Science proves mmgw is a farce
-
and you did the thing again where you throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks. You follow the science denial playbook to a tee. Now if I don't look at every single post you made and tell you why you're wrong, you'll act like you're right.
Just once, try to only post one thing at a time. Not 14 posts to youtube videos. Not your google search results for "global warming fake". Just one. fucking. thing.
-
Woody is talking crap. He didn't find this, how typical.
********************************************
Don’t just take my word for this, you should use the link below to view an excellent and scientifically-based Video by the actual professional Climate & Solar Scientists that analyzed many of the Ice-Core Samples and who have received NASA awards of Excellent for their work on Satellite and Global Temperature measurement as well as other related Climate Research:
&feature=youtu.be" rel="external nofollow">CLICK ON THIS LINK to have expert and honest Climate Scientists amplify and verify the above points!
Woody is talking crap. He didn't find this, how typical.
********************************************
Don’t just take my word for this, you should use the link below to view an excellent and scientifically-based Video by the actual professional Climate & Solar Scientists that analyzed many of the Ice-Core Samples and who have received NASA awards of Excellent for their work on Satellite and Global Temperature measurement as well as other related Climate Research:
&feature=youtu.be" rel="external nofollow">CLICK ON THIS LINK to have expert and honest Climate Scientists amplify and verify the above points!I'm not watching an hour and 15 minute video called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". From the title alone it looks like it has an agenda to push. Give me a clear, concise, supported with documentation point for why climate change is not real. Not some video that a right wing website of yours told you to watch. Maybe pick something out from the movie.
-
no, woodypeckerhead, you should just tuck your tail feathers between your beak,
and waddle away.
I only posted five, birdbrain. You can't refute one of them. They are experts telling you
that you are wrong.
You've been wrong all along, and if you can't watch five videos I've posted, then
you really are a nasty little bitch, whatever it was Steve mentioned you were.
You are all soaked in Egypt, you are on the wrong side of the issue, and your lies and bitches don't help your case.
You seem to be paranoid that someone else will be watching the videos of EXPERTS, and agree with the EXPERTS.
-
now, watch that video, and go ahead and admit you are willingly being duped by dishonest people
with ulterior motives for trying to convince you of mmgw.
it ....is....bs.
you lose.
now, watch that video, and go ahead and admit you are willingly being duped by dishonest people
with ulterior motives for trying to convince you of mmgw.
it ....is....bs.
you lose.
I'm pretty sure you haven't even watched that video all of the way through Cal. I don't really want to watch an hour long lecture right now. Would you like to pull out a point or two being made, provide some support for them, and then I can respond?
-
bingo.
DOUBLE BINGO
Only to follow it up with a 1.5 hour and 2 hour video. And I know you haven't watch either of these.
Again, give me a point or two here. What is the best point you think is being made in these videos? Post some documentation about it and I'll look it over.
-
no, woodypeckerhead, you should just tuck your tail feathers between your beak,
and waddle away.
I only posted five, birdbrain. You can't refute one of them. They are experts telling you
that you are wrong.
You've been wrong all along, and if you can't watch five videos I've posted, then
you really are a nasty little bitch, whatever it was Steve mentioned you were.
You are all soaked in Egypt, you are on the wrong side of the issue, and your lies and bitches don't help your case.
You seem to be paranoid that someone else will be watching the videos of EXPERTS, and agree with the EXPERTS.
no, woodypeckerhead, you should just tuck your tail feathers between your beak,
and waddle away.
I only posted five, birdbrain. You can't refute one of them. They are experts telling you
that you are wrong.
You've been wrong all along, and if you can't watch five videos I've posted, then
you really are a nasty little bitch, whatever it was Steve mentioned you were.
You are all soaked in Egypt, you are on the wrong side of the issue, and your lies and bitches don't help your case.
You seem to be paranoid that someone else will be watching the videos of EXPERTS, and agree with the EXPERTS.
Cal, you posted about 6 hours of video.... you haven't even watched them yourself.
You seem to have yelled the word experts a lot. Does it not matter then that the vast, vast majority of experts are on the other side of this issue? Does that mean I win? I mean, I can yell "expert" more than you. I'm very certain I could produce more reputable, legitimate scientific organizations that believe man is affecting the climate than you could find that think the opposite.
