Because global warming from emissions is real...

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Because global warming from emissions is real... > Page 4

Page 4 of 4

23-05-2019 16:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	HarveyH55 wrote: To much BS to address individually... There are only two points and you refuse to address either: 1) you are obsessed with certain inanimate objects that incite in you an irrational fear, and 2) to address your problem identified in #1, you won't seek counselling but are instead compelled to render all law-abiding citizens defenseless. That does not seem to be too much. Two simple points. You have written a lot below so let's see how you address these points: HarveyH55 wrote: AR 15 type weapons were designed and built to kill lots of people, quick and easy, a military weapon. Incorrect. The AR-15 was designed to fire a particular round very accurately without having to spike into the price range of sniper rifles and one which could be customized to fit a wide range of applications. Accurate. Customizable. Inexpensive. This was the principle behind the Fender electric guitar. Great sound, customizable and inexpensive. Should there be a waiting period to buy Fenders? Anyway, I notice that you are still focused on the AR-15 ... well, at least you are focused on your inaccurate "horror movie villain" impression of the AR-15. HarveyH55 wrote: For your little 'Debate' recreation, you generalize, where I'm speaking of one specific type of gun. If you had arachnophobia I would still generalize about your phobia while you speak only of spiders. But at least you acknowledge that you can't be pried off your obsession to talk about the problem of defenseless law-abiding people being attacked. HarveyH55 wrote:Never hinted at banning, only access control, which you blow way out of proportion, into all guns, instead of a single type, designed for military applications. You want to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. You want to infringe on the right of the people to bear arms. This makes you a problem, not a solution. This makes you dangerous, not helpful. HarveyH55 wrote: Still not sure where the phobia crap comes in, other than it's a fun part of your little debate game, to distract and mis-direct. There is nothing I can do to shake your fixation on AR-15s, and consequently your compulsion to disarm law-abiding citizens. You still haven't even breached the topic of preventing defenseless people from being defenseless. There is nothing I can do to get you to say word one on the matter. HarveyH55 wrote: Don't know where you guys get your statistics on mass shootings, I haven't offered any statistics. HarveyH55 wrote: ... but 2 years ago, we had a mass shooting at a night club in Orlando, 50+ dead. Why didn't someone pull out a firearm and shoot the shooter? Did they all want the shooter to kill all those people? HarveyH55 wrote: Last year, a church shooting, and most recently, a high school on Valentines day. Same question. Why didn't someone pull out a firearm and shoot the shooter? HarveyH55 wrote: Starting this coming fall, there will be armed teachers in most Florida schools, Great! That's at least a step in the right direction but not my preferred solution. I don't know if I want to place the responsibility on teachers and I'm not sure that it's the safest situation given potentially trouble-making students in the classroom. Where I live, sheriff's deputies patrol the schools. The main thing is that they are on location (zero response time), conspicuous (deterrent) and armed & trained. Where I live, there haven't been any mass shootings. HarveyH55 wrote: I only proposed a solution of access control, to one very specific type of gun, and the nutjob debaters, start playing here. Yes, you are a broken record. Make self defense more difficult for law-abiding citizens. Yes, we get it. Do you have anything more to add? HarveyH55 wrote: So, my thought make me insane, but how would you all solve the problem? More guns, greater access to superior weapons? I'm glad you asked. Yes, I would make gun acquisition for law-abiding citizens completely barrier-free. Unless one has had his 2nd Amendments rights specifically removed by a judge for having committed a crime involving firearms (whether or not that is legal) then one would be able to purchase a firearm just as one purchases a baseball bat. I would outlaw "gun free zones" (those that are mandated as such by a public ordinance, people would still be free to associate unarmed). No shooter would have any readily identified defenslessness zones whereby to shoot people with impunity. Yes, gun-phobes like yourself would be uncomfortable but I'm perfectly fine with you being uncomfortable and people not getting shot because they can defend themselves. HarveyH55 wrote:Get everyone to carry a firearm, all the time? Yes, allow all of We the People to bear arms all the time ... almost as though it were a Constitutional right. Don't think I didn't notice how uncomfortable that idea makes you. HarveyH55 wrote: And I'm paranoid... Absolutely! You couldn't be more obvious ... to everyone else. You are the only one you are fooling. HarveyH55 wrote: You have to work for anything you want in life, well some people like to shortcuts, democrats like to create the illusion of free stuff for all. Correct, and you get bonus points for straying from your AR-15 obsession ... but you still haven't acknowledged either your phobia of certain inanimate objects or your compulsion to render law-abiding citizens defenseless. ... oh wait ... it was short-lived ... it looks like you are back to fixating on those inanimate objects ... HarveyH55 wrote: These designed for military application weapons, should be more work to acquire and own, than other firearms, the are a special case, and deserve special attention. Why ... aside from your fear and hatred of them? AR-15s are accurate, customizable and relatively inexpensive. Why should Fender electric guitars be more work to acquire? HarveyH55 wrote: I've never had an interest in playing that particular word based game. Well, you play when the topic is not the subject of your irrational fear. HarveyH55 wrote: Mass shootings have become a very real, serious threat over the past ten years or so, and increasing in frequency. What should be done to prevent future mass shootings? What? Should we create even more defenselessness zones and tee them up for any deranged shooters who happen by? Shall we maximize the number of