Remember me
▼ Content

This forum is f ucking garbage



Page 2 of 3<123>
06-11-2017 16:30
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You Christians are always forcing your beliefs on others, and you are no different, Child of Satan.


Please show me where I forced my religion on you. You don't even know what religion I associate with. I could be Muslim. You are a self avowed member of the Church of Global Warming. No?

You however are the one forcing your religion on us. How can you possibly deny this? I've never told you to change your life in any way except for staying the hell out of mine.....but that's not how you roll now, is it?


What's more greenman who is naming himself over a pagan deity has quoted the bible on several occasions here. Why do you suppose he was trying to force his beliefs on us?
06-11-2017 18:52
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped: Why do you suppose he was trying to force his beliefs on us?
Yeah, "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" is the one with the complementary bump stock for its NRA support.
06-11-2017 20:17
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped: Why do you suppose he was trying to force his beliefs on us?
Yeah, "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" is the one with the complementary bump stock for its NRA support.


And the poor little helpless creature frightened completely out of his mind who wets itself every 15 minutes because it is expecting ICE any moment posts again and again to itself in order to prove it exists. But it doesn't.
06-11-2017 22:36
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped: And...

"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" takes its bump stock to bed to chase away its increasing nightmares, of which itself, is one of the nightmares.
06-11-2017 23:09
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped: And...

"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" takes its bump stock to bed to chase away its increasing nightmares, of which itself, is one of the nightmares.


Wet yourself again? I guess hiding under your bed isn't working. Maybe if you get an attack dog? But chances are it would attack you. Nobody likes you.
07-11-2017 07:46
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped: And...

"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" takes its bump stock to bed to chase away its increasing nightmares, of which itself, is one of the nightmares.


Wet yourself again? I guess hiding under your bed isn't working. Maybe if you get an attack dog? But chances are it would attack you. Nobody likes you.


I like litesong. His or her [whichever, sorry haven't figured it out yet] shit is hilarious. Well, I guess it is if you aren't an idiotic "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist puked proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener."


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
07-11-2017 07:52
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You Christians are always forcing your beliefs on others, and you are no different, Child of Satan.


Please show me where I forced my religion on you. You don't even know what religion I associate with. I could be Muslim. You are a self avowed member of the Church of Global Warming. No?

You however are the one forcing your religion on us. How can you possibly deny this? I've never told you to change your life in any way except for staying the hell out of mine.....but that's not how you roll now, is it?


What's more greenman who is naming himself over a pagan deity has quoted the bible on several occasions here. Why do you suppose he was trying to force his beliefs on us?


Why do you accuse me of forcing my beliefs on you? Have I made some kind of demand that equates to force being applied to get you to believe the same things I do?

No, and I could care less if you believe the things that I do. I express them for the benefit of those who might be interested in my perspective on things. In fact, the same thing applies to the likes of you that I said to your fkbuddy Parrot. I don't even want you to believe the things I do. I want you to continue right on down your ignorant is bliss path to your own destruction. And leave people that want to live in harmony with the rest of life on this planet alone.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
07-11-2017 08:02
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You Christians are always forcing your beliefs on others, and you are no different, Child of Satan.


Please show me where I forced my religion on you. You don't even know what religion I associate with. I could be Muslim. You are a self avowed member of the Church of Global Warming. No?

You however are the one forcing your religion on us. How can you possibly deny this? I've never told you to change your life in any way except for staying the hell out of mine.....but that's not how you roll now, is it?


Oh, that religion is the one you are squirming around about.


Yup, I am all about forcing that one on you. Yes sir, you are going to clean up your ****ing mess, or hit the ****ing road. How about that?

You are free to continue driving your wore out old Dodge 4X4, laughing all the way, but the Church of Global Warming, as you idiots call them, will put a tax on carbon, which will include gasoline. And they are going to do that because you are too childish to clean up your own mess. So they are going to make you start paying for making more of it, until you figure out how to survive without making such a mess.

Tough Titty. Get over it child. And stop all that whining. All you gotta do is figure out another way to live, that doesn't kill the future generations of our planet. It's that simple. Nothing else will suffice.

And you are going to do it, or you are going to take a hike. Oh, good, I always wanted to say this one:

IT IS WRITTEN



~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
07-11-2017 08:18
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Oregon Petition is a joke, just like you.

Is it? You immediately discard it?
GreenMan wrote:
Charles Darwin came back from the grave just to prove it, by getting his signature on it. There were very few scientists that actually studied or worked in climatology fields who were on the petition. Most of the signatories were from totally outside their field of expertise.

Well, at least you start with the correct attitude. Consensus is not used in science.
GreenMan wrote:
So yes, I will take my research over your Oregon Petition as evidence of climate change and future problems related to it. But please feel free to ignore what the real. Climatologists are saying, if that makes you feel better. You have that choice.

But your 'research' is nothing more than an exercise in numerology, based on a compositional errors, bad math, and random numbers.

There is no branch in science called 'climatology'. No theory can be based on a void argument. I'll happily ignore what any 'climatologist' has to say.


A climatologist is simply a scientist that gets paid to do research on things that affect climate. For example, even though you can't figure out what the definition of Global Warming is, there are scientists who make good money who are busy as bees studying the effects of it. And there are others who are quite busy trying to figure out what our future holds, as a result of Climate Change. Most of these scientists hold degrees in things other than Climatology, since it is a relative new field of science, that created itself around the Climate Change scare. People got concerned, so more research began to be undertaken. Now it is a very large field of science, with governments around the world footing the bill for most of their research. And that is why the rest of the world is smarter than we are. They actually listen to the scientists that they paid to tell them what is going on.

Of course, in your opinion, none of the scientists that study climate know anything. You probably think they could have saved a lot of time and effort, if they had just come to you, instead of pursuing higher degrees that would allow them to understand something that is purely a hoax.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
07-11-2017 14:29
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GreenMan wrote:.... idiotic "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist puked proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener."

Your addition of "idiotic ", accurately works , altho the term, "sleepy" may have a shading of your term. Also you misspelled "pukey"..... but "puked" also accurately portrays AGW denier liar whiners' drivel.
07-11-2017 15:53
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped: And...

"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" takes its bump stock to bed to chase away its increasing nightmares, of which itself, is one of the nightmares.


Wet yourself again? I guess hiding under your bed isn't working. Maybe if you get an attack dog? But chances are it would attack you. Nobody likes you.


I like litesong. His or her [whichever, sorry haven't figured it out yet] shit is hilarious. Well, I guess it is if you aren't an idiotic "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist puked proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener."


I find it as no surprise that you both understand litebrain and like him. Birds of a feather flock together and all that. Maybe you can trade information on the best psychiatrists.
07-11-2017 20:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped: ... no surprise...
It is no surprise that "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" is an old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener.
Edited on 07-11-2017 20:48
07-11-2017 23:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
GreenMan wrote:
Why do you accuse me of forcing my beliefs on you? Have I made some kind of demand that equates to force being applied to get you to believe the same things I do?

Yes.
GreenMan wrote:
No, and I could care less if you believe the things that I do.

Then why are you warning us over and over that we are going to spend the rest of our lives in eternal hell?
GreenMan wrote:
I express them for the benefit of those who might be interested in my perspective on things. In fact, the same thing applies to the likes of you that I said to your fkbuddy Parrot. I don't even want you to believe the things I do. I want you to continue right on down your ignorant is bliss path to your own destruction. And leave people that want to live in harmony with the rest of life on this planet alone.


So you WANT to see people destroyed, eh?

You're religion is false.


The Parrot Killer
07-11-2017 23:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You Christians are always forcing your beliefs on others, and you are no different, Child of Satan.


Please show me where I forced my religion on you. You don't even know what religion I associate with. I could be Muslim. You are a self avowed member of the Church of Global Warming. No?

You however are the one forcing your religion on us. How can you possibly deny this? I've never told you to change your life in any way except for staying the hell out of mine.....but that's not how you roll now, is it?


Oh, that religion is the one you are squirming around about.


Yup, I am all about forcing that one on you. Yes sir, you are going to clean up your ****ing mess, or hit the ****ing road. How about that?

Sounds like you're forcing your religion on people right now.
GreenMan wrote:
You are free to continue driving your wore out old Dodge 4X4, laughing all the way, but the Church of Global Warming, as you idiots call them, will put a tax on carbon, which will include gasoline.

The Church of Global Warming does not have the authority to tax. State religions are also forbidden by the Constitution of the United States and quite a few State constitutions.
GreenMan wrote:
And they are going to do that because you are too childish to clean up your own mess.

The Church of Global Warming has no authority to tax.
GreenMan wrote:
So they are going to make you start paying for making more of it, until you figure out how to survive without making such a mess.

What mess? CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, essential for life on Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
Tough Titty. Get over it child. And stop all that whining.

We live a federated republic in this country, not a dictatorship run by you.

Tough Titty. Get over it child. And stop all that whining.
GreenMan wrote:
All you gotta do is figure out another way to live, that doesn't kill the future generations of our planet.

No one is killing future generations except those who get abortions.
GreenMan wrote:
It's that simple. Nothing else will suffice.

