steven meyer...<<<Runner & OUG,..My understanding is that both of you reject evolution>>>

as you should be aware ...micro evolution...within the genus[specification ...of species/within their genus...is perfectly valid

what there is not one scap of evidence..for
is macro/evolution...

where species..changes its genus...note the huge gaps
i note you didnt reply that....yet claim the point...now

yet remained silent at the topic...that speaks for itself...
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=184&t=3225&start=60

its the same science/types decieving...via out and out fraud...and peer revieuw...its the same decievers selling you a new tax..via their latest guilt delusional/theory...built on graphics..and imagry..to sell you out

they plan eugenics...linked to the carbon/dispensations/to polute.....read the links bro

present fact...see its economists...goving business certainty...selling this carbontax/security..to create their next bubble.

just as its godless athiest eugincs adgenda
pushing this deception of evolving species...creating new genus

what was the first life
what did it evoilve into
your tree has no root

<<<there is no way for me to have an OBJECTIVE dialogue with you.>>>you cant be adjective..you swallowed science infalibility

"And if they err on the side of caution, then they should be totally aligned with as those that are concerned about AGW?"

I never feel the need to be totally aligned with anyone just because they claim to have the answer to something I might be concerned about.

Nor do I feel the need to assume that the champions of a cause are less influenced by external factors than those who oppose the same cause.

R0bert

Stevenlmeyer “Unless you can come up with an alternative OBJECTIVE explanation for what happens to the heat energy that CO2 and other greenhouse gases reradiate earthwards,”

I am sure I could but I would rather spend my time doing something more constructive, like picking my nose, ear or other orifice.

Regarding elves.. .i am sure you , as a supposed believer in AGW (which I have never been able to find distinguishable from non-AGW Global Warming or other cycles of temperature change, as recorded throughout history) , are far more experienced in having exchanges with pixies, sprites and elves on any matter, not limited merely to the relative merits of your fanciful delusions.

I find something fundamentally “Insincere” is your inaugural posting to presume, as you did that

someone who is “prudently sceptical” lacks “sincerity”, when it comes to the “hype” generated by the “three ring circus & road-show” promotions and proclumations of Al Gore and other assorted pseudo-scientists, “world economists” and bulldust infested doom-sayers

aka “just another bunch of carpet-bagging Snake-oil salesmen” of which stevenlmeyer is trying to become just another MLM “diamond”.

To AGW

If it reads like tish, it looks like tish, it smells like tish and it is being pushed around by a tish peddler

It is, almost certainly

TISH

Sceptically yours,

Col Rouge
(A sincere AGW disbeliever)

Ludwig wrote:
"OBVIOUSLY, AGW is real. Those who say that they don’t believe this are either being dishonest or deluded….or downright moronic!"

Can you point me to the peer reviewed paper that conclusively proves global warming is driven by Human Created CO2. Not the supposed political consensus, but the actual scientific paper proving it!
And make sure it's one that wasn't peer reviewed by the persons writing it huh!

Ludwig wrote:
"Now if by some strange chance there are actually genuine intelligent sincere climate change skeptics out there uninfluenced by the wishes of big business or continuous-growth-worshiping politicians or business-as-usual-at-all-costs idiots, then how can they possibly justify not erring on the side of caution?"

Way to stereo type!
If it aint broke, why fix it?
And because I don't feel like giving some slimy poly-tick $5000 bucks a year (average family of 4) to fix something that isn't broken, does not make me a growth worshiper or even a business-as-usual-at-all-costs idiot.

Now if you're suggesting that continuous-growth is a major cause of concern, then lets look at fixing that, OK? But don't assume that reducing CO2 output or taxing everyone into oblivion for the CO2 they produce is by any means going to fix a completely different problem!

Why are all warmists so delusional to think that tackling a supposed warming problem is suddenly going to fix all their other pre-conceived woes?

stevenlmeyer, I believe in the theory of evolution but see the current hype of Human Caused Global Warming as total claptrap rubbish designed to seize more taxes and exert more control.
How can I have both of these views?

Stevenlmeyer,

You are right when you say that scientists would all agree that all things being equal, more CO2 equals an increased greenhouse effect.

But...

The same scientists will also agree that if you pee in the ocean, all things being equal, sea levels will rise. So what?

Without a qualitative understanding, such knowledge is meaningless.

Of course there are those who deal with the lack of quantitative certainty with the idea that we should give the planet the benefit of the doubt. It might be warming dangerously and we might make a difference if we do all we can to stop CO2 emissions. So lets do all that we can, just in case.

The foolishness of this "benefit of the doubt" approach is demonstrated by considering how it might apply to other situations.

Some examples:

If the temperature were cooling over the last 8 to 10 years, as some scientists now believe, should we also give the planet the benefit of the doubt by taking action to stop us from slipping into an ice age? Should we be pumping extra greenhouse gases out to counter a cooling trend which might have catastrophic consequences for life on earth if allowed to run unchecked?

Upon learning that electrical faults can lead to housefires with potentially fatal consequences for your family, do you A) give your family the benefit of the doubt and disconnect the house from the electrical mains to avoid this risk, or B) adapt to the risk of fire by installing smoke alarms and teaching your kids about fire safety.

Upon learning that many children drown during the summer months, do you give your kids the benefit of the doubt by ensuring that they never get access to bodies of water deep enough to permit a drowning, or B, do we adapt, teach our kids to swim and about water safety and then take them swimming