I don't think so. I think that their identity is so wrapped up with hating liberals and being right wing that anything perceived to be left is summarily dismissed. Everything is seen through partisan spectacles. Can you imagine them admitting Al Gore was right? It would never happen, regardless of how ironclad the science may be.
You guys are out of facts. No more arguing your invalid points, just switch to personal attacks. I completely understand. It's tough to accept defeat but sometimes you just have to move on instead of striking out at your superior. It's time for you monkeys to move on and just accept the defeat. BTW, Ricter, I was especially amused at your lack of understanding about the Venus climate system. You really need to do some homework before opening your mouth on things you know nothing about.
That's what I figured it would come to. Not a giant surprise. The anonymous internet breeds huge typing muscles. What I was trolling for was an irrational emotional response. And quite honestly, I got it on both sides. I run a vineyard in western Wisconsin (yes we have them here), but I've only been doing it for the last 7 years. But I am surrounded by farmers and have talked to them since I was a kid about everything related to farming, and what amazes me is what was not a surprise on this board. Opinions on this subject always end up in very personal arguments. And I'm still trying to figure out why. On one side of me is a guy who says everyone was claiming there would be a mass cooling period back in the 1970's. Never happened. On the other side is a guy who claims global warming is responsible for all of the current atmospheric volatility. Maybe. I don't know. I'm trying to be objective about this. (but it's hard with FC in the thread) FC, for your info, farmers don't pay attention to the bullshit that you, or your opponents, subscribe to. They, We, go with the flow. We look at the noaa website to see how much precip we've gotten compared to normal. But we, unlike you, are able to look at it objectively, and we adjust. If it warms up over the next 50 years, fine. You win. But we adjust. You must not be a farmer if you don't know this. This was basically an experiment. Why the f... do you guys think I put this in Pol and Relig in the first place? You may have noticed all I provided was how I am disgusted with the weather, and a corresponding link showing the forecast. But as soon as I offered an opinion, the personal attacks started. Just like anything else which is political, it seems to have to get personal, and that is sad. A perfect illustration of where this country is going. But since you didn't ask, here is my opinion. I simply cannot argue against the fact that the weather has been more volatile lately. The highs are higher, and the lows are lower. It is crazy here. If that is due to overall warming, so be it. But if that is the case, I highly doubt it is to the degree to which the pundits adhere. I read about a scientist who is a strong advocate of global warming (I'll dig it up for reference) who stated that under the absolute worst case scenario, the Atlantic ocean would rise by 1 centimeter per year. So, in one hundred years, the ocean would rise by one meter. But you have these stupid National Geographic Alarmist tv shows portraying New York being under water in 50 years. It's wrong, it's alarmist, people are making money off of the panic, and it's getting old. That's what we're fed up with, buddy.
Trying to be objective, but I doubt you or FC would ever engage in an objective argument without it getting personal. So be it.
Did you really take that so seriously? Lighten up, dude. I thought the levity was obvious. Anything else?
Not seriously at all. But if you're going to make further statements lending it weight, I'm going to comment on those. This is fun.