Your way or the highway...is that it?
GreenMan wrote:
And you are going to do it, or you are going to take a hike. Oh, good, I always wanted to say this one:

IT IS WRITTEN


It isn't written. There's thing, you see, called the Constitution of the United States. There are also these other irritating documents in your way, called the State constitutions.


The Parrot Killer
07-11-2017 23:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
GreenMan wrote:
A climatologist is simply a scientist that gets paid to do research on things that affect climate.

A climatologist is simply a putz that gets paid to do research on things that affect climate.
GreenMan wrote:
For example, even though you can't figure out what the definition of Global Warming is, there are scientists who make good money who are busy as bees studying the effects of it.

Oh yes. I know it's a big business already. There's good money in religion!
GreenMan wrote:
And there are others who are quite busy trying to figure out what our future holds, as a result of Climate Change.

Yes. There are many religious prophets.
GreenMan wrote:
Most of these scientists hold degrees in things other than Climatology,

Science is credentials. Science isn't a religion. Science has no theories based on void arguments. There is no branch of science in climate or climatology.
GreenMan wrote:
since it is a relative new field of science, that created itself around the Climate Change scare.

It is not a field of science.
GreenMan wrote:
People got concerned, so more research began to be undertaken.

Science isn't research.
GreenMan wrote:
Now it is a very large field of science,

It is not a field of science. Science has no theories based on a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
with governments around the world footing the bill for most of their research.

Hey...anything to push the propaganda...right?
GreenMan wrote:
And that is why the rest of the world is smarter than we are.

Believing in propaganda is smarter???
GreenMan wrote:
They actually listen to the scientists that they paid to tell them what is going on.

They actually BELIEVE their priests of the Church of Global Warming, eh?
GreenMan wrote:
Of course, in your opinion, none of the scientists that study climate know anything.

About climate? Absolutely that is my opinion! It is also the opinion of many scientists.
Science isn't knowledge. Science isn't consensus. Science isn't scientists.
GreenMan wrote:
You probably think they could have saved a lot of time and effort, if they had just come to you,

They might have, but then again, they wouldn't be able to scam money off of government funded programs that insist there is 'global warming' or 'climate change'.
GreenMan wrote:
instead of pursuing higher degrees that would allow them to understand something that is purely a hoax.

Their problem, not mine.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-11-2017 23:45
08-11-2017 06:58
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
A climatologist is simply a scientist that gets paid to do research on things that affect climate.

A climatologist is simply a putz that gets paid to do research on things that affect climate.
GreenMan wrote:
For example, even though you can't figure out what the definition of Global Warming is, there are scientists who make good money who are busy as bees studying the effects of it.

Oh yes. I know it's a big business already. There's good money in religion!
GreenMan wrote:
And there are others who are quite busy trying to figure out what our future holds, as a result of Climate Change.

Yes. There are many religious prophets.
GreenMan wrote:
Most of these scientists hold degrees in things other than Climatology,

Science is credentials. Science isn't a religion. Science has no theories based on void arguments. There is no branch of science in climate or climatology.
GreenMan wrote:
since it is a relative new field of science, that created itself around the Climate Change scare.

It is not a field of science.
GreenMan wrote:
People got concerned, so more research began to be undertaken.

Science isn't research.
GreenMan wrote:
Now it is a very large field of science,

It is not a field of science. Science has no theories based on a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
with governments around the world footing the bill for most of their research.

Hey...anything to push the propaganda...right?
GreenMan wrote:
And that is why the rest of the world is smarter than we are.

Believing in propaganda is smarter???
GreenMan wrote:
They actually listen to the scientists that they paid to tell them what is going on.

They actually BELIEVE their priests of the Church of Global Warming, eh?
GreenMan wrote:
Of course, in your opinion, none of the scientists that study climate know anything.

About climate? Absolutely that is my opinion! It is also the opinion of many scientists.
Science isn't knowledge. Science isn't consensus. Science isn't scientists.
GreenMan wrote:
You probably think they could have saved a lot of time and effort, if they had just come to you,

They might have, but then again, they wouldn't be able to scam money off of government funded programs that insist there is 'global warming' or 'climate change'.
GreenMan wrote:
instead of pursuing higher degrees that would allow them to understand something that is purely a hoax.

Their problem, not mine.


No, Parrot, scientists who work in the field of climatology are not putz. But calling them that shows your interest in the field. Or I should have said it shows your lack of interest. Which brings me to a question for you. Since you are obviously not interested in knowing about the planet's climate, and how it is changing, why do you spend time [especially the amount of time you spend] in here?

Are you really that evil, that you just want to confuse anyone who is interested in what's going on?

Because that is all you appear to be trying to accomplish in here. If I say something is brown, you correct me by saying it is red, and you don't even bother to say that brown is just a shade of red. No, because your intention is to confuse, not clarify. Well, that's all you can do, since if you wanted clarity, you would have to remove your blinders.

So my verdict is out for you, Parrot. You are just a spoiled brat, who doesn't want to give up his candy. So you squirm around, grasping at straws, trying to justify your anger, and accuse your parents of being bad people for taking your candy away. Shame on them.

It's ok to get mad, Parrot. So go ahead get mad. Vent it, then figure out what to do. Life sux, and then you die.

And if you would stop trying to destroy future generations by hanging on to the luxurious lifestyle that you have been able to achieve, AND start figuring out how to survive the coming Apolalyse, then maybe, just maybe, you might get to live again. Even if you are gay, and do not procreate. Of course, you won't have a family line to come back to, unless you are lucky enough to have a brother or sister who does procreate. Of course, in your next life, your parents won't be anything like you, so you will probably have a rough childhood, especially since you will be growing up in a world that is totally freaking out about Climate Change by then.

Of course, you being Christian means that you don't care about any of that, because you don't believe in any of that. Did you know that Christianity causes Group Schizophrenia? Schizophrenia is defined as someone who makes decisions based on information that cannot possibly be reality. Christians base their salvation on Jesus, because they think he was Chris, which cannot possibly reality, since Jesus was Jesus, not Christ.

And if you believe in things like it's possible for one person to be another, then it's not a giant leap to accept the Rapture as reality, and patiently wait for Jesus to suck you off the planet, instead of letting you stay down here and enjoy the mess we have made of this planet.

So, Christians make decisions based on things that cannot possibly be reality. And because this particular ailment affects all Christians, then this can be called Group Schizophrenia. Jesus isn't going to come to your rescue, Parrot, not matter if you do support he church that promotes him. In fact, you should probably be thinking about withholding your regular donation to the church you have been donating to, and start saving it for when the other church that you are so worried about starts taxing carbon.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
08-11-2017 21:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
GreenMan wrote:
No, Parrot, scientists who work in the field of climatology are not putz.

There is no branch of science about climate change. Science has no theories based on a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
But calling them that shows your interest in the field. Or I should have said it shows your lack of interest.

I have no interest in joining the Church of Global Warming. I thought that would be obvious by now.
GreenMan wrote:
Which brings me to a question for you. Since you are obviously not interested in knowing about the planet's climate, and how it is changing, why do you spend time [especially the amount of time you spend] in here?

Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments.
GreenMan wrote:
Are you really that evil, that you just want to confuse anyone who is interested in what's going on?
It is YOU that is making irrational arguments. Shall we revisit your paradoxes again?
GreenMan wrote:
Because that is all you appear to be trying to accomplish in here. If I say something is brown, you correct me by saying it is red, and you don't even bother to say that brown is just a shade of red. No, because your intention is to confuse, not clarify. Well, that's all you can do, since if you wanted clarity, you would have to remove your blinders.
Redirection argument to a false dichotomy. Essentially a non-sequitur.
GreenMan wrote:
So my verdict is out for you, Parrot. You are just a spoiled brat, who doesn't want to give up his candy. So you squirm around, grasping at straws, trying to justify your anger, and accuse your parents of being bad people for taking your candy away. Shame on them.

I see no reason to allow your religion to take away anyone's wealth by force.
GreenMan wrote:
It's ok to get mad, Parrot. So go ahead get mad. Vent it, then figure out what to do. Life sux, and then you die.

Is this how you view life? That's really too bad. Life doesn't suck for me. I enjoy life. Maybe you should get a life.
GreenMan wrote:
And if you would stop trying to destroy future generations by hanging on to the luxurious lifestyle that you have been able to achieve, AND start figuring out how to survive the coming Apolalyse, then maybe, just maybe, you might get to live again.
There is no coming apocalypse due to CO2 or any other so called 'greenhouse' gas. These magick holy gases of yours do not have the capability to warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, you should probably be thinking about withholding your regular donation to the church you have been donating to, and start saving it for when the other church that you are so worried about starts taxing carbon.

It is illegal in this country to implement a State religion. Weren't you aware of that?

If California wants to tax carbon, it's just one more reason for businesses and people to move out of California, much like they're doing already.


The Parrot Killer
08-11-2017 21:25
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1047)
GreenMan wrote:
It's ok to get mad, Parrot. So go ahead get mad. Vent it, then figure out what to do. Life sux, and then you die.

Parrot killer wrote:
Is this how you view life? That's really too bad. Life doesn't suck for me. I enjoy life. Maybe you should get a life.


