It’s a really simple question that you should be able to ask and skeptic of any topic they are skeptical on.

Unfortunately “conservative” these days means serving the rich and powerful which in this case are the oil and coal corporations as well as the corporations that use the cheap carbon energy.

Liberals are the true “conservatives” in this case.

Liberals want to conserve the planet’s climate and conserve God’s myriad gift’s of Creation.

The neo-Orwellian-”conservatives” are radically and recklessly gambling all of it on short term profits which is radically-un-conservative.

Duros62: “His lawn spontaneously catching fire.”

It’s not a hard question to answer. I can answer it for something I’m skeptical about, like religion.

I would be convinced religion were real if there were old-school miracles happening. Not statues crying, because that can easily be faked, but major miracles like you can read about in the Old Testament.

It seems when science method came about, the miracles stopped happening.

I’d think a true conservative stance would be to accept the consensus, but be very wary of governmental power grabs and negative economic impacts such grabs might entail.

Where does that whole “hoax” belief come from, if it’s not FUD originating from oil and coal companies?

Whew, well THAT’S a relief.

His lawn spontaneously catching fire.

He probably figures that once we liberals start messing around with God’s Time (H/T Gerry Ford) anything can happen.

emancipating themselves and getting the fuck outta there ASAP.

I’m not tolerant, however, of scum like you who would cheerfully strangle my children for an extra nickel in the name of political power or the free market.

C’mon, man, that’s not fair. He wouldn’t do it cheerfully, he’d be deadly serious.

Facts have a well-known Liberal Bias.

In other words, the debate is between those who can plainly see the facts, and those who cannot. Alternatively, it’s possible that the creationists, young-earthers, Holocaust-deniers, and global-warming “skeptics” have a vested interest in ignoring the evidence.

Meteorologists often don’t have the expertise required to talk knowledgeably about climate change. There’s some overlap in these fields, but don’t expect a weatherman to be able to predict the climate 100 years from now, and likewise don’t expect a climate scientist to be able to tell you if it will be sunny tomorrow.

If you all believe in “science by consensus”, then right now Global Warmians have the votes.

It’s not just their opinion that counts. It’s the fact that they’ve followed the scientific method and the only hypotheses that survive testing are the ones that show a warming trend.

And to speak more regarding the “science by consensus” tidbit you brought up… This is simply dumb. No one believes in “science by consensus”, Frank. No one. It’s just a bullshit claim pushed by the right-wing, in a bizarre, illogical move to try and deny manmade global climate change.

“Oh, a hundred years ago all scientists thought that disease spontaneously occurred in humans, and they were all wrong. Therefore, the consensus of scientists is wrong on all points, including global climate change.”

Such a weird thing, being so distrustful of science and researchers. In this thread alone, you simultaneously make the absolute claim that manmade global climate change is a farce and that it will be the stuff of myth in 7 years time, AND that right now “global warmians have the votes.” In other words, you make the claim that manmade global climate change isn’t real, while acknowledging that scientists as a group say that it IS real.

Why the distrust for scientists, Frank? Also, what makes you think that you’re a better authority on this topic than them?

Seriously, this is just so stupid that I can scarcely believe it.

How is that a personal attack? Making a prediction is not an attack.

“Well, I will be 63 next week…”

Really? The so you were 60 in the picture I saw of you?

See a doctor. Seriously. You look worse than my grandfather, and he’s in his mid 80s.

Maybe it was the picture, but you looked a lot older. I assumed you were 70 in that picture.

“70 in 2016.”

Should live another 18 years from now. At least according to the Actuarial table I have bookmarked.

“So, fuck you and the horse that rode in on you.”

I’ll take that advice under advisement.

“If you all believe in ‘science by consensus’…”

No, I believe in “science by evidence”.

“…then right now Global Warmians have the votes. But that is changing, almost daily.”

No it’s not.

“There is a debate, and the debate is amongst climatologists and meteorologists, not pharmacists and physicists and clinical psychologists.”

No. There is no debate regarding man made global climate change.

There is a debate with some of the details, but not the big picture.

Quite frankly, you are wrong.

Yes we are, a.o., thanks for admitting that. There are limits to everything, however.

I thought the funniest part of Barone’s elephant turd of an article was that he apparently thinks that global warming will mean more hours of sunlight.

If you all believe in “science by consensus”, then right now Global Warmians have the votes. But that is changing, almost daily. There is a debate, and the debate is amongst climatologists and meteorologists, not pharmacists and physicists and clinical psychologists.

Insulting people that disagree with you is futile, pointless, and witless. You have demonstrated nothing but your incivility and lack of substance. That’s why less and less people believe you each day.

So what evidence would it take to convince of the link between man made carbon dioxide and warming?

Am I going to get a real response this time? Or are you going to come up with another delaying tactic hoping I will drop the subject?

If it’s the latter, you are truly stupid.