TexasCHLforum.com

Which of these words/terms do or don't appeal to you:

Cage Free or Free Range - Just wrap it in bacon and I'll eat it whatever it is.
Green - A nice color. Not my favorite which is blue but still acceptable.
Craft Ale - Not too sure what this is. Is it beer?
Performance Artist - All mimes must die
Kale - Can it be bacon wrapped?
Scarf - rhymes with barf
Community Organizer - Needs to be placed near the mime school before the munitions hit it.
Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer - Not my favorite brand but if it's free bring it on.
Banjo - I'm a guitar man myself
Artisanal - Rhymes with abysmal
Vegan - Can we wrap them in bacon and eat them?
Zany - Is that something like "Lint-Brained" I really like that new term.
Ironic - Indian for "Iron like". Guns are made of Iron and steel. I like guns.
Vintage clothing - Since my wife shops at the resale alot that is likely what I'm wearing.
Fixie - That's what my toddlers used to say as they held up their toys to me in pieces.
Organic - Again, Indian for "I feel a bowel movement brewing"
Tattoos - I have to admit I'm not a big fan of needles
Piercings - Not even a single needle no thank you.


How'd I do? What's my score?

Statements like "all of the reputable data" reflect a certainty that isn't reflected by the evidence at hand. For example - Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?

That article supports the concept of global warming and explains the odd decades of little or no overall change and I tend to agree with it.

Apparently you discount the writer of the article that prompted this thread? Her opinions are not out of the norm for certain segments of the pro-"green" activists.

The writer of the article that prompted this thread is to use an earlier quote is a "lint-brained mullet-head". Her is position is so far away from the norm and into the absurd that someone else at the Daily Mail Reporter new that simply publishing her ludicrous views would spark a controversy that would get links to it posted on every board across the planet driving readership and generating income. And and the orchestrator of this play at the Daily Mail Reporter was absolutely correct. Thankfully, the airhead in the article represents an rare few morons whom we have to share the same oxygen with. I have never run into or ever met anyone with such lamebrained ideas in all my travels. I mean come on... Packing people densely into cities in order to save the nature for.....nature? I guess them farms are gonna have to plow themselves.

Mine is informed by my opposition to any government other than that that protects my rights and leaves me alone to pursue my life as I choose.

And that is what I'm saying is scary. Your opinion is informed by your opposition to the current administration you don't agree with. You are not making your decisions based on data and research. It sounds as if you disagree with them at all costs even if they may be correct on ACC.

And while I agree that they will use that agenda to further cripple our freedoms, in doesn't mean they are wrong on the root facts of ACC.

I agree that the government is the least efficient and absolute worst at accomplishing anything. But if a substantial population of Americans continue to deny ACC then it will indeed drive the government's hand to use force - either economic or otherwise to accomplish a change thus further eroding our freedoms and all the while other countries like China will do business as usual and could care less about the issue. And I agree that all bites.

If we can't all get together, get educated, get on board and drive this issue ourselves in a direction that will affect worthwhile change then it will get driven upon us in ways that will be broken, useless, expensive half-measures.

Baldeagle,
I would like to first honestly thank you for dropping in with a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection (remember that line from "My Cousin Vinny ). Honestly, rather that try to pick apart every sentence I wrote or attack my reading comprehension skills you made an extremely good post. Allow me to counter:

esxmarkc, in an earlier post you cited a study that found that 97% of climatologists agree on ACC as though that was the convincing element that proves that ACC is real and needs to be addressed. However, you would be wise to review that argument more closely, as has been done here ..... (truncated for brevity)

Excellent find but simply put I believe the blogger is in error. He attempts to use "grade school math" (by his words) to calculate a value that requires deeper math than a simple division. In their study, they had to weigh and rank expertise by their number of published articles. It all gets much clearer if you look at this graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/1210 ... nsion.html

That graph tells the tale. You can see that the number of researchers ranked by their citations in the field of climate change or climatology are well on the side of ACC. They rank them this way since you won't likely find anyone with a degree in Climatology. But since "Climatologist" is a label or job title, you can be qualified if you have the base degree (i.e. Atmospheric Science) a couple more classes and published papers in the field. In any case they used this method to screen out the dentists and veterinarians that managed to write up a paper on climate change. And I don't see a real problem with that approach.