Priceless
08-11-2017 22:36
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
GreenMan wrote: No, Parrot, scientists who work in the field of climatology are not putz. But calling them that shows your interest in the field. Or I should have said it shows your lack of interest. Which brings me to a question for you. Since you are obviously not interested in knowing about the planet's climate, and how it is changing, why do you spend time [especially the amount of time you spend] in here?

Are you really that evil, that you just want to confuse anyone who is interested in what's going on?

Because that is all you appear to be trying to accomplish in here. If I say something is brown, you correct me by saying it is red, and you don't even bother to say that brown is just a shade of red. No, because your intention is to confuse, not clarify. Well, that's all you can do, since if you wanted clarity, you would have to remove your blinders.

So my verdict is out for you, Parrot. You are just a spoiled brat, who doesn't want to give up his candy. So you squirm around, grasping at straws, trying to justify your anger, and accuse your parents of being bad people for taking your candy away. Shame on them.

It's ok to get mad, Parrot. So go ahead get mad. Vent it, then figure out what to do. Life sux, and then you die.

And if you would stop trying to destroy future generations by hanging on to the luxurious lifestyle that you have been able to achieve, AND start figuring out how to survive the coming Apolalyse, then maybe, just maybe, you might get to live again. Even if you are gay, and do not procreate. Of course, you won't have a family line to come back to, unless you are lucky enough to have a brother or sister who does procreate. Of course, in your next life, your parents won't be anything like you, so you will probably have a rough childhood, especially since you will be growing up in a world that is totally freaking out about Climate Change by then.

Of course, you being Christian means that you don't care about any of that, because you don't believe in any of that. Did you know that Christianity causes Group Schizophrenia? Schizophrenia is defined as someone who makes decisions based on information that cannot possibly be reality. Christians base their salvation on Jesus, because they think he was Chris, which cannot possibly reality, since Jesus was Jesus, not Christ.

And if you believe in things like it's possible for one person to be another, then it's not a giant leap to accept the Rapture as reality, and patiently wait for Jesus to suck you off the planet, instead of letting you stay down here and enjoy the mess we have made of this planet.

So, Christians make decisions based on things that cannot possibly be reality. And because this particular ailment affects all Christians, then this can be called Group Schizophrenia. Jesus isn't going to come to your rescue, Parrot, not matter if you do support he church that promotes him. In fact, you should probably be thinking about withholding your regular donation to the church you have been donating to, and start saving it for when the other church that you are so worried about starts taxing carbon.


When my mother's father got here from Austria he had to live in the Jewish section of New York. So by the time he got to Seattle he spoke Yiddish a great deal.

If you do no know how to use Yiddish words don't use them. You just seem as stupid as you are.

You were given information from NASA and Dr. Roy Spenser that indicates that the changes in climate are not occurring. That all we have is normal chaotic weather patterns. So why are you here trying to say that there are changes?

Nightmare may not be a scientist and understand a whole lot about science but compared to you he is Einstein.

"Schizophrenia is defined as someone who makes decisions based on information that cannot possibly be reality."

https://tinyurl.com/n5nf8lw
https://tinyurl.com/hlq3dmd
https://tinyurl.com/y97ztma8

So exactly WHO do you think is demonstrating schizophrenia?
09-11-2017 00:16
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped:"Schizophrenia is defined as someone who makes decisions based on information that cannot possibly be reality."
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener wake-me-up" makes decisions based on its being an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner many time threatener.
09-11-2017 10:55
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
No, Parrot, scientists who work in the field of climatology are not putz.

There is no branch of science about climate change. Science has no theories based on a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
But calling them that shows your interest in the field. Or I should have said it shows your lack of interest.

I have no interest in joining the Church of Global Warming. I thought that would be obvious by now.
GreenMan wrote:
Which brings me to a question for you. Since you are obviously not interested in knowing about the planet's climate, and how it is changing, why do you spend time [especially the amount of time you spend] in here?

Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments.
GreenMan wrote:
Are you really that evil, that you just want to confuse anyone who is interested in what's going on?
It is YOU that is making irrational arguments. Shall we revisit your paradoxes again?
GreenMan wrote:
Because that is all you appear to be trying to accomplish in here. If I say something is brown, you correct me by saying it is red, and you don't even bother to say that brown is just a shade of red. No, because your intention is to confuse, not clarify. Well, that's all you can do, since if you wanted clarity, you would have to remove your blinders.
Redirection argument to a false dichotomy. Essentially a non-sequitur.
GreenMan wrote:
So my verdict is out for you, Parrot. You are just a spoiled brat, who doesn't want to give up his candy. So you squirm around, grasping at straws, trying to justify your anger, and accuse your parents of being bad people for taking your candy away. Shame on them.

I see no reason to allow your religion to take away anyone's wealth by force.
GreenMan wrote:
It's ok to get mad, Parrot. So go ahead get mad. Vent it, then figure out what to do. Life sux, and then you die.

Is this how you view life? That's really too bad. Life doesn't suck for me. I enjoy life. Maybe you should get a life.
GreenMan wrote:
And if you would stop trying to destroy future generations by hanging on to the luxurious lifestyle that you have been able to achieve, AND start figuring out how to survive the coming Apolalyse, then maybe, just maybe, you might get to live again.
There is no coming apocalypse due to CO2 or any other so called 'greenhouse' gas. These magick holy gases of yours do not have the capability to warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, you should probably be thinking about withholding your regular donation to the church you have been donating to, and start saving it for when the other church that you are so worried about starts taxing carbon.

It is illegal in this country to implement a State religion. Weren't you aware of that?

If California wants to tax carbon, it's just one more reason for businesses and people to move out of California, much like they're doing already.


It's only illegal in this country to implement a State religion that is really a religion. It's not illegal in this country to apply taxes on whatever the powers at large want to apply them to. We can avoid it for just so long, and then it will magically appear one day. I'm thinking that day comes right after we have seen the last of our current Idiot in Chief. Then get ready for the cost of everything going up. Our Idiot in Chief is right about one thing, it will kill our economy. It's unfortunate that it is a necessary thing to do, because our current economic health does not outweigh the price we have to pay to keep it. That price is of course, the destruction of humanity.

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. I don't agree that tobacco products should be taxed like they are. Yes, it does make it more difficult for people to afford, so it does dissuade some people from using tobacco. But the big seller is that the people who use tobacco will eventually need medical care, and the taxes will cover that. And that is total bull shit. A person ends up paying thousands and thousands in taxes in their life on tobacco. And if you end up dying from it, it does often take a while, but there isn't much medical care needed for that. They basically diagnose you with small cell carcinoma and tell you that you have less than a year to live, before they send you home to die. So what if the state has to take care of the diagnosis, it didn't cost them the thousands of dollars the poor slob paid in taxes on tobacco his whole life.

But guess what. I pay those stupid taxes, because I smoke. And I have the right to smoke tobacco. And if it kills me, then oh well. At least I had fun smoking them damn things.

And the same thing goes for the carbon tax when it comes. If you want to continue burning gasoline to run up and down the road, then you can. But it will cost you a lot more. Just like my cigarettes do now.

So part of my plan is to prepare for it, by removing myself from the grid, while I can still pay for it. Because once the taxes begin, everyone will have less money to do things, like invest in off grid power sources.

Like I said, Life Sux, and then you die.

That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy life, I do. It simply means that everything about life isn't pleasurable. After all, if everything was pleasurable, then we would become numb to pleasure, and not even appreciate it.

I have a life, Parrot, and look forward to each day. Right now I am looking forward to the end of this contract, which might come at Thanksgiving, or terminate the week before Christmas if it goes beyond Thanksgiving. Then I get to go back to God's Country, which is what we call the South. Gonna kick back, drink a few beers, build that Solar Generator, and get a few more things done, as I enjoy a nice southern winter. Not quite as good as a California winter, but not much difference.

And I'll find another contract probably around the first of the year, hopefully one that is in the South. I like the people down there, because they are very respectful, helpful, cheerful, and pretty much easy going. Laid back is what we call the attitude down there. And who knows, I might even get me one of them fishing licenses and terrorize the catfish on the Altamaha [Alta-Ma-Ha']. And there's going to be days when I don't catch no fish. Those days suck. But the days when I catch fish, and don't break my boat motor, and don't sink my boat, and don't lose too many lures in the bushes [I like to pitch for bass too], and don't run out of gas, and don't dunk my cell phone, and don't get caught by the game warden for being in the wrong place, and make it back home with my fish, will make up for the days that sucked. So it all balances out in the end, just before you die.

Well, for most people it balances out. I don't know about you, because you are going in the hole with your karma. So I'm thinking that your life is going to end up sucking quite a bit on the tail end. Oh yeah, that's right. I have already adivsed you to go ahead and start your dirt nap early, and avoid all the pain that your latter years are going to bring you.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
09-11-2017 11:20
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: No, Parrot, scientists who work in the field of climatology are not putz. But calling them that shows your interest in the field. Or I should have said it shows your lack of interest. Which brings me to a question for you. Since you are obviously not interested in knowing about the planet's climate, and how it is changing, why do you spend time [especially the amount of time you spend] in here?

Are you really that evil, that you just want to confuse anyone who is interested in what's going on?

Because that is all you appear to be trying to accomplish in here. If I say something is brown, you correct me by saying it is red, and you don't even bother to say that brown is just a shade of red. No, because your intention is to confuse, not clarify. Well, that's all you can do, since if you wanted clarity, you would have to remove your blinders.