Hey, thanks for insulting me again. Good to see you've completely failed on that truce. (Go ahead and claim some twisted view of self defense now).
I get it, I am completely wasting my time. You would stop breathing if the right sources told you the liberals wanted you to. You've lost almost all ability to think for yourself and are just a political pawn. I realize nothing I say here will convince your mind. I could try telling you the earth orbits the sun and if The Blaze said otherwise you'd argue with me about it. At the end of the day I guess it is just concerning that there are a lot of people like you, and they all can vote on issues like this. A scientific issue that have become politicized.
So now, I invite you again, post a key point or two from these videos, provide legitimate supporting documentation, and I'll look them over. Not a google search result list. Not 6 hours of video that you haven't even watched.
I assume you won't, and that you'll continue to act like you've won.
-
yes, I watched them. you don't want to, and if you do, you won't admit it.
anything to excuse yourself from being wrong and admitting it.
"too short, too long, not a phd, not a climate scientist, I don't have time, too many
links, I son't read the Blaze, I won't read the Constitution, I won't admit mmgw
is a farce to my last peck on wood."
-
I made a very simple request. If you watched all of those videos, it should be easy to do.
-
yes, I watched them. you don't want to, and if you do, you won't admit it.
anything to excuse yourself from being wrong and admitting it.
"too short, too long, not a phd, not a climate scientist, I don't have time, too many
links, I son't read the Blaze, I won't read the Constitution, I won't admit mmgw
is a farce to my last peck on wood."
yes, I watched them. you don't want to, and if you do, you won't admit it.
anything to excuse yourself from being wrong and admitting it.
"too short, too long, not a phd, not a climate scientist, I don't have time, too many
links, I son't read the Blaze, I won't read the Constitution, I won't admit mmgw
is a farce to my last peck on wood."
To be fair Cal, if someone was arguing with you about wanting more gun control, would you sit and watch six hours of footage called "The 2nd Amendment: The Murderous Amendment"?
Or refute every point on the 20 links from doctors and health professionals on sites like thinkofthekids.org or bradycampaign.com?
No adult person has 10-15 hours a day to sift through information that is very likely biased to the gills to argue with someone on the internet.
-
but that isn't fair - I truncated the usual bunch to only five, I watched them and selected them
for the qualifications of the persons doing the video, etc.
If woody doesn't have time to watch them, fine. Let him STFU until he does. Same old, he bitches.
If I post only one, he bitches where it came from, what link, something, to try to minimalize it.
So, I didn't post links because he bitches about the sources so much, I tried to post videos instead.
And the videos are by experts in the field.
So, he can't watch just one - WTF? I post 4 or 5 videos, and he can't just watch the first one?
So, if I took the time to do a cliff's notes of the first video, everybody knows he'll just bitch that I'm biased,
and I probably misquoted, misassumed, misinterpreted,,,,,
if it was a two minute video, he'd bitch that it ignored any details. If I posted a ten minute video, he's just bitch
that it didn't elaborate. If I post a half hr, to an hr video, he bitches he doesn't have time/it's too long, etc etc.
If it was any conservative site that had an article with a link to the video, he'd just bitch about the conservative site
being biased.
Well, the liberal sites sure as heck won't have negative articles on mmgw, liberals don't work that way.
I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one
roller. lol.
It's tough to consider the 2nd Amendment analogy - it's a fact. mmgw is a flawed theory, as these experts in the field say.
-
To a person who thinks guns should be illegal, they believe the 2nd Am exists but that it is interpreted wrong or should be changed.
I will take Woody at his word until proven otherwise. If you throw out a few points and he shits on them without offering much explanation then you proved your point.
-
I don't know who is or isn't on Facebook but there are a lot of those medical videos that trumpet the title 5 things you should never do or always do or never eat or eat everyday blah blah blah.
Click on the video just out of curiosity and you find that it's at least an hour long infomercial. I don't think anybody on either side has the time or patience to sit through an hour at a time of almost anything.
I guess if somebody was telling me I should watch this I would just ask to point out the 5 things from the video.
WSS
-
But remember the debate whether it exists or not isn't that big of a deal. Most people think there's been some change and most people think that mankind has an affect.