1) The global temperature record for the past nineteen years shows no evidence of warming. The earth's temperature has been constant since 1995.

I can't agree with this since all of the reputable data that I have ever seen does not agree with this. How about we talk about this graph for starters:
It overlays data from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Met Office Hadley Center/Climatic Research Unit, NOAA National climatic Data Center and Japaneese Meterological Agency - all on one really nice graph and it's not flat for the last 19 years.

2) Analysis of the Arctic sea ice extent show sharp declines after 1921, before ACC could account for the change. Later the ice recovered, just as it's doing now, suggesting that changes are caused by something other than ACC.

Again whats important here is the thickness and the age of the ice. Ask yourself "Where has the thick, old ice gone? and have a look here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arc ... overed.htm

I agree with you on 3 & 4.

3) There appears to be considerable agreement among scientists that ACC exists but far less agreement as to its magnitude or its impact on the environment. That alone should urge caution before expending large sums of tax dollars "resolving" anything.
4) "Green" energy is far from being useful on a scale that can replace fossil fuels. To scrap fossil fuels in favor of "green" energy would be foolhardy in the extreme.

I believe that 5 is way over optimistic and it doesn't account for those lovely oil embargos and OPOEC ransoms:

5) The US government estimates that the energy available through _______ would supply the US for more than 400 years. That's more than enough time for innovations that will reduce and perhaps eliminate the need for fossil fuels entirely.

It's clear that the political goal of the climate change movement is control of the populace. No impartial observer would assert otherwise, and even its advocates admit it when pressed (thus the original post that started this thread.) That alone makes me quite leery of any proposed political solutions.

I disagree. I'm a pretty impartial guy. 10 years ago I would be on the other side of this argument.

What all this has to do with guns and CHL is beyond me, so, having spoken my piece, I will now retreat to my previous interests and leave the back and forth to those who love to argue.

Because it's fun and I enjoy interacting with intelligent, educated people. Thank you for the excellent response.

BTW, I believe your following post

baldeagle wrote:I recently took a look at solar energy as well as wind energy to power my home......

Is spot on and resonates one of the problems at the core of the issue. We are simply not spending enough of this bonanza oil cash we are raking in now on good research and development of the next infrastructure jump.

ShootDontTalk wrote:As to your first question. Here is your quote:
"Very little good science is ever done attempting to prove a pre-conceived outcome."
To which I replied that an immense amount of good science is done trying to prove or disprove pre-conceived outcome hypotheses. (Such as Einstein's hypotheses - which should be well known). I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding that, but misdirection is hardly a winning argument.

Because what appears to be bold text does not show up on my screen with enough difference to notice so your injected statement appeared entirely out of context. Your attempt to insult my reading comprehension however, is duly noted.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

esxmarkc wrote: Are we ever going to be able to mine and source the raw materials without the use of fossil fuels? That sir, is the billion dollar question.

Will we ever be able to machine it without the use of fossil fuels? That sir, is on our horizon: https://blog.solidconcepts.com/industry ... metal-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Be interesting to see how the 3D printer works minus electricity. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on your future green utopia. Have a great day.

Why would I try to run one without electricity? Your're really loosing me here. Do you believe there is only one way to create electricity? Ever seen a windmill? A hydroelectric power plant?

MechAg94 wrote:How are you going to source your steel parts and insure they are not produced without petroleum or hydrocarbon products?

Are we ever going to be able to mine and source the raw materials without the use of fossil fuels? That sir, is the billion dollar question.

Will we ever be able to machine it without the use of fossil fuels? That sir, is on our horizon: https://blog.solidconcepts.com/industry ... metal-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That sentence alone tells me you have never attempted to submit scientific research papers or even been a part of the process of peer review. Not unless you are in charge of defining what is "good science.

Well you've certainly assumed something about me only to be dead wrong. You should avoid this practice. As part of a Biomedical engineering firm here in Houston I was part of a blind peer review process on more than one occasion.

