|
Post by outcast on Mar 9, 2007 16:26:16 GMT -5
All i know about global warming is that it warmed up today! peww its hot!
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 9, 2007 17:01:05 GMT -5
Blondie. Your arrogance is incredible. You have admitted that you don't know much on the subject of Global Warming by telling us that you didn't invest any interest into the subject until three days ago. You have conceeded that Man-Made Global Warming has not been proven. You have agreed that "dominant (consensus)" really doesn't count for anything when it comes to Science. You have been shown data from many people which disputes what you are so desperately fighting for. Despite all of these things you still have the nerve to come on here and insult people and to act like you have all of the answers when you most definately do not. In honor of your actions I am posting this picture: zoomixer, If a person (or group) has ANY connection to Christianity (even in the TINIEST form), blondie deems them "quacks" even thought they have YEARS of research to back their claims. If they do not back or further blondie's Atheist agenda, then they are "quacks". This person is trying so hard to prove that they have everything right and no one else knows anything, they trip all over the fact that they are making themselves look foolish...... All for the sake of trying to make Christians look bad.
|
|
|
Post by outcast on Mar 9, 2007 17:50:07 GMT -5
Ok found this and thought I would share I guess there could be something to global warming But in this LINKthese kids are not staying awake at night because they are worrying! Could it be they are tweaking?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 9, 2007 17:54:03 GMT -5
Pardon me if I have a really difficult time taking someone seriously who believes Al Franken is a credible source on anything.
If I used David Duke as a crediblesource on something- aside from promoting poor race relations perhaps-I'd be laughed out of this forium and rightfully so.
Someone who taps Al Gore or Al Franken as credible sources should be held up to the same sort of ridicule.
Blondie obviously thinks the only scientists who are credible are those with whom he agrees. If said scientist believes in anthropogenic global warming, blondie holds that scientist up as a paragon of virtue, untainted by any outside agenda and of unquestioned character and judgement. If a scientist dares to reject the global warming hysteria, that scientist is obviously a pariah whose judgement and agenda is obviously questionable.
How else can one blissfully ignore literally THOUSANDS of scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming?
Blondie sees a "vast right-wing conspiracy" affot when it comes to global warming "deniers", but is blind to the (strong) possibility of an even more "vast LEFT-wing conspiracy" when it comes to eco-chondraics.
Blondie is right when he says that there is an agenda behind this global warming madness, but wrong when he says it's the global warming agnostics that are driving the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 18:48:14 GMT -5
Pardon me if I have a really difficult time taking someone seriously who believes Al Franken is a credible source on anything. If I used David Duke as a crediblesource on something- aside from promoting poor race relations perhaps-I'd be laughed out of this forium and rightfully so. Someone who taps Al Gore or Al Franken as credible sources should be held up to the same sort of ridicule. Blondie obviously thinks the only scientists who are credible are those with whom he agrees. If said scientist believes in anthropogenic global warming, blondie holds that scientist up as a paragon of virtue, untainted by any outside agenda and of unquestioned character and judgement. If a scientist dares to reject the global warming hysteria, that scientist is obviously a pariah whose judgement and agenda is obviously questionable. How else can one blissfully ignore literally THOUSANDS of scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming? Blondie sees a "vast right-wing conspiracy" affot when it comes to global warming "deniers", but is blind to the (strong) possibility of an even more "vast LEFT-wing conspiracy" when it comes to eco-chondraics. Blondie is right when he says that there is an agenda behind this global warming madness, but wrong when he says it's the global warming agnostics that are driving the agenda. I take it you've never actually read any of Al Frankin's books. Didn't you originally post this link? www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htmBecause you seemed to have missed this: www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine ;DThousands of scientists. Ha ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 9, 2007 19:13:13 GMT -5
Blondie, Stop and think for a minute. I'm not taking issue with the fact that you believe in Man-made Global Warming. I'm taking issue with the fact that you so arrogantly uphold it as fact and have the nerve to insult anyone who disagrees with your newly and poorly researched opinion. Does that make sense? If you'd come on here with some semblence of humility and said that you kindly disagreed with people and the data you'd seen over the last few days was enough to convince you then....hey, whatever. I've got no problem with that. Think about that for a minute.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 9, 2007 20:37:28 GMT -5
blondie-
Y'know...you really ought to read the text of a link that you're going to use to try to refute someone else's argument.
