If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
1. If you'd read it, you'd have realized I didn't write it.
2. It's only a 'false' statement if you're a moron.
So you still behind the 'fact' that there's no debate among scientists? whaddaya doin', main lining Kool Aid now?
I think what you meant to say is that there's no debate among the scientists you agree with.
David Deming only holds a doctorate, but that probably doesn't make him a scientist in your dim view of the world. Anyway, according to him, we're headed for an ice age. But then again, he probably won't debate your experts if they use the tactics (vulgarity and shouting down) your 'side' seems so fond of.
Quote:
That's it, huh? That's the entire extent of your "argument"?
I'm not arguing. I'm simply stating a fact. You and the rest of the Global Warming Chicken Littles are victims of a scam.
__________________
I too, have nothing of value to add to this thread...
Posts: 2,960
Casino Cash: $48865
Sportbike: Concours 14 Fast (and comfy) when going straight!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDS
So you still behind the 'fact' that there's no debate among scientists? whaddaya doin', main lining Kool Aid now?
I think what you meant to say is that there's no debate among the scientists you agree with.
David Deming only holds a doctorate, but that probably doesn't make him a scientist in your dim view of the world. Anyway, according to him, we're headed for an ice age. But then again, he probably won't debate your experts if they use the tactics (vulgarity and shouting down) your 'side' seems so fond of.
I'm not arguing. I'm simply stating a fact. You and the rest of the Global Warming Chicken Littles are victims of a scam.
Of course all these links (along with the many scientists/climate experts) will be considered junk science by the SBN experts. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. I should go get my very own tinfoil hat and join the sheep herd.
So you still behind the 'fact' that there's no debate among scientists? whaddaya doin', main lining Kool Aid now?
I think what you meant to say is that there's no debate among the scientists you agree with.
Who's "mainlining koolaid' here? Look at what's in your arm, Sparky.
I present the National Academy of Sciences in the most advanced countries around the world with the entire global scientific community, all in agreement (which means 'no debate', Einstein) that global warming is real and man made.
And you give me David Deming?
I told you to check your sources before trying to pass 'em off as credible, didn't I? I even gave you a list to check, didn't I? And you didn't, didja? You didn't even read your own Wikipedia link, didja?
I'd tell you to join Koolaid Guzzlers Anonymous, but you're beyond help, aintcha?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDS
But then again, he probably won't debate your experts if they use the tactics (vulgarity and shouting down) your 'side' seems so fond of.
"vulgarity and shouting down"? Look again, pal. I posted more sources and links than your tiny brain can handle. Hell, you don't even read your own sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDS
I'm not arguing. I'm simply stating a fact. You and the rest of the Global Warming Chicken Littles are victims of a scam.
You don't know what a fact is.
__________________
My li'l puppy Scissors loves to follow me everywhere yapping at my heels. Cute, isn't he?
Last edited by The Central Scrutinizer : 11-05-2009 at 09:41 AM.
There are other opinions on the topic and they are educated. Biased, maybe but who isn't...certainly not anyone on this board.
Didn't you know? The sources must pass the SBNCEB (SBN Climate Experts Board) scrutiny for it to be credible and/or being worthy of being remotely considered.
Posts: 2,960
Casino Cash: $48865
Sportbike: Concours 14 Fast (and comfy) when going straight!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTsixxer
Didn't you know? The sources must pass the SBNCEB (SBN Climate Experts Board) scrutiny for it to be credible and/or being worthy of being remotely considered.
Of course all these links (along with the many scientists/climate experts) will be considered junk science by the SBN experts. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. I should go get my very own tinfoil hat and join the sheep herd.
"Junk science"? Hell, it's not even close. Those are just opinion pieces. Didn't I tell you about presenting this kind of crap as credible anything?
Dennis Avery - Hudson Insitute, a conservative think tank that runs a number of research centers including the Center for Global Food Issues, which promotes pesticides (on the list of ExxonMobil funded orgs). Avery is the primary critic of organic produce, also serves as the resident global warming skeptic.
Fred Singer _ President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), Cato Institute, National Center for Policy Analysis, Independent Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, Hoover Institution, Heritage Foundation.
ALL of those orgs are more conservative 'think tanks' funded by...guess who? http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...c_policy08.pdf
Wow... you wankers don't even search your own sources.
Quote:
CSU scientist quits Bush team in dispute over climate research
By Katy Human
Roger Pielke Sr., a Colorado State University scientist and critic of mainstream global warming research, has resigned from a Bush administration science advisory team, saying the group minimized evidence that factors other than greenhouse gas emissions can affect global warming.
“I think each member of the committee is an outstanding scientist, and each is sincere … but they’re missing the broader view we need to have of climate change,” Pielke said.
Pielke said he agrees with many of his colleagues that people are changing the climate in serious ways. He, however, has focused on changes such as the clearing of land for cities and agriculture, which can affect temperature, wind and humidity.
Alright, that's enough. Those are both links to the same subject matter in the Canada Free Press, so was the one above... proof that you just googled up all this trash and posted it without even readng it.
Why should I even take the time to debunk all your lame fluff opinion pieces anyway? I provided reams of actual scientific studies so you could see for yourself, but you're not remotely interested in any of it. And all you come back with is some frikkin' magazine articles from conservative think tanks and Big Oil whores.
Dave is right... this is just a big FWOT. You morons aren't interested in facts and credible sources. You just look for any old crap that looks like it might support your delusional denials and flat-earth mentality. You don't even read your own links. Ya'll wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up your butts and exploded.
__________________
My li'l puppy Scissors loves to follow me everywhere yapping at my heels. Cute, isn't he?
