I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here
-
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.
-
Seems Margaret Thatcher, who had a degree in chemistry is the one who started perpetuating this hoax.
Interesting read...
-
"All available evidence indicates that man made global warming is a physical impossibility."
The opening line itself would make me as skeptical of this article as I am of the extent as well as the possibility or even likelihood of reversal.
I am no alarmist and I do believe the situation is being exaggerated for political gain and profit.
But when the first line right out of the box is bullshit why I keep reading?
WSS
-
Good point Steve. Let me know if you stumble on any of those old reports heck would post that called for doomsday and were scientific
-
And some people still want to "debate" that god made everything in 6 days.... The fact that we still have a few people on that side does not mean both sides are equal or that a legitimate debate should be happening
-
"All available evidence indicates that man made global warming is a physical impossibility."
The opening line itself would make me as skeptical of this article as I am of the extent as well as the possibility or even likelihood of reversal.
I am no alarmist and I do believe the situation is being exaggerated for political gain and profit.
But when the first line right out of the box is bullshit why I keep reading?
WSS
"All available evidence indicates that man made global warming is a physical impossibility."
The opening line itself would make me as skeptical of this article as I am of the extent as well as the possibility or even likelihood of reversal.
I am no alarmist and I do believe the situation is being exaggerated for political gain and profit.
But when the first line right out of the box is bullshit why I keep reading?
WSS
I thought the same thing, you shoud give it a chance.
That opening statement was also questioned by others. At the end the author explains exactly he meant....
Similarly, the global warming from man's emissions of greenhouse gases would be too small to be detected. Indeed, for reasons I have repeatedly reported, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a real existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection). Perhaps I should have been pedantic and said "Real man-made global warming is a physical impossibility".
I hope this clarifies my views on these matters.
Man made global warming has an abstract existence...thats kinda what you've been saying right?
-
Good point Steve. Let me know if you stumble on any of those old reports heck would post that called for doomsday and were scientific
Good point Steve. Let me know if you stumble on any of those old reports heck would post that called for doomsday and were scientific
I don't feel like going through 4 or 5 years of posts. I think we all remember them. And I don't think heck is an idiot nor would he post something he didn't feel was worthy of notice.
That's not to say I bought into any of those doomsday productions. Just that there are people who do.
WSS
-
Good point Steve. Let me know if you stumble on any of those old reports heck would post that called for doomsday and were scientific
I don't feel like going through 4 or 5 years of posts. I think we all remember them. And I don't think heck is an idiot nor would he post something he didn't feel was worthy of notice.
That's not to say I bought into any of those doomsday productions. Just that there are people who do.
WSS
I don't feel like going through 4 or 5 years of posts. I think we all remember them. And I don't think heck is an idiot nor would he post something he didn't feel was worthy of notice.
That's not to say I bought into any of those doomsday productions. Just that there are people who do.
WSS
Alright. Well then whenever you are talking to "the alarmists" I'll just assume you are referring to no one here and no actual scientific paper. Basically just the left's version of TheBlaze
-
I don't feel like going through 4 or 5 years of posts. I think we all remember them. And I don't think heck is an idiot nor would he post something he didn't feel was worthy of notice.
That's not to say I bought into any of those doomsday productions. Just that there are people who do.
WSS
Alright. Well then whenever you are talking to "the alarmists" I'll just assume you are referring to no one here and no actual scientific paper. Basically just the left's version of TheBlaze
Alright. Well then whenever you are talking to "the alarmists" I'll just assume you are referring to no one here and no actual scientific paper. Basically just the left's version of TheBlaze
I will, of course, remind you of all the times that your responses were nothing more than "I agree with heck."
If you don't believe that climate change is bringing us "big serious trouble" then why keep whining if I use the word alarmist?
WSS
-
Alright. Well then whenever you are talking to "the alarmists" I'll just assume you are referring to no one here and no actual scientific paper. Basically just the left's version of TheBlaze
I will, of course, remind you of all the times that your responses were nothing more than "I agree with heck."
If you don't believe that climate change is bringing us "big serious trouble" then why keep whining if I use the word alarmist?
