"Intelligent" and "Skeptic" are mutually exclusive terms. Now "skeptic" and "pig headed moronic ignorant ideologue" DO belong together.
Thank you for the polite and organized response. 1. Where do you get the 300 number? Seriously, I keep looking, and the articles keep coming back to the same few scientists. Do you have a link for the 300? This could potentially settle this particular question. 2. I am having trouble finding reliable surveys showing this "53% and dropping" number you are discussing. On this forum, for example, there was this link: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...tists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/#_ref1 This link parses the language over and over (lies, damn lies, and statistics) to suggest that there is a major disagreement about AGW among the scientists surveyed. There IS some disagreement, but it is all in matters of degrees of certainty and degrees of impact, NOT regarding the fundamental question of whether or not AGW is happening. The charts cited in this very study support the statement I just made. 3. While I have no doubt that there is money being wasted in some ways (and in general I am not a fan of carbon trading, though it has SOME merits), it seems to me that many of the goals you outlined (solar, wind, preservation, water protection, etc.) are perfectly in line with the goals of most scientists and activists engaged in stopping AGW. Having a hard time seeing the conflict here, perhaps you can elucidate. Thanks!
With all due respect, sir, you have engaged on this same level with, for example, the "stupidity level" meter you posted. Did you start it? Maybe not, but that doesn't excuse it or leave you any moral high ground.
This is because I am tired (along with many others) of putting up with the continual abuse from futurecurrents. Let's take a look at his usual posts... http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...womens-locker-room.290126/page-3#post-4096578
I get that, but if you wish to have an elevated discussion, you have a responsibility to not engage on that level. Believe me, I've been tempted a time or two during various online discussions, but have opted to avoid such tactics. We can only be responsible for our own behavior.
I am not interested in who started it. Like I tell my kids when they fight, they each have the opportunity and responsibility to stop the fight and turn things around. I am an idealist, for sure, and I hold on to the hope that we can have adult discussions about weighty issues like this one and together get closer to the truth. That rarely happens when we're calling each other names.
I am civil to those who treat me civilly. Futurecurrents is one mis-step from being banned on ET. Futurecurrents has stepped beyond all reasonable tolerance in a discussion forum. Can you find any other poster on ET that I have not treated with respect.