Have you noticed that only the?

You are spot on. They are in such denial. It can get so bad that the former NASA administrator went so far as to rationalize that some people might actually like the effects of global warming! Once the fringe elements leave the White House, like the Bushes, perhaps we can get some reasonable people on the problem

No one denies global warming or global cooling. The cause is the debate. I'm sure you would prefer if no one debated on issues you believe in, but that's the nature of science.

Any time politicians agree on a scientific subject, it is because it is more politics than science. If you haven't figured that out yet then you're in lock-step with them and so brain-washed that you will believe anything they tell you.

If that's the case then there's no hope for you to be open-minded on any political subject.

The lunatic fringe? I would like you to name all of the people you know who deny global warming and say why they are lunatics. Please, list them. Then I shall be able to show quite a bit of scientists who are certainly not lunatics and deny AGW. I am also a skeptic, and last time I checked, I'm not in a straitjacket. I'm surprised you said we've been denying global warming for so long- the idea of AGW has only been popular for the last couple of years. I, for one, want only what is scientifically correct to be shoved down our throats- it's no issue of pride, especially since there is evidence to discredit AGW.

Last time I checked, true science allows for debate in order to come up with the most accurate explanations. By labelling skeptics, those who hold alternate viewpoints, as a "lunatic fringe", you not only break that principle, but prove your own opposition to freedom of speech and your own ignorance of the nature of the debate and its supporters.

I refuse to be insulted by some twit behind a keyboard that is emotionally attached to the fact that men are causing global warming. To me you are the lunatic fringe who sees nothing but the inconvenient truth as scientific evidence. You my friend have just been brain washed.

It'll take more than your childish name-calling to rattle us. Something like evidence maybe? Why can't the alarmist eco-terrorists like you come up with some evidence instead of just giving us the opinions of your teachers?

Extremists like we see here supporting g/w are rarely rational. They suffer from fogged thinking and misguided direction by others with foggy minds. And extremists are like sheep...not leaders, but followers. Not thinkers, but doers.

McCain may have done what he did to get votes? I don't know your politics, I don't live in the US. From the little I do know, the Republicans seem much more rational and level headed than the Democrats, but that's must my uninformed opinion. Would you vote for Gore if he was running? The whole world knows that would be a mistake!

Whenever someone has emotionally taken a position on a subject and publicly defended it, recanting and admitting error becomes a problem. Many would rather continue to deny something, even against insurmountable evidence, than admit they were wrong.

I'm more than willing to change my position, as soon as the National Science Foundation, NASA, NOAA, UCAR, or any other scientific research organization that knows anything about climate finds new credible evidence that it's wrong.

oh I dont know ,this guy seems very rational

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ale_r...

sorry he was so rational his rant got deleted

just as well

be careful .you cannot go around calling religious people as being the lunatic fringe

Why do you always resort to name calling? And McCain with his 100 years in Iraq, more wars, "bomb bomb Iran" is definitely considered part of the "lunatic fringe" to most people! Do you belong to this group? Most of us are not denying warming, we're disputing the cause of warming!

You have a lot to learn about politics. If the voters are concern about an issue, you have to be concern also if you want to be elected.

So Einstein; since the 3rd world countries do much more damage than the US does, and China is worse than the US, how do you suggest we fix WORLDWIDE gw? Try telling china to clean up their act... they will laugh you right out of the country! What about the tribes near rain forests, that cut every tree in sight for their fires, try telling them its arbor day... and plant a tree!

Another interesting read..

The slick trick behind global frauding

By James Lewis

In Stalin's Russia any dissenter from the Party Line was guilty. Innocence had to be proved. It's a standard tyrant's trick. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell in England, witchhunters did not have to prove that their victims were guilty. The accused witches had to prove their innocence.

That's what Al Gore has done to science: He and his friends have flipped innocence and guilt from normal science to Stalinist science.

In Al Gore's America, any "global warming denier" is guilty until proven innocent. He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil. Skeptics, no matter how well-qualified, must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash. And whenever some prediction is falsified, the warm mongers have an explanation: it's just a temporary glitch in the data. Oh, yes, we were wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050! The excuses are endless.

Stalin twisted scientific biology over four decades in the Soviet Union. His favorite fake-scientist, Trofim Lysenko, used all the powers of the police state to enforce his batty belief that the bleeding disaster of Soviet agriculture could be fixed just by making plants grow bigger. It's the old idea that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks out more and more, to nibble at higher leaves on the trees. It's nonsense, as horse breeders have known for ages. You can't make a great race horse just by making their ancestors run fast. You have to do selective breeding.