So my verdict is out for you, Parrot. You are just a spoiled brat, who doesn't want to give up his candy. So you squirm around, grasping at straws, trying to justify your anger, and accuse your parents of being bad people for taking your candy away. Shame on them.

It's ok to get mad, Parrot. So go ahead get mad. Vent it, then figure out what to do. Life sux, and then you die.

And if you would stop trying to destroy future generations by hanging on to the luxurious lifestyle that you have been able to achieve, AND start figuring out how to survive the coming Apolalyse, then maybe, just maybe, you might get to live again. Even if you are gay, and do not procreate. Of course, you won't have a family line to come back to, unless you are lucky enough to have a brother or sister who does procreate. Of course, in your next life, your parents won't be anything like you, so you will probably have a rough childhood, especially since you will be growing up in a world that is totally freaking out about Climate Change by then.

Of course, you being Christian means that you don't care about any of that, because you don't believe in any of that. Did you know that Christianity causes Group Schizophrenia? Schizophrenia is defined as someone who makes decisions based on information that cannot possibly be reality. Christians base their salvation on Jesus, because they think he was Chris, which cannot possibly reality, since Jesus was Jesus, not Christ.

And if you believe in things like it's possible for one person to be another, then it's not a giant leap to accept the Rapture as reality, and patiently wait for Jesus to suck you off the planet, instead of letting you stay down here and enjoy the mess we have made of this planet.

So, Christians make decisions based on things that cannot possibly be reality. And because this particular ailment affects all Christians, then this can be called Group Schizophrenia. Jesus isn't going to come to your rescue, Parrot, not matter if you do support he church that promotes him. In fact, you should probably be thinking about withholding your regular donation to the church you have been donating to, and start saving it for when the other church that you are so worried about starts taxing carbon.


When my mother's father got here from Austria he had to live in the Jewish section of New York. So by the time he got to Seattle he spoke Yiddish a great deal.

If you do no know how to use Yiddish words don't use them. You just seem as stupid as you are.

You were given information from NASA and Dr. Roy Spenser that indicates that the changes in climate are not occurring. That all we have is normal chaotic weather patterns. So why are you here trying to say that there are changes?

Nightmare may not be a scientist and understand a whole lot about science but compared to you he is Einstein.

"Schizophrenia is defined as someone who makes decisions based on information that cannot possibly be reality."

https://tinyurl.com/n5nf8lw
https://tinyurl.com/hlq3dmd
https://tinyurl.com/y97ztma8

So exactly WHO do you think is demonstrating schizophrenia?


You are, schizo. Posting links to other people's opinions that you side with doesn't help your cause any more than your worshipping Dr Roy Spenser. Neither will help you. But please feel free to post some more opinions that agree with yours, if it makes you feel better. Your BS doesn't change anything, and neither do other Deniers.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
09-11-2017 16:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
No, Parrot, scientists who work in the field of climatology are not putz.

There is no branch of science about climate change. Science has no theories based on a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
But calling them that shows your interest in the field. Or I should have said it shows your lack of interest.

I have no interest in joining the Church of Global Warming. I thought that would be obvious by now.
GreenMan wrote:
Which brings me to a question for you. Since you are obviously not interested in knowing about the planet's climate, and how it is changing, why do you spend time [especially the amount of time you spend] in here?

Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments.
GreenMan wrote:
Are you really that evil, that you just want to confuse anyone who is interested in what's going on?
It is YOU that is making irrational arguments. Shall we revisit your paradoxes again?
GreenMan wrote:
Because that is all you appear to be trying to accomplish in here. If I say something is brown, you correct me by saying it is red, and you don't even bother to say that brown is just a shade of red. No, because your intention is to confuse, not clarify. Well, that's all you can do, since if you wanted clarity, you would have to remove your blinders.
Redirection argument to a false dichotomy. Essentially a non-sequitur.
GreenMan wrote:
So my verdict is out for you, Parrot. You are just a spoiled brat, who doesn't want to give up his candy. So you squirm around, grasping at straws, trying to justify your anger, and accuse your parents of being bad people for taking your candy away. Shame on them.

I see no reason to allow your religion to take away anyone's wealth by force.
GreenMan wrote:
It's ok to get mad, Parrot. So go ahead get mad. Vent it, then figure out what to do. Life sux, and then you die.

Is this how you view life? That's really too bad. Life doesn't suck for me. I enjoy life. Maybe you should get a life.
GreenMan wrote:
And if you would stop trying to destroy future generations by hanging on to the luxurious lifestyle that you have been able to achieve, AND start figuring out how to survive the coming Apolalyse, then maybe, just maybe, you might get to live again.
There is no coming apocalypse due to CO2 or any other so called 'greenhouse' gas. These magick holy gases of yours do not have the capability to warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, you should probably be thinking about withholding your regular donation to the church you have been donating to, and start saving it for when the other church that you are so worried about starts taxing carbon.

It is illegal in this country to implement a State religion. Weren't you aware of that?

If California wants to tax carbon, it's just one more reason for businesses and people to move out of California, much like they're doing already.


It's only illegal in this country to implement a State religion that is really a religion. It's not illegal in this country to apply taxes on whatever the powers at large want to apply them to. We can avoid it for just so long, and then it will magically appear one day. I'm thinking that day comes right after we have seen the last of our current Idiot in Chief. Then get ready for the cost of everything going up. Our Idiot in Chief is right about one thing, it will kill our economy. It's unfortunate that it is a necessary thing to do, because our current economic health does not outweigh the price we have to pay to keep it. That price is of course, the destruction of humanity.


Interesting idea.

If the taxes and subsidies justified by AGW were to be challenged in court as a state religion could they, the AGW hypotheses, then be tested in court?
RE: This forum is ****ing garbage09-11-2017 16:28
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener tipped the leaky plunger" pooped: ....state religion.... AGW hypotheses, then be tested in court?
Lots of oil, coal, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un money is applied to lots of idiot nuisance suits. I like the idea of lots of oil, coal, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un money wasted on desperate lawsuits that will be thrown out of court.
Edited on 09-11-2017 16:30
09-11-2017 17:43
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
GreenMan wrote: garbage in = garbage out


What is your job? Again and again you say absolutely stupid things only to turn around and deny you did so. After naming an entire string about something in a posting INSIDE of that string you said that you never said that!

You have done this multiple times. First you tell us that we're poisoning the oceans with ashes from a forest fire and then you tell us that you don't care. If you didn't care WHY did you mention it? And you were completely and entirely wrong about the fires being particularly large or them causing damage any more important than the losses of people's homes.

Why did you come on here crying about nuclear attacks when the US is capable of stopping any such attacks should Kim ever try it and the US being capable of destroying every single military site in North Korea without resorting to anything other than conventional weapons? Of being able to totally kill Kim and his entire staff with nothing more than a shock wave? Of reducing North Korea's government structure to ashes with only the civilian casualties from those immediately adjacent to the government buildings and/or shelters?

I have yet to see you say one single thing that showed that you have any knowledge at all. So WHY are you making any comments here?
09-11-2017 18:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener tipped the leaky plunger" pooped: ....state religion.... AGW hypotheses, then be tested in court?
Lots of oil, coal, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un money is applied to lots of idiot nuisance suits. I like the idea of lots of oil, coal, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un money wasted on desperate lawsuits that will be thrown out of court.


Would you not like your hypothesis/religion to be tested in court?

It would surely provide you with strong evidence that it was real if your side won.

Lack of confidence?
09-11-2017 19:13
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Tim the plumber wrote:"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener tipped the leaky plunger" pooped: Would you not like ....
I would like old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threateners tried in court.
09-11-2017 21:39
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Tim the plumber wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener tipped the leaky plunger" pooped: ....state religion.... AGW hypotheses, then be tested in court?
Lots of oil, coal, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un money is applied to lots of idiot nuisance suits. I like the idea of lots of oil, coal, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un money wasted on desperate lawsuits that will be thrown out of court.


Would you not like your hypothesis/religion to be tested in court?

It would surely provide you with strong evidence that it was real if your side won.

Lack of confidence?


He just said that he would NOT like it tested in court because it has all the legal signs of a religion. Sheer believe despite all evidence to the contrary.
09-11-2017 23:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
GreenMan wrote:
It's only illegal in this country to implement a State religion that is really a religion.

The Church of Global Warming really is a religion. It is:

a) based on an initial circular argument
b) has an established liturgy.
c) has a 'priesthood' of leaders and founders.
d) designates any Outsider as someone 'to be saved' or as 'the devil himself'.
e) depends on supporting evidence, even to the point of denying science, math, or any other similar construct.
f) issues prophecies and predictions according to the liturgy, often of various doomsday scenarios, especially those affecting the Outsiders.
g) often turns to insult fallacies, bigotry, or other hate mongering tactics against Outsiders.
h) considers it's own liturgy and belief system to be the 'one true way'.
i) may have powerful beings, concepts, or deities that are gods to the religion, such as the Church of Global Warming does.

I call that a religion, dude.

GreenMan wrote:
It's not illegal in this country to apply taxes on whatever the powers at large want to apply them to.