defenseless law-abiding citizens by clamping down a vise on firearm accessability? What's your solution to the problem you have identified? HarveyH55 wrote: Banning firearms isn't an option, but there should be something in place to make it not so easy for those intent on using them like this. So there you have it. We have no way of identifying the individuals intent on doing these mass shootings ahead of time. As it stands, all you want to do is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves. HarveyH55 wrote: ... but we can identify their prefered choice of weapons, and at least try to limit their access to them. 1. No, you cannot determine any preferred weapon and 2. That is no reason to prevent a law-abiding citizen from obtaining his/her preferred method of self-defense. HarveyH55 wrote: Why make it so simple and easy for them? So they can defend themselves. HarveyH55 wrote: It's true, they can simply chose another weapon, but it won't be as good a guaranty of success to their plans, No weapon will be any guarantee of success if the shooter will be shot before he can get started. Do you understand how that works? HarveyH55 wrote: ... that is killing too many people, and happening way too often. Needs to be addressed. Should have been addressed a long time ago. Let's not play word games. When you say "addressed", what do you mean should be done? Is just talking about it sufficient? What should be done? HarveyH55 wrote:. When I went to school, the police were rarely needed. Nor were they needed at my school, but we did not grow up in the LA Unified School Disctrict where the police were needed on a daily basis. New York needed to deploy metal detectors. HarveyH55 wrote: Now the staff is being encouraged to get trained and certified, to carry on school grounds. Doesn't really instill a whole lot of confidence, a constant reminder, that these kids risk their lives, just to get an education everyday. Staff getting trained and certified instills confidence by acknowledging the uncomfortable reality that a threat exists and that the staff is willing to confront it. Staff that sticks its head in the sand and pretends there is no threat is offering to host the next mass shooting. I hope you don't consider that "confidence building." I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-05-2019 17:39
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	GasGuzzler wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Most people who buy a gun for self defense don't think about that aspect of it. You know, actually shooting another person. Really??!! You think people buy guns for self defense with wild west dreams of shooting the pistol out of the aggressors hand? WTF again! And of course, if another country invades the US, are you willing to kill them? Yes. I missed my opportunity to serve my country because I was a POS kid and young adult. I'd have no problem with that. You only consider what you think, right? A lot of people buy guns to "feel safer". They think if they show it then the other person will stop whatever they're doing. More often than not their gun is used against them. Your responses suggest that you have trouble controlling your emotions. Maybe you should read up more on issues that you support? It seems that you're ill informed. As far as being a POS kid, that's the description of many who enlist. Some change and some don't. And with you Gasguzzler, you're just that same kid but older. You haven't changed. I had a teacher in the 7th grade who told em to never help a D student because they don't understand why they're getting Ds. What was funny was it was a math class and a D student asked me to help him because I got all As and all he asked me was why his answers were wrong and mine were right. He had no interest in learning math. Some things aren't about a person't opinion. With gun ownership, people should take the time to learn the issues of gun ownership rather than can I buy one if I want because it'll make me feel better. But people don't care to make informed decisions. That's inconvenient. Edited on 23-05-2019 18:25
23-05-2019 19:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Most people who buy a gun for self defense don't think about that aspect of it. You know, actually shooting another person. Really??!! You think people buy guns for self defense with wild west dreams of shooting the pistol out of the aggressors hand? WTF again! And of course, if another country invades the US, are you willing to kill them? Yes. I missed my opportunity to serve my country because I was a POS kid and young adult. I'd have no problem with that. You only consider what you think, right? I don't think he does. Who are you to declare who is selfish or not? James___ wrote: A lot of people buy guns to "feel safer". Guess what? They work! James___ wrote: They think if they show it then the other person will stop whatever they're doing. Is that you think how a gun is used? HAHAHAHAHAHA! James___ wrote: More often than not their gun is used against them. How do you know this? Are you that careless with guns? James___ wrote: Your responses suggest that you have trouble controlling your emotions. Psychoquackery. James___ wrote: Maybe you should read up more on issues that you support? It seems that you're ill informed. Canned insult. James___ wrote: ...deleted unrelated portion... With gun ownership, people should take the time to learn the issues of gun ownership rather than can I buy one if I want because it'll make me feel better. YOU don't get to dictate why people buy or gun or when they buy it. You are not the king. James___ wrote: But people don't care to make informed decisions. That's inconvenient. YOU don't get to dictate what an 'informed decision' is. You are not the king. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-05-2019 20:01
