps up against his ruse where he states he accepts mankind's burning of CO2 contributes to warming... like who would actually dispute that! When pressed on that "principal" attribution facet, when pressed to offer up another alternate principal cause of warming, he just goes mute. Well, actually... although not saying it outright, associating it to "principal" outright, he has been very partial to land use and has dipped into the Pielkesphere, to that end, attempting to make it's case. Of course, that could have just been related to flavour-of-the-day/week focus in his blog world!