Uh...yes it is. Ever hear of the 14th amendment? Ever hear of the 10th amendment? How about Article 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the United States? Are you near the Phoenix area? How about Articles 2 and 9 of the Arizona State Constitution?
GreenMan wrote:
We can avoid it for just so long, and then it will magically appear one day.

Only by subverting these documents.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking that day comes right after we have seen the last of our current Idiot in Chief. Then get ready for the cost of everything going up.

Why? Are you hoping the Democrats will come in and take away your property some more?
GreenMan wrote:
Our Idiot in Chief is right about one thing, it will kill our economy.

What will?
GreenMan wrote:
It's unfortunate that it is a necessary thing to do, because our current economic health does not outweigh the price we have to pay to keep it.

The government debt is the government's problem. So is the existence of the Federal Reserve.

Price controls don't work. Not even when the price of money is involved.

GreenMan wrote:
That price is of course, the destruction of humanity.

Uh...we've been through the Long Depression of the late 1800's. We've been through the Panic of 1910, the hyperinflation of 1918, theGreat Depression of the 1920's, 1973 Recession, the Boom.Bust crash, and the Great Recession of 2008.

We're still here.

GreenMan wrote:
It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. I don't agree that tobacco products should be taxed like they are.

Very few people use tobacco products anymore.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, it does make it more difficult for people to afford, so it does dissuade some people from using tobacco.

Apparently not. Did it dissuade you?
GreenMan wrote:
But the big seller is that the people who use tobacco will eventually need medical care, and the taxes will cover that.

Tobacco taxes do not cover health care needs of smokers. It goes into the General Fund, to be wasted building Senator Boondoggle's Monument to Government Waste.
GreenMan wrote:
And that is total bull shit.

You think your taxes are too high? Join the club!
GreenMan wrote:
A person ends up paying thousands and thousands in taxes in their life on tobacco. And if you end up dying from it, it does often take a while, but there isn't much medical care needed for that. They basically diagnose you with small cell carcinoma and tell you that you have less than a year to live, before they send you home to die. So what if the state has to take care of the diagnosis, it didn't cost them the thousands of dollars the poor slob paid in taxes on tobacco his whole life.

The theory that tobacco use causes cancer has been falsified (you need one case). There are quite a few smokers that reached their mid 90's without ever contracting a case of cancer (they died from other causes).

Tobacco use does damage lung tissue though.
GreenMan wrote:
But guess what. I pay those stupid taxes, because I smoke.

Have you considered quitting? Where are you going to get your cigarettes when 'the economy has collapsed'?
GreenMan wrote:
And I have the right to smoke tobacco.

You have the right to walk in front of an oncoming train, too.
GreenMan wrote:
And if it kills me, then oh well. At least I had fun smoking them damn things.

Sounds like you had a LOT of fun.
GreenMan wrote:
And the same thing goes for the carbon tax when it comes. If you want to continue burning gasoline to run up and down the road, then you can. But it will cost you a lot more. Just like my cigarettes do now.

Do you have any idea how much gasoline is taxed now?

It is taxed when you obtain the equipment to drill for it. It is taxed when it comes out of the ground. It is taxed when you store the crude oil. It is taxed when you transport that oil to a refinery. The refinery is taxed when you build the refinery. It is taxed again when you distill the gasoline. The additives are taxed again to create them, import them, transport them, or store them. It is taxed again to store the finished product. It is taxed again when you move that product to distribution stations. It is taxed again to distribute it. It is taxed again when you put the stuff into the tank at your local gas station. It is taxed again just to build and operate the station. It is taxed again when you pump it into your car. It is taxed again to drive your car down the road through license fees and renewals.

So you think it needs to be taxed some more, eh?

You know, people get tired of that shit. They will eventually revolt or simply move away, leaving you alone in your nicely furnished bunker.

GreenMan wrote:
So part of my plan is to prepare for it, by removing myself from the grid, while I can still pay for it. Because once the taxes begin, everyone will have less money to do things, like invest in off grid power sources.

I'll take the grid. It works. It's' cheap. It has already solved most of the problems you are trying to cope with in your dream design.
GreenMan wrote:
Like I said, Life Sux, and then you die.
That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy life, I do.

Welcome to your new paradox.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2017 23:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: No, Parrot, scientists who work in the field of climatology are not putz. But calling them that shows your interest in the field. Or I should have said it shows your lack of interest. Which brings me to a question for you. Since you are obviously not interested in knowing about the planet's climate, and how it is changing, why do you spend time [especially the amount of time you spend] in here?

Are you really that evil, that you just want to confuse anyone who is interested in what's going on?

Because that is all you appear to be trying to accomplish in here. If I say something is brown, you correct me by saying it is red, and you don't even bother to say that brown is just a shade of red. No, because your intention is to confuse, not clarify. Well, that's all you can do, since if you wanted clarity, you would have to remove your blinders.

So my verdict is out for you, Parrot. You are just a spoiled brat, who doesn't want to give up his candy. So you squirm around, grasping at straws, trying to justify your anger, and accuse your parents of being bad people for taking your candy away. Shame on them.

It's ok to get mad, Parrot. So go ahead get mad. Vent it, then figure out what to do. Life sux, and then you die.

And if you would stop trying to destroy future generations by hanging on to the luxurious lifestyle that you have been able to achieve, AND start figuring out how to survive the coming Apolalyse, then maybe, just maybe, you might get to live again. Even if you are gay, and do not procreate. Of course, you won't have a family line to come back to, unless you are lucky enough to have a brother or sister who does procreate. Of course, in your next life, your parents won't be anything like you, so you will probably have a rough childhood, especially since you will be growing up in a world that is totally freaking out about Climate Change by then.

Of course, you being Christian means that you don't care about any of that, because you don't believe in any of that. Did you know that Christianity causes Group Schizophrenia? Schizophrenia is defined as someone who makes decisions based on information that cannot possibly be reality. Christians base their salvation on Jesus, because they think he was Chris, which cannot possibly reality, since Jesus was Jesus, not Christ.

And if you believe in things like it's possible for one person to be another, then it's not a giant leap to accept the Rapture as reality, and patiently wait for Jesus to suck you off the planet, instead of letting you stay down here and enjoy the mess we have made of this planet.

So, Christians make decisions based on things that cannot possibly be reality. And because this particular ailment affects all Christians, then this can be called Group Schizophrenia. Jesus isn't going to come to your rescue, Parrot, not matter if you do support he church that promotes him. In fact, you should probably be thinking about withholding your regular donation to the church you have been donating to, and start saving it for when the other church that you are so worried about starts taxing carbon.


When my mother's father got here from Austria he had to live in the Jewish section of New York. So by the time he got to Seattle he spoke Yiddish a great deal.

If you do no know how to use Yiddish words don't use them. You just seem as stupid as you are.

You were given information from NASA and Dr. Roy Spenser that indicates that the changes in climate are not occurring. That all we have is normal chaotic weather patterns. So why are you here trying to say that there are changes?

Nightmare may not be a scientist and understand a whole lot about science but compared to you he is Einstein.

"Schizophrenia is defined as someone who makes decisions based on information that cannot possibly be reality."

https://tinyurl.com/n5nf8lw
https://tinyurl.com/hlq3dmd
https://tinyurl.com/y97ztma8

So exactly WHO do you think is demonstrating schizophrenia?


You are, schizo. Posting links to other people's opinions that you side with doesn't help your cause any more than your worshipping Dr Roy Spenser. Neither will help you. But please feel free to post some more opinions that agree with yours, if it makes you feel better. Your BS doesn't change anything, and neither do other Deniers.


Don't try to be a psychoquack. Wake has shown no indication of schizophrenia at all.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2017 23:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
No, Parrot, scientists who work in the field of climatology are not putz.

There is no branch of science about climate change. Science has no theories based on a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
But calling them that shows your interest in the field. Or I should have said it shows your lack of interest.

I have no interest in joining the Church of Global Warming. I thought that would be obvious by now.
GreenMan wrote:
Which brings me to a question for you. Since you are obviously not interested in knowing about the planet's climate, and how it is changing, why do you spend time [especially the amount of time you spend] in here?

Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments.
GreenMan wrote:
Are you really that evil, that you just want to confuse anyone who is interested in what's going on?
It is YOU that is making irrational arguments. Shall we revisit your paradoxes again?
GreenMan wrote:
Because that is all you appear to be trying to accomplish in here. If I say something is brown, you correct me by saying it is red, and you don't even bother to say that brown is just a shade of red. No, because your intention is to confuse, not clarify. Well, that's all you can do, since if you wanted clarity, you would have to remove your blinders.
Redirection argument to a false dichotomy. Essentially a non-sequitur.
GreenMan wrote:
So my verdict is out for you, Parrot. You are just a spoiled brat, who doesn't want to give up his candy. So you squirm around, grasping at straws, trying to justify your anger, and accuse your parents of being bad people for taking your candy away. Shame on them.

I see no reason to allow your religion to take away anyone's wealth by force.
GreenMan wrote:
It's ok to get mad, Parrot. So go ahead get mad. Vent it, then figure out what to do. Life sux, and then you die.