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Most people who buy a gun for self defense don't think about that aspect of it. You know, actually shooting another person. Really??!! You think people buy guns for self defense with wild west dreams of shooting the pistol out of the aggressors hand? WTF again! And of course, if another country invades the US, are you willing to kill them? Yes. I missed my opportunity to serve my country because I was a POS kid and young adult. I'd have no problem with that. You only consider what you think, right? I don't think he does. Who are you to declare who is selfish or not? James___ wrote: A lot of people buy guns to "feel safer". Guess what? They work! James___ wrote: They think if they show it then the other person will stop whatever they're doing. Is that you think how a gun is used? HAHAHAHAHAHA! James___ wrote: More often than not their gun is used against them. How do you know this? Are you that careless with guns? James___ wrote: Your responses suggest that you have trouble controlling your emotions. Psychoquackery. James___ wrote: Maybe you should read up more on issues that you support? It seems that you're ill informed. Canned insult. James___ wrote: ...deleted unrelated portion... With gun ownership, people should take the time to learn the issues of gun ownership rather than can I buy one if I want because it'll make me feel better. YOU don't get to dictate why people buy or gun or when they buy it. You are not the king. James___ wrote: But people don't care to make informed decisions. That's inconvenient. YOU don't get to dictate what an 'informed decision' is. You are not the king. Counting coup again Isn't? Been sniffing paint too? I might not be the king but you're definitely the queen. Or is that your partner, ER, I mean IBNotDaMann? That's funny, Isn't it? If not DaMann then DaQueen. I can see why you have so much fun playing word games. Tell me, are you and your "partner" queerious about each other? I mean both of you reject Boltzmann's work on atmospheric gases while claiming that because the Stefan-Boltzmann constant quantifies the absorbed solar radiation being emitted is all anyone needs to know. You ignore the fact that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not account for how solar radiation is refracted. I find yours and his positions to be rather queer butt you have each others backs, right? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc Not sure ITN but it's too easy to insult people who are limited. And I should spend my time more productively lest I become like you. That's not a goal of mine in life. My Badd, with GasGuzzler, are you the mama bear coming to protect it's cub? IBBadd, I didn't mean to B. Edited on 23-05-2019 20:23
23-05-2019 20:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Most people who buy a gun for self defense don't think about that aspect of it. You know, actually shooting another person. Really??!! You think people buy guns for self defense with wild west dreams of shooting the pistol out of the aggressors hand? WTF again! And of course, if another country invades the US, are you willing to kill them? Yes. I missed my opportunity to serve my country because I was a POS kid and young adult. I'd have no problem with that. You only consider what you think, right? I don't think he does. Who are you to declare who is selfish or not? James___ wrote: A lot of people buy guns to "feel safer". Guess what? They work! James___ wrote: They think if they show it then the other person will stop whatever they're doing. Is that you think how a gun is used? HAHAHAHAHAHA! James___ wrote: More often than not their gun is used against them. How do you know this? Are you that careless with guns? James___ wrote: Your responses suggest that you have trouble controlling your emotions. Psychoquackery. James___ wrote: Maybe you should read up more on issues that you support? It seems that you're ill informed. Canned insult. James___ wrote: ...deleted unrelated portion... With gun ownership, people should take the time to learn the issues of gun ownership rather than can I buy one if I want because it'll make me feel better. YOU don't get to dictate why people buy or gun or when they buy it. You are not the king. James___ wrote: But people don't care to make informed decisions. That's inconvenient. YOU don't get to dictate what an 'informed decision' is. You are not the king. ...deleted insults... I mean both of you reject Boltzmann's work on atmospheric gases while claiming that because the Stefan-Boltzmann constant quantifies the absorbed solar radiation being emitted is all anyone needs to know. What about radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 eludes you? James___ wrote: You ignore the fact that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not account for how solar radiation is refracted. ...deleted insults... The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not about refraction. The Boltzmann constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

23-05-2019 20:58
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Enough of this silly game, you all want to spin around in circles, that's fine, wasted time. There plenty of other gun choices, do you understand that? Or do you lack the capacity to use anything other than the civilian version of the M-16, a military assault rifle, not a sniper rifle, an Adult Rifle? What part of that don't you understand? Fender guitars? How many people get killed by a guitar, maybe one or two electrocuted, on stage. Why bring up? Misdirection, or moronic? We've gone through all your silly questions, least twice, you just keep spinning, or you lack the reading skills to comprehend. Either way, a silly little game you play, which you have to win, you just could yourself. Mostly, what I've gotten out of all this, is that you probably aren't quite that smart, just obsessed with the appearance. Guess that's why this forum is a ghost town, new members don't stay long. Your way of thinking, or go some where else...
23-05-2019 21:27
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	HarveyH55 wrote: Enough of this silly game, you all want to spin around in circles, that's fine, wasted time. There plenty of other gun choices, do you understand that? Or do you lack the capacity to use anything other than the civilian version of the M-16, a military assault rifle, not a sniper rifle, an Adult Rifle? What part of that don't you understand? Fender guitars? How many people get killed by a guitar, maybe one or two electrocuted, on stage. Why bring up? Misdirection, or moronic? We've gone through all your silly questions, least twice, you just keep spinning, or you lack the reading skills to comprehend. Either way, a silly little game you play, which you have to win, you just could yourself. Mostly, what I've gotten out of all this, is that you probably aren't quite that smart, just obsessed with the appearance. Guess that's why this forum is a ghost town, new members don't stay long. Your way of thinking, or go some where else... What, in your words or definition, makes the AR an "assault" rifle? What can it do that no other "over the counter" weapon can?