In the paragraph listing the OISM officers, one such officer is a Nobel Prize winner.
Now granted, since they handed a Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter, the Nobel committe ain't what it once was. However, in the areas of true science, a Nobel is considered to be a bit of a resume enhancement to say the least.
That being the case, I think the obvious conclusion to draw is that your assertion that 'not a single credible scientist' has been mentioned that disagrees with anthropogenic global warming has been totally and completely BUSTED.
Thanks for doing my work for me.
I also noticed that the writer of the piece made the assertion that the Oregon Project's paper submitted to some 20,000 scientists was somehow "misleading". Would the author be prepared to state that the scientists who responded to the paper and agreed that anthropogenic global warming isn't real were ALL duped and/or willing to participate in the charade?
And the eco-chondriacs see a conspiracy on the 'denier's' side?
Please.
As far as the "peer review" angle- that no source material refuting anthropogenic global warming has been peer reviewed- it is a nonstarter.
Scientific entities are free to pick and choose which articles/essays/theories that they will deign to peer review and which ones they will not. Just because a particular eminent scientist might submit a paper to be reviewed does not guaranteed it will be reviewed. The process is not unlike SCOTUS deciding which cases they will hear and which cases they will not. Also, like SCOTUS, they can refuse to review a paper (as SCOTUS can refuse to take a case) without comment as to the paper's (or case's) merits or lack of such. Perhaps the review process is free of agenda....but perhaps not.
Of course there is a very easy way to put this particular 'conspiracy theory' to rest: review a paper that does NOT support the hypothesis that anthropogenic global warming is real and occuring. But they will not do so. Why?
Lastly, one need not read any of Al Franken's books to come to the inevitible conclusion that Franken is a deeply troubled, insecure and small person who isn't happy unless he can elevate himself at the expense of someone with whom he disagrees. He's not above outright- and provable- lying to make his 'points'...although, to be fair, that is endemic among Leftists and so he should not be singled out as being somehow unique in his propensity to lie early, often and continually.
As for his popularity, let's look at the ratings of his radio show...
Oh wait...we can't.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 20:49:59 GMT -5
Blondie, Stop and think for a minute. I'm not taking issue with the fact that you believe in Man-made Global Warming. Me and every reputable institution and publication on the planet. I'm taking issue with the fact that you so arrogantly uphold it as fact and have the nerve to insult anyone who disagrees with your newly and poorly researched opinion. Actually, I've really been biting my tongue not to toss out personal insults like the ones thrown at me. What was that you called me, arrogant? Does that make sense? If you'd come on here with some semblence of humility and said that you kindly disagreed with people and the data you'd seen over the last few days was enough to convince you then....hey, whatever. I've got no problem with that. Think about that for a minute. I haven't seen any data. One quack site, an obviously fake petition and casual dismissals of the enormous amount of peer-reviewed data accepted by every university and government agency on the planet. I'd like to see somebody produce something 1000th as credible as this: www.epa.gov/climatechange/
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 9, 2007 21:23:42 GMT -5
Y'know...you really ought to read the text of a link that you're going to use to try to refute someone else's argument. . Speak for yourself. How can you possibly read a long expose of a bogus petition and come out believing it's still valid. Any one of the dozens of faults laid bare demands its dismissal. That being the case, I think the obvious conclusion to draw is that your assertion that 'not a single credible scientist' has been mentioned that disagrees with anthropogenic global warming has been totally and completely BUSTED. Thanks for doing my work for me. I also noticed that the writer of the piece made the assertion that the Oregon Project's paper submitted to some 20,000 scientists was somehow "misleading". Would the author be prepared to state that the scientists who responded to the paper and agreed that anthropogenic global warming isn't real were ALL duped and/or willing to participate in the charade? And the eco-chondriacs see a conspiracy on the 'denier's' side? Please. OK, since you're trying to make my position into a straw man argument are you willing to defend your position that the UN, NASA,the EPA, all the universities in the country and the Bush administration are all part off a huge, international conspiracy to lie to us about global warming? Why do you believe that all the science magazines are 