I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here
-
If I was to be at all argumentative I would point that different scientist probably have different estimates as to when the final straw will break the camel's back.
You seem to assume we have much longer than many other estimates.
WSS
If I was to be at all argumentative I would point that different scientist probably have different estimates as to when the final straw will break the camel's back.
You seem to assume we have much longer than many other estimates.
WSS
I'm not an expert, and defer to those with more knowledge on the subject. I'm just trying to explain how the concept works. Picture me giving that explanation 100 years ago - the logic is still the same.
There was a problem with the amount of lead being put in to the air from leaded petrol (gas?) a while back. The lead was taken out of petrol, eventually, after much lobbying from the big oil and lead companies saying it was safe, and levels were natural and the same as the last thousand years, contrary to the science, and the lead levels went down.
-
If I was to be at all argumentative I would point that different scientist probably have different estimates as to when the final straw will break the camel's back.
You seem to assume we have much longer than many other estimates.
WSS
I'm not an expert, and defer to those with more knowledge on the subject. I'm just trying to explain how the concept works. Picture me giving that explanation 100 years ago - the logic is still the same.
There was a problem with the amount of lead being put in to the air from leaded petrol (gas?) a while back. The lead was taken out of petrol, eventually, after much lobbying from the big oil and lead companies saying it was safe, and levels were natural and the same as the last thousand years, contrary to the science, and the lead levels went down.
I'm not an expert, and defer to those with more knowledge on the subject. I'm just trying to explain how the concept works. Picture me giving that explanation 100 years ago - the logic is still the same.
There was a problem with the amount of lead being put in to the air from leaded petrol (gas?) a while back. The lead was taken out of petrol, eventually, after much lobbying from the big oil and lead companies saying it was safe, and levels were natural and the same as the last thousand years, contrary to the science, and the lead levels went down.
I can't honestly remember the level of hysterics about lead in gasoline.
I also have no idea if there are many other sources of lead in the atmosphere and what percentage was removed by eliminating it in gasoline.
WSS
-
One more thing - this planet is growing a greater human population all the time.
and mankind is destroying green space and paving and cement and building over top of it.
There. That's a major thing that partisan sniping over CO2 and lawn mowing and not enough
money and taxes....etc etc etc etc doesn't admit.
Less plant life and forests on this planet is less CO2 being used up. It's tilting the balance more
and more over time.
These scientists will NOT admit or talk about it.
Why?
No freakin money it for liberal causes. No grants to be had for it. No political advantage for votes and $$$$$$$$$$ for it.
Less plant life and forests on this planet is less CO2 being used up. It's tilting the balance more
and more over time.
These scientists will NOT admit or talk about it.
Scientists are talking about. A search of the scientific literature using Google Scholar suggests they've talked about it 20,000 times.
-
one ingredient I do remember is hexa chlorophene.
another is sodium and or calcium cyclamate.
one more might be red dye number 5.
all of which are easily lived without and who knows how much overall improvement the world has seen from the elimination.
WSS
-
-
CO2 is not lead. It is not a poison.
-
"boo hoo, Steve, Cal posts from the Blaze, whine, complain....."
Okay. This article is not from the Blaze.
Read the frickin thing, and realize that I am far more correct
on the issue than you are, Mr. "the debate is over, 97%....bs" Man.
Don't make me post the contents instead of just the link, after you complained
about that.
http://www.thegwpf.org/consensus-controversy-debate-man-made-global-warming/
-
Second order derivative? Awesome. I'm down to talk math. Math is my shit, lol.
You're an engineer. In order of 'dirtiness' of field, you're up there with biologists.
You're an engineer. In order of 'dirtiness' of field, you're up there with biologists.
Lol, I've seen that before.
But don't you EVER compare me to a biologist...
I'm not a math major, but I've been around the block. One of my courses freshman year was Honors Theoretical Differential Equations. Soundsvool at least, right?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
You complain about us not reading your posts. Truth is I do. I looks like you don't read my responses though. In that last "mmgw" thread where you went on a rant on a rant of posts, I addressed a good number of them and debunked them. Some of which you are posting again here.
You do a very good job of following that "science denial checklist" I posted. Damn near exactly. If you want to go one by one, that would be better. But you just pulling 20 claims out of your ass each post and then not backing any up does no good.
-
I was talking to Chris, not you, you woodypeckerhead moron.
And, of course, posting stuff that contradicts your'alls mmgw baloney
is nonsense.
And, like I have said in the past, you just ignored the content of the post.
Look, I'm just a regular guy, but you make me look like a behaviorial scientist.
You can't help it, I have your number. You walk, talk, pout and post just like what you are.
A sissy little woodypeckerhead. Now grow up, and let the rest of us have
a political board.
-
Hahaha. Did you just ignore the responses in the last thread then?
-
You're an engineer. In order of 'dirtiness' of field, you're up there with biologists.
Lol, I've seen that before.
But don't you EVER compare me to a biologist...
I'm not a math major, but I've been around the block. One of my courses freshman year was Honors Theoretical Differential Equations. Soundsvool at least, right?
Lol, I've seen that before.