23-05-2019 22:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	HarveyH55 wrote: Enough of this silly game, you all want to spin around in circles, that's fine, wasted time. Then quit playing it. YOU are the only one playing games here. HarveyH55 wrote: There plenty of other gun choices, do you understand that? So what? YOU don't get to dictate what gun someone wants to own. You are not the king. HarveyH55 wrote: Or do you lack the capacity to use anything other than the civilian version of the M-16, a military assault rifle, not a sniper rifle, an Adult Rifle? Divisional error fallacy. HarveyH55 wrote: What part of that don't you understand? Your paranoia about the AR15 design. HarveyH55 wrote: Fender guitars? How many people get killed by a guitar, maybe one or two electrocuted, on stage. Why bring up? Misdirection, or moronic? Because they are popular for the same reason the AR15 is. It's a very flexible and solid design. HarveyH55 wrote: We've gone through all your silly questions, least twice, you just keep spinning, or you lack the reading skills to comprehend. Either way, a silly little game you play, which you have to win, you just could yourself. YOU are the only one playing games here. HarveyH55 wrote: Mostly, what I've gotten out of all this, is that you probably aren't quite that smart, just obsessed with the appearance. YOU are the only one even bringing up appearances. HarveyH55 wrote: Guess that's why this forum is a ghost town, new members don't stay long. It's not. They do. HarveyH55 wrote: Your way of thinking, or go some where else... No, the Constitution of the United States. It is the law. I you do not agree with that law, go somewhere else. Don't stand here in this country and whine about a document that you hate. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2019 00:54
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: . ...deleted insults... The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not about refraction. The Boltzmann constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. What insults? Don't you like playing games? I get bored too. I don't mind playing them because I care about you and want for you to be entertained. With what you said, simple facts for a simpleton. You don't understand how it's considered that they influence each other. Scientists quite often ignore context because then everything can be treated as a singularity. This is what your post demonstrates. Everything is considered individually which then only requires a basic explanation.
24-05-2019 03:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: . ...deleted insults... The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not about refraction. The Boltzmann constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. ...deleted insults and unrelated portion...You don't understand how it's considered that they influence each other. They don't. James___ wrote: Scientists quite often ignore context because then everything can be treated as a singularity. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not about The Singularity either. I see you worship this too. James___ wrote: This is what your post demonstrates. No, it simply has nothing to do with it. James___ wrote: Everything is considered individually which then only requires a basic explanation. But you just denied the explanation and went off on unrelated topics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2019 04:38
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: . ...deleted insults... The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not about refraction. The Boltzmann constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. ...deleted insults and unrelated portion...You don't understand how it's considered that they influence each other. They don't. James___ wrote: Scientists quite often ignore context because then everything can be treated as a singularity. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not about The Singularity either. I see you worship this too. James___ wrote: This is what your post demonstrates. No, it simply has nothing to do with it. James___ wrote: Everything is considered individually which then only requires a basic explanation. But you just denied the explanation and went off on unrelated topics. Parrot, ditto, ditto, parrot, ditto, etc.
24-05-2019 17:45
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James___ wrote: Wake wrote: Quite to the contrary. I think that only one of those mass shooters actually used an AR. A couple carried them but in close quarters they are difficult to use and instead they used pistols. I agree with you concerning using a revolver. A .357 with a 3" barrel from Colt can knock a buffalo over at 50 yards. With a reloader it takes about the same amount of time to reload as snapping a new clip into an automatic. And the merest thought of it makes James crap his pants. That is at least one advantage. Wake, at the end of the day you're nothing but a bigot. You have to hate on someone to feel good about yourself. It's funny because you say automatic weapons need to be legal because of the 2nd Amendment. You're a joke. You know I have taken target practice at my local police station because I was in NJROTC. After serving active duty in the US Navy I joined my states National Guard and was qualified on the M16. Ever fire a fully automatic assault rifle? No? I have. I also remembered why I was holding it. If I didn't know how to use it then I couldn't shoot another person with it, could I? Nope, I couldn't. Only reason I was trained on how to take care of it, point it and shoot it. That's one of those things about being in the military they ask you when you join, could you kill someone? That about always requires a yes answer. I mean the military is the wrong place for someone to be who isn't willing to take another life. Shooting guns and how to handle them is a part of boot camp. I'm a civilian now. And with you, you're either a gun nut or someone who's never had any training. And in the military, it's about shooting someone else. GasGuzzler doesn't get that about having a gun. If you're not willing to use it then you shouldn't have one. Isn't that funny Wake? My military training by military agencies of the US or within it's borders have taught me that automatic assault weapons are intended for the efficient termination of human life by creating a "fire zone". I've forgotten the actual term used but with an automatic weapon, it's most efficient if you can have your targets approaching you within a limited field that you can "spray". That increases the likelyhood of terminating your targets. Kind of imagine if you laid down in the prone position, on your stomach and consider about 15º to 20º to the left and right from straight ahead. It'll take out everything in that field of fire. That's why assault rifles are normally fired from the prone position. It's easier to control your line of fire. Of course if people avoided military service because they love America....... I'm VFW from Vietnam and have a real problem with your claims that you've been in the service. Where and for how long? Your mentioning the ROTC makes me suspicious that that is the source