Last edited by The Central Scrutinizer : 11-05-2009 at 10:54 AM.
So big oil is behind everything. We're gonna diiiiiiie! I did read most of the links and skimmed through others. Even your power-point copy-paste you did earlier I tried to read most of it but there was just too much crap there (nice technique, post a whole lot of stuff so you overwhelm the other person with information).
Here's the thing. Man-made global warming is still a theory. Theory is not fact. A theory that has put the world in panic mode "omfg I must buy a hybrid or we're gonna diiiie!" And has made Al Gore a very rich man. Do you actually think that skeptics that have counter-theories should not be taken into account?
What is the point that hinges on whether or not man-made global warming is real? That's right, more taxes aimed at regular citizens for our "contribution" to the problem. The agenda is clear as day.
__________________
What you see, pleases.
Everyone deserves a ten.
But a more mundane bike may get ridden more. Or not.
Are you so far gone you can't see why Big Oil funds these groups? You're the ones getting 'scammed', by the same good folks that try to squash anything else that might cut into their oil profits. 'Follow the money' is absolutely right.
Ya'll dumb mutts have yer heads down the wrong rabbit hole when the rabbit is in plain sight tyin' knots in yer tails. It's you weeny-wankers gettin' played like suckers. Just keep buyin' those gas guzzlers 'cuz you think it pisses off the 'greenies'. Big Oil Fatcats love morons like you... every time you fill the tanks on yer giant 4-wheel prosthetic penises. You go, Sparky!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTsixxer
I tried to read most of it but there was just too much crap there (nice technique, post a whole lot of stuff so you overwhelm the other person with information).
It doesn't take much information to overwhelm you, does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTsixxer
Here's the thing. Man-made global warming is still a theory
Here's another 'thing', Einstein. Gravity is 'still' a theory... so go jump off a cliff and get back to me.
Are you a 'Theory' of Evolution denier, too? On top of all your other predictable shortcomings, do you believe in Adam and Eve gettin' hooked on Magic Sin Apples by a talking snake... and Noah's Amazing Ark that carried billions of species of straight married animal couples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTsixxer
And has made Al Gore a very rich man
So what? Gore doesn't have a right to make a living? Isn't this your beloved capitalism in action? Or are you only forgiving towards slimy health insurance CEOs who fill their pockets on the suffering and deaths of their unfortunate customers by cutting them off when they need it the most?
Quit swallowing the slop and wake up. Your grandchildren will thank you for it.
.
__________________
My li'l puppy Scissors loves to follow me everywhere yapping at my heels. Cute, isn't he?
1). Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring element in our atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is no more a pollutant that say, oxygen or nitrogen.
Logical fallacy. You're saying that if X is natural and Y is natural, then X must be as much a pollutant as Y. This is incorrect and is the result of making a huge leap. Using this flawed logic, one could also say that it's as much a pollutant as Radon.
As a side note, carbon dioxide is not an element.
Quote:
Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. Carbon cycle - Encyclopedia of Earth .
Irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody has claimed that CO2 must be eliminated from the atmosphere.
Quote:
Carbon Dioxide is the food which keeps plants alive.
Incorrect and a display of blatant ignorance regarding biology. CO2 is a gas which plants utilize, but it is not a food. Plants obtain their food through their roots.
In other news, oxygen isn't a food for humans.
Quote:
Through photosynthesis plants transform CO2 into plant food.
So, following your post, it converts food into food. Brilliant!
Quote:
Oxygen is produced as a waste product. All living things are dependent on this ”Cycle”. The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles
Yes. Again, this is no way refutes GCC.
Quote:
Carbon Dioxide is called a “green house gas” because it allows visable light to pass through while it absorbs infrared and near infrared rays. Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Correct. So? That's why all greenhouse gases are called greenhouse gases.
Quote:
The human body produces CO2 naturally. The Human Respiration System is the system that controls the exchange of oxygen for CO2 in the Human Body. Everytime you breath out you are exhaling CO2.
Correct again. But again, so?
Quote:
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
Anything in excessive concentrations or quantities is a pollutant. Ever hear of oxygen toxicity?
Quote:
Carbon Dioxide is a natural atmospheric element. All life on earth is dependent on CO2. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.
Yet again, all very fascinating and all completely irrelevant to the subject.
Quote:
Compared to past history, the Earth’s atmosphere is currently CO2 “impoverished”.On average, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been since life formed on earth.
So? The issue being addressed regarding climate change is not whether or not life can survive higher CO2 levels, because it can. The issues are the potential negative effects on humanity from GCC.
You people are wasting your time. The 'deniers' do not deal in facts, or statistics. They deal exclusively in 'faith' which, as we all realize, is immune to reason.
This discussion is a FWOT.
The ONLY person on this board that has EVER acknowledged being shown to be wrong in a "scientific" argument here was Blurry.
You can cite real science to these dumbasses 'till the cows come home, and your efforts will be utterly wasted.
db
__________________
Republikans: The Party of "Hey You Kids, Get Off My Lawn!" - MM
..."I think we'd all like to believe that when people come across disconfirming evidence, what they tend to do is to update their opinions," said Andrew Perrin, an associate professor at UNC and another author of the study.
That some people might not do that even in the face of accurate information, the authors suggest in their article, presents "a serious challenge to democratic theory and practice."
"The implications for how democracy works are quite profound, there's no question in my mind about that," Perrin said. "What it means is that we have to think about the emotional states in which citizens find themselves that then lead them to reason and deliberate in particular ways."...
db
__________________
Republikans: The Party of "Hey You Kids, Get Off My Lawn!" - MM
Linear Mode
