I wish you guys would take this matter seriously enough to engage in a scientific debate. It has become apparent that you’d much rather spend your time spreading your ignorance on the issue than trying to make sure you know what you’re talking about. It’s really a shame. If you’re going to buck an international body of scientists and virtually every national scientific body on this issue, at least try to discuss it in an intelligent manner.

Notice very carefully what it has said. It bases its beliefs on trust. Facts don’t enter into the matter. It hasn’t actually looked at the claims that the Pentagon has made — that way it can remain ignorant of the remarkable paucity of facts attached to those claims. And it certainly hasn’t looked at the report from Seton Hall and the facts therein — because facts are fatal to the ignorance it so carefully cultivates.

No, it chooses its belief based solely on who it ‘trusts’. Easier that way — no thinking required.

That’s right, and I chose to believe the Pentagon over Seton Hall. I’m going trust the military over a far left college in NJ.

But I do find it intersting that those on the Left care more for Islamic jihadis then in safeguarding the citizenry of the USA.

Classic wingnut logic. Assume the contradicting information comes from a mean liberal boogey man, and then dismiss for that reason, rather than the veracity of the actual claims made. Then, throw in a little name-calling and question the patriotism of your opponent for good measure. Nicely played, sir. You’ve shown your true colors and proven me right. I guess you’ll NEVER actually consider all the evidence. Maybe what you meant by that was that you’ll consider all the evidence that you already agree with, or that doesn’t come from a mean liberal boogey man.

Please don’t be so dense as to think I was actually saying that you called Teach an actual holocaust denier. My point was that you were calling him what the crazy environmentalists believe is an equally ignorant and stupid view point.

Okay, what you actually said:

…Reasic is calling you a flat-earther and a global-warming (read Holocaust) denier…

Now, if you meant something other than what you actually said, maybe it’d be a good idea to explain that the first time instead of claiming that I’M dense for actually thinking you meant what you said. I didn’t even use the word “denier” in the first place, and even if I did, it has no connection to the Holocaust for me. Take your assumptions somewhere else.

Here, let me make it simple for you…

No, let me make it simple for you. A true “skeptic” is one who considers all evidence. A “denier” is one who ignores evidence they don’t like. Now that’s simple.

I am actually pretty sure that he considered your evidence, and then felt it lacking in its validity…

That’s what he CLAIMED to have done, but when asked to elaborate, he refused to explain why the evidence was not convincing for him. If it wasn’t convincing, there was a reason.

And as far as the global cooling global warming climate change debate, and all of the so-called evidence, I haven’t personally seen anything that you have put forward.

Okay, I’ll provide it for you, and you let me know what you think. Teach claimed that the Sun and water vapor are more important drivers of our climate than CO2. My rebuttal was as follows:

1. There are several ways to prove that the Sun does not play a major role in recent global warming. The one I mentioned was the fact that the lower atmosphere is warming, while at the same time, the stratosphere is cooling. If an increase in the Sun’s energy output was primarily to blame, we would expect to see a uniform warming throughout our atmosphere. This cooling in the stratosphere is an indicator that greenhouse gases are the primary forcing.

2. While it is true that there is a much higher total concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, that doesn’t mean that it drives our climate. Instead, water vapor is what is known as a feedback. This is because it has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 7 to 10 days, compared to 100 to 250 years for CO2), which means that as temperatures drop, water vapor quickly condenses and visa versa. Therefore, changes in water vapor concentration, which are what matter when discussing climate CHANGE, occur as a result of changes in temperature, rather than the other way around. So, water vapor cannot CAUSE a change in temperature. It only amplifies the effects of true forcings, such as carbon dioxide.

Therefore, we are left with primarily man-made greenhouse gases to blame for global warming. Please explain for me how these are unconvincing.

Now, you can do like you’ve done with global warming and just ignore the refuting argument and its evidence, blindly choosing your preferred source, or you can walk the walk and actually “consider ALL the evidence”, as you’ve claimed that you do.

That’s right, and I chose to believe the Pentagon over Seton Hall. I’m going trust the military over a far left college in NJ.

But I do find it intersting that those on the Left care more for Islamic jihadis then in safeguarding the citizenry of the USA.

PLEASE do NOT put words in my mouth, and ESPECIALLY do not assume that I’m calling Teach a Holocaust denier. That you would pull something so atrocious out of your own ass, just to cause a stir, and detract from the discussion at hand surely demonstrates your own lack of brains or decency.

