Why do Global Warming kooks say there's no need for debate?

Question

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/lieberman-warner-debate-senator-rohrabacher-do-you-really-think-the-world-is-filled-with-morons/

Because they want close the case on discussion...well now, is that just too "fair"...NOT.

Answer 1

Because they do not like to argue for hours and hours with no winner seen for days

.. . ..

So what one believes the other will show differently

.. . ..

So the winner ................. is

.. .. ..

No one ---  till the bell rings next century when the history books will tell who the winner is ....

.. .. ..

Answer 2

because these Greeny`s can not agree on anything except spend your money for the cause

Answer 3

Because the ones that say that are ALL politicians!

Answer 4

I guess they don't understand the true nature of scientific inquiry. Of course, it's also a political agenda- it doesn't even have the status of science right now.

vx: AGW is funded by big business more so. Have you every heard of Enron? Also, it doesn't profit to be a skeptic when you are constantly subjected to mockery and the prevalent view is that of AGW. Also, the oil companies seem to like this AGW quite well, seeing as it gives them an excuse to raise the gas prices, thus making more money.

Answer 5

If we wait for 50 years, it's likely to be obvious that global warming isn't happening.  

It's fairly obvious now that CO2 is not able to cause significant warming.

Answer 6

Just about everyone is a Global warming "kook" now, including your president. Have you ever read books about our atmosphere? I have read some old ones that were written before it was a political issue, and it explains the science and better yet, the math. Numbers are spectacular, because they are facts that cannot be changed. Some might not be counted, but numbers never leave a dangling chad, they are turned into decimals. All those decimals add up, just as i suspect your worried about your own decimals, which is why your posting this question. Testement to your bias lies in your screen name. Now that Hillary's out, are you gonna change it to Obama?

Lastly, why on Earth would you be troubled if people try to clean up? How is it hurting your life? If you say your pocket book, then you would sale your own kids.

Answer 7

Perhaps it is because the anti global warming case is well funded by the big oil companies, etc.  Let us face it, we live an inherently unsustainable life style anyway, even if global warming was a myth.  

Fossil fuels sure wont last forever (some sources say oil will run out in a matter of decades), so I believe we should plan ahead and start trying to change our way of life now.

Answer 8

Rohrabacher is a representative for the district I live in.  He's running for reelection, and for the first time in a long while, or ever, is facing a tough opponent in Debbie Cook.

I had written Rohrabacher many months ago regarding global climate change, and he gave no room for discussion or debate.  It doesn't exist.  Period.  End of story.

I don't appreciate that kind of dismissive attitude from someone who is elected to represent me.  I'm going to be putting up Cook's election signs in my yard and initiating a dialogue with neighbors wanting to know why I support her.  So in my neighborhood anyway, we'll be debating.  The stakes are too high to do anything else, and it is truly unfortunate that Rohrabacher fails to realize this.

Answer 9

Because if there were real debates it may show that Global Warming is more natural versus man-made and then they could not profit from it as much.

Answer 10

Its a good question, with a simple answer.  "Time" will expose the whole thing as a fraud.  We understand only an iota of what drives the climate.  in the minds of AGW proponents, we have already put a face to eivl, and it is us.  so now, we have to act quickly to convict us, before real evidence emerges.  

we can liken it to a trial, in which the star witness is late.  the prosecutor wants to hurry the case along, and hopes the star witness for the defendant never shows up, so they can hurry and get the conviction, DESPITE evidence that may prove the defendant's innocence.  the AGW proponents never want that evidence heard in court, because it may invalidate all that they believe in.  

it's sad, really.  Look at how the AGW argument has already shifted.  First it was "Look at temperatures this year"...then the debate shifted to "Okay, well, in any given year we can have fluctuations, but look at TEN years"...now we are at "Well, it may not warm in the next 10 years, but after that, LOOK OUT!  END OF DEBATE!!"...its alarmist and irresponsible, and I wish people would wake up in this country and see the forest for the trees.

Answer 11

because in their opinion there is no TIME for a debate....

when you are standing on a train track and see an oncoming train.. would you debate with the person beside you if the train was on THAT track or the one beside.. .. or would you simply get off the track?!?!

in most MMGW peoples minds THAT is the exact situation.. global warming is a huge load aimed down a hill that gets steeper... the longer we wait to take immediate and drastic action.. the more momentum it builds.. and the less likely we are to be able to stop it.

