Shared publicly  - 
Daniel Cash Kristiansen's profile photoPete McGowan's profile photoRobert Hirsch's profile photoJohn Poteet's profile photo
+Trevor Huffsmith Please provide the addresses of the FEMA prison camps that you say Obama has opened. If they exist, I'll take a photo and put it online, so that this can be put to bed.
It's harsh but I believe there is some truth to this. I think Fox News is definitely out of line though.
"not far fetched" is far away from the existence claim you are making. I guess your definition of a FEMA camp would be a good start. Maybe you just mean a place covered in a blue tarp. 
It's not nearly harsh enough. They have absolutely no basis in fact when they dismiss climate change or attempt to defund basic medical care for the poor. Do they think the salad they eat in a restaurant is magically protected if the poor schlub preparing it can't see a doctor for his hepatitis? Is it possible for a conservative to address the greater rates of teen pregnancy and divorce in the conservative South without blaming it on non-whites? (no)

My favorite conservative idiocy..... Bush's eight years in office are exempted from the taint of the worst economic crash since 1929. Obama is blamed for not fixing it in three years despite republican obstructionism. Apparently Bush was a passenger on a burning train that instantly turned into a sinking cruise ship with Obama at the helm on Jan. 21st 2009.

How does that work?
+Jim Clark Here's the response to your climate change talking point: Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

Also, I'd note that your comment is #1 on a list of over 100 false climate claims currently being made. If you want to see the response to the other 99, see here:
Oh Cripes +Jim Clark who are you refering too? What name are you talking about. Al Gore? Micheal Mann? Neither of them promoted global cooling. Global cooling (the kind that tried to make the case we should be worried about) was promoted by a single book in the 70s (the great cooling) which almost no scientist paid attention too. But the media jumped all over it, just like they did for the possibility of a black hole being created at CERN.

Are you going to be writing someday "hey well back in the 2000's all the scientists thought that CERN was going to end the earth with the creation of a black hole!"

But +Pete McGowan beat me to the rest of my comment
Nonsense. Pick your three top things that makes you think thousands of scientists have it wrong or are part of the greatest and most well kept conspiracy since the dawn of man. I'll quickly show you how, when you look at the actual claim and data available the conclusion points to globals warming or how the contention is based on a logical fallacy. Pick any three.
Absolute certainty!?! There is no absolute certainty that you aren't a brain living in a jar of nutrients and imagining your reality. There is no absolute certainty in any science and never has been. No wonder you are dissatisfied with the science, your expectations are completely wrong for science. Want absolute certainty (no matter how misguided)? try religion.
+Jim Clark Your argument betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. Or expressing that in weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation will result the same for the region over a period of time.
Well, speak of the devil and who should appear. In a sad way we should be thankful to +Jim Clark for showing up and illustrating the attitude referenced in the OP's article.

Jim doesn't bother to refer to a peer-reviewed article that agrees with him, which is what any scientist would do, because there aren't any. He references a bunch of blather prompted by Fox news and execrable anti-science blogs like WUWT.

He's telling us that the sky-blocking pollution that was a concern in 1970 isn't evident when that is exactly what is happening in China where they don't enforce pollution controls. He even uses an almost perfect "Gish Gallop" throwing out garbage talking points one after the other without referencing them.

Finally +Jim Clark uses an obvious sockpuppet account with no public posts, no pictures with a real face, three whole people circled and zero credibility. Hey Anon, if you want invisibility try #chan. #reported
+John Poteet heh, I didn't notice the sock puppet account. Had three more follow up posts. You saved me a bunch of time. My thanks.
It's sad that you have to do this but before you type and edit a comment for ten minutes it's always a good idea to click through and make sure you're talking to a real person.
Ok. Read. This. Slowly.

Most of us circle other people because we are interested in what others have to say. When I've circled somebody like Pete McGowan here it's because I've read something he wrote and decided that reading more will teach me something important.

As to the 600-odd people who have me in circles; I'm assuming they have some reason or other. I don't post lolcats.
It's not that you disagree. We love differing opinions and debate. It's that your so called arguments are really old, tiredly debunked ideas that have been trotted out for literally decades. You have not spent a single minute checking your own facts and then you declare everyone else wrong and you are an independent thinker, as of you are Galileo. It's preposterous. Galileo was actually right and had evidence to support his facts.

So, as I said, lay it out there Mr. Independent thinker. Give us your three so called best arguments against against agw. But how about you save us all a lot of time and check you breathtakingly novel ideas at, because that's all we are going to do to show you that your amazing ideas have already been covered.

Oh and before you start in with how that website is the product of a liberal plot to take over the world and force everyone I to communism, how about you respond to the actual arguments and data posted there. 
There's also the matter of reputation. Low-post accounts or accounts with "light-weight" post histories are notoriously used as vehicles for disruptive comments on boards clearly committed to serious conversation. This observation goes back to Usenet and IRC chat boards. Your backlist matters.

If a person isn't committed enough to have an account history, public posts or previous scientific interest perhaps it might be a waste of time to detail a response. The "sockpuppet" label doesn't exclusively apply to fake or deceptive accounts but can also refer to low-reputation accounts.
Add a comment...