of your so-called knowledge. At what point did ANYONE suggest that fully automatic weapons be legal? They are illegal NOT because they fire a lot of ammunition but because they are very difficult to control. If you had actually fired one you would have known that. You don't even seem to know that even a semiautomatic pistol can't be held upon a target for rapid fire. If you were in the service you would know that. In a war zone and facing an enemy that is of no consequence. But it is for self protection. Last year I visited a friend in Phoenix and we went by a firing range. He is retired NCIS and in order to carry a concealed weapon anywhere he has to qualify every year. I have no doubt that he can outshoot be with a pistol but with a rifle he wasn't even close to me and because of my past concussion I can't hold steady on a target. In case you are unaware of it, rifles, like pistols are made to be used from a standing position. This is another reason I don't think that you were in the military. You must live in an area in which you feel safe. Most of us do not. Having expensive items stolen out of my back yard and having my doors almost broken into until the alarm was set off is proof of that. The job of the police is NOT to protect you stupid. It is to catch the criminals that kill you. Also you claim to have been in the service but you are completely unaware that it is against the law to use any military service against Americans. As most Snowflakes you like using words like "bigot" and "racist" proving you are a little white puff of smoke that will dissipate into the air over time. With the declassification of the FBI memos we will all see that scum like you attempted to overthrow a legally elected government. This is the definition of treason and they will all pay with the rest of their lives in prison. You were as happy as a bug in a rug when you thought that the 2nd Amendment could be thrown out. Instead all of those who worked so hard on that are gone. I'm here is California where the students are striking and demanding that we immediately pass the New Green Deal. They have been propagandized almost from birth by the left to fear a failing world and all I can remember is Hitler's propaganda minister Goebbels saying, "If you tell a lie long enough people will believe it." That only works on people as gullible as you. I remember several years ago that little quip on Facebook about the 2nd Amendment only being for muzzle loaders and flintlocks. It would appear that you've bought that hook, line and sinker. You couldn't care less that the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Your bling fear of guns tells you otherwise. So if you are bothered by being called a fool and a liar you needn't return because you will find nothing but more of it because you will be looking into a mirror held by people who see you for what you are.
24-05-2019 19:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Wake wrote: James___ wrote: Wake wrote: Quite to the contrary. I think that only one of those mass shooters actually used an AR. A couple carried them but in close quarters they are difficult to use and instead they used pistols. I agree with you concerning using a revolver. A .357 with a 3" barrel from Colt can knock a buffalo over at 50 yards. With a reloader it takes about the same amount of time to reload as snapping a new clip into an automatic. And the merest thought of it makes James crap his pants. That is at least one advantage. Wake, at the end of the day you're nothing but a bigot. You have to hate on someone to feel good about yourself. It's funny because you say automatic weapons need to be legal because of the 2nd Amendment. You're a joke. You know I have taken target practice at my local police station because I was in NJROTC. After serving active duty in the US Navy I joined my states National Guard and was qualified on the M16. Ever fire a fully automatic assault rifle? No? I have. I also remembered why I was holding it. If I didn't know how to use it then I couldn't shoot another person with it, could I? Nope, I couldn't. Only reason I was trained on how to take care of it, point it and shoot it. That's one of those things about being in the military they ask you when you join, could you kill someone? That about always requires a yes answer. I mean the military is the wrong place for someone to be who isn't willing to take another life. Shooting guns and how to handle them is a part of boot camp. I'm a civilian now. And with you, you're either a gun nut or someone who's never had any training. And in the military, it's about shooting someone else. GasGuzzler doesn't get that about having a gun. If you're not willing to use it then you shouldn't have one. Isn't that funny Wake? My military training by military agencies of the US or within it's borders have taught me that automatic assault weapons are intended for the efficient termination of human life by creating a "fire zone". I've forgotten the actual term used but with an automatic weapon, it's most efficient if you can have your targets approaching you within a limited field that you can "spray". That increases the likelyhood of terminating your targets. Kind of imagine if you laid down in the prone position, on your stomach and consider about 15º to 20º to the left and right from straight ahead. It'll take out everything in that field of fire. That's why assault rifles are normally fired from the prone position. It's easier to control your line of fire. Of course if people avoided military service because they love America....... I'm VFW from Vietnam and have a real problem with your claims that you've been in the service. Where and for how long? Your mentioning the ROTC makes me suspicious that that is the source of your so-called knowledge. Considering some of the whoppers you've told, Wake, I doubt this story too. Wake wrote: At what point did ANYONE suggest that fully automatic weapons be legal? I did. Pay attention. Wake wrote: They are illegal NOT because they fire a lot of ammunition but because they are very difficult to control. Irrelevant. Nothing in the Constitution empowers the government to ban a gun because it's 'difficult to control'. Wake wrote: If you had actually fired one you would have known that. Ever hear of a gun mount, Wake? Wake wrote: You don't even seem to know that even a semiautomatic pistol can't be held upon a target for rapid fire. I have no problem with that, Wake. You are expected to do that in the military too. Wake wrote: If you were in the service you would know that. Which tells me you weren't in the service either. Wake wrote: In a war zone and facing an enemy that is of no consequence. But it is for self protection. It is of no consequence to be able to hit your target in a war zone??? WTF??? Wake wrote: Last year I visited a friend in Phoenix and we went by a firing range. He is retired NCIS and in order to carry a concealed weapon anywhere he has to qualify every year. That is not Arizona law, Wake. Go look it up. I doubt your story on this too. Wake wrote: In case you are unaware of it, rifles, like pistols are made to be used from a standing position. They can be used in any position, Wake. You can lie