Please don’t be so dense as to think I was actually saying that you called Teach an actual holocaust denier. My point was that you were calling him what the crazy environmentalists believe is an equally ignorant and stupid view point. Here, let me make it simple for you:

1. Holocaust Deniers are ignorant, stupid people who are bigoted and really, really stupid.

2. Man-made Global-Warming Climate Change deniers are ignorant, stupid people who are bigoted and really, really stupid.

3. 1 = 2 in the minds of the Chicken Littles…

There. Did that clear that up for you.

Now you’ve got it. Good boy! I’m so proud of you. Yes, you see, Teach claimed to be a “rational” person, who “considers all the evidence”. Yet, it seems that when he is confronted with evidence he doesn’t like, he doesn’t consider it. That looks to me to be a direct contradiction to his claim.

I see you are equally as cute. I wasn’t saying that Teach wasn’t considering your evidence. I am actually pretty sure that he considered your evidence, and then felt it lacking in its validity. Much like I hold no faith in the Lancet’s estimate of civilians killed in Iraq because of the method’s used to obtain the number. I considered its information, its evidence if you will, and found it lacking. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered.

And as far as the global cooling global warming climate change debate, and all of the so-called evidence, I haven’t personally seen anything that you have put forward. However, I have seen that there is nothing definitive from the global cooling global warming climate change side that says the man is to blame for The Earth’s Fevah™, as High-Priest Gore™ claims. I’ve seen evidence Sure, you’re side has said that the “Debate iz over, vee are correczt, and you must behave, submit, vor elze!”, but that doesn’t close the case, by no means.

What I truly see is the Watermelon Phenomena, where those who can’t control people with the arguments of their social constructs, decide to create a “disaster in the making” in order to try to implement their beliefs through fear. Thanks but no thanks.

Teach, I think that Reasic is calling you a flat-earther and a global-warming (read Holocaust) denier…

PLEASE do NOT put words in my mouth, and ESPECIALLY do not assume that I’m calling Teach a Holocaust denier. That you would pull something so atrocious out of your own ass, just to cause a stir, and detract from the discussion at hand surely demonstrates your own lack of brains or decency.

that you’re pulling an ostrich by not looking at all of the evidence on torture…

Now you’ve got it. Good boy! I’m so proud of you. Yes, you see, Teach claimed to be a “rational” person, who “considers all the evidence”. Yet, it seems that when he is confronted with evidence he doesn’t like, he doesn’t consider it. That looks to me to be a direct contradiction to his claim.

If that evidence is as solid and irrefutable as the global cooling global warming climate change global cooling evidence, then man, do they have us beat…

Ah, how cute. You made an extremely vague pseudo-argument, and didn’t even bother back it up with any sources. That’s so typical. You nitwits expect to be taken seriously on scientific issues like global warming, but you NEVER discuss it on a scientific level. I have provided Teach with some very elementary scientific rebuttals to his claims that the Sun and water vapor are more important climate drivers than CO2, and he has not responded to them. He only dismissed it without reason. Perhaps you would like to take a shot at it?

Oh, and your argument on didn’t discuss the specifics of the Seton Hall source I provided, either. What do you know? More rhetoric, hyperbole, red herrings, etc. Let me know if you ever want to grow up and make a REAL argument.

If that evidence is as solid and irrefutable as the global cooling global warming climate change global cooling evidence, then man, do they have us beat…

And the anti-”torture” crowd is out in effect I see as well.

I find it interesting how the lefts ever-evolving definition of torture covers just about everything under the sun. If it makes a prisoner “uncomfortable”, then it is torture. If it is listening to Britney Spears and U2, and the prisoners don’t like it… its torture. Waterboarding? Doesn’t kill you. Makes you feel like you’re drowning, to be sure, but it doesn’t physically drown you. Torture.

I’m not for shoving bamboo under fingernails, or electrocution of genitals, or other methods that bring physical pain, excruciating or not. That for sure would be torture at a level I want us to have no part in.

But this “mental torture” that we put prisoners through, well, I’ll leave that up to the professionals who know how to effectively get information. Ofcourse, in MMM™’s mind, and the other leftist navel-gazing bed-wetters here, those professionals are just employing these tactics because they are “RedState Sadists” just looking to hurt people. They’re not looking for information that is realistic, accurate, or true. Just doing it for the kicks, and to get SOMETHING out of them to give to their superiors.

I wonder if these are the same people who lament at the slaughter of farm animals for food, but still enjoy the steak and chicken at their restaurants, who don’t really want to think about how that steak came to be medium well on their platter…