100% full of lies? All I need to do is produce one true article in any science magazine ever published to prove you wrong. It's easy to argue against straw men. I know there is a very small minority of scientists who are skeptical of global warming. There's a handful of historians who deny the holocaust and plenty of "biologists" who don't believe in evolution. As far as the "peer review" angle- that no source material refuting anthropogenic global warming has been peer reviewed- it is a nonstarter. Scientific entities are free to pick and choose which articles/essays/theories that they will deign to peer review and which ones they will not. Just because a particular eminent scientist might submit a paper to be reviewed does not guaranteed it will be reviewed. The process is not unlike SCOTUS deciding which cases they will hear and which cases they will not. Also, like SCOTUS, they can refuse to review a paper (as SCOTUS can refuse to take a case) without comment as to the paper's (or case's) merits or lack of such. Perhaps the review process is free of agenda....but perhaps not. Of course there is a very easy way to put this particular 'conspiracy theory' to rest: review a paper that does NOT support the hypothesis that anthropogenic global warming is real and occurring. But they will not do so. Why? Lastly, one need not read any of Al Franken's books to come to the inevitible conclusion that Franken is a deeply troubled, insecure and small person who isn't happy unless he can elevate himself at the expense of someone with whom he disagrees. He's not above outright- and provable- lying to make his 'points'...although, to be fair, that is endemic among Leftists and so he should not be singled out as being somehow unique in his propensity to lie early, often and continually. As for his popularity, let's look at the ratings of his radio show... Oh wait...we can't. Right, right, peer-reviewed science journals are all part of the conspiracy. I brought up Al Frankin because he did a thorough job of refuting the ridiculous smear job on Al Gore which someone parroted earlier on this thread. What I've asked for over and over again is a reputable institution that rejects the overwhelming consensus among scientists of human caused global warming. There's no such thing.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 9, 2007 21:50:32 GMT -5
How about the Department of Energy? or NOAA? I have given information from these two that you seem to be perfectly willing to ignore and call quackery.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 10, 2007 0:36:51 GMT -5
I've given you the names of literally THOUSANDS of academics, scientists, economists, biologist, climatologists, meteroroligists and every other kind of -ologist except maybe proctologist that contend that man is either not at all to blame or marginally to blame for global climate change.
That list includes Nobel laureats and other professionally-lauded individuals from universities and think-tanks all around the globe.
You continually ask the incorrect question of your detractors.
Isn't phrased correctly. The correctly-phrased question should be:
And since your mind is made up and cannot be swayed by fact or data, then the answer is, of course, no I cannot provide such a 'credible' source- one that you would accept anyway.
That said, I will continue to counter your- and Algore's- disinformation campaign using sources that rational human beings DO find 'credible'.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 10, 2007 7:06:54 GMT -5
How about the Department of Energy? or NOAA? I have given information from these two that you seem to be perfectly willing to ignore and call quackery. OK, this is getting old. DixiePixie, Rush Limbaugh isn't the place you should be getting your information. If he's not actually lying he's phasing things in such a way that people like you get confused. This is from the NOAA website: "How is the Greenhouse Effect related to Global Warming? Greenhouse gases occur naturally in the Earth's atmosphere, but are also being added by human activities. This happens primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, which releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere."Now if any government agency would want to play down or deny Global Warming it would be the Department of Energy, yet on their website I found this: "In order to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, global emissions of greenhouse gases would have to be reduced 60-90% below current levels over the next 50 years. The severity of reductions depends on the level one is willing to let the concentrations rise to, which is ultimately a policy decision based upon available scientific information. Recent trends do indicate a directional change in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. Current annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are 12% higher than they were in 1992, and worldwide greenhouse gas emissions increased 14% over that period. Also, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased by 6 ppm between 1997 and 2002."