down and shoot, sit in a chair and shoot, stand up and shoot, anything. Wake wrote: This is another reason I don't think that you were in the military. The military trains in all of these positions, Wake. Wake wrote: You must live in an area in which you feel safe. Most of us do not. Having expensive items stolen out of my back yard and having my doors almost broken into until the alarm was set off is proof of that. Irrelevant. Wake wrote: The job of the police is NOT to protect you stupid. Yes it is. Wake wrote: It is to catch the criminals that kill you. That's how they protect another from that same criminal. They might even catch him BEFORE he kills someone like James. Wake wrote: Also you claim to have been in the service but you are completely unaware that it is against the law to use any military service against Americans. A government that attacks its own people is not going to last long. Wake wrote: As most Snowflakes you like using words like "bigot" and "racist" proving you are a little white puff of smoke that will dissipate into the air over time. Using a word like 'bigot' or 'racist' can be used by anyone, Wake. To consider the use of these words to liberals only is actually bigotry. Wake wrote: With the declassification of the FBI memos we will all see that scum like you attempted to overthrow a legally elected government. This is the definition of treason and they will all pay with the rest of their lives in prison. It is not the definition of treason, as specified by the Constitution, Wake. Wake wrote: You were as happy as a bug in a rug when you thought that the 2nd Amendment could be thrown out. Instead all of those who worked so hard on that are gone. The 2nd amendment does not grant the right to own a gun, Wake. The right to self defense is inherent in Man simply as Man. The Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with that right. It grants no rights. Wake wrote: I'm here is California where the students are striking and demanding that we immediately pass the New Green Deal. They have been propagandized almost from birth by the left to fear a failing world and all I can remember is Hitler's propaganda minister Goebbels saying, "If you tell a lie long enough people will believe it." That only works on people as gullible as you. Someday I hope California returns to the Union. The idiots in Sacramento should start by honoring both the Constitution of the United States and their own constitution. The people need to recognize what has happened to what used to be the State of California. Wake wrote: I remember several years ago that little quip on Facebook about the 2nd Amendment only being for muzzle loaders and flintlocks. That argument is still used for today. It leads directly to the 'living document' argument, which argues that the Constitution is plastic and can change on a whim simply by the passage of time. Wake wrote: It would appear that you've bought that hook, line and sinker. You couldn't care less that the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The Supreme Court has no power over the Constitution, Wake. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2019 19:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: Scientists quite often ignore context because then everything can be treated as a singularity. Is this what you believe climate scientists do? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-05-2019 20:39
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Scientists quite often ignore context because then everything can be treated as a singularity. Is this what you believe climate scientists do? 10 points. James started out sanely enough months ago but got gradually worse until now he is saying things like the 2nd Amendment is for flintlocks. How could he claim to have been in the military service and have to wear Depends when guns are mentioned? What would EVER make anyone think that the cops' jobs are to protect you? If they happened to be there at the time of a crime they could but that is less than 0.001% of crimes. Nightmare who most obviously has never been in the service is just as bad. Being able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere requires a Federal Permit which requires yearly qualifications. Arizona law allows you to carry concealed without any sort of permit or license unless you're a registered felon or mentally disturbed. Browsing Nightmares entries over the last week I have to laugh at how stupid he is. He disclaims the entire science of spectroscopy so that he can say you can't measure mean global temperature. He too is growing more mentally unstable over time like James. He once claimed to be an engineer because he is supposedly a certified aircraft mechanic. I'm not quite clear how 1 + 1 = 5 to him but I suppose that's what he is saying.

24-05-2019 21:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Wake wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Scientists quite often ignore context because then everything can be treated as a singularity. Is this what you believe climate scientists do? 10 points. James started out sanely enough months ago but got gradually worse until now he is saying things like the 2nd Amendment is for flintlocks. How could he claim to have been in the military service and have to wear Depends when guns are mentioned? What would EVER make anyone think that the cops' jobs are to protect you? If they happened to be there at the time of a crime they could but that is less than 0.001% of crimes. Nightmare who most obviously has never been in the service is just as bad. I have never claimed to have been in the military. My brother was in the Air Force, and my father was a spy. Wake wrote: Being able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere requires a Federal Permit which requires yearly qualifications. WRONG. No permit of any kind is required in Arizona. No qualification at a range of any kind is necessary. Wake wrote: Arizona law allows you to carry concealed without any sort of permit or license unless you're a registered felon or mentally disturbed. You can't legally carry a gun either concealed or openly in Arizona if you are a felon or a forced into involuntary mental health treatment by court order. You are now locked in paradox. Wake wrote: Browsing Nightmares entries over the last week I have to laugh at how stupid he is. He disclaims the entire science of spectroscopy so that he can say you can't measure mean global temperature. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Wake. You can't measure the temperature of Earth using spectroscopy. It's only good to +- 1000 deg F or so for estimating temperatures of the surface of a star at best. It can be used to estimate the temperature of, say, steel to within +- 100 deg or so, but only if the piece of steel is in the dark. Earth isn't in the dark. Wake wrote: He too is growing more mentally unstable over time like James. Psychoquackery. Bulverism. Wake wrote: He once claimed to be an engineer I am an engineer. I am also a scientist. I am also a businessman. I own my own company. Wake wrote: because he is supposedly a certified aircraft mechanic. I am also a certified aircraft mechanic. Wake wrote: I'm not quite clear how 1 + 1 = 5 to him but I suppose that's what he is saying. Never said any such thing, Wake. Only YOU are. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2019 22:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Scientists quite often ignore context because then everything can be treated as a singularity. Is this what you believe climate scientists do? I'll bite on this one, okay? It's what a lot of people do. You seem to forget that when it's 80º F. outside, the tropopause is also -60º F. while the midsection of the stratosphere is 32º F. and the top of the stratosphere is 5º F. To say that atmospheric gases rise into the cold and then remove heat so that it can warm a warmer area doesn't work. The cause given is that the heat is very efficiently removed. I do not accept the given answer. This is something though that is most likely too technical for the average person. You, ITN and everyone else attacks me for pointing out that if we were to lower CO2 emissions that we would be making a mistake. And that opinion has nothing to do with global warming or climate change. I am in the wrong place. It's a different atmosphere in the US today. I watched his debate with Nixon on PBS, it was 2 adults discussing issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1PbQlVMp98 Edited on 24-05-2019 22:40
24-05-2019 22:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Scientists quite often ignore context because then everything can be treated as a singularity. Is this what you believe climate scientists do? I'll bite on this one, okay? It's what a lot of people do. You seem to forget that when it's 80º F. outside, the tropopause is also -60º F. while the midsection of the stratosphere is 32º F. and the top of the stratosphere is 5º F. Doesn't answer the question. Surface temperature is unrelated to temperature above that location in the atmosphere. James___ wrote: To say that atmospheric gases rise into the cold and then remove heat Heat is not contained in anything. You can't "remove" it. Convection IS one form of heat. James___ wrote: so that it can warm a warmer area doesn't work. You can't warm a warmer area with colder air, James. James___ wrote: The cause given is that the heat is very efficiently removed. Heat is not contained in anything. You can't "remove" it. James___ wrote: I do not accept the given answer. What given answer is that, James, the nonsense you just spewed? James___ wrote: This is something though that is most likely too technical for the average person. Your bullshit disclaimer right up front just says it all about the following material. James___ wrote: You, ITN and everyone else attacks me for pointing out that if we were to lower CO2 emissions that we would be making a mistake. What? No technical anything?? No, we attack what you call 'science', and what you call 'history'. James___ wrote: And that opinion has nothing to do with global warming or climate change. What opinion is that, James? Void argument fallacies. James___ wrote: I am in the wrong place. Where do you think you are? James___ wrote: It's a different atmosphere in the US today....deleted unrelated material... How so? Void argument fallacy. You know, you could always try to stay on topic long enough to answer IBdaMann's question. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 24-05-2019 22:55
25-05-2019 07:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: I'll bite on this one, okay? It's what a lot of people do. Sure. As long as we all remember that science isn't people. Soylent Green is people, but science is not. Shout it with me: "You gotta tell 'em! Soylent Green is Climate Scientists!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UPDUpjkHg0 James___ wrote: You, ITN and everyone else attacks me for pointing out that if we were to lower CO2 emissions that we would be making a mistake. I don't recall you ever making that point and I certainly never criticized you for it. James___ wrote: It's a different atmosphere in the US today. I watched his debate with Nixon on PBS, it was 2 adults discussing issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1PbQlVMp98 I'm glad you posted this. I never fully realized that Kennedy said absolutely nothing with amazing enthusiasm. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-05-2019 08:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Wake wrote: What would EVER make anyone think that the cops' jobs are to protect you? It's sad but the job of the police is to build the DA's case against you. The police are there to protect and to serve ... the DA's prosecution of you. The only reason the police would have to protect you is to build the DA's case against someone else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6-xQ3mhGWg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCVa-bmEHuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y_l3sa-iJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZePEy7OxV9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ijgiu8DBC0 Wake wrote: Arizona law allows you to carry concealed without any sort of permit or license unless you're a registered felon or mentally disturbed. I remember my Arizona days during which my acquaintance would enjoy showing up to events carrying, just to show up to events carrying ... because he could ... because it was Arizona. Wake wrote: He disclaims the entire science of spectroscopy so that he can say you can't measure mean global temperature. I don't understand why you are linking spectroscopy with attempts to calculate an average global temperature to within a useful margin of error. Help me out here. Let's discuss your thoughts on how spectroscopy can be used to calculate an average global temperature to within a useful margin of error. First, what do you consider to be a useful margin of error? Wake wrote: I'm not quite clear how 1 + 1 = 5 to him but I suppose that's what he is saying. It's a mathematical theorem. 1 + 1 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 1 I'm here through Thursday. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-05-2019 20:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	IBdaMann wrote: Sure. As long as we all remember that science isn't people. Soylent Green is people, but science is not. Shout it with me: "You gotta tell 'em! Soylent Green is Climate Scientists!" The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-08-2019 23:56
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (105)	James___ wrote: That's why assault rifles are normally fired from the prone position. It's easier to control your line of fire. Troops do not "assault" in the prone position. "Assault" means forward movement toward the enemy. In a prone position, or any other for that matter, you don't routinely "spray." That simply wastes ammunition, which is always critical. There were infantry units in Vietnam where the Commanding Officer said "We return fire at everyone firing on full automatic because that's a stupid waste of ammunition." "Line of fire" doesn't need to be "controlled" so much when combat is close quarters. Fifty yards is a very close target. The US Army doesn't even practice on targets that close. Seventy-five yards is the minimum.
