“hmm, those godless libruls are making me mad, i’m going to go to google and copy/paste whatever i find because i don’t know anything about it first hand, but that will neutralize it and stop the voices in my head.”

I don’t know why you insist that I’m some freeper drone, I am not taking marching orders from anyone and furthermore I am willing to wager that my understanding of the situation is far greater than you think.

You don’t make me mad and on this topic of spending time to research? What research? Tell me your methodology so that I can play by your standards. What constitutes “research”? Do you use google or are you actually talking to scientists yourself and reading all the peer reviewed papers? I’m just curious as to what you consider legitimate research at the blogger level? And why is it that you assume that I what I find is any less legitimate? How much time to you spend vetting your information on this specific topic or do you let trusted others do the vetting? I just want to know what you mean when you spend “hours of research”, specifically on this topic of climate change.

In researching climate change did you even consider the ramifications of a warming Mars (please tell me those were paid operatives)? or previous warming and cooling cyclic periods in Earths history? The cyclic climate change camp is not some big oil purchased group. I suggest you stop dismissing the idea and consider it during any discourse on this topic. I suggest a google research project on: cyclic climate change.

In actuality, I’m taking a more scientific stance, I’m not ruling out man made contributions to climate change however there are very real compelling arguments for cyclic climate change (and Mars can even be considered a control subject) and until there is a real consensus on the cause of climate change, we should check the rhetoric and have a measured response.

two and only two reasons that a person could, at this time, and with the facts involved, argue against taking action on global warming?

There are only two reasons? Well, I would have to say one of them is for global financial reasons and the other is that the actual effects are of a warming climate are not fully known. Where some areas may be devastated other areas may become open and more productive (like Greenlan between 986-1200AD). Earth’s population has been more or less accustomed to the climate of the last 1000 years. A shift in climate may not have a net devastating effect. The result would be a forced adaptation to the new climate reality. Another reason could be that the global climate modeling is inaccurate and we need an accurate assessment.

Of course these choices are not really relevant because I see that irregardless of the cause, we can and should change our energy sources. My view is that we should do the things we can to reduce our carbon output, find alternative fuels, etc and that even if global warming may be a cyclic event rather than man made, that in either case, steps should be taken to do provide cleaner energy (just without the hysterics).

also, global warming denial from none other than…

That wasn’t a denial but a mocking of the popular out of context “proof” of global warming by citing the current day’s unseasonably warm temps.

Finally, you have escalated for various reasons why I am on thin ice but now I am at a point where I am commenting with content backed up with citations. Whether or not you chose to read, accept, or reject my citations is up to you. However the simple dismissals, citing my sources as inadequate but not specifying why (or even making wildly incorrect assumptions where I obtained my information) is weak, which is fine but don’t pretend like you’re taking the educated road when you refuse to consider or even refute with substance anything I cite with links….if my sources are bad, show why they are (or why they are corrupt and have been paid to say what they’ve said)…or don’t , but don’t censure me with fallacious claims or statements intended to impress that you have actually considered my sources and found evidence of why they cannot be acceptable, simply put Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!.

Greenland was discovered by Vikings sailing from Iceland about 1,000 years ago. While it had an ice cap then, the climate was relatively mild and they were able to establish colonies in coastal areas. Those colonies later vanished as the climate cooled.
[...]
The DNA, dated to between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, may be the oldest yet recovered, according to the team. DNA found previously in the Siberian permafrost has been dated to 300,000 to 400,000 years ago.

However, because of uncertainties in interpreting the age estimates, they could not rule out the possibility that the newly found DNA dates to the last interglacial, 130,000 to 116,000 years ago.

then again, you don’t know what an interglacial is. add it to the list.

you’re on very thin ice again. regardless of anything that has gone on, staking out a position to the right of the white house on anything is simply disingenuous.

stop equating the short side of arguments with the side that has all the facts, science and an overwhelming consensus. remember, you defended bush, the war, blackwater, etc long after it was accepted that they had no clothes either.

you’re not making arguments that belong beside what we write here, and that’s the bottom line. we don’t spend hours researching posts so that you can say “hmm, those godless libruls are making me mad, i’m going to go to google and copy/paste whatever i find because i don’t know anything about it first hand, but that will neutralize it and stop the voices in my head.”

last and final warning. there are cases you can make. don’t try to stretch to make cases that can’t be made by anyone. anyone trying to argue against man made global warming would get laughed out of the hall. that’s what’s going to happen here, you now have my word.

you want to talk about something? fine. what are the two and only two reasons that a person could, at this time, and with the facts involved, argue against taking action on global warming?

I have posted the answer here before but since it is too painful to admit, the answer is…

The next migration came from the east, following “Erik the Red” Thorwaldsson’s exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name “Greenland” was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.

Also BTW – this did not come freeperland but rather a nice non-political “Explore the North” website but of course I’m sure they were paid to say it.

you stupid copy/paste motherfucker. go back to third grade, and the freeper morons you got this from

Well, it feels like we’re already there! I didn’t copy anyone except the sources I found myself using everyone’s favorite search engine. Why is it that I must have been given a memo on this and just regurgitating freerepublic? Except for Sarabeth’s fly on th wall, I assume the links you usually provide are found in much the same way or handed to you from like minded bloggers. I copied nothing from freerepublic nor went anywhere else except google to find the links above, if that is not acceptable then what is???

Because that, whether you like it or not, is the bloody evidence, you clit. The studies that are skeptical whether global warming exists, and whether it is man made, are financed by the likes of oil companies. Just as the studies claiming that the evidence against tobacco was inconclusive were financed by the tobacco industry.

Oh really? Got any evidence that any of the links I commented on were financed by Big Oil? Perhaps all the hysterical doomsday scientist were paid for political reasons? In fact one of the NASA scientists who made such a clamor was paid by political activists like Soros. (by the way, I have not visited freerepublic in any way shape or form to retrieve any information provided).

I don’t give two hoots what shit you choose to believe.

I don’t see why I should care either what shit you choose to spout here.

Sense having finally dawned upon me, I’ll just retire from this pointless game.