Er, isn't it actually FACT that consvervatives don't KNOW that man-made global warming is a lie?

Question

you may doubt the evidence...

you may think the theory hasn't been properly proven...

but, you technically have no evidence that it's a lie... you may even have other theories to explain it... but you don't have the evidence to prove that our current warming is directly linked to your theories...

at best, it's an unproven theory that you disagree with, maybe even with some questionable scientific support...

but in no way does that prove it's a lie... only that there is no evidence for it...

if you want to get technical, you could say that liberals who say "we have undeniable proof of global warming" (which some probably do?)... are lying... but that's about as close to the facts as you could get...

I just found it odd how many cons lined up to say it was a liberal lie?

Answer 1

There is proof that people have lied about it....not necessarily that IT is a lie.



But more importantly there is no proof that it exists.

Answer 2

What IS a lie is that man made global warming is a proven theory, which is pronounced by all of these liberals who have nothing to back up their claims. The liberal media, especially NBC, was pushing global warming as a PROVEN fact for a long time when it still isn't proven today. The reason for their strong push on global warming? Well, it could be their liberal bias in place, but more realistically it is the fact that they were owned, until recently, by GE who was trying to get billions of dollars from the Obama White House in green job funds to promote the economically unfeasible green energy field.



You state that conservatives have to prove YOUR theory to be wrong otherwise that proves your theory is correct, that is not how it works. It is YOUR theory and you must prove that it is true and repeatable, nobody, not even a conservative, is required to prove a negative.



whale

Answer 3

The fact that water vapor has just as much heat conductivity and ability to hold in heat as C02, and can be as, if not more abundant, and always has been, disproves the Global Warming theory.



I am really sorry that the recent news about how scientist only said "might" in their reports and how they came out and said that was done simply for the funding, plus how the scientific community does not believe in global warming, has given you cognitive dissonance.



However, you will feel better if you deal with your cognitive dissonance on a deeper level and have an open mind allowing new information in.

After all GW is a scientific theory if you will, and no scientist dealing with theory could shut out new information, and manage to actually be a scientist, or one working with theories, now could they?



So why allow yourself so much grief simply because of the media coverage a theory got, once you discover it is not supported by the scientific community?



You were told there was scientific evidence, there is no concrete scientific evidence in fact there is far more evidence that Solar Activity is what changes the earth temperatures.

New info in scientific data changes all the time, the higher level of thinking we have the better able we are able to deal with it.

Answer 4

Not at all.

The simple fact is, NOT ONE BIT of the evidence gathered points to man-made global warming... NONE OF IT.

Politicians wrote their summary report for policy BEFORE their own "scientists" finished theirs then declared the scientists' report must be edited to comply with the policy report rather than the other way around. CORE claims include:

> Temperatures very slightly above the lowest in modern record would be catastrophic.

> The CAUSE is roughly a century NEWER than the effect. (really - they ACTUALLY claim AGW was caused 100 years AFTER it started.)

> Uniform measurement is not required to form a conclusion.

> People making the most accurate predictions are cranks who don't know what they're talking about while people who are CONSISTENTLY WRONG are the experts.

> Earth's warming is for completely different reasons than the warming of EVERY solar-system object for which we have data.



And my favorite:

> We all need to order our lives around forecasts generated by a model PROVED to be less accurate than a random number generator.



Those who claim they believe in AGW rely on theories and dishonest acceptance of manifestly bad data by "scientists" who are paid to reach pre-determined conclusions.

CO2 is an extremely WEAK greenhouse gas. Its atmospheric concentration would have to be multiplied by orders of magnitude to yield a temperature difference our technology would be able to detect. Also, to the degree there is ANY correlation between CO2 levels and warming; that correlation is extremely weak and the CO2 increase always FOLLOWS the warming.

Not to mention that literally 100% of the policy recommendations based on it are GUARANTEED to make the claimed cause WORSE. In short there is not even ONE prominent figure in the AGW "movement" who is acting like he believes it.

Answer 5

I disagree with it...but would I consider it a lie? Not necessarily. More like, an overreaction, or an exaggeration that certain individuals know they can use to push their agenda and/or make profits. I understand your logic, it is not a lie, it is almost like religion...you can believe or not believe, but neither side is really what you could call liars.



I am not a believer in man-made global warming...to the DEGREE that some people on the left argue it...man may have a small impact on it, but I believe in alternate theories like solar cycles, and other earth-sun related theories. I wouldn't accuse either side of lying, but like I said, I would accuse certain individuals of over exaggerating to use a belief and a theory to their own advantage...no better than a televangelist that convinces people to donate to his church or God will strike you down...same concept, different sides of the political ideological table.