09-08-2019 02:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	RenaissanceMan wrote:Troops do not "assault" in the prone position. Well, you obviously were never a soldier or marine where English is spoken. "Assault" means "attack." Assaults are certainly conducted by soldiers in the prone position. RenaissanceMan wrote: "Assault" means forward movement toward the enemy. Nope. The word for that is "advancement." The opposite term is "retreat" or "falling back." RenaissanceMan wrote: In a prone position, or any other for that matter, you don't routinely "spray." That simply wastes ammunition, which is always critical. ... unless it is a crew served weapon, whose purpose is to spray for an area defense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8o9NJFiK0U RenaissanceMan wrote: "Line of fire" doesn't need to be "controlled" so much when combat is close quarters. Fifty yards is a very close target. The US Army doesn't even practice on targets that close. Seventy-five yards is the minimum. Clearly you were never a US soldier or marine. The US Army has many types of ranges, and plenty of non-crew served ranges that include 50-yard targetting. US Army 50-Yard Range I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-08-2019 19:21
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (105)	IBdaMann wrote: "Assault" means "attack." Assaults are certainly conducted by soldiers in the prone position. Let's see you attack while in prone position. I am a rifle expert as certified by the U.S. Army. Our targets were 100 yards to 350 yards away. I am a Vietnam Veteran and as my father used to say, "You talk like a man with a paper ***hole."
09-08-2019 19:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	RenaissanceMan wrote:Let's see you attack while in prone position. It's called "pulling the trigger." RenaissanceMan wrote: I am a rifle expert as certified by the U.S. Army. I'm officially doubting this. I'm guessing that you don't know why the Army refers to the tactical backpack used for attacks as the "assault bag." RenaissanceMan wrote: Our targets were 100 yards to 350 yards away. The US Army certainly has ranges for those distances but your assertion that they somehow don't have 50-yard targetting is absurd. RenaissanceMan wrote: I am a Vietnam Veteran ... ... or you are/were a conscientious objector who evaded the draft, who never stepped foot on an Army base and who has no clue about Army ranges. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: please come back to climate-debate.com19-03-2022 13:25
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Greetings dehammer. We never met. I'm new here. My message is simple Please come back to climate-debate.com I think you like what is happening here now. Implausible I know, given what a troll-infested cesspool it had been. I hope you get notification of this message. -------------------------------------------------- dehammer wrote: It is important because that is the point the use to claim man made co2 is causing the problem. Climate change is not because of co2, but due to the melting of glaciers. The melt is not the result of the warming, it IS the warming. During the little ice age, the glaciers advanced and they have retreated since.
19-03-2022 14:13
Swan★★★★★ (5710)	sealover wrote: Greetings dehammer. We never met. I'm new here. My message is simple Please come back to climate-debate.com I think you like what is happening here now. Implausible I know, given what a troll-infested cesspool it had been. I hope you get notification of this message. -------------------------------------------------- dehammer wrote: It is important because that is the point the use to claim man made co2 is causing the problem. Climate change is not because of co2, but due to the melting of glaciers. The melt is not the result of the warming, it IS the warming. During the little ice age, the glaciers advanced and they have retreated since. Hey stoopud, are you aware that everyone knows the date that you joined here? Why are you claiming to be new here?
19-03-2022 17:57
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Swan wrote: sealover wrote: Greetings dehammer. We never met. I'm new here. My message is simple Please come back to climate-debate.com I think you like what is happening here now. Implausible I know, given what a troll-infested cesspool it had been. I hope you get notification of this message. -------------------------------------------------- dehammer wrote: It is important because that is the point the use to claim man made co2 is causing the problem. Climate change is not because of co2, but due to the melting of glaciers. The melt is not the result of the warming, it IS the warming. During the little ice age, the glaciers advanced and they have retreated since. Hey stoopud, are you aware that everyone knows the date that you joined here? Why are you claiming to be new here? He's the new, self- appointed 'sheriff', here to 'save' the forum. Personally, I prefer our other Savior, he accepts SafeMoon coin, and makes no attempt at hijacking the forum, or the threads. Well, might get a little spammy at times. We don't need no nanny-state, authoritarian rule here. We are all adults, and get over hurt-feelings. Some people can't handle freedom. It just bugs the hell out of them, that some could actually think for themselves, and resist joining the hive-mentality. Failure is assured, but can't help but wonder if after the May 1st super-volcano fails to erupt, if our sheriff will continue to troll the forum.

Page 4 of 4

Join the debate Because global warming from emissions is real...:

Threads	Replies	Last post
What a "REAL" American Brings to the Table	3	05-12-2023 01:14
None Of You Know The Real Intend, Purpose Of Climate Change Issue On The Media	7	04-12-2023 04:02
The government now wants everyone to ALWAYYS use their real name when using the net	20	18-11-2023 22:35
LOL was that a super bimbo demonstrating her only real mental prowess	1	06-09-2023 14:05
The EPA's ambitious plan to cut auto emissions to slow climate change runs into skepticism	1	06-08-2023 20:31