Edit to add: I suppose all the countless thousands of hours of research attempting to prove Einstein's (and many others) theories were correct don't count.

I admit I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. I'll allow you to expound on it.

I'm not sure what part you think I didn't read here. You off hand dismiss any energy company efforts as completely biased along with the loonie farm, and accept the peer review process as gospel.

I do my best do eliminate anything tied in with conflict of interest - from either side. And I accept NOTHING as gospel. Once again you assume incorrectly. Peer reviewed (published or not) gives me a path to better investigate the "interests" placed in a publication and it pre-screens the data for errors, fraud, inaccuracies, etc.

It is as if you really believe there is no money to be made in "green energy" and the practitioners of it are simply living hand to mouth begging alms at the city gate.

Did you honestly read my last post? I believe there is money to be made and IT NEEDS TO BE MADE HERE AND SPENT HERE!

By the way. You really need to journey to West Texas and see the many thousands of wind mills that have covered the countryside for hundreds of square miles. All to provide 20% of the energy required for a metro area of one quarter million people. That, in my opinion, would be a much better investment in your education than reading papers about green energy.

Once again your'e assuming I haven't done this? Wanna sit through a boring but pretty slideshow? You do know I'm into photography, right? And I read papers about EVERYTHING: Green energy, the latest hydraulicfrack methods. Did you know we live in the Laniakea Super-Cluster? http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... ter-found/ I have a pretty insatiable appetite for knowledge.

As for your most recent post, you've gone off on a tangent. I, and many others here I suspect, have heard that tired cliche of "bleeding Texas dry" of oil since the 1960's. Maybe we'd be better to just stick to how you can buy a "green" gun that has no petroleum products in it.

I don't think it was the least bit off-tangent. Maybe not spot-on with the OP but certainly following the current argument thread.
And get tired as you wish of the "bleeding Texas dry" cliche. I was part of it. The companies I did work for bled it and I aloofly helped them do it. And until we discovered and developed the new hydraulicfrack methods that are in play right now we were pretty successful at bleeding it pretty doggone dry. And I suspect we will succeed at it again. Seen this graph?

Maybe we'd be better to just stick to how you can buy a "green" gun that has no petroleum products in it.

Now if we're gonna talk about good ol' 1911 handguns with beautifully carved wooden handles then we sir, are on the same page

Try reading this on oil companies PERCENT of NET profit. You cite the politically left think tank, and strong supporters of green energy. I don't exactly consider them an "independent" source of information. My source is sheer numbers comparison in the table that shows the major oil companies make 6.2 cents net profit out of every dollar of revenue. That places them 114 out of 125 major industries.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/oil" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... t-215.html

I read it back when it came out in 2011 and the figure is 114 out of 215 not 125. And it supports EXACTLY what I'm telling you: They can't take another hit toward their already thin profit margin. Read the article. They can't tolerate another windfall profit tax, GREEN ENERGY TAX or ANYTHING that hits their already thinned profit margin. I'll say it none more time: They have the MOST to lose in the global warming card game and are willing to use a LARGE amount of their immense earnings to maintain their position. I read my quarterlies on ALL my investments - including the ones in my energy portfolio. I sincerely hope you do too. I know what their profit margins as well as their dividends are as well as their expenditures towards maintaining their interests. Of course you can try to cite that as coming from "politically left think tank" but I assure you it's just raw data - readily available to yo or anyone.

As for publishing, who makes the decision whether a study is published or not? I don't believe it's the author that is the deciding factor. Peer reviews may be open, blind, or anonymous. What type of peer reviews are in the 97% you cited? Who funded the studies that were reviewed?

Look, go back and cruise the publication again it it tells you how they weeded out who they believed had conflict of interests and still came up with 97%
We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods). Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups (due to their presence on both CE and UE lists) and remained in the dataset


More importantly (I believe) if you read in the abstract here http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,


they are telling you that some of this data comes from respected, published researchers (whose publishings may have NOTHING to do with climate change) who were surveyed on their position. This supports my argument against TAMS original claim where he believed most real Climatologists don't support global warming.

