Self serving humans spewing intellectual dishonesty. Depressing nonsense not to use the knowledge supplied by our brethren scientists. Complete waste. 'I't' [bad geographic news] will probably evolve in unit 'hairball/time'. It doesn't make sense to reduce the world land mass while exponentially increasing the mo*rons inhabiting it. Ishmael was right.
Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
Self serving humans spewing intellectual dishonesty. Depressing nonsense not to use the knowledge supplied by our brethren scientists. Complete waste. 'I't' [bad geographic news] will probably evolve in unit 'hairball/time'. It doesn't make sense to reduce the world land mass while exponentially increasing the mo*rons inhabiting it. Ishmael was right.
ManMade global warming has never occurred on the earth before. This phenomena is totally new and without precedent on earth since humans never had the capacity to do this. Before anyone sane person would buy an untested idea or design, we need to see a good demonstration prototype. All the data from the past, does not demonstrate manmade global warming, since this phenomena never occurred before. Rather the past data only demonstrates natural warming and cooling. This has been proven but how about a demonstration of the new concept?
If I designed a new concept car and explained my design in terms of other cars, this does not prove the capacities of my car. It sounds like a used car salesman pitch, where my idea is stealing from everyone else; tastes better than butter. I would want to see the unique, never been done before, concept car in action. When is the next demonstration of the man made prototype?.
All the doom and gloom predicted over the past 10-20 years did not pan out as expected. Maybe the prototype is not ready, or maybe these estimates were based on natural data, or maybe manmade (better than butter) canceled out the natural (butter) maybe butter canceled better than butter. When is the next direct test of concept or am I expected to buy based on only on a parallel to natural data?
If it was not for big government pumping money into this money pit, no sane investor would invest without a demonstration of the concept using only manmade.
If I designed a new concept car and explained my design in terms of other cars, this does not prove the capacities of my car. It sounds like a used car salesman pitch, where my idea is stealing from everyone else; tastes better than butter. I would want to see the unique, never been done before, concept car in action. When is the next demonstration of the man made prototype?.
All the doom and gloom predicted over the past 10-20 years did not pan out as expected. Maybe the prototype is not ready, or maybe these estimates were based on natural data, or maybe manmade (better than butter) canceled out the natural (butter) maybe butter canceled better than butter. When is the next direct test of concept or am I expected to buy based on only on a parallel to natural data?
If it was not for big government pumping money into this money pit, no sane investor would invest without a demonstration of the concept using only manmade.
Sure it has, and is. What are you talking about?wellwisher said:
That is not certain. Now that we know what to look for, some data crunchers have found some evidence indicating a global (or at least northern hemispheric) temperature effect from the initial spread of agriculture in Asia thousands of years ago, and even a speculative hint of small but large scale climate effects from the introduction of human set fire in Australia tens of thousands of years ago.wellwisher said:
The magnitude of the modern effects of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] boosting dwarfs those earlier efforts, if they existed, of course.
The latest one was in the weather reports of my local newspaper yesterday: the recent cold snap in Minnesota established the fourth lowest daily maximum temps of the interval on record, but only the 26th lowest nightly minimums.wellwisher said:
I've also seen it suggested that there could be links to some of the climate changes in recorded history and plagues sweeping south east asia - the connection being methane generation through rice paddies.
You need a brain transplant. Everything you post is complete ignorant nonsense. Drivel machine. You should find another hobby. One to participate in by yourself.
Don't be a hater.
Like I said you love playing the clueless nitwit.
You have several critical problems with science which can be summarized as not having bothered to learn the basics and not planning to anytime soon. The rest is contempt for experts and probably anyone who is your intellectual superior. Evidently you believe that a fundamentalist reading of the Bible supersedes the sum of human knowledge and we are left to assume that you are phobic about all progressive ideas out of concern that some other social trends which you abhor will be coming in the back door (abortion rights, minority/ethnic/immigration rights, gay marriage, etc).