But don't you EVER compare me to a biologist...
I'm not a math major, but I've been around the block. One of my courses freshman year was Honors Theoretical Differential Equations. Soundsvool at least, right?
WTF... you got something against biologists?
-
Lol, I've seen that before.
But don't you EVER compare me to a biologist...
I'm not a math major, but I've been around the block. One of my courses freshman year was Honors Theoretical Differential Equations. Soundsvool at least, right?
WTF... you got something against biologists?
WTF... you got something against biologists?
... Ummm... No. They're great. Just uh, not for me.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Wow, another idiot that uses the reasoning "It is cold where I an right now" as evidence against climate change
-
No, a comedian. Obviously, you don't know the difference between a climate scientist
and a comedian.
Moron.
-
... Ummm... No. They're great. Just uh, not for me.
LOL. I've got three words for you. Human Genome Project!
-
"boo hoo, Steve, Cal posts from the Blaze, whine, complain....."
Okay. This article is not from the Blaze.
Read the frickin thing, and realize that I am far more correct
on the issue than you are, Mr. "the debate is over, 97%....bs" Man.
Don't make me post the contents instead of just the link, after you complained
about that.
http://www.thegwpf.org/consensus-controversy-debate-man-made-global-warming/
"boo hoo, Steve, Cal posts from the Blaze, whine, complain....."
Okay. This article is not from the Blaze.
Read the frickin thing, and realize that I am far more correct
on the issue than you are, Mr. "the debate is over, 97%....bs" Man.
Don't make me post the contents instead of just the link, after you complained
about that.
http://www.thegwpf.org/consensus-controversy-debate-man-made-global-warming/
Do you really expect me to sit down and read an 84-page document on my weekend? No, of course you don't, so you can merrily claim I don't read the link you posted. As it happens, I've read the first dozen or so pages while cooking. Notes on this:
1) It's talking about how climate change Is viewed in the media, not any actual facts about climate change. It's asking whether things are being reported correctly in whatever the opposite of the blaze is, whichever sensationalist newspaper runs an article proclaiming the end of the world, with some handy visual showing the fireballs raining down.
2) It's written by SINTEF - a Scandinavian tech/engineering research company. That seems legit until you read what they've actually been researching, which is essentially technology for energy companies. I wonder how long an article published by them proclaiming that oil companies are the bad guys would last before their funding was withdrawn?
3) Regarding the conclusions drawn, this paper talks about scientific agreement about climate change and how it affects us. It's true that there is debate among climatologists as to the extent of the effects that global warming will have - will we be dead in 5 years, or will the planet be fine for another 100 years, at which point we're all a little warmer, but generally fine? This debate is healthy, and productive and should be wholly free of politicizing. Yet even this report states that "the level of agreement in the scientific literature that AGW is occurring is quite extensive"
4) This article attempts to critique the consensus finding work done prior to its publication in 2013. It brings up well discussed points that potentially the work of Oreskes somewhat in doubt - at least slightly exaggerated. It fails to address the more recent study by Cook, Nuticelli et al of 2011, sampling, rather than 928 papers as Oreskes did, but nearly 12,000 papers (see my link above). It's that where the 97% comes from, not an opinion poll or anything like that.
So there, I've read through the abstract, the introduction, the 'completely unbiased look at the 4 climate change myths', the critique of consensus, the conclusions drawn and have posted a rebuttal. Would you care to extend the same courtesy to any science that is posted? Or are you going to call me a lefty liberal marxist that just wants to steal your money and will automatically reject anything you post?
And as for your second link - to a guy on a chat show? Remind me why we should care what he thinks? And even so, he's wrong. His whole point is based on the fact that America had a cold winter due to the polar vortex, and that doesn't sound like global warming. This is ignoring the fundamental points of global warming, climate change or whatever you want to call it, that extreme weather in either direction becomes more frequent, while global average temperatures increase.
-
Good post Chris
and good luck
-
All you really need, Chris, is a significant number
of scientists who DISAGREE, to render your
wishful thinking "debate is over"...
invalid.
And, Miller is a comedian. It was funny. Figures you would bitch about it.
Look, there is a very interesting, and legit, correlation between solar activity
and gw. It's entertaining that you switched to "climate change" as a fall back position
created by the mmgw wonks who see their "consensus" fading fast.
The THEORY of mmgw is fine as a theory. I've always said, I just want to know the truth,
and "virtually all scientists know your cows farting needs to be taxed, etc" doesn't convince
me or about half? of America of any need to fall in line with the liberal agenda, nor the UN's
alleged mandate to get a whole lot of money from us for development of the rest of the poor world
on this earth.
And no, you didn't coin "climate change"...but it's interesting that "global warming" is falling
in popularity as a liberal political persuasive device, and the new term "climate change" is
kind of undeniable - since climate changes, ya?
The article I posted, simply talks about the two sides of the mmgw issue. Meaning, there is
absolutely zero "debate over". Just because libs can't make money off the stopping of
the destruction of the earth's virgin rain forests, and they can't tax and fine the sun,
doesn't mean that we can't have a more inclusive debate over what is, and isn't, going on. That's all.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login