As for the 97% agreement, I'd wager that 97% of communists thought it was the best type of gov't, and that 97% of capitalists think theirs is best. It's just common sense that like minded people agree.

Look, if you want to make some kind of point lets use real numbers instead of pulling them out of God knows where: In the last US presidential election 47.15% of us voted for a Republican president and the other 51.01% voted for lint-brained a democratic sponge. So that tells you right there that half of this country doesn't agree with the other half. Now I don't know the brake down of Climatologists and their voting tendencies and I'm not going to pull figures out of the air but you can safely start at approximately 50/50 and skew it any direction you please.

We can beat this horse pretty good but how about we look at it from an entirely different angle.

Let's start with argument #1:

There is an abundance of data and research and statistics that tend to indicate that that a well-armed, licensed population of handgun toting Americans tend to be be most responsible, most law-abiding and most behaved population of individuals. Charles Cotton and his crew of helpers have done a great job of compiling statistics. Furthermore, studies tend to indicate that a licensed, well-armed and responsible population of gun-toting Americans tend experience less violent crime. I believe this to be true as well as most any good gun-toting supporter of the second amendment. The data and the statistics and research is there.

The grumbling anti-gun population of liberal America denies these claims. They cite the data as "shaky" and "biased" and "inconclusive" and refuse to believe a word of it regardless of it's origins. Progress in converting this section of the population is practically impossible. They cite and use every negative event toward furthering their negative agenda. There are interests with EXTREMELY deep pockets that continue to fund this obviously incorrect position in order to maintain their illusion of control.

Now lets look at argument #2:

There is an abundance if research, statistics and data that indicate that there is a continuing global warming trend. Furthermore, studies tend to indicate that the root cause of this global warming cycle we are experiencing are caused by industrialized societies emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. There is even research that indicates that there is a pretty solid consensus from the experts (Climatologists) in the field.

The grumbling, global-warming conspiracy-theorists denies these claims. They cite the data as "shaky" and "biased" and "inconclusive" and refuse to believe a word of it regardless of it's origins. Progress in converting this section of the population is practically impossible. They cite and use every thread they can grab hold of that supports their position no matter how thin, no matter where it dangled from. There are interests with EXTREMELY deep pockets that continue to fund this position in order to maintain their 100% "all-in" position at the table.


Do you see the parallels there? In both arguments, the opposing side won't be caught dead agreeing with the other. It does go toward what you are saying about like-minded people but there is an element there where people are afraid to be a dissenter within their group. I'll say it again: It PAINS me to be on this side of the argument! I'm usually the only the dissenter in my own circles. I'm certainly the dissenter here. One guy here even accused me of "having a bone to pick with our way of life". Go figure. But I'm not afraid. I don't care. I do care about the truth no matter how painful.

Right now Texas is winning bigtime with all the shale oil finds. All my interests in the energy are soaring. But if we don't get on board here 10 years will have come and gone and we will have bled this great state dry once again without a thing to show for it. Even if you want to believe that GW is a conspiracy you to still have to see that we are going do dry up these resources in a matter of time. We need some of these bonanzas to go toward the rebuilding of our infrastructure right now. If money is going to be spent on "green projects" for God's sake's let us spend here in our state since we are pulling the oil out from under it. I want those jobs and cash to stay HERE. In the end if we have bled this state dry and are the last ones to get started rebuilding our underlying energy production and delivery infrastructure we will truly look like a bunch of losers.

You miss my point. The key word is "published." Not all research is published. But, I agree that "Very little good science is ever done attempting to prove a pre-conceived outcome." You're right, it's not good science.

I hit your point on the money. I was talking about published, peer-reviewed research. I never indicated differently.

So you obviously believe that all those that are currently convinced in man made global warming are continuing their research with open minds and are open to being proven wrong.

Why you are attempting to put words in my mouth or assume to know what I believe so incorrectly has me puzzled. I'll say it once more: I read most of it all. I filter it as best as I possibly can for it's bias. I form my own opinions and that's simply it.

The oil industry is not on the ballot, and cannot vote into power those that will make them richer at the expense of us all.

Can you really say that with a straight face?

They are also not the scientists that are enhancing their resumes with their published papers.

