Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Then you are wrong to apply the term to hardworking scientists who are only trying to report the truth.

Why do these facts seem less than 'hard' or 'provable' to you?

livinglava wrote:

What other theories are you considering to be provable by fact?

All theories can be tested by experimentation and observation.

livinglava wrote:

how do YOU think the climate works except by taking carbon out of the air and putting it into living things, which gradually turn into energy-rich sediments?

I don't worry much about how it works. If any real science is ever allowed to be done on the issue, then I'll look at what the conclusions are.

Now you're even denying the denialism behind it?

I asked you what other theory you have to explain the relationship between atmospheric carbon, the biosphere of living ecosystems, and the buildup of fossil fuels from accrued biological sediments over time?

You don't understand anything about energy and ecosystems, but yet you think you can complain about 'real science' being ignored.

You are just arguing about science without knowing anything about it because you have certain political beliefs that you assume apply.

livinglava wrote:

Now you're even denying the denialism behind it?

It is wrong to mislabel people as deniers for merely trying to publish facts.

livinglava wrote:

I asked you what other theory you have to explain the relationship between atmospheric carbon, the biosphere of living ecosystems, and the buildup of fossil fuels from accrued biological sediments over time?

I don't have any theories about that issue.

livinglava wrote:

You don't understand anything about energy and ecosystems, but yet you think you can complain about 'real science' being ignored.

Correct.

livinglava wrote:

You are just arguing about science without knowing anything about it because you have certain political beliefs that you assume apply.

Incorrect. It is exactly the opposite of what you said.

It is the progressives who are trying to impose their political beliefs on science.

Your inability to point out anything untrue in my posts is evidence that everything that I say is true.

I can.

Ive caught you in about 3 last week alone.

I just dont care to play your onanistic game of "Me Me Me-see Me".

Id just say go **** yerself if you think people give a **** about the history of yer posts. Theres waay more interesting stuff herein.

I find you kinda laughable, so when you say stupid stuff, you deserve being told in solid terms.

Even if that were the case, these people would still be making an untrue claim when they say I am wrong.

And I would still be entirely correct to point out that they are in error to say that I am wrong.

But while not every post of mine contains a factual claim, plenty of my posts do.

Think of it this way: if journals were rejecting articles containing data supporting climate change theory, there would be people online doing what you are doing, only the other way around. They would be saying that the journals are biased and that they should publish dissenting views.

If there were people saying that, would that make any difference to your view that the climate is stable and not changing?

What is needed is substantial discussion of why/how climate works, not discussion about the politics of journalistic bias for or against a certain theory of climate.

Is it wrong to recognize the motivations and intent behind certain publications?

People lie about 'merely trying to publish facts,' when they are actually motivated politically, the same as some people are just motivated by politics or academic agendas in publishing support for climate change.

Regardless of some people's motives, the goal should be to gain at least an understanding of the basic relationship between energy and carbon in generating a biosphere of ecosystems and the fossil fuels that form from their sediments.

Then you need to sit down and learn how energy works, how living things that make up ecosystems are made up of carbon, how energy from the sun is taken up by those organisms and ecosystems, and how their dropping sediment over time to build up as fossil fuels.

Once you understand the basics, you may have reason to debate about climate, but until then you just have no idea what you're talking about.

All you probably know is that you like industrial economics and consumerisms and you are afraid it is being threatened by climate science politics.

People on every side of the issue do that. It is wrong regardless of which side you are on.

I wasn't saying anything about your side, though. I was talking about you specifically. You as an individual lack a scientific perspective, yet you want to argue about the politics of science.