I’m confused. You asked me two questions, and then when I answered, you changed the subject. Do you have a response of any kind to my actual answers? Why does this always happen? Why can’t any “skeptics” ever provide a rebuttal to my simple scientific arguments?

Quit drinking the kool-aid, guys. Learn to think for yourself.

I’m also getting tired of typing out detailed, logical rebuttals to your nonsense, complete with links and resources to back it up, only to be disappointed time and time again, as you either don’t respond or come back with conjecture and gossip. The same goes for you, Andrew. I thought you’d be different. I thought you might actually engage me in a debate, and try to refute my arguments, but I guess I was wrong.

Gee, I wonder why deniers never want to talk about scientific evidence, and why they never have a valid rebuttal to AGW arguments? Maybe it’s because you guys don’t know, and don’t want to know, about climate science. You only know talking points. The talking points do you no good when you’re faced with a scientific rebuttal, do they?

This is clearly a waste of my time. Let the record show that I explained the issues of water vapor, solar irradiance, and no counter points were offered by any of you. In just about any debate forum, that would mean that you LOSE.

Maybe there’s a reason you can’t come up with a valid response. Maybe, just maybe, your viewpoint is incorrect.

The thing is, Teach, that I HAVE made changes to my lifestyle, and I’ve told you this many times. I even provided a list of many of the changes. I’ve also asked for you to be specific about what it is I’m doing wrong, so maybe I can correct it. You, however, continually avoid specifics. I guess that way you can continue to make stuff up about people.

I’ve also explained many times that Al Gore is carbon neutral. I’m not surprised that you haven’t yet grasped this either.

I’ve also explained many times that Al Gore is carbon neutral. No surprise here that you haven’t grasped that either.

Typical…

So, your response to my scientific argument is basically conspiracy theories (follow the money), conjecture, and anecdotal evidence? I believe we were on the subject of water vapor and the Maunder Minimum. Should I take your change of topic as a concession that water vapor is not the most important greenhouse gas in climate change, and that the Sun is not mostly responsible for global warming?

The only difference this time around is that some people have figured out how to get government grants, i.e., other people’s money to study the “problem”, and others have figured out how to use the “problem” to exert unwarranted, tyrannical power over their fellow men. Into which category do you fall, Reasic?

Why are so many denialist arguments so over-simplistic? “People are either this or that.” No, this is a fallacy known as a false dilemma. I don’t fall into either category. I have simply studied the evidence, examined the arguments on both sides, and am convinced that the planet is warming due to human activity. I do believe that there is a small portion that is natural. I do not believe the catastrophic scenarios you’ve probably heard about are very likely. However, I think we can still see some very dire consequences without them.

The difference between past climates and this one, as far as our ability to cope with a change in climate, is that we now have a thriving populace, which spans nearly the entire globe and requires a certain amount of resources. A temperature increase of only a few degrees could bring about a modest sea level rise, famine, drought, melting ice caps, and increased ocean temps, which would be detrimental to much of the plant, animal, and human life that we now have living on this planet.

As I explained to sleestak earlier:

If warming continues unabated, sea levels would rise, forcing people living in low-lying areas to move inland, causing possible overcrowding and placing a strain on available resources. In addition, further warming would destroy entire marine ecosystems via the bleaching of corals; cause a reduced production of various agricultural products, such as cereals, which are badly needed in impoverished areas; and result in increased occurances of drought and famine in already struggling areas of the world.

Let’s talk science, because that’s what has convinced me — not Al Gore’s documentary, news reports about doom and gloom, or anecdotal evidence about the latest heat wave. So, please tell me that you’ve at least read or skimmed the IPCC report summary.

I’ve also asked repeatedly for you to explain to me what I’m not doing that you think I should. I’ve listed the steps I take to reduce my carbon footprint. What do you think is missing from the list? What am I doing wrong? Let’s be specific.

What’s to rebut? Yet another IPCC report, put out by people who are invested in it being Mankind’s fault, yet, they, like you, fail to actually live the lives they think everyone else should embrace. Meanwhile, there are reports of a 30 year downturn in the global climate (I’ll believe them when the trend continues.)

Please do not generalize! Who, specifically, in the IPCC does not “actually live the [life] that they think everyone else should embrace”? And while we’re at it, what exactly is that “life that they think everyone else should embrace”?

And no, there aren’t “reports” of a 30-yr downturn. You read PART of ONE, and now, all of the sudden, there are many? Right…