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 10, 2007 7:24:08 GMT -5
I've given you the names of literally THOUSANDS of academics, scientists, economists, biologist, climatologists, meteroroligists and every other kind of -ologist except maybe proctologist that contend that man is either not at all to blame or marginally to blame for global climate change. That list includes Nobel laureats and other professionally-lauded individuals from universities and think-tanks all around the globe. You continually ask the incorrect question of your detractors. Isn't phrased correctly. The correctly-phrased question should be: And since your mind is made up and cannot be swayed by fact or data, then the answer is, of course, no I cannot provide such a 'credible' source- one that you would accept anyway. That said, I will continue to counter your- and Algore's- disinformation campaign using sources that rational human beings DO find 'credible'. I've heard this old creationist argument before: "Scientific entities are free to pick and choose which articles/essays/theories that they will deign to peer review and which ones they will not. Just because a particular eminent scientist might submit a paper to be reviewed does not guaranteed it will be reviewed." Sure, it's all a big conspiracy. I'm crazy for believing the EPA and Scientific American over Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I don't have time to educate you people on the basic principles of science you should have learned in the third grade. I did you a favor by showing that that global warming petition was bogus. You should thank me. But you keep bringing it back up. Your willingness to grab at any "evidence," no matter how dubious, that agrees with your position and quick dismissal of evidence that you disagree with demonstrates that you're a hopeless cause. I'm tired of this. My original point so long ago was that James Spann was becoming an international laughing stock: www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i13959
|
|
|
Post by espy on Mar 10, 2007 9:53:34 GMT -5
espy, please understand i deal in truth...when a person dies from car fumes it is co, NOT co2 that kills them...carbon MONoxide, NOT carbon DIoxide. this is not to insult anyone but folks some of you are discussing science yet KNOW NOTHING about science! Yes, I realized that after I read it, I was just to lazy to change it. I am a science freak, I love science but Im a little rusty on the terms used. Its been a while since school.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 10, 2007 14:19:14 GMT -5
Yet more from the global warming 'deniers': www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.htmlThis is a show set to air this week on British television. Kudos to the Brits for permitting both sides- and yes there most assuredly ARE two sides to this debate. I wonder if the program will be shown on US television or whether US television execs will bow to the pressure of the eco-chondriacs and refuse to air the program. I suppose that airing a program that calls into question Christianity isn't controversial but one that calls into question the faux religion that is global warming is simply too hot to touch (pun intended). (Additional story, h/t to Newsbusters: newsbusters.org/node/11330 )
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 10, 2007 18:26:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 10, 2007 18:35:10 GMT -5
Blondie, Stop and think for a minute. I'm not taking issue with the fact that you believe in Man-made Global Warming. Me and every reputable institution and publication on the planet. Actually, I've really been biting my tongue not to toss out personal insults like the ones thrown at me. What was that you called me, arrogant? Does that make sense? If you'd come on here with some semblence of humility and said that you kindly disagreed with people and the data you'd seen over the last few days was enough to convince you then....hey, whatever. I've got no problem with that. Think about that for a minute. I haven't seen any data. One quack site, an obviously fake petition and casual dismissals of the enormous amount of peer-reviewed data accepted by every university and government agency on the planet. I'd like to see somebody produce something 1000th as credible as this: www.epa.gov/climatechange/Blondie: I'll try to keep this simple for you since you apparently did not understand what I'm saying. Now, try to read this carefully. Read it twice if you have to. Ok? You are handing out plenty of insults so don't give me that "holding your tongue" crap. You are acting as if you know everything there is to know about Global Warming when you said yourself that you didn't start looking into this until just a few days ago. Still following? Ok. Here's the big question. Don't you think it would take a great deal of arrogance and self-delusion to behave as if you know everything about this subject when you obviously don't? Did you get that? Read the question again if you have to. Again, I will say. My issue is not with your stance on Man-Made Global Warming. I have no problem if people think differently than I do. My issue is with your attitude and the way you have presented yourself on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 10, 2007 20:36:29 GMT -5
ah yes....avoid the science...avoid the testing of hypotheses....avoid telling me experiments I can do to get the same results you did...or maybe different results...