The problem with refusing to face the facts given to you as pap all chewed up for your colicky brain to digest is this: you can't begin to understand what those 'doing' the 'science' are doing without at least trying to get your feet wet on the most basic subjects, subjects that are simple enough for 5th-7th graders to handle. No one has tried to bowl you over with technical detail, nor is it really necessary. All you need to understand is that there is a greenhouse effect, and the efficiency of this greenhouse is highly sensitive to very small concentrations of CO[sub]2[/sub]. Nature had some sort of equilibrium going (although that gets complicated in the detailed analysis) until humans completely altered the equation. It's not absolutely certain, but there is pretty good evidence that the combined effects of burning forestlands to plant crops, dovetailed with the abrupt exploitation of coal, oil and natural gas at the outset of the Industrial Age, has severely upset that equilibrium and altered the natural progression of the current ice age, such that the future prospects for avoiding ecosystem crashes on a massive scale are not only beyond probable mitigation, but the dates of the pending crashes are continually marching towards us.
That being said, it wouldn't hurt for you to at least attempt to learn the names of a few of the pioneers of climate science, and how the discovery of the harm of anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] was tied to a more basic question about what caused the (probably natural) global warming which is bringing us out of the last peak glaciation of the current ice age. By familiarizing yourself with some of the basic facts, you will begin to understand that Al Gore's encounter with one of the founding fathers of climate science (Gore took a class from him during his college years) coupled with the Democratic Party's interest in advocating against air and water pollution, were political platforms that Gore had favored. For one thing, some 50 years had passed little or no positive movement toward a plan to mitigate the global risks of unrestrained carbon pollution. And so he just happened to be a politician who followed up on what he discovered in college, evidently because he got farther in school than you did, otherwise you just as well could have be the author of a best-seller called Inconvenient Truth or some other name, such as How the Literal Interpretation of the Bible is Wrecking the Planet and Killing People.
This thread after all is posted in a science forum. So the same rules apply. If you're going to argue the anti-science agenda of the right wing Christian fundamentalists, then you're still bound to steer away from fallacy. And the worst kind of fallacy is to talk about something without actaully talking about it, but rather, talking around it merely to throw punches. So far you haven't even attempted to advance any kind of meritorious argument for or against anything, much less the actual science involved.
That leaves it up to you. After all, your posts here are all saying "ME ME ME - LOOK AT ME!" when in fact we should be looking at the facts. And that does require at a minimum a high school level of competency in confronting the evidence that the scientists have laid upon your table. The question is, are you up to the challenge? Are you remotely capable of exercising your brain? There are plenty of folks here who can help you with remedial learning. Just ask if there is some technical concept that you can't wrap your brain around. you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
It is a pity that your heart is so filled with anger and hatred. It doesn't have to be that way.
You are severely over estimating human intelligence.
I do not care how people read the bible, and those that read it, read into it what they want. But you and people like you severely over estimate how intelligent humans are.
I only listen to people whom have found out something in there own lifes beyond what you could call repeating. Most people are repeaters no matter how smart they think they are. Most people are repeaters, and that includes most whom have phds in western society.
I would suggest the ptb have this idea too, they do not ever listen to people whom have never found out nothing unique, and thats why they made secret societies, as they made that system to find those whom are capable of understanding something more, and to get through those things, you need something more than just being a repeater.
There are very few people i would listen to in this world, and probably none of them have phds.
I would only listen to someone whom has found out something secret, and it did not come from hearing or reading about it elsewhere. I can tell which to listen to, but unfortunately most are dead now. Very few people could get me to listen to them, and i suspect the ptb are similar. As thats how they set up there secret society network, to find those worthy to be listened too.
The education system is ok, but you severely over estimate its worthiness of finding people that should be listened to.
One of the main reasons for secret societies was to find those that think above normal repeater level of most humans. Thats one of the main reasons they were developed by humans.
I would not listen to anyone in the truth movement(best ones have died), and absolutely no one of the main stream media. I never watch no news, most are liars or totally stupid people on there.
Its amazing how stupid people are, is that they think because you say something and someone out there says something similar, that you agree with them. No you came to that conclusion yourself. You notice how trolls and media try to ridicule, they take rubbish someone said, and then claim everyone beleives this. What morons.
Its like that clown richard dawkins, whom claims that humans have always been one voice and mind. The geezer is one of those whom thinks as someone wrote a book years ago, it means they spoke for everyone. This shows you how this guy cannot think beyond repeating terms. Take the world today and you have so many different ideas. This obviously was what it was like years ago before everyone could write, plenty get to know things without reading books, as we see today. But clown richard dawkins in his inept intelligence would claim that everyone in human history believed what was written in a few books.