Once more we should ask how much how dangerous and what can we reasonably do. Then the scientific community is that a loss for words.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Man-made global warming might or might not exist. It's become so politicized. Liberals don't care if it is real or not, they just want to control people and redistribute wealth. If they really cared they would start initiative to plant trees because trees remove carbon from the atmosphere. Some scientists hypothesize that when 90% of the Native American population was killed--due to a plague right after the first Europeans arrived--it caused a mini Ice Age in Europe because all the trees that the natives cut down started growing back, removing tons of carbon from the atmosphere. But liberals do not care about that, they just want to control people. I posted a link on here to the Arbor Day foundation where you could donate money to have trees planted in national Forests and it went largely ignored. Liberals don't want to actually do anything to help they just want to inconvenience everyone else.
:neutral_face: -
But remember the debate whether it exists or not isn't that big of a deal. Most people think there's been some change and most people think that mankind has an affect.
Once more we should ask how much how dangerous and what can we reasonably do. Then the scientific community is that a loss for words.
WSS
But remember the debate whether it exists or not isn't that big of a deal. Most people think there's been some change and most people think that mankind has an affect.
Once more we should ask how much how dangerous and what can we reasonably do. Then the scientific community is that a loss for words.
WSS
It is a very big deal. There is still a fight to even convince a good number of people that it is even happening. If a large portion of the people yell "mmgw is fake!" because their political party told them too, it is going to be hard to get anything meaningful done, because anything meaningful will have to go through congress. Subsidies, regulations, taxes. That can't happen without votes, and there won't be votes if a good portion of the public is still misinformed.
"A loss for words?" What are you talking about? Are you saying nothing has been suggested? Or are you saying there hasn't been a "do this and climate change will disappear" solution brought forth?
-
Man-made global warming might or might not exist. It's become so politicized. Liberals don't care if it is real or not, they just want to control people and redistribute wealth. If they really cared they would start initiative to plant trees because trees remove carbon from the atmosphere. Some scientists hypothesize that when 90% of the Native American population was killed--due to a plague right after the first Europeans arrived--it caused a mini Ice Age in Europe because all the trees that the natives cut down started growing back, removing tons of carbon from the atmosphere. But liberals do not care about that, they just want to control people. I posted a link on here to the Arbor Day foundation where you could donate money to have trees planted in national Forests and it went largely ignored. Liberals don't want to actually do anything to help they just want to inconvenience everyone else.
Man-made global warming might or might not exist. It's become so politicized.
The ignore the right and ignore the left. Just look at where the vast majority of the scientific community stands.
-
but that isn't fair - I truncated the usual bunch to only five, I watched them and selected them
for the qualifications of the persons doing the video, etc.
If woody doesn't have time to watch them, fine. Let him STFU until he does. Same old, he bitches.
If I post only one, he bitches where it came from, what link, something, to try to minimalize it.
So, I didn't post links because he bitches about the sources so much, I tried to post videos instead.
And the videos are by experts in the field.
So, he can't watch just one - WTF? I post 4 or 5 videos, and he can't just watch the first one?
So, if I took the time to do a cliff's notes of the first video, everybody knows he'll just bitch that I'm biased,
and I probably misquoted, misassumed, misinterpreted,,,,,
if it was a two minute video, he'd bitch that it ignored any details. If I posted a ten minute video, he's just bitch
that it didn't elaborate. If I post a half hr, to an hr video, he bitches he doesn't have time/it's too long, etc etc.
If it was any conservative site that had an article with a link to the video, he'd just bitch about the conservative site
being biased.
Well, the liberal sites sure as heck won't have negative articles on mmgw, liberals don't work that way.
I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one
roller. lol.
It's tough to consider the 2nd Amendment analogy - it's a fact. mmgw is a flawed theory, as these experts in the field say.
but that isn't fair - I truncated the usual bunch to only five, I watched them and selected them
for the qualifications of the persons doing the video, etc.
I really doubt you watched them.
If woody doesn't have time to watch them, fine. Let him STFU until he does. Same old, he bitches.
If I post only one, he bitches where it came from, what link, something, to try to minimalize it.
No, that's how this works. You're making a scientific claim. It should be backed up with a legitimate source. In that situation you've already minimized it.
So, I didn't post links because he bitches about the sources so much, I tried to post videos instead.
And the videos are by experts in the field.
Not posting a link is not the solution here haha. Definitely post a source for everything you are claiming at the start of a thread.