I don't agree with them.. but i do understand them...

Answer 12

Isn't it convenient that all of the solutions to "global warming" fits the green agenda regardless.  

The first rule in propaganda is to say a lie, repeat it often enough, that people will take that lie to be truth.  That is why they keep saying the debate is over.  We are all stupid not to realize that the greenie agenda is best for us, so they have to scare us with doom and gloom to support them.

Answer 13

We only have this one tiny,little wet rock,spinning through space! Let's not s***w it up!

Answer 14

Need for action only.

Answer 15

They've never won a debate on human causation of global warming so they huddled up and decided to just declare victory.

Answer 16

The same reason there's no need to debate if Galileo was right.

Calls for debate now are nothing more than a PR trick by non-scientists who are ignorant of the 100 years history of climate science debate that's already occurred.

When you're on a railroad track and you hear a train coming, it's time to quit debating whether or not it's on the same track you are and move to a safer area.

Answer 17

Who says that there is no need for debate???

What the "kooks" are saying is that scientific debate belongs in peer-reviewed journals. This forum weeds out unsubstantiated science, and ignorant opinions.

Please answer this --- Why do the deniers what to debate outside the confines of peer-reviewed research?

Answer 18

Well, some interesting responses, but no body bothered to point out that most if not all the funding for the kooks is coming from big oil and most of that from Exxon/Mobil and Chevron/Texaco just as most of the funding for Obama is. So if big oil is backing the fraud is there any question why oil prices are rising right along with attacks on those who ask for real documented evidence and calling for a new inquisition against those who will not accept their arguments on faith alone. Whenever any so called scientist says there is no point in arguing I think of what they did to real scientists’ back in the dark ages.

Are we entering a new Dark Age where if you will not accept the doctrine of consent you can have your head chopped off in a Guillotine or be burned at the stake as a heretic? We have been here before only a mere few hundred years ago, do we really want to return to the catholic and Protestant inquisitions of the 15th and 16th centuries, do we really? I can just see Al Gore and Obama leading a crusade against the unbelievers in the new religion of politically correct greenness with a guillotine in the background to silence the dissenters!

Answer 19

Because the more you question it, the more you'll realize it doesn't fit neatly together like they would have you believe.  It's easier for them to say there is no debate and attempt to discredit you by calling you a stooge for the oil companies or ignorant rather than really taking issue with what you say.  I think most are too committed to the cause now to go back on what they've started for fear of looking foolish.

EDIT:  Wow, that's funny.  I didn't even read all the responses and above VX says the anti-global warming camp is well funded by big oil companies.  Case in point right there.

Answer 20

Were Mao or Stalin interested in debate?  They were only interested in acquisition of power.

Answer 21

People have been thinking, talking, debating about this since the 19th century.  We could debate until global temperatures go up 10 degrees, but what would that get us? We would no longer have an opportunity to fix things. What we should be debating are the exact consequences of global warming and the ways to avoid them.  I haven't seen a post in here by the denialists that is even something worth debating--most of them have little knowledge of science, so they keep latching onto pseudoscientific nonsense.

EDIT:  Wow, I suggest you all read the link given in the question. It links to a speech by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher where he rhetorically asks the question "Do you really think the world is filled with morons?"  Well judging by his response, apparently so.  Here is a quote from it:

"He has been adamant in his opposition, as has...Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center of Atmospheric Research."

If Rohrabacher really believes this, he must be a moron.  Here's a quote from Trenberth

"Bill Gray suggests that we are not in a climate crisis. He should speak for himself. Maybe there is not a crisis in the sense that the world’s weather is falling apart now. But there is a major crisis in the failure to act to prevent potentially catastrophic changes in the future, in the times of our grandchildren, and their children. Changes in the climate are already evident.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has spoken: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and it is “very likely” due to human activities. Those were the key conclusions approved by 113 nations in Working Group I, which studies the science of climate change and the role of humans in affecting climate. The full report that

is the basis for the summary was drafted by 154 lead authors and more than 450 contributing authors and runs to over 1,000 pages. Two other IPCC working groups deal with impacts of climate change, vulnerability, and options for adaptation to such changes, and options for mitigating and slowing the climate change, including possible policy options. In recognition of the stalwart work over 20 years, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore."

You can find more at the link http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/Xc...

Answer 22

I'm just thankful the Green Police aren't an armed militia. Most of us would be dead or in prison.