The people they were eating?

A new Starbucks.

That'll teach those bastard Mayans for being wrong about the calander! Almost put the History channel out of business.

Glad it's amusing to you. I'll give that propaganda piece as much attention as I would a creationist piece telling us how humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and the earth was created in 4004 B.C.E. You may not like that, you might find it amusing, but it simply isn't science. Some time in th edark past, I asked for science that would refute the concept of CO2 atmospheric warming, or at least show how it was mitigated. Your Youtube video is none of that.

To put it in a similar vein, you are acting like a person who claims that oil is abiotically created, and demands that I disprove the idea. Disprove AGW with science, not insulting anyone who believes in it. TTFN

Yes, most of what you are writing about is the heat island effect. Very real, and an issue for cities. Iven in my little city, the temperatures are always a couple degrees higher than where I live, around 2 miles away.

Okay - that's a little strange. You figure that people who accept that greenhouse gases exist are sexually aroused by that?

I'm not sure, but I think you are agreeing with me.

Do you think that I just made up those words that he used?

Do you not understand science versus politics?

Hint - his piece was politics making a poor attempt at being science. Science does not deal in those terms.

Spare me your accusations of dishonesty and other insults. I asked for science, and you give me political garbage, propaganda, and cherry picking. You have failed, not me

So, why don't we take this to a different level?

Give me the reason or reasons that the so called greenhouse gases fail to do what they are supposed to do? That's what I'm looking for. Or are your only tools to call anyone who disagrees with you dishonest, or lazy, or otherwise?

Why doesn't the greenhouse gas model work?

Sorry, I faile the Proopaganda test. That presentation was only to tell people what to think, as he explicitly to,d people at the beginning. The only possibile outcome that you would accept was my complete conversione top his own propaganda. Your grasp of science is immediately obvious.

You sir, do not know the differnce between science and politics. You are cast of the same mold as the old soviets that did not believe in genetics.

Unfortunately there are deniers who treat science as a construct of the devil being true religion in the reliigious sense - as in an opmnipotent deity who foro some reason rewards faith over knowledge. I have the books, and can cite if you wish.

How odd that you declare that disagreeing with that particular presentation is an inability to form one's own ideas and opinions.!

"Deconstruct, Propaganda, misinformation, sophistry, Propagandistic issue of repitition, absence of any intellectual critical faculties, I will begin with the issue of how the issue is maniiplulated.

And we are 1 minute and 46 seconds into the presentation.

Do you understand what science is? It is most definitely not spending your time with that sort of rhetoric rhetoric, That rhetoric is exceptionally political, and/or religious.

Let's assume that a scientist dicsovers something that disproves anthropogenic global warming. How woulf s/he go about this?

As likely as not, the title might be "Anthropogenic global Warming - new insights and perspectives"

Next, instead of telling you exactly what you think, with words like "propaganda", accusing those who might disagree as being completely incompetent, as Lindzen explicitely does, the outline would be: The original view

How the proven effect of CO2 and the so called "Greenhouse gases" does not apply to the real world

Why and what mitigates that effect

What the new view would be.

Data would be presented to show how the mitigation effect works, and how much mitigation happens.

Absolutely none of the weasel words used in the Lindzen lecture would be used. Ever, Every scientist I've ever worked with, and that is many, would immediately be suspicious of anyone who went political on them.

In most cases, when one person accuses another or another side of propaganda, it indicates their thought process, and an astute observer can reasonably expect propaganda to follow.

Are you the same guy that says that NASA is reporting that CO2 makes the world colder?

Anyhow, where is the citation about the 400 ppm level? I'm getting about 250 ppm from my cites, Wikipedia.

On the debunking sites, there seems to be a common thread that goes something like this one from:

http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Historical_CO2_levels

to wit:

Another of the IPCC tricks, well-hidden (buried under mountains of Energy department paid trivia publicised by the likes of the Guardian and Realclimate) is the ludicrous claim that CO2 levels have been historically stable, and are now exceptionally high, leading to - you -know-what (okay, a runaway greenhouse warming effect). That is either wordsmithing, or a marked case of innacuracy.

http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html shows a huge deviation, from around 300 to around 180 ppm.

The original cite was from NOAA data, sorry for the planetforlife graph, it was just easier than making people sift through the original data. The NOAA links are in there if anyone wants to go through them.

I get a lot of this cherry picking and other interesting claims when I go through the denier sites. We get a lot of "research shows", with no citations. We even get odd insinuations, like that philosophical investigations site making insinuations about an anonymous refutation of Ernst-Georg Beck's article that claims that scientists believe that CO2 levels were constant before the industrial age.

Make up that strawman, then beat the living shit out of it, I guess.

Believe or do not believe, it makes no matter.

I fear that you are confusing science with religion, where one makes up their mmind, then force fits everything into that conclusion.

I am really glad to meet the person who knows exactly who these scientiosts are, and has read and understands their different conclusions. I am looking forward to your providing me with the names of these scientists. Or at least the publications.

I would most very respectfully suggest that you do a little research as to who is funding these scientists also, because so very often, their funding comes form groups who have a very vested interest in the effects of the so-called greenhouse gases not having any effect at all on average global temperatures. Starting from a conclusion, then force fitting the data.

I've done a bit of research, and am having trouble finding the "AGW doesn't exist" scientists who aren't funded by groups that stand to profit by that conclusion, so how about some helpful cites?

I'll say! That greedy money hungry scientist who is looking for a hundred thousand dollar grant to do research makes those millions given to politicians pale by comparison. You are being unknowingly hilarious.

What they are, is people who are trying to convert a predator species to a prey species.

All that said, once this catches on, I plan to eat only factory grown meat products. I've gotten all the hunting and food preparation of natural animals out of my system, and would rather just enjoy them now.

But meat is so darn tasty.

Actually, I think we're discussing past each other a little bit here. I do believe that people have free will. What I don't believe is a God that knows all, does all, and willingly destroys most members of his best creation.

And frankly, I cannot come close to reconciling the difference between the old Testament God, the angry, vindictive destroyer who Can unleash holy vengeance for some pretty mundane things, like teasing a man who is bald, or his choesn role models like King David - and the new Testament, where Jesus preaches something that hardly seems related.

In fact, there have been theological discussions that the God of Jesus came to replace an earlier and inferior God who was to put it, not in his right mind. Christians just cobbled together the parts, picking some and excluding some, to make a semi coherent book of religion. It is how we get Christian fundamentalists who are not terribly connsected to the New Testament. Many of the Fundamentalists are more closely in mind to the Pharisees that Jesus had issues with.

I still have yet to get a satisfactory answer to the question of why modern Fundamentalists do not seem to have ever paid attention to the sermon on the mount, or how their lust for public prayer dovetails with what Jesus had to say about that.

Does a benevolent parent torture their children as long as they live if they haven't done something the Parent commanded after some arbitrary date?

Spirituality is wonderful up to a certain point, but humans just pervert it with their own sculpting of a god who just so happens to agree with what they think.

Let's take a different approach. Someone says "It takes a village to raise a child." Nothing political there?

I would say that given that Hillary Clinton wrote a book on that, most people here would consider that a liberal expression. Disagree? It might be considered obtuse in some groups. To say that no government agency has any business paying attention to some children's sleep habits is exceptionally easy to attribute to a Libertarian political outlook. Disagree? fine, but know you could ask a hundred people to analyze both statements, and probably 98 would assign what I just wrote. The other two are posting on slashdot.

Sure, just as if I said "it takes a village to raise a child", that would be politically influenced. so if someone writes:

Seems pretty obvious to me. If not to you, well, we all have different levels of comprehension.