throw around insults, and talk about ignoring Hannity and Limbaugh who make no claim to know the science of global warming...
ignore Dr. Gray of Colorado State, and Dr. Spencer of UAH...
like every other subject, this has become a religious discussion....the religion of man-made global warming...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 11, 2007 8:09:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 11, 2007 8:52:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 11, 2007 14:19:23 GMT -5
More on the courageous Brits who dared to 'blaspheme' against the 'religion' of global wamring and its 'priests': www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2948/Great title to the piece: "Apocalypse, My Arse"Some excerpts from the interview with the director of "The Great Global Warming Swindle", Martin Durkin: So the UN had to lie about a scientist's postion in order to make it's point? Now THERE'S a shcok- the UN lying... Now does anyone expect the MSM to be "fair and balanced" and present both sides of the debate? And, as is so typical of the Left, when they can't debate the issue, they attack the messenger... , but the environmentalist view is everywhere!’,[/b] says Durkin.[/quote] And here I thought all along that the Left really believed in the free and open exchange of ideas. I guess their affinity for 'diversity' doesn't extend to diversity of opinion... The article marvelously concluded: Let me quote that last line again, fir it is the key to the entire debate- and yes there IS a debate- and it is a key that the Left is unable or unwilling to face: If we want a proper debate about these issues, we need an open and rigorous public life, rather than sneaky accusations of secret conspiracies and demands for censure. C'mon, greenie-weenies! If all of the science is clearly on YOUR side- as you so often claim- then why be afraid to engage in an open debate on the issue of anthropogenic global warming? It should be a very easy debate to win.....if science really is on your side, that is.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 11, 2007 20:31:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 11, 2007 15:43:04 GMT -5
i admit blondies posted graphs so that was a stab at science, the problem for blondie is the graphs made OUR points....that indeed warming and cooling goes in cycles and that throughout history the arming has come BEFORE the increases in co2 levels.
rich nor blondie seem to understand that when the effect comes first, they have the "cause" 100% WRONG
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 11, 2007 17:59:11 GMT -5
bill-
It's legal term is "post hoc ergo prompter hoc".
Loosely translated, it means 'because x is the result, the cause must be y'.
There is also a very real effort of the Left and those who are 'disciples' in the 'religion' of global warming to redefine the argument.
They try to refute the agnostics among us by saying that, if you do not believe in anthropogenic global warming, you deny the existance of global warming completely.
Don't get trapped into that corner.
I don't reject global warming; I reject that humans are the main cause of global warming.
BIG difference.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 11, 2007 19:06:19 GMT -5
i have NEVER said anything other than the TRUTH on this matter...the earths natural state of climate is CHANGE, sometimes warming sometimes cooling but constant change and it goes in clear cycles.
i just watched the scientific debunking of human caused global warming...it is exposed for what it is a SCAM to make money.
i tried to in simple laymans terms explains how utterly silly the whole concept that human caused co2 COULD change the climate is but folks refuse to listen to basic common sense.
this documentary does indeed prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the I am correct human caused GW is NONSENSE!
this also uses the VERY POINTS i have made repeatedly in these threads!
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 11, 2007 19:12:03 GMT -5
there is MASSIVE evidence presented that show the human cause GW hypothesis to be utter NONSENSE and ZERO evidence in support.
maybe this will wake people up to the reality that indeed they are being LIED to by the main stream media on a MASSIVE SCALE!
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Mar 11, 2007 19:16:33 GMT -5
INCONVENIENT TRUTH on SHOWTIME AS WE SPEAK.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 11, 2007 19:36:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Mar 11, 2007 19:38:02 GMT -5
I wonder which one more people will watch.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 11, 2007 19:40:55 GMT -5
truth and pure science on my link
the other is pure BS and politics NOT science in any way
|
|