Is this how you view life? That's really too bad. Life doesn't suck for me. I enjoy life. Maybe you should get a life.
GreenMan wrote:
And if you would stop trying to destroy future generations by hanging on to the luxurious lifestyle that you have been able to achieve, AND start figuring out how to survive the coming Apolalyse, then maybe, just maybe, you might get to live again.
There is no coming apocalypse due to CO2 or any other so called 'greenhouse' gas. These magick holy gases of yours do not have the capability to warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, you should probably be thinking about withholding your regular donation to the church you have been donating to, and start saving it for when the other church that you are so worried about starts taxing carbon.

It is illegal in this country to implement a State religion. Weren't you aware of that?

If California wants to tax carbon, it's just one more reason for businesses and people to move out of California, much like they're doing already.


It's only illegal in this country to implement a State religion that is really a religion. It's not illegal in this country to apply taxes on whatever the powers at large want to apply them to. We can avoid it for just so long, and then it will magically appear one day. I'm thinking that day comes right after we have seen the last of our current Idiot in Chief. Then get ready for the cost of everything going up. Our Idiot in Chief is right about one thing, it will kill our economy. It's unfortunate that it is a necessary thing to do, because our current economic health does not outweigh the price we have to pay to keep it. That price is of course, the destruction of humanity.


Interesting idea.

If the taxes and subsidies justified by AGW were to be challenged in court as a state religion could they, the AGW hypotheses, then be tested in court?


Yes.

Courts, being what they are though, are not black and white. They ARE political organizations, that often today don't judge law, they create it, usurping that power from Congress or a State legislature. Of course, when they do that, they are violating the very constitutions that created them in the first place.

In the case of the Church of Global Warming being challenged in this way, it would inevitably come down to shouting matches over what constitutes a religion in the eyes of the court. If it makes as far as the Supreme Court in appeals, their decision could very well spark a civil war.


The Parrot Killer
10-11-2017 00:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: garbage in = garbage out


What is your job? Again and again you say absolutely stupid things only to turn around and deny you did so. After naming an entire string about something in a posting INSIDE of that string you said that you never said that!

You have done this multiple times. First you tell us that we're poisoning the oceans with ashes from a forest fire and then you tell us that you don't care. If you didn't care WHY did you mention it? And you were completely and entirely wrong about the fires being particularly large or them causing damage any more important than the losses of people's homes.

Why did you come on here crying about nuclear attacks when the US is capable of stopping any such attacks should Kim ever try it and the US being capable of destroying every single military site in North Korea without resorting to anything other than conventional weapons? Of being able to totally kill Kim and his entire staff with nothing more than a shock wave? Of reducing North Korea's government structure to ashes with only the civilian casualties from those immediately adjacent to the government buildings and/or shelters?

I have yet to see you say one single thing that showed that you have any knowledge at all. So WHY are you making any comments here?


You are only pointing out some of the many paradoxes this joker has accumulated.


The Parrot Killer
10-11-2017 00:06
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It's only illegal in this country to implement a State religion that is really a religion.

The Church of Global Warming really is a religion. It is:

a) based on an initial circular argument
b) has an established liturgy.
c) has a 'priesthood' of leaders and founders.
d) designates any Outsider as someone 'to be saved' or as 'the devil himself'.
e) depends on supporting evidence, even to the point of denying science, math, or any other similar construct.
f) issues prophecies and predictions according to the liturgy, often of various doomsday scenarios, especially those affecting the Outsiders.
g) often turns to insult fallacies, bigotry, or other hate mongering tactics against Outsiders.
h) considers it's own liturgy and belief system to be the 'one true way'.
i) may have powerful beings, concepts, or deities that are gods to the religion, such as the Church of Global Warming does.

I call that a religion, dude.

GreenMan wrote:
It's not illegal in this country to apply taxes on whatever the powers at large want to apply them to.

Uh...yes it is. Ever hear of the 14th amendment? Ever hear of the 10th amendment? How about Article 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the United States? Are you near the Phoenix area? How about Articles 2 and 9 of the Arizona State Constitution?
GreenMan wrote:
We can avoid it for just so long, and then it will magically appear one day.

Only by subverting these documents.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking that day comes right after we have seen the last of our current Idiot in Chief. Then get ready for the cost of everything going up.

Why? Are you hoping the Democrats will come in and take away your property some more?
GreenMan wrote:
Our Idiot in Chief is right about one thing, it will kill our economy.

What will?
GreenMan wrote:
It's unfortunate that it is a necessary thing to do, because our current economic health does not outweigh the price we have to pay to keep it.

The government debt is the government's problem. So is the existence of the Federal Reserve.

Price controls don't work. Not even when the price of money is involved.

GreenMan wrote:
That price is of course, the destruction of humanity.

Uh...we've been through the Long Depression of the late 1800's. We've been through the Panic of 1910, the hyperinflation of 1918, theGreat Depression of the 1920's, 1973 Recession, the Boom.Bust crash, and the Great Recession of 2008.

We're still here.

GreenMan wrote:
It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. I don't agree that tobacco products should be taxed like they are.

Very few people use tobacco products anymore.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, it does make it more difficult for people to afford, so it does dissuade some people from using tobacco.

Apparently not. Did it dissuade you?
GreenMan wrote:
But the big seller is that the people who use tobacco will eventually need medical care, and the taxes will cover that.

Tobacco taxes do not cover health care needs of smokers. It goes into the General Fund, to be wasted building Senator Boondoggle's Monument to Government Waste.
GreenMan wrote:
And that is total bull shit.

You think your taxes are too high? Join the club!
GreenMan wrote:
A person ends up paying thousands and thousands in taxes in their life on tobacco. And if you end up dying from it, it does often take a while, but there isn't much medical care needed for that. They basically diagnose you with small cell carcinoma and tell you that you have less than a year to live, before they send you home to die. So what if the state has to take care of the diagnosis, it didn't cost them the thousands of dollars the poor slob paid in taxes on tobacco his whole life.

The theory that tobacco use causes cancer has been falsified (you need one case). There are quite a few smokers that reached their mid 90's without ever contracting a case of cancer (they died from other causes).

Tobacco use does damage lung tissue though.
GreenMan wrote:
But guess what. I pay those stupid taxes, because I smoke.

Have you considered quitting? Where are you going to get your cigarettes when 'the economy has collapsed'?
GreenMan wrote:
And I have the right to smoke tobacco.

You have the right to walk in front of an oncoming train, too.
GreenMan wrote:
And if it kills me, then oh well. At least I had fun smoking them damn things.

Sounds like you had a LOT of fun.
GreenMan wrote:
And the same thing goes for the carbon tax when it comes. If you want to continue burning gasoline to run up and down the road, then you can. But it will cost you a lot more. Just like my cigarettes do now.

Do you have any idea how much gasoline is taxed now?

It is taxed when you obtain the equipment to drill for it. It is taxed when it comes out of the ground. It is taxed when you store the crude oil. It is taxed when you transport that oil to a refinery. The refinery is taxed when you build the refinery. It is taxed again when you distill the gasoline. The additives are taxed again to create them, import them, transport them, or store them. It is taxed again to store the finished product. It is taxed again when you move that product to distribution stations. It is taxed again to distribute it. It is taxed again when you put the stuff into the tank at your local gas station. It is taxed again just to build and operate the station. It is taxed again when you pump it into your car. It is taxed again to drive your car down the road through license fees and renewals.

So you think it needs to be taxed some more, eh?

You know, people get tired of that shit. They will eventually revolt or simply move away, leaving you alone in your nicely furnished bunker.

GreenMan wrote:
So part of my plan is to prepare for it, by removing myself from the grid, while I can still pay for it. Because once the taxes begin, everyone will have less money to do things, like invest in off grid power sources.

I'll take the grid. It works. It's' cheap. It has already solved most of the problems you are trying to cope with in your dream design.
GreenMan wrote:
Like I said, Life Sux, and then you die.
That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy life, I do.

Welcome to your new paradox.


I still do not understand where you are getting the idea that the definition of climate change is a circular argument when it only means a history of changing temperatures. There is nothing circular about that.

Otherwise you might concede that arguing with greenman who is raving is a circular argument.
Edited on 10-11-2017 00:34
10-11-2017 00:12
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: He just said that he would NOT like it tested in court...
Evidence of "many time threatener wake-me-up" lies & correction to its lies:
I would like old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time threateners tried in court.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" validates its name, by being an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener.
10-11-2017 00:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
I still do not understand where you are getting the idea that the definition of climate change is a circular argument when it on means a history is changing temperatures. There is nothing circular about that.

So...climate change is defined by...temperature change?

Okay, let's go here a moment.

Since 'change' means a difference between absolute measurements across some period of time (unspecified), what period of time is involved? 'Climate' has no unit of time. It is simply defined in most dictionaries by some phrase similar to 'weather over a long time'.

Since the time period between the 1st and 2nd measurements is unspecified, what is it that makes these two points in time significant? Why are OTHER points in time NOT significant?

The word 'climate' tends to refer to 'weather', not just temperature. This would include prevailing winds, precipitation patterns, locations and tracks of storm systems through the region, etc.

How do you define a 'global' weather? True, it's possible to define a global temperature (even though we don't know what it is), but 'climate' is about weather, not just temperature.

I'll have to congratulate you though. That's one of the best attempts to avoid the circular definition I've seen yet. It avoids it by redefining the word 'climate'.

