[wolffie]

We can and do believe anything we want. It all depends upon how we decide what we want to believe. I can believe the moon is a big cheese in the sky; that the phases of the moon are caused by an invisible monster who lives behind it and slowly eats it away every two weeks, whereupon it grows back; and that lunar eclipses occur when the monster binges, gobbles it up all at once, then pukes it back up. But that will not enable me to predict the next binge.

[CC]

[MtnGoat]

Golly, all those insinuations, accusations, bluster, and well poisoning, and still unable to show my basic arguments are actually false. Note the vague allusions to some unnamed 'antecedants in 20th century Germany', a telling attempt at guilt by association. Oh, there's plenty of implying they're false, strawmen, and snark. And of course, the implication that ideology is somehow involved, somewhere! Something CC gets right, almost by accident, but intended as an attack. The fact is ideology is involved everywhere, for everyone, and the question isn't who doesn't have one, it's wether or not it interferes with valid judgement. Ideology is merely the background and structure of ideas a person uses to judge the world around them, choices, actions, events, and data. I have one, he has one, everyone has one. In my case the ideas I organize my judgments and actions by have no impact on the issue of warming beyond my interest in rational expectation on scientific validity in every portion of the chain from top to bottom, because if I was a believer, I'd merely argue for a different set of solutions than he would. That is where my ideology would show it's influence on political ideals. The presumption that certain conclusions on the empirical science of the topic must lead to certain types of political solutions is itself a sign of conflating together political and scientific ideologies.

[Daryl]

I do not believe string theory and quantum mechanics revolve around raising taxes and energy prices? Might be why no one gets excited when it's discussed.

[Cyclopath]

Climate change doesn't revolve around energy prices any more than gravity revolves around stairs. Climate change and gravity are both realities. People are burying their heads in the sand about them because they don't like the implications. It would be like saying there are no car crashes because I don't want them to lower the speed limit.

[MtnGoat]

It's interesting to see a notion which isn't even falsifiable, claimed as an indisputable reality.

[Cyclopath]

It's interesting that some people feel compelled to post thousands of vague messages on a single topic, and seem to have a burning need to get the last word in on internet forums.

[Daryl]

[MtnGoat]

[Malachai Constant]

CC is just saying what I have been saying for years. He didn't answer your arguments you just raise evil conspiracies with absolutely no evidence and whatever scandal of the moment that denier sites are currently pushing, then forget about it when debunked. All of this is accompanied with a bunch of smoke and objectivist jargon about compulsion and force which boils down to objecting to spending or taxes.

[MtnGoat]

Neither CC nor you falsify my actual arguments on process and method...because they're correct. Like my examples, which he derided yet could not show to be logically false. This pattern is repeated continually. Everything but the kitchen sink in disparagement...but a gaping hole where showing my basic arguments are false should be. If it's so easy and so obvious, one wonders why you don't just present the argument and be done with it. Derision is no substitute for falsification...if your goal is applying valid method. It seems you're applying something else. As for conspiracies, more well poisoning and then tossing a strawman down the well for good measure. You'll not be able to present me arguing there is a scientific conspiracy. There is no core of plotters roping in others, no secret meetings, no sign or handshake. There is groupthink galore, and in outcome, the errors in kind merely coalesce, like people claiming to like kale. On the other hand, the fact that the IPCC is a political organization with goals differing from pure science is demonstrable from the comments of it's officers, as well as applause lines during speeches by others. You're not doing any better than CC at actually showing arguments I actually make concerning the problems with this theory to be false, but you are doing a yeoman's job of using the same methods as he. Why, with the same position, it must be due to a conspiracy!

[Malachai Constant]

I don't even know what the F your basic arguments are because you never presented them. No evidence of anything just a pile of bombast. Nada, nothing, just smoke.

[MtnGoat]

[Malachai Constant]

Those are not arguments just principles arguments require principles supported by evidence. You have not provided evidence. The papers of scientist supported by experiments are arguments. You have nothing, just unsupported hypothesis. That is what I mean by hot air, just waving your hands around and saying models are not empirical evidence is not an argument. The models are supported by such elementary evidence as ideal gas laws, absorption of IR radiation by CO2, and atmospheric circulation all supported by thousands of experiments and observations. To counter this you have nothing.

[nuclear_eggset]