The guys in the videos definitely have fancy titles. Not sure if they are actual experts in the field though.
So, he can't watch just one - WTF? I post 4 or 5 videos, and he can't just watch the first one?
The first one is 75 minutes long...
So, if I took the time to do a cliff's notes of the first video, everybody knows he'll just bitch that I'm biased,
and I probably misquoted, misassumed, misinterpreted,,,,,
I'm not asking for cliff notes. I'm asking for the main point or two being made, and then a legitimate source that backs up what you said. Your own convictions won't matter because you'll have a legitimate source backing you up.
if it was a two minute video, he'd bitch that it ignored any details. If I posted a ten minute video, he's just bitch
that it didn't elaborate. If I post a half hr, to an hr video, he bitches he doesn't have time/it's too long, etc etc.
I'd need to see the 2 or 10 minute video, what it explained, and what sources it provided.
If it was any conservative site that had an article with a link to the video, he'd just bitch about the conservative site
being biased.
A conservative site isn't inherently biased. It is very easy to tell from the wording in an article though when they are trying to spin something and when it is biased. You don't notice it because they're using the same adjectives that you're adding in yourself as you read it normally. But again, in that case it would be the video I'm looking at, not the text around it on the conservative site. So the video would need to have legitimate sources called out in it. Understand?
Well, the liberal sites sure as heck won't have negative articles on mmgw, liberals don't work that way.
Well liberals are generally on the side that science is on in this issue. So you're probably right. They might have articles that exaggerate the effects and how early we'll see them, and that might not have a source too it. I'm not sure. I don't really frequent liberal sites and I don't use any as sources when posting something about climate change.
I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one
roller. lol.
That seems incredibly inefficient.
It's tough to consider the 2nd Amendment analogy - it's a fact. mmgw is a flawed theory, as these experts in the field say.
It is how the 2nd amendment is interpreted and how relevant someone sees it as today.
I still very much doubt you watched all of those videos Cal...
Again, post the main point or two being made. Provide a legitimate source for it. I will look that over and get back to you. But I have no intention of watching 6+ hours of video.
If you really did watch those videos, it should be easy to do. Complaining about me and hypothetical situations does not mean you "win". If anything it shows you really do have nothing to present, and are just mindlessly regurgitating anti climate change articles from your incredibly biased right wing sources.
-
for anybody but you, Woody, that would be easy. I have posted a link that was easy to read
many times in the past, and you just knee jerk and try to diss it for what's in the title of the link,
etc, etc etc.
I have posted from CNN, you ignore it. I have posted Fox and Blaze and Constitution, you bash it for
what sources talk about the LINK that goes to the TECHNICAL SOURCE.
So, I repost the actual technical source, and you bitch about something else, and go back to the false
"97 %" nonsense. It's a complex issue with evidence that doesn't prove mmgw, because there is
evidence that CONTRADICTS it. If you care so much, use the little solid ">" thing - it plays.
Then, use the ">>" thingie to fast forward throught the non-required watching part, and
check out what he says about it on a technical level.
I started posting several links because you ignored, mocked somehow, one link here and there that was
very legit, written by an expert PHD in climate, and you peck at it like it's a bug under the bark.
take you time - you molt at the site of any one link - it's easy to dismiss without even reading it.
You just can't handle the truth, woody. It isn't on your side. The videos will be there a long time.
I've posted graphs, and you ignore them, reiterate your gibberish on the subject, and/or, you bitch
about what site posted the graph, even when the graph came from a scientific site. You conveniently
ignore the latter part.
The next time I post a simple link to an excellent, simple explanation on why mmglobalwarming is not fact,
all eyes are on how you respond. Hopefully, it won't be a smart ass knee jerk dismiss of it because it isn't msnbc,
or from a climate scientist you LIKE.
-
I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one
roller. lol.
That seems incredibly inefficient. Woody
******************************************************
Actually, no. Our giant deck is 23 years old, and we filled the cracks with wood filler,
and it needs sanded with an orbital sander. so, I was sanding while she painted.
-
Cal srsly, pull out a few points and debate woody on them. He's 100% right you havent sat through 6 hours of video so just stop.
Also, i saw one of those videos is from lindzen.....correct me if im wrong but didnt we go over him in the past? Hasnt he been on exxons payroll since the 60's or something?
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