The 'change' was not redefined, but it still faces the same problems as before. The 'change' is circularly defined.

Wake wrote:
Otherwise you might concede that arguing with greenman who is raving is a circular argument.

Nope. Repetitive as he is, it is not a circular argument in and of itself, because it makes no conclusion, in and of itself. His conclusions and predicates are about the same subjects over and over, but that is not a circular argument. It is a repetition fallacy, based on the argument of the Stone. It is driven by a religious viewpoint, which itself IS a circular argument that is unrecognized as such (the circular argument fallacy).

The circular argument itself is not a fallacy. Only the failure to recognize one is the fallacy.

A circular definition of a word means there is no definition other than itself, resulting in a void argument. The word is simply a buzzword.

No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a logical fallacy. A void argument is such a fallacy.

Note that there is a difference between a circular argument and a circular definition.

A circular definition is simply a word (or phrase) that can only be defined by itself, while a circular argument is using it's own conclusion as a predicate.

The word 'gravity', for example, is defined as an attractive force between masses. It is not a circular definition, but, since we generally just take gravity for granted that it exists (the way Newton did), it IS a circular argument, but it is recognized as one, even by Newton.

Newton went to describe the effects of gravity, without ever actually trying to prove what gravity itself actually IS, beyond the definition which I just stated. He felt it was sufficient to describe the effects of gravity, not gravity itself.

His work DID focus others on attempting to discern what gravity itself and how it originates is though (beyond the definition I just gave).

That's the real beauty of Newton's work. It made us start asking the right kind of questions to truly get a grasp on some very fundamental things.

Hope that clarifies some things for you.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-11-2017 00:38
10-11-2017 01:47
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Into the Night wrote:
Okay, let's go here a moment.

Since 'change' means a difference between absolute measurements across some period of time (unspecified), what period of time is involved? 'Climate' has no unit of time. It is simply defined in most dictionaries by some phrase similar to 'weather over a long time'.

Since the time period between the 1st and 2nd measurements is unspecified, what is it that makes these two points in time significant? Why are OTHER points in time NOT significant?

The word 'climate' tends to refer to 'weather', not just temperature. This would include prevailing winds, precipitation patterns, locations and tracks of storm systems through the region, etc.

How do you define a 'global' weather? True, it's possible to define a global temperature (even though we don't know what it is), but 'climate' is about weather, not just temperature.

I'll have to congratulate you though. That's one of the best attempts to avoid the circular definition I've seen yet. It avoids it by redefining the word 'climate'.

The 'change' was not redefined, but it still faces the same problems as before. The 'change' is circularly defined.

Wake wrote:
Otherwise you might concede that arguing with greenman who is raving is a circular argument.

Nope. Repetitive as he is, it is not a circular argument in and of itself, because it makes no conclusion, in and of itself. His conclusions and predicates are about the same subjects over and over, but that is not a circular argument. It is a repetition fallacy, based on the argument of the Stone. It is driven by a religious viewpoint, which itself IS a circular argument that is unrecognized as such (the circular argument fallacy).

The circular argument itself is not a fallacy. Only the failure to recognize one is the fallacy.

A circular definition of a word means there is no definition other than itself, resulting in a void argument. The word is simply a buzzword.

No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a logical fallacy. A void argument is such a fallacy.

Note that there is a difference between a circular argument and a circular definition.

A circular definition is simply a word (or phrase) that can only be defined by itself, while a circular argument is using it's own conclusion as a predicate.

The word 'gravity', for example, is defined as an attractive force between masses. It is not a circular definition, but, since we generally just take gravity for granted that it exists (the way Newton did), it IS a circular argument, but it is recognized as one, even by Newton.

Newton went to describe the effects of gravity, without ever actually trying to prove what gravity itself actually IS, beyond the definition which I just stated. He felt it was sufficient to describe the effects of gravity, not gravity itself.

His work DID focus others on attempting to discern what gravity itself and how it originates is though (beyond the definition I just gave).

That's the real beauty of Newton's work. It made us start asking the right kind of questions to truly get a grasp on some very fundamental things.

Hope that clarifies some things for you.


You cannot keep yourself from shooting out BS can you? Trying to void a definition directly from a dictionary or encyclopedia isn't going to get you anywhere. Since the "time" is not specified you cannot cry wolf and say that why aren't any other times important.

Pretending that the entire weather patterns of this planet are not drive SOLELY by temperature is another of your false pretenses.

You again use your "Big Book of Word to Make You Sound Smart" and this time you can't even use it correctly. Argumentum ad lapidem does not mean "argument of the stone", it means appeal to the stone meaning you use a fallacy to prove some point ignoring the fact that it is a fallacy.

For instance - your total misuse of "circular" to describe things. Not defining gravity is NOT a circular argument. No one knows what gravity is even today. A scientific generalization based upon empirical observation.

greenman saying one thing then claiming he never said it is a circular argument.

I suggest you stop using your "Big Book" and stop pretending that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the end-all and be-all of the universe.

If you ACTUALLY understood that law you would know that it defines temperature in terms color.
10-11-2017 03:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Okay, let's go here a moment.

Since 'change' means a difference between absolute measurements across some period of time (unspecified), what period of time is involved? 'Climate' has no unit of time. It is simply defined in most dictionaries by some phrase similar to 'weather over a long time'.

Since the time period between the 1st and 2nd measurements is unspecified, what is it that makes these two points in time significant? Why are OTHER points in time NOT significant?

The word 'climate' tends to refer to 'weather', not just temperature. This would include prevailing winds, precipitation patterns, locations and tracks of storm systems through the region, etc.

How do you define a 'global' weather? True, it's possible to define a global temperature (even though we don't know what it is), but 'climate' is about weather, not just temperature.

I'll have to congratulate you though. That's one of the best attempts to avoid the circular definition I've seen yet. It avoids it by redefining the word 'climate'.

The 'change' was not redefined, but it still faces the same problems as before. The 'change' is circularly defined.

Wake wrote:
Otherwise you might concede that arguing with greenman who is raving is a circular argument.

Nope. Repetitive as he is, it is not a circular argument in and of itself, because it makes no conclusion, in and of itself. His conclusions and predicates are about the same subjects over and over, but that is not a circular argument. It is a repetition fallacy, based on the argument of the Stone. It is driven by a religious viewpoint, which itself IS a circular argument that is unrecognized as such (the circular argument fallacy).

The circular argument itself is not a fallacy. Only the failure to recognize one is the fallacy.

A circular definition of a word means there is no definition other than itself, resulting in a void argument. The word is simply a buzzword.

No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a logical fallacy. A void argument is such a fallacy.

Note that there is a difference between a circular argument and a circular definition.

A circular definition is simply a word (or phrase) that can only be defined by itself, while a circular argument is using it's own conclusion as a predicate.

The word 'gravity', for example, is defined as an attractive force between masses. It is not a circular definition, but, since we generally just take gravity for granted that it exists (the way Newton did), it IS a circular argument, but it is recognized as one, even by Newton.

Newton went to describe the effects of gravity, without ever actually trying to prove what gravity itself actually IS, beyond the definition which I just stated. He felt it was sufficient to describe the effects of gravity, not gravity itself.

His work DID focus others on attempting to discern what gravity itself and how it originates is though (beyond the definition I just gave).

That's the real beauty of Newton's work. It made us start asking the right kind of questions to truly get a grasp on some very fundamental things.

Hope that clarifies some things for you.


You cannot keep yourself from shooting out BS can you? Trying to void a definition directly from a dictionary or encyclopedia isn't going to get you anywhere.

I'm not trying to void a definition anywhere. I am saying the circular definition of 'climate change' is a void argument since the phrase can only be defined by itself. It is a buzzword. It is meaningless.
Wake wrote:
Since the "time" is not specified you cannot cry wolf and say that why aren't any other times important.

I sure as hell can.
Wake wrote:
Pretending that the entire weather patterns of this planet are not drive SOLELY by temperature is another of your false pretenses.

So...the presence of water vapor in the air makes no difference, eh?

I'll remember that next time it rains in Oakland.

Wake wrote:
You again use your "Big Book of Word to Make You Sound Smart" and this time you can't even use it correctly. Argumentum ad lapidem does not mean "argument of the stone",

Guess you flunked Latin, eh?
Wake wrote:
it means appeal to the stone meaning you use a fallacy to prove some point ignoring the fact that it is a fallacy.

Not the Argument of the Stone. Go look it up. An Argument of the Stone is discarding an argument without counter argument. It's the equivalent of the small child sticking his fingers in his ears and going, "Nananananana! I can't HEAR you!".
Wake wrote:
For instance - your total misuse of "circular" to describe things.

'Circular' in logic is a word that means to use something that references itself, like a line that turns on itself...a circle. It's amazing that you have decided to argue what 'circular' means.
Wake wrote:
Not defining gravity is NOT a circular argument.

Yes it is. It is not a circular definition, but it IS a circular argument. It is used as a predicate for other arguments by simple assumption. It's only proof is proof by identity (gravity exists...so there).
Wake wrote:
No one knows what gravity is even today.

My point exactly. That didn't stop Newton from describing it's effects though.
Wake wrote:
A scientific generalization based upon empirical observation.