Like just because you read something or listen to someone, does not mean you agree with them, they do not speak for you, you only speak for you. Its amazing how people cannot understand this.
Last edited:
You have several critical problems with science which can be summarized as not having bothered to learn the basics and not planning to anytime soon. The rest is contempt for experts and probably anyone who is your intellectual superior. Evidently you believe that a fundamentalist reading of the Bible supersedes the sum of human knowledge and we are left to assume that you are phobic about all progressive ideas out of concern that some other social trends which you abhor will be coming in the back door (abortion rights, minority/ethnic/immigration rights, gay marriage, etc).
The problem with refusing to face the facts given to you as pap all chewed up for your colicky brain to digest is this: you can't begin to understand what those 'doing' the 'science' are doing without at least trying to get your feet wet on the most basic subjects, subjects that are simple enough for 5th-7th graders to handle. No one has tried to bowl you over with technical detail, nor is it really necessary. All you need to understand is that there is a greenhouse effect, and the efficiency of this greenhouse is highly sensitive to very small concentrations of CO[sub]2[/sub]. Nature had some sort of equilibrium going (although that gets complicated in the detailed analysis) until humans completely altered the equation. It's not absolutely certain, but there is pretty good evidence that the combined effects of burning forestlands to plant crops, dovetailed with the abrupt exploitation of coal, oil and natural gas at the outset of the Industrial Age, has severely upset that equilibrium and altered the natural progression of the current ice age, such that the future prospects for avoiding ecosystem crashes on a massive scale are not only beyond probable mitigation, but the dates of the pending crashes are continually marching towards us.
That being said, it wouldn't hurt for you to at least attempt to learn the names of a few of the pioneers of climate science, and how the discovery of the harm of anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] was tied to a more basic question about what caused the (probably natural) global warming which is bringing us out of the last peak glaciation of the current ice age. By familiarizing yourself with some of the basic facts, you will begin to understand that Al Gore's encounter with one of the founding fathers of climate science (Gore took a class from him during his college years) coupled with the Democratic Party's interest in advocating against air and water pollution, were political platforms that Gore had favored. For one thing, some 50 years had passed little or no positive movement toward a plan to mitigate the global risks of unrestrained carbon pollution. And so he just happened to be a politician who followed up on what he discovered in college, evidently because he got farther in school than you did, otherwise you just as well could have be the author of a best-seller called Inconvenient Truth or some other name, such as How the Literal Interpretation of the Bible is Wrecking the Planet and Killing People.
This thread after all is posted in a science forum. So the same rules apply. If you're going to argue the anti-science agenda of the right wing Christian fundamentalists, then you're still bound to steer away from fallacy. And the worst kind of fallacy is to talk about something without actaully talking about it, but rather, talking around it merely to throw punches. So far you haven't even attempted to advance any kind of meritorious argument for or against anything, much less the actual science involved.
That leaves it up to you. After all, your posts here are all saying "ME ME ME - LOOK AT ME!" when in fact we should be looking at the facts. And that does require at a minimum a high school level of competency in confronting the evidence that the scientists have laid upon your table. The question is, are you up to the challenge? Are you remotely capable of exercising your brain? There are plenty of folks here who can help you with remedial learning. Just ask if there is some technical concept that you can't wrap your brain around. you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
http://www.epiqsociety.net/home.htm
Hey peanut brain you altered Id's post by attaching a condescending photo as a heading to his post. I say otta here punk.
Not to mention linking bullshit nonsense and calling it science.
Last edited:
Stupidism: The right to be stupid and remain so indefinitely.
There's a reason the term is "global warming" and not "Steve Goddard's neighborhood warming". Check out what's been happening in Siberia the past couple of months.
In the first paragraph we see "17 years of no global warming" presented as presumed fact, instead of basic confusion. So we are reading basic confusion.
And so forth. Is it really that hard to notice these things yourself, and avoid posting links that make you appear gullible, naive, etc?
From what I have seen no on is say in we are causing it. They are saying we are greatly speeding it up
Some in disputable facts are ice bergs are calving and receding at a rate never seen before
Many are dissipearing and a vast vast majority are getting smaller
Can't believe I read this nonsense. Intellectual delinquent. Showing your ass on the internet. It's not amazing how stupid you are.
I think I need a 'time out'. I'm kinda showing my ass on the internet.
Ho Ho Ho Merry New Year.