But breeding takes time, and Stalin was in a hurry. So he fell for the Lysenko fraud, and flipped the burden of proof: Any Soviet biologist who disagreed with Lysenko was shot. This went on for forty years, and caused endless suffering as one harvest after the next crashed. People died by the millions, in part because biological science was fundamentally corrupted.

Putting the burden of proof on the doubters is a perversion of normal, healthy science. It's as if Jeremiah Wright demanded that all white folks must prove to him that they're not blue-eyed devils. If politically correct ideas are true by default, the Al Gores can prove anything.

In normal science the burden of proof is on the proposer. Albert Einstein had to prove in his historic 1905 paper that there was a fundamental flaw in classical physics. The distinctive predictions of Relativity Theory had to be verified for decades afterwards. Some are still being tested today. His predecessor Max Planck remarked that he encountered so much skepticism that he had to wait for the older generation of physicists to die off before his work was accepted. Darwin said the same thing.

A healthy scientific community is extremely skeptical. It needs to see more and more evidence, over and over and over again, before it adopts some wild-eyed new idea. It takes all the time it needs; good science is very patient. Einstein himself was a complete skeptic about quantum mechanics, and never accepted it over the last forty years of his life. He had a perfect right to question it, as long as he had rational arguments, and he did. (He was wrong on QM, but he was right on Relativity.)

"Catastrophic global warming," caused by human beings, is a really wild-eyed idea, given the fact that animals have survived on earth for half a billion years, with thousands of massive volcanic explosions, giant meteors hitting the earth, drifting continents, and great biomass changes that would have perturbed the climate, if the hypothesis were true. Just imagine the amount of C02 that must have been released with the Cambrian explosion of animal life. If the earth really saw superfast global ups and downs in temperature, no animals could have survived those 500 million years. The Ice Ages drove animals and people south, but they were not superfast, global events, or you and I would not be here today. Animals and plants are able adapt to temperature changes. Polar bears grow layers of fat and long, dense fur. Camels can stay cool in the desert.

In biology, "catastrophism" has been treated with intense skepticism since Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. Except today, when biological catastrophism is the in thing. Why would that be, do you suppose?

How have Al Gore and the fraudsters pulled it off? It's really simple. They just flipped the burden of proof and put it on the "deniers" --- the skeptics, who don't believe the computer models. With the Left in control of the media, you can do it.

So now it's prove to me you're not a witch! Because there is no decisive evidence. There are 21 computer models that "prove" global warming over the next century. By the time 2050 rolls around, most of the modelers will be dead.

To answer the biggest con trick in the history of science, you just have to address a single question to True Believers: What's your evidence for this barmy idea? (Not: Here's my evidence against it. That's not how it works).

And the answer is: There are no facts robust enough, consistent enough, and verified enough to support the mass hysteria. The climate system is hypercomplex, nonlinear and poorly understood. The media spinners are immensely ignorant about real science, and just care about the next scare headline. There's a lot of wild speculation and a mob of self-serving politicians, bureaucrats and media types who stand to gain a ton of power and money by suckering millions of taxpayers. Al Gore just started a 300 million dollar PR campaign to convince everybody. When was the last time you saw 300 million bucks being spent to promote a scientific hypothesis that was already proven? We're not spending millions to prove the existence of gravity. The uproar and money involved in this fraud is in direct proportion to the lack of solid facts.

The last ten years have seen global cooling, not warming.

Temperatures over the last hundred years look like the stock market: ups and downs, a very slow rise of a fraction of a degree until the late 1990s, then a drop for the last ten years, with so much cooling in the last year as to cancel out a century of warming. Why? Nobody really knows, but Mr. Sun is the logical suspect.

Look it up. But don't get caught in the trap of proving the negative. In normal, healthy science, the skeptics ask questions. It is the proponents who carry the burden of proof.

Now can we talk about 9/11? That's a fact. But Al Gore doesn't think it's a big deal, compared to his favorite science fiction story. Al Gore just wants power, fame, money, and the US Presidency. Well, three out of four ain't bad.

Oliver Cromwell and his witchhunters would have understood perfectly.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_slick_t... at April 09, 2008 - 02:30:08 PM EDT