And Scientists can get their resume' s enhanced regardless of their position as long as they publish.

As far as oil companies being "bloated," compare their profit margin with that of other businesses. They come in at less than 10% profit margin. When you are selling megabucks worth of product throughout the world, you profit is megabucks. They spend "cubic money" which nets cubic money., but the percentage of profit is still much lower than many other businesses.

I'm not sure what you are trying to convince me on here. That their combined lobbying and financial influential power is of no concern here? They have the biggest dog in the fight and the most to loose.

In 2011, the five biggest oil companies earned a combined profit of $375 million per day, or a record $137 billion profit for the year despite a reduction in their oil production.
The entire oil and gas industry spent on average $400,000 each day lobbying senators and representatives to weaken public health safeguards and keep big oil tax breaks.

As for 2012, you should read this. Honestly. Please read it - especially on how their spending on lobbying paid off.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... -the-gold/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but just in case you don't decide to click on it:
The oil and gas industry has been the largest beneficiary of the anti-environment votes in the House. Since the beginning of 2011, the House has voted 109 times for policies that enrich the oil and gas industry, including 45 votes to weaken environmental, public health, and safety requirements applicable to oil companies; [and] 38 votes to block or slow deployment of clean energy alternatives.

As for "peer reviewed" articles published, there are many types of peer reviews. But, to sum it up, I took note of this on the Wikipedia page you linked:

"Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, said:

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

That is the beauty of peer-reviews: even the WIki is easily reviewed by you and I so before you go quoting Richard Horton you may want to do a little research on that quack
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... r%20review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So I'll leave this discussion with this. 97% of like minded people will always agree, regardless of the subject, as long as they all subscribe to the same thinking and beliefs. As I said before, I don't know what the truth is on man made global warming, but I am convinced the "published" science is skewed to favor the conclusion that it is. Once again, MHO.

I won't even DARE asking you where you got that figure from.

ShootDontTalk wrote:esxmarkc...You seem to have it all figured out. I guess you have figured out how to make the Russians, Chinese, and let's shoot for the moon, the Mexicans, help save the planet by cutting out all non-green energy sources. I'd sure be interested to hear your plan for global compliance.

Just for the record, I bet you consume way more of the product from the "major energy companies" than you think. In fact, I bet you are even wearing some. You surely ate what they provided to your table tonight. I expect you are enjoying the cool inside your home tonight? You think maybe any guns you own came into existence without input from them? I really want to hear what "unsettled science" you think can currently replace them. While you're at, it would sure be nice if you could manage to calm any hurricanes that come up in the Gulf this year. You spoke of destroying the planet. No one has suggested otherwise. But I must have missed the part about really changing planetary evolution back to a previous state. How exactly would you do that? Because you see, if man is really totally in charge, then it follows that such positive planetary modification would be well within reach. If he is not, then that is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Now surely I intend none of this as personal toward you. But you do sound like you have a bone to pick with our current way of life. I think that before anyone advocates ending it they should have some kind of plan in hand.

One last thing. If you truly believe the peer review process guarantees uniformity of thought, research, and conclusion among the entire body scientific, then you have missed a major lesson in the influence of the body politic.

It honestly doesn't look like you read a single word of my posts

To be published, you must be doing research. To do research you need grants (money). To get that grant you need to be preaching to the choir. How many climate scientists who are on the other side of the fence do you actually believe are getting research grants that lead to published papers? I don't believe many do.

So you're throwing peer review out the window? Doesn't work like that. And you don't get grants based on who you preach to. Just not how it works. Been there, seen that. You get grants based on the research you are proposing, not the outcome you intend to prove. Very little good science is ever done attempting to prove a pre-conceived outcome. And not all research requires funding. Some great research is done as part of the PHd thesis process. Some research funding comes from private industry. Some funding from investment capital pre-engagement discovery and some from government grants.

I have no doubt that man contributes to climate change in some form, but it is the extent of the impact that to me is the issue.

I wholeheartedly agree.

"Settled science" is the buzzword. Less than a decade ago physicists and astronomers were convinced that the universe would expand to a point and than begin to contract in on itself. Now the data shows that the universe will continue to expand for eternity. I don't think science should ever be "settled." Do you?

You won't have scientists using that term. And no good astrophysiscyst was "absolutely convinced" or used the term "settled science" back before the theory of dark matter and it's effect on the continued expansion of the universe was developed. And they still don't use the term "settled science" when it comes to dark matter. So I can't claim to really understand your point. There aren't any good climatologists that are using the term "settled science" in any of their peer reviewed publications that I have found.

Is the "root cause" of the climate warming the result of man - maybe. Is the root cause other than man - maybe. Are those who are championing man as the evil culprit going to profit - you betcha. Are those who believe otherwise going to profit - no way. Follow the money.

Completely disagree. But let's "follow the money": The largest ever, irreversibly bloated, cash rich corporations have EVERYTHING to loose if it is proven that the cause is anthropogenic. And they are the LARGEST contributors to the rhetoric attempting to debunk global warming. Every last energy company has a lobbiest in the game and a scientist in the pocket.

So yea..... follow the money.... and once you have sorted through and thrown out the totally biased rhetoric generated by the energy industry as well as any other gibberish created by strictly liberal snare banging what you are left with is a pretty good body of peer-reviewed research that everyone (even you) has direct access to. Feel free to peruse it and make your educated decisions. This is all I urge any good tax-paying American to do.

TAM,

There are very few posts that your grace this forum with that I find disagreement to. In fact, there have been several cases where I have "re-educated" myself on a position based on one of your extremely intuitive and well thought-out posts. However, I can't say I agree with you completely on this one.

For starters:

Be that as it may, the notion that this collection of 6 billion minuscule fly-specks can engineer the planet into doing our will is beyond preposterous, and plunges deeply into hubris.

If you believe this is true, then by your logic is it hubris to believe that a few micro-grams of Influenza virus could send a 225+ lb. living organism to the grave or that a Batrachotoxin dipped dart could bring down a bull elephant or that a mass 1/1300th the size of the earth could virtually wipe out all the higher forms of life in a single event? If I were a betting man I'd bet that if mankind was to announce that the time has come to commit planetary suicide I'm sure we could develop a simple compound that inhibits photosynthesis and build a couple large facilities on each continent to start dumping it into the ecosystem. Without the bottom of the food chain we are all done. I'm sure we could easily kickstart the process by detonating all the nuclear warheads in our arsenals. Attempting to mount an argument based on the difference size ratios is a losing proposition. The idea that the ratio of the David to the Goliath is irrelevant given the proper leverage is at the very heart of the wonderful legislation that eventually led to the creation of this forum.

Think of it this way: A farmer is but a "minuscule fly-speck" compared to the size of his 2,000 acre farm but he does a pretty impressive job "engineering it to do his will" nevertheless. But I notice you chose your words wisely as "engineer the planet into doing our will" and that indeed is not the argument here - the argument is that we are inadvertently destroying it.

And that's another thing......this notion that 98% of scientists agree that it is man-made is eyewash. Maybe 98% of (outspoken leftist) scientists (who are not climatologists) agree that it is man-made. But among climatologists.......those people whose special area of competence is climate change........the issue is still very much in doubt, with maybe as much as half of them not drinking the man-made coolaid, some still on the fence, and some believing it.

I believe you are in extreme error on this statement. You will find that 97-98% of the top Climatologists agree that the global climate change is anthropogenic in origin. I get my data here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901439/

The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC (2). Furthermore, this finding complements direct polling of the climate researcher community, which yields qualitative and self-reported researcher expertise (2).

What you will find is that 97% of all peer-reviewed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) articles on the causes of climate change written by Climatologists agree that the root cause can be traced to the burning of fossil fuels releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Argue that if you wish and if you come up with a great argument I suggest you contact the National Academy of Sciences and have them amend the article and explain how you believe it is not 97%.

And since you believe that:

If THEY are not unanimous, then it really doesn't matter what a collection of sociologists, behaviorists, anthropologists, physicists, and mathematicians believe. Climatology is NOT their area of competence.

and if you take a look a the "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming)
you will find that most of these outspoken names against global warming have Astrophysicist, Geography, Earth Sciences, Physics ,Astronomy, Geology, Biochemist .... heck I can't hardly find a Climatologist in the list so if it's the expert word of a Climatologist is what you are looking for rest assured your argument is upside-down.

This would be analogous to allowing a PhD in fluid dynamics perform your heart surgery, just because he has a micro understanding of how blood behaves inside of blood vessels. No matter how much his hubris drives him to try and convince others that his knowledge is enough to safely perform the surgery, I'm not letting him near MY heart with a knife in his hand, because despite all of his knowledge, he does not know what he's doing.

I wouldn't worry. You're not going to find a PhD in fluid dynamics who is going to even want to perform your heart surgery - that's just not the way good science and medicine work. You may find it interesting that back when I worked on the centrifugal pump heart bypass system the doctors in the program relied on the computational fluid dynamics experts to create the turbulence models to allow them to predict and remove coagulation points in the impeller design. Just as they relied on my team to develop the fly-by-wire control system to maintain the proper flow rate using a dual processor redundant design. That's just how good science get's done - it's often a collaboration of disciplines that contribute to the proper end result. No different that when a climatologist relies on a chemist to explain the diffusion of carbon in the ice core samples or a physicist to explain the proper isotopes of carbon to measure or the issues of the accuracy/inaccuracy of the Ion Chronograph vs. Mass Spec vs. Isotope ratio mass spec etc., etc..

Those who will not submit to the climate change dogma are called "deniers". We deny nothing. EVERYBODY knows the climate is changing...

That one is a new one on me too. I know people that will not even admit the climate is changing. There are several scientists on the previous link that don't even agree that it is changing. So you really can't make that claim but I appreciate the point you are trying to make.

The alarmists decry the shrinkage of glaciers in one area as evidence of global warming. Yes.....well.....that's true.......but they are growing in other areas.

That's not the problem. The problem is that we are loosing ice sheets that are 110,000 years old. And the loss FAR outweighs the gains.

As crazy as it sounds, I'm neither a solid "believer" or a "denier". I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid... yours or anybody else's. I do loads of my own research and reading and as a very dedicated student to the sciences I form my own opinions.

I believe that the climate is changing. (on this we agree)
I believe that most Climatologists agree that it is attributable to the rise of industrialized human civilization. (You don't seem to agree on this.)
I believe that our stewardship of this ecosystem is abysmal especially once we discovered the utility of fossil fuels.

But there are a couple more points we do agree on:
The mullet-head girl in the OP is a "Lint-brained idiot". On this we agree. (And I'd hate for you to believe for one moment that I think ANYTHING like that air-brained megaliberal knucklehead.)
Mullet-heads like the girl in the OP jump to alarmist conclusions and demand everyone "have the quality of their lives crumpled inward to satisfy the vanities of the hubristic" (if I may use your excellent quote)

My plea to you or anyone is this:
Just because the "mullet-head, Lint-brained idiot" liberals are using this agenda to legislate more unwanted crap on our already overtaxed worn-out working arses please don't think it's not happening or is a total fabrication. I PAINS me to even be on this side of the argument. But as a student of logic and good science I must observe that the current body of evidence leans the jury in favor of industrialized civilization as a contributor to the cause.

Don't worry, I'm not running out to buy a Prius tomorrow. I want my oil... I neeeeeed my oil. I don't care if you have to drill through a mile thick layer of baby seals to get to it. Right now it's the only option for survival I have. And when I say "my" oil I'm talking about the diesel that goes in the combine to harvest my corn and the diesel it takes to truck it to the local grocery where I can pick it up. I'm talking about the oil I need burned at the local electric plant that provides electricity to cool my house in this 100 degree weather. I need oil burned elsewhere that forges the steel to build the roads and the buildings and the infrastructure that is makes up the civilized world I live in. And I'm going to need this to continue until the underlying fabric of this infrastructure is changed so I can tap into another form of non-carbon emitting renewable energy. And therein lies the real issue: it's not going to change in my lifetime, it may not change in my children's lifetime. But it will NEVER change if we continue to deny that it's happening just to spite a group of people whose agenda we cant stomach.