Answer 6

particular it has boost right into a faith and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.think of of ways lots money particular communities will make off of the hype.think of of all that government money going to "analyze".besides there is in undemanding terms lots you're able to do ,regardless of each little thing whoever controls the climate controls the international.worry is the acceptable political motivator. climate exchange is an ingredient to the character of the planet.good judgment is to have sparkling capability yet until eventually there's a greenback in all of it that happens is communicate,communicate and greater communicate.government regulations,fines and effects(gotta get that bailout money someplace) We unquestionably want sparkling air and water .i'm the unique recycler and that i don't waste capability basically like many people.i exploit capability and don't decide for the "guilt" holiday of doing so. I genuinely have a venture with Gore the guru who flies around a gas guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for an even bigger one to fly decrease backward and forward to California.remember her saying she needs to save the planet,yeah she flies we walk.we are able to all initiate via employing the recent capability saving mild bulbs. Oh I forgot they are those with mercury in them.Oh,nicely sounds like a stable theory on the time. i think you all heard that some genius baby-kisser wanted to tax cow farmers for any that very own better than a hundred for emitting "methane gas" yeah this is authentic.can we bottle it instead?Or on 2nd concept deliver some from the bull to that baby-kisser as he's conscious the B.S. while he sees or smells it.

Answer 7

Conservatism really isn't about analyzing evidence. And it certainly isn't about epistemological analysis of what is knowable and not knowable, unless maybe you're Don Rumsfeld.



Conservatism is a top down approach. If you're a loyal conservative, knowledge comes basically from what you've been told by the leaders of your movement. So conservatives 'know' that global warming is a hoax, in the same way they 'know' that reducing taxes doesn't cause budget deficits, that Acorn engages in massive electoral fraud, that Obama is a socialist, that the media is liberal, etc. This is constantly reinforced by conservative propaganda - they endlessly repeat that other information sources are just liberal propaganda and can't be trusted, but they are giving you the real truth.



A poll several years ago of regular listeners to right wing talk radio found that their strongest trait, even stronger than their conservatism, was their overestimate of how much they actually knew about public affairs. They rated themselves very high in this, but when asked questions about their knowledge, rather than their opinions, their scores were quite low.

Answer 8

You are precisely correct in your semantic argument. The problem is that conservatives are not asking to cripple the economy with a bizarre cap and trade mechanism to vastly increase the cost of energy. The "lie" that liberals are spreading is that AGW REQUIRES intervention by the government. The only ones using the concept of global warming as a reason to have the government intervene are liberals.

Answer 9

Global warming in itself is not a hoax. The hoax is the people coming forward claiming that 1) Man causes it, and 2) Man can control it.



The idea that we can do anything about global warming through, lets say cap and trade, is the height of ignorance, naivete, and idiocy.

Answer 10

True enough



in the same way liberals don't KNOW that man-made global warming is true.





it is an unproven theory.



Responsible legislators don't write muti-billion dollar laws based on un-proven science.

Answer 11

So you are smarter than Professor Phil Jones head of the Climate Research Unit at Hadley?! Because he says that there has been no global warming since 1995, that there have been other warming periods and none of them were man caused. He also admitted that the data used to create the famous hockey stick graph is missing!



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html



What climate research unit do you run? Where exactly do you get your "facts"?



Edit... Are you really admitting that Jones lied when he was for global warming?! LOL you just disproved your own point!

Answer 12

I will accept that but take it a step further...



The earth has warmed by less than1 degree in the last century.

Do you believe that the cost to trying to keep it from warming less than another 1 degree in the next century outweighs any benefits we might get - especially considering there is no proof that it is manmade?? I do!



ADD: btw....it is impossible toprove a negative which is why the burdem of proof is on you

Answer 13

The vast majority of them truly don't care. They have never looked at the facts. Limbaugh says it is a lie. That is all they care about. They have become sheeple that refuse to think on their own. The right wing radio regime is dumbing down America at an alarming rate.

Answer 14

Just like those who believe in MMGW rely on theories and subjective interpretations of data by scientists who stand to benefit from supporting such a notion.



I will support MMGW once there is clear and convincing evidence to support it. For now, it's just a theory...and hardly one worth taxing us with crap and trade legislation.

Answer 15

is there an experiment to prove global warming? NOPE! is it a theory? YES! What is a theory? guess or conjecture.

Answer 16

There is a space ship hovering over the earth, and you cannot prove that I am lying.

Answer 17

What? Global Warming is a lie? I am shocked.

Answer 18

Its the liberals pulling the Global Warming crap.....Al Gore followers!!!!!!! Get your FACTS straight!!!!!!!

Answer 19

Chin T is right. Water vapor is considered a greenhouse gas. I won't waste my time with this GW theory.

Answer 20

Cheesecake goes well with... erm... Cheese.

Answer 21

Conservatives think "You can't make me believe it" is the same as their claim being true.

Complete garbage 90% of the time, and that's Fox TV logic in a nutshell.

Answer 22

ok...then.....so let's call it a "theory"....



just like evolution.....





...now what?

Answer 23

Who is "Er"?