WSS
I will, of course, remind you of all the times that your responses were nothing more than "I agree with heck."
If you don't believe that climate change is bringing us "big serious trouble" then why keep whining if I use the word alarmist?
WSS
Because I could say "I agree with Heck" or "I agree with Vapor" or whatever because it is easier than repeating what they just said. Whether I said that or not it is hard to tie that to me thinking the world is going to end in 3 years or whatever these mystical "alarmist" articles that were legit and were posted by Heck said. Or whatever you think that said.
If you are considering anyone that thinks climate change will cause serious damage at any point in the future, then yeah, I guess I am "an alarmist". That is really more just being a realist, but whatever.
I am not "whining" about your use of alarmist. I believe you are not using it in a correct manner. Like I said, if you are considering anyone that thinks climate change will cause damage, either now or 500 years from now, an alarmist, then I am not sure what to say. That seems like a very blanket statement for a word with a negative connotation.
-
I would think that "we have to DO something" helps qualify the use of "alarmist".
Especially when "doing something" is based on nonsense, like "CO2 is a poison".
-
I will, of course, remind you of all the times that your responses were nothing more than "I agree with heck."
If you don't believe that climate change is bringing us "big serious trouble" then why keep whining if I use the word alarmist?
WSS
Because I could say "I agree with Heck" or "I agree with Vapor" or whatever because it is easier than repeating what they just said. Whether I said that or not it is hard to tie that to me thinking the world is going to end in 3 years or whatever these mystical "alarmist" articles that were legit and were posted by Heck said. Or whatever you think that said.
If you are considering anyone that thinks climate change will cause serious damage at any point in the future, then yeah, I guess I am "an alarmist". That is really more just being a realist, but whatever.
I am not "whining" about your use of alarmist. I believe you are not using it in a correct manner. Like I said, if you are considering anyone that thinks climate change will cause damage, either now or 500 years from now, an alarmist, then I am not sure what to say. That seems like a very blanket statement for a word with a negative connotation.
Because I could say "I agree with Heck" or "I agree with Vapor" or whatever because it is easier than repeating what they just said..
then, in fact, it might be valuable to actually read what they said rather than just endorse it because you are hostile towards me or whoever they are arguing with. For instance if I said I agree with die hard without reading what he had to say you'd have a different opinion of what I thought right? And nobody here, I don't think, is taking the position that well something might happen in the next five hundred years. As you should recall, if you read any of the posts you agreed with, we (or they) are talking decades not centuries.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
here's another point. Here in the US, & I assume elsewhere, we have just about universally banned smoking in every public place. We jumped over fences and went through hoops to get this legislation passed. Great we have accomplished something!!! Now even though I don't think there are any valid numbers how much do you think that legislation improved the health of the American public? I'd say almost none. Anybody disagree?
And just for the record I much prefer going into or playing at a bar that's not filled with smoke. I just don't think that has anything to do with my health or anyone elses.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
here's another point. Here in the US, & I assume elsewhere, we have just about universally banned smoking in every public place. We jumped over fences and went through hoops to get this legislation passed. Great we have accomplished something!!! Now even though I don't think there are any valid numbers how much do you think that legislation improved the health of the American public? I'd say almost none. Anybody disagree?
And just for the record I much prefer going into or playing at a bar that's not filled with smoke. I just don't think that has anything to do with my health or anyone elses.
WSS
here's another point. Here in the US, & I assume elsewhere, we have just about universally banned smoking in every public place. We jumped over fences and went through hoops to get this legislation passed. Great we have accomplished something!!! Now even though I don't think there are any valid numbers how much do you think that legislation improved the health of the American public? I'd say almost none. Anybody disagree?
And just for the record I much prefer going into or playing at a bar that's not filled with smoke. I just don't think that has anything to do with my health or anyone elses.
WSS
I would think it has helped the health of people that had to work in a smoke filled bar. It might not help the casual customers health. But someone working in a smoke fill room for 40-50 hours a week, it HAS to help. IMO
I go to my local bar and the girls there have all say it is a way better place to work then when smoking was allowed.
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