Is it? What are you observing? Does a hammer fall because of some mysterious force acting on it, and we just decide to call it gravity, or are you observing actual gravity itself?
Wake wrote:
greenman saying one thing then claiming he never said it is a circular argument.

WRONG. That is a falsehood, not a circular argument. Falsehoods are a denial of a self argument. That is a fallacy, since it is a denial of the proof of identity. We call it a 'lie' for short.
Wake wrote:
I suggest you stop using your "Big Book"

I suggest you start studying logic and math.
Wake wrote:
and stop pretending that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the end-all and be-all of the universe.

I never said it was. It just happens to be one of the laws typically violated by the Church of Global Warming, usually when they're trying to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument.
Wake wrote:
If you ACTUALLY understood that law you would know that it defines temperature in terms color.

WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It is derivable by integrating Planck's law over all frequencies. Both radiance and emissivity are color-blind.

That's why all bodies are 'grey' bodies, and not ideally black or ideally white. There is no 'red' body, no 'blue' body, no color at all in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It specifically eliminates color from the equation through the process of integration.

The law is:

radiance (in W/m^2) = SBconstant (a fundamental constant of nature) * emissivity (0=100%) * temperature (in degK) ^4.

There is no color anywhere in the equation. There is no term for frequency in the equation.


The Parrot Killer
10-11-2017 16:29
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed wrote: I will never try to force my religion on you.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up", has threatened AGW advocates to leave this webcyst (no misspelling), AND now has threatened me, AND is adored by AGW denier liar whiners.
It is obvious that many AGW denier liar whiners on this webcyst (including "gazzzed & guzzzling") are proud of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time threatener wake-me-up". AGW denier liar whiners support such ilk, & thus become old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners AND many time threateners, themselves.
I have restrained myself from adding the total characteristics to "gazzzed & guzzzling". It now becomes my duty to unveil, the well-earned trash characteristics to "gazzzed & guzzzling". It now becomes "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener gazzzed & guzzzling".
Thank you for so clearly delineating your characteristics in your new name.
11-11-2017 21:07
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Okay, let's go here a moment.

Since 'change' means a difference between absolute measurements across some period of time (unspecified), what period of time is involved? 'Climate' has no unit of time. It is simply defined in most dictionaries by some phrase similar to 'weather over a long time'.

Since the time period between the 1st and 2nd measurements is unspecified, what is it that makes these two points in time significant? Why are OTHER points in time NOT significant?

The word 'climate' tends to refer to 'weather', not just temperature. This would include prevailing winds, precipitation patterns, locations and tracks of storm systems through the region, etc.

How do you define a 'global' weather? True, it's possible to define a global temperature (even though we don't know what it is), but 'climate' is about weather, not just temperature.

I'll have to congratulate you though. That's one of the best attempts to avoid the circular definition I've seen yet. It avoids it by redefining the word 'climate'.

The 'change' was not redefined, but it still faces the same problems as before. The 'change' is circularly defined.

Wake wrote:
Otherwise you might concede that arguing with greenman who is raving is a circular argument.

Nope. Repetitive as he is, it is not a circular argument in and of itself, because it makes no conclusion, in and of itself. His conclusions and predicates are about the same subjects over and over, but that is not a circular argument. It is a repetition fallacy, based on the argument of the Stone. It is driven by a religious viewpoint, which itself IS a circular argument that is unrecognized as such (the circular argument fallacy).

The circular argument itself is not a fallacy. Only the failure to recognize one is the fallacy.

A circular definition of a word means there is no definition other than itself, resulting in a void argument. The word is simply a buzzword.

No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a logical fallacy. A void argument is such a fallacy.

Note that there is a difference between a circular argument and a circular definition.

A circular definition is simply a word (or phrase) that can only be defined by itself, while a circular argument is using it's own conclusion as a predicate.

The word 'gravity', for example, is defined as an attractive force between masses. It is not a circular definition, but, since we generally just take gravity for granted that it exists (the way Newton did), it IS a circular argument, but it is recognized as one, even by Newton.

Newton went to describe the effects of gravity, without ever actually trying to prove what gravity itself actually IS, beyond the definition which I just stated. He felt it was sufficient to describe the effects of gravity, not gravity itself.

His work DID focus others on attempting to discern what gravity itself and how it originates is though (beyond the definition I just gave).

That's the real beauty of Newton's work. It made us start asking the right kind of questions to truly get a grasp on some very fundamental things.

Hope that clarifies some things for you.


You cannot keep yourself from shooting out BS can you? Trying to void a definition directly from a dictionary or encyclopedia isn't going to get you anywhere.

I'm not trying to void a definition anywhere. I am saying the circular definition of 'climate change' is a void argument since the phrase can only be defined by itself. It is a buzzword. It is meaningless.
Wake wrote:
Since the "time" is not specified you cannot cry wolf and say that why aren't any other times important.

I sure as hell can.
Wake wrote:
Pretending that the entire weather patterns of this planet are not drive SOLELY by temperature is another of your false pretenses.

So...the presence of water vapor in the air makes no difference, eh?

I'll remember that next time it rains in Oakland.

Wake wrote:
You again use your "Big Book of Word to Make You Sound Smart" and this time you can't even use it correctly. Argumentum ad lapidem does not mean "argument of the stone",

Guess you flunked Latin, eh?
Wake wrote:
it means appeal to the stone meaning you use a fallacy to prove some point ignoring the fact that it is a fallacy.

Not the Argument of the Stone. Go look it up. An Argument of the Stone is discarding an argument without counter argument. It's the equivalent of the small child sticking his fingers in his ears and going, "Nananananana! I can't HEAR you!".
Wake wrote:
For instance - your total misuse of "circular" to describe things.

'Circular' in logic is a word that means to use something that references itself, like a line that turns on itself...a circle. It's amazing that you have decided to argue what 'circular' means.
Wake wrote:
Not defining gravity is NOT a circular argument.

Yes it is. It is not a circular definition, but it IS a circular argument. It is used as a predicate for other arguments by simple assumption. It's only proof is proof by identity (gravity exists...so there).
Wake wrote:
No one knows what gravity is even today.

My point exactly. That didn't stop Newton from describing it's effects though.
Wake wrote:
A scientific generalization based upon empirical observation.

Is it? What are you observing? Does a hammer fall because of some mysterious force acting on it, and we just decide to call it gravity, or are you observing actual gravity itself?
Wake wrote:
greenman saying one thing then claiming he never said it is a circular argument.

WRONG. That is a falsehood, not a circular argument. Falsehoods are a denial of a self argument. That is a fallacy, since it is a denial of the proof of identity. We call it a 'lie' for short.
Wake wrote:
I suggest you stop using your "Big Book"

I suggest you start studying logic and math.
Wake wrote:
and stop pretending that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the end-all and be-all of the universe.

I never said it was. It just happens to be one of the laws typically violated by the Church of Global Warming, usually when they're trying to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument.
Wake wrote:
If you ACTUALLY understood that law you would know that it defines temperature in terms color.

WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It is derivable by integrating Planck's law over all frequencies. Both radiance and emissivity are color-blind.

That's why all bodies are 'grey' bodies, and not ideally black or ideally white. There is no 'red' body, no 'blue' body, no color at all in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It specifically eliminates color from the equation through the process of integration.

The law is:

radiance (in W/m^2) = SBconstant (a fundamental constant of nature) * emissivity (0=100%) * temperature (in degK) ^4.

There is no color anywhere in the equation. There is no term for frequency in the equation.


The man who does not know that energy = color.

"the energy density of radiation only depends on the temperature, therefore
{\displaystyle \left({\frac {\partial U}{\partial V}}\right)_{T}=u\left({\frac {\partial V}{\partial V}}\right)_{T}=u} \left({\frac {\partial U}{\partial V}}\right)_{{T}}=u\left({\frac {\partial V}{\partial V}}\right)_{{T}}=u."
11-11-2017 21:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It is derivable by integrating Planck's law over all frequencies. Both radiance and emissivity are color-blind.

That's why all bodies are 'grey' bodies, and not ideally black or ideally white. There is no 'red' body, no 'blue' body, no color at all in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It specifically eliminates color from the equation through the process of integration.

The law is:

radiance (in W/m^2) = SBconstant (a fundamental constant of nature) * emissivity (0=100%) * temperature (in degK) ^4.

There is no color anywhere in the equation. There is no term for frequency in the equation.


The man who does not know that energy = color.

"the energy density of radiation only depends on the temperature, therefore
{\displaystyle \left({\frac {\partial U}{\partial V}}\right)_{T}=u\left({\frac {\partial V}{\partial V}}\right)_{T}=u} \left({\frac {\partial U}{\partial V}}\right)_{{T}}=u\left({\frac {\partial V}{\partial V}}\right)_{{T}}=u."


Are you trying to present an equation here? This is unreadable.

Do you see any terms for frequency in the Stefan-Boltzmann law? A simple yes or no will suffice.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-11-2017 21:28
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate This forum is f ucking garbage:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers do the same? (2013)921-11-2017 18:25
This forum is very disappointing2128-11-2016 21:31
Why trafn no longer moderates the Sharing Ideas sub-forum.302-11-2015 18:26
The reality of an open online debate forum015-10-2015 03:18
Well, that's another forum trolled to death.5609-10-2015 18:23
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact