Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change and galactic Position?



Page 2 of 2<12
24-08-2017 11:35
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote this on Aug 9th.....
I am sure that we won't solve this problem, and am preparing for my own family's survival, by investing in a retreat that is off grid and away from other people. That way we [or whoever is left of my family] will have somewhere to go when things get rough. So you guys can categorize me as a Survivalist, who has given up hope on humanity solving this problem. As far as I am concerned, it is up to each individual to prepare his own way through this. Those who do nothing will suffer. Those who prepare might get killed also. But at least if you are trying to preserve your family, then you should be allowed to return to earth, as long as there are vehicles [bodies] available for your return. And as far as I can tell, those who do nothing to preserve their own family, will have no vehicle available for their return, and will not be allowed back.



12 days later....Greenery writes this today...
Not real soon. All indications are that our average temperature is climbing at about 0.16C/decade. At that rate it will take quite a while to kill you off. No, my concern is that our planet will eventually become uninhabitable.

Which is it? Please explain yourself.


Heh. Greenery has not explained himself yet. A paradox has no explanation.


Look up, Proffessor Parrot Face. You are sounding like a retard more and more each day. I responded on 22-08-2017 04:22.


There's only one way out of a paradox dude. You must discard one argument and choose the other. You cannot make both arguments. That is irrational.


I fail to see any paradox. Could you please be so kind as to point out whatever it is that you idiots think I said that is a paradox?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
24-08-2017 19:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote this on Aug 9th.....
I am sure that we won't solve this problem, and am preparing for my own family's survival, by investing in a retreat that is off grid and away from other people. That way we [or whoever is left of my family] will have somewhere to go when things get rough. So you guys can categorize me as a Survivalist, who has given up hope on humanity solving this problem. As far as I am concerned, it is up to each individual to prepare his own way through this. Those who do nothing will suffer. Those who prepare might get killed also. But at least if you are trying to preserve your family, then you should be allowed to return to earth, as long as there are vehicles [bodies] available for your return. And as far as I can tell, those who do nothing to preserve their own family, will have no vehicle available for their return, and will not be allowed back.



12 days later....Greenery writes this today...
Not real soon. All indications are that our average temperature is climbing at about 0.16C/decade. At that rate it will take quite a while to kill you off. No, my concern is that our planet will eventually become uninhabitable.

Which is it? Please explain yourself.


Heh. Greenery has not explained himself yet. A paradox has no explanation.


Look up, Proffessor Parrot Face. You are sounding like a retard more and more each day. I responded on 22-08-2017 04:22.


There's only one way out of a paradox dude. You must discard one argument and choose the other. You cannot make both arguments. That is irrational.


I fail to see any paradox. Could you please be so kind as to point out whatever it is that you idiots think I said that is a paradox?


What a classic denial. It's already been pointed out to you, dumbass...multiple times by multiple people.


The Parrot Killer
25-08-2017 01:53
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote this on Aug 9th.....
I am sure that we won't solve this problem, and am preparing for my own family's survival, by investing in a retreat that is off grid and away from other people. That way we [or whoever is left of my family] will have somewhere to go when things get rough. So you guys can categorize me as a Survivalist, who has given up hope on humanity solving this problem. As far as I am concerned, it is up to each individual to prepare his own way through this. Those who do nothing will suffer. Those who prepare might get killed also. But at least if you are trying to preserve your family, then you should be allowed to return to earth, as long as there are vehicles [bodies] available for your return. And as far as I can tell, those who do nothing to preserve their own family, will have no vehicle available for their return, and will not be allowed back.



12 days later....Greenery writes this today...
Not real soon. All indications are that our average temperature is climbing at about 0.16C/decade. At that rate it will take quite a while to kill you off. No, my concern is that our planet will eventually become uninhabitable.

Which is it? Please explain yourself.


Heh. Greenery has not explained himself yet. A paradox has no explanation.


Look up, Proffessor Parrot Face. You are sounding like a retard more and more each day. I responded on 22-08-2017 04:22.


There's only one way out of a paradox dude. You must discard one argument and choose the other. You cannot make both arguments. That is irrational.


I fail to see any paradox. Could you please be so kind as to point out whatever it is that you idiots think I said that is a paradox?


What a classic denial. It's already been pointed out to you, dumbass...multiple times by multiple people.


You are so funny, Professor Parrot Droppings. I read back through, and I still see no paradox. I understand that this is a long drawn out catastrophe that we are just heading into. And I understand that I will be dead and gone before it is over. I also understand that I will be reborn on this planet as long as there are physical bodies to inhabit. My goal is to preserve the planet's ability to provide those physical bodies. That means that I will lead my family through the catastrophe, regardless of how many lives it takes.

So tell me Professor Parrot Droppings, where is the paradox?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
25-08-2017 03:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote this on Aug 9th.....
I am sure that we won't solve this problem, and am preparing for my own family's survival, by investing in a retreat that is off grid and away from other people. That way we [or whoever is left of my family] will have somewhere to go when things get rough. So you guys can categorize me as a Survivalist, who has given up hope on humanity solving this problem. As far as I am concerned, it is up to each individual to prepare his own way through this. Those who do nothing will suffer. Those who prepare might get killed also. But at least if you are trying to preserve your family, then you should be allowed to return to earth, as long as there are vehicles [bodies] available for your return. And as far as I can tell, those who do nothing to preserve their own family, will have no vehicle available for their return, and will not be allowed back.



12 days later....Greenery writes this today...
Not real soon. All indications are that our average temperature is climbing at about 0.16C/decade. At that rate it will take quite a while to kill you off. No, my concern is that our planet will eventually become uninhabitable.

Which is it? Please explain yourself.


Heh. Greenery has not explained himself yet. A paradox has no explanation.


Look up, Proffessor Parrot Face. You are sounding like a retard more and more each day. I responded on 22-08-2017 04:22.


There's only one way out of a paradox dude. You must discard one argument and choose the other. You cannot make both arguments. That is irrational.


I fail to see any paradox. Could you please be so kind as to point out whatever it is that you idiots think I said that is a paradox?


What a classic denial. It's already been pointed out to you, dumbass...multiple times by multiple people.


You are so funny, Professor Parrot Droppings. I read back through, and I still see no paradox. I understand that this is a long drawn out catastrophe that we are just heading into. And I understand that I will be dead and gone before it is over. I also understand that I will be reborn on this planet as long as there are physical bodies to inhabit. My goal is to preserve the planet's ability to provide those physical bodies. That means that I will lead my family through the catastrophe, regardless of how many lives it takes.

So tell me Professor Parrot Droppings, where is the paradox?


Right in front of your face. It has been part of every quote since this whole thing got started.

So you are into reincarnation as well, yes?


The Parrot Killer
25-08-2017 08:32
mygor
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
litesong wrote:
[b]mygor wrote:....hot spring systems like Yellowstone's produce enough carbon dioxide that they, too, should be considered when the world tallies its carbon dioxide emissions, the researchers said.

mygor (is that anything like mizar & alcor?) thinks quoting 20 year year old research papers will teach AGW scientists something new..... specially if those Hot Pots put out 1/1000th of the emissions of man-made machines.
Now mygor.... prove those Hot Pots are presently putting out more emissions than they did 400-500 years ago.


Right now I think that my style of living is closer to the way your forefathers lived than yours, Right now me and my critters ( goats, rabbits,chickens ) eat mostly out of the yard, when I take my extras to auction this fall. I should get enough to pay for winter feed. As well as paying my home insurance. I feed them and they feed me. When I do go to the store I only need flour,sugar, and butter. My preferred ride is a huffy bike. I do not see the need for a bunch of flashy stuff. I can't take it with me when I'm gone. My total expenses are under 5K a year so I need very little.

When I set up my first email I did not want to have numbers in it. So after trying a couple of dozen times. I decided to use the name of a video game character. The game was called Cyberace the toon was called Mugyor. I forgot to spell-check lol.I had a writer from Australia email me a long time ago about that. He had written a book with a character that he had given the same name to. His was from Imagination, mine was just a typo.

So a guy named harry pleads not guilty in traffic court and the Judge sets a trial date. Harry comes back in for the trial. The Judge does his thing . Then the the prosecutor does his. Then Harry goes up to testify. The Bailiff says do you swear to tel the truth, the whole truth,and nothing but the truth. Harry says no. the prosecutor objects. the Judge asks Harry. Why will you not swear to tell the truth?. Harry tells the Judge I can only swear to tell the truth as I know it. I don't know the whole truth If i did, i would not be here.
25-08-2017 11:10
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote this on Aug 9th.....
I am sure that we won't solve this problem, and am preparing for my own family's survival, by investing in a retreat that is off grid and away from other people. That way we [or whoever is left of my family] will have somewhere to go when things get rough. So you guys can categorize me as a Survivalist, who has given up hope on humanity solving this problem. As far as I am concerned, it is up to each individual to prepare his own way through this. Those who do nothing will suffer. Those who prepare might get killed also. But at least if you are trying to preserve your family, then you should be allowed to return to earth, as long as there are vehicles [bodies] available for your return. And as far as I can tell, those who do nothing to preserve their own family, will have no vehicle available for their return, and will not be allowed back.



12 days later....Greenery writes this today...
Not real soon. All indications are that our average temperature is climbing at about 0.16C/decade. At that rate it will take quite a while to kill you off. No, my concern is that our planet will eventually become uninhabitable.

Which is it? Please explain yourself.


Heh. Greenery has not explained himself yet. A paradox has no explanation.


Look up, Proffessor Parrot Face. You are sounding like a retard more and more each day. I responded on 22-08-2017 04:22.


There's only one way out of a paradox dude. You must discard one argument and choose the other. You cannot make both arguments. That is irrational.


I fail to see any paradox. Could you please be so kind as to point out whatever it is that you idiots think I said that is a paradox?


What a classic denial. It's already been pointed out to you, dumbass...multiple times by multiple people.


You are so funny, Professor Parrot Droppings. I read back through, and I still see no paradox. I understand that this is a long drawn out catastrophe that we are just heading into. And I understand that I will be dead and gone before it is over. I also understand that I will be reborn on this planet as long as there are physical bodies to inhabit. My goal is to preserve the planet's ability to provide those physical bodies. That means that I will lead my family through the catastrophe, regardless of how many lives it takes.

So tell me Professor Parrot Droppings, where is the paradox?


Right in front of your face. It has been part of every quote since this whole thing got started.

So you are into reincarnation as well, yes?


A man with such good avoidance skills would be good to have in a dog fight. Unfortunately, this isn't a dog fight. There is no paradox in my statements.

Everyone is into reincarnation, whether they believe in it [is that what you mean by "into it?"] or not, lol. Only a moron would believe that they are a spiritual being inhabiting a physical body, and that they can just do it once.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
25-08-2017 20:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
A man with such good avoidance skills would be good to have in a dog fight. Unfortunately, this isn't a dog fight. There is no paradox in my statements.


Which is it, dude?

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

GreenMan wrote:
Everyone is into reincarnation, whether they believe in it [is that what you mean by "into it?"] or not, lol. Only a moron would believe that they are a spiritual being inhabiting a physical body, and that they can just do it once.


I'll just leave this religious argument for all to see as an example of what you think a 'proof' is, and your insistence on telling others what religions to believe in.

Your two religions are conflicting with each other, building your paradox.


The Parrot Killer
25-08-2017 20:45
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
mygor wrote:
litesong wrote:
Hot Pots put out 1/1000th of the emissions of man-made machines.
Now mygor.... prove those Hot Pots are presently putting out more emissions than they did 400-500 years ago.

my style of living is closer to the way your forefathers lived than yours... I do not.... need....flashy stuff.

"mygor" proves its Hot Pot theory.... by telling of its simple lifestyle & demeaning my lifestyle (altho it doesn't know my lifestyle). But thanks for saying my 10 year old Hyundai Accent (gets 45mpg) & our house, which cost $400,000+ less than the houses around it, are flashy.
27-08-2017 00:10
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
A man with such good avoidance skills would be good to have in a dog fight. Unfortunately, this isn't a dog fight. There is no paradox in my statements.


Which is it, dude?

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

I usually include the phrase, "if nothing changes" in that. Because if nothing changes and we continue business as usual, the planet will become uninhabitable. I am one of those who are for implementing changes that will move humanity off of its fossil fuel dependency.

I see us as changing our ways, but only after serious consequences are felt. Though it would be better if we actually made those changes ahead of feeling the consequences, because it will hurt even more to change then, when your resources are dwindling away.
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Everyone is into reincarnation, whether they believe in it [is that what you mean by "into it?"] or not, lol. Only a moron would believe that they are a spiritual being inhabiting a physical body, and that they can just do it once.


I'll just leave this religious argument for all to see as an example of what you think a 'proof' is, and your insistence on telling others what religions to believe in.

Your two religions are conflicting with each other, building your paradox.


I have no religion, either spiritualistic or materialistic. I don't believe in Global Warming just because someone tells me that it's real. Nor do I believe that my Being is Spiritual, just because someone tells me that either. But both of those beliefs did originate with someone initially telling me of both. And my curiosity compelled me to investigate both. My conclusion after a lifetime of investigation is that we are indeed spiritual Beings, in need of a place to live in the physical and call Home. That is the planet earth, and we are supposed to be the guardians of life on it, because we are the highest order of life on the planet. It is unfortunate that we do it, so people like you, who do not care about future life, can have it also. We do that, just to insure that we too can live, even though it doesn't really make that much sense. It would be better if all of the people like you, who think they need to sit around creating ways to confuse other people about Global Warming, would get together, and travel to your favorite spot on the earth, and isolate yourself from the rest of the people. Because you idiots are surely going to roast by your own stupidity. And it's a shame to see you cause so much grief for those you persuade.

The only real paradox we have here, is yours. You live, yet you refuse to let others live. You don't value you own life, is why you don't value the future of the human race. It's lunacy to continue doing something you know is going to end in the death of the entire human race. Acting like it isn't going to happen is not the solution. If you want to ignore it then you should ignore it, and take the responsibility for your actions. But I can assure you, you don't want to take the responsibility for your actions, if you are responsible for misleading other people down the wrong path to their own destruction. And that is what you are doing, through willful negligence on your part to investigate the validity of your own claims. You have provided no evidence of ever proving any of your claims, which contradict those of the scientific community regarding Greenhouse Gases. Simply stating that there is no such thing, doesn't count as evidence of anything, other than your own stupidity.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
27-08-2017 00:37
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
A man with such good avoidance skills would be good to have in a dog fight. Unfortunately, this isn't a dog fight. There is no paradox in my statements.


Which is it, dude?

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

I usually include the phrase, "if nothing changes" in that. Because if nothing changes and we continue business as usual, the planet will become uninhabitable. I am one of those who are for implementing changes that will move humanity off of its fossil fuel dependency.

I see us as changing our ways, but only after serious consequences are felt. Though it would be better if we actually made those changes ahead of feeling the consequences, because it will hurt even more to change then, when your resources are dwindling away.
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Everyone is into reincarnation, whether they believe in it [is that what you mean by "into it?"] or not, lol. Only a moron would believe that they are a spiritual being inhabiting a physical body, and that they can just do it once.


I'll just leave this religious argument for all to see as an example of what you think a 'proof' is, and your insistence on telling others what religions to believe in.

Your two religions are conflicting with each other, building your paradox.


I have no religion, either spiritualistic or materialistic. I don't believe in Global Warming just because someone tells me that it's real. Nor do I believe that my Being is Spiritual, just because someone tells me that either. But both of those beliefs did originate with someone initially telling me of both. And my curiosity compelled me to investigate both. My conclusion after a lifetime of investigation is that we are indeed spiritual Beings, in need of a place to live in the physical and call Home. That is the planet earth, and we are supposed to be the guardians of life on it, because we are the highest order of life on the planet. It is unfortunate that we do it, so people like you, who do not care about future life, can have it also. We do that, just to insure that we too can live, even though it doesn't really make that much sense. It would be better if all of the people like you, who think they need to sit around creating ways to confuse other people about Global Warming, would get together, and travel to your favorite spot on the earth, and isolate yourself from the rest of the people. Because you idiots are surely going to roast by your own stupidity. And it's a shame to see you cause so much grief for those you persuade.

The only real paradox we have here, is yours. You live, yet you refuse to let others live. You don't value you own life, is why you don't value the future of the human race. It's lunacy to continue doing something you know is going to end in the death of the entire human race. Acting like it isn't going to happen is not the solution. If you want to ignore it then you should ignore it, and take the responsibility for your actions. But I can assure you, you don't want to take the responsibility for your actions, if you are responsible for misleading other people down the wrong path to their own destruction. And that is what you are doing, through willful negligence on your part to investigate the validity of your own claims. You have provided no evidence of ever proving any of your claims, which contradict those of the scientific community regarding Greenhouse Gases. Simply stating that there is no such thing, doesn't count as evidence of anything, other than your own stupidity.


Fine fine piece of writing there Mr. Greenturd.
Tell ya what, why don't we start small and go from there, OK?
Forget the globe for a minute and go small. Prove to me first that it is warming in your home state of Michigan. The whole earth has been warming steadily for a century+...so it should be also warming in Michigan with no trouble, right? See what you can dig up. If you don't prefer Michigan, then pick a state. Go ahead, try it!


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
27-08-2017 21:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
A man with such good avoidance skills would be good to have in a dog fight. Unfortunately, this isn't a dog fight. There is no paradox in my statements.


Which is it, dude?

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

I usually include the phrase, "if nothing changes" in that.
Because if nothing changes and we continue business as usual, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Liar. You've been saying the planet will become uninhabitable no matter what we do.
GreenMan wrote:
I am one of those who are for implementing changes that will move humanity off of its fossil fuel dependency.

Fossils don't burn. It doesn't HAVE a fossil fuel industry. You can drop the use of this buzzword now.
GreenMan wrote:
I see us as changing our ways, but only after serious consequences are felt. Though it would be better if we actually made those changes ahead of feeling the consequences, because it will hurt even more to change then, when your resources are dwindling away.

You mean like oil? Oil is a renewable resource. So is methane. So is hydroelectric.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Everyone is into reincarnation, whether they believe in it [is that what you mean by "into it?"] or not, lol. Only a moron would believe that they are a spiritual being inhabiting a physical body, and that they can just do it once.


I'll just leave this religious argument for all to see as an example of what you think a 'proof' is, and your insistence on telling others what religions to believe in.

Your two religions are conflicting with each other, building your paradox.


I have no religion, either spiritualistic or materialistic.

A liar once again. You have three: Reincarnation, the Church of Global Warming, and the Church of Karl Marx.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't believe in Global Warming just because someone tells me that it's real.

Liar. Yes you do.
GreenMan wrote:
Nor do I believe that my Being is Spiritual, just because someone tells me that either.

I will call this argument 1.
GreenMan wrote:
But both of those beliefs did originate with someone initially telling me of both.

I will call this argument 2. Welcome to your new paradox.

GreenMan wrote:
And my curiosity compelled me to investigate both. My conclusion after a lifetime of investigation is that we are indeed spiritual Beings, in need of a place to live in the physical and call Home. That is the planet earth, and we are supposed to be the guardians of life on it, because we are the highest order of life on the planet.

Meh. This is a religious argument. This forum is about 'climate change' or 'global warming'.
GreenMan wrote:
It is unfortunate that we do it, so people like you, who do not care about future life, can have it also.

Thought terminate cliche and circular argument based on a rash assumption.
GreenMan wrote:
We do that, just to insure that we too can live, even though it doesn't really make that much sense. It would be better if all of the people like you, who think they need to sit around creating ways to confuse other people about Global Warming, would get together, and travel to your favorite spot on the earth, and isolate yourself from the rest of the people. Because you idiots are surely going to roast by your own stupidity. And it's a shame to see you cause so much grief for those you persuade.

No one is going to roast from 'global warming'. You can't even define what it is!
GreenMan wrote:
The only real paradox we have here, is yours. You live, yet you refuse to let others live.

This is not a paradox. This is a cliche the Church of Global Warming taught you.
GreenMan wrote:
You don't value you own life, is why you don't value the future of the human race.

Unlike you, I actually HAVE cleaned up pollution. I don't sit around and whine about it.
GreenMan wrote:
It's lunacy to continue doing something you know is going to end in the death of the entire human race.

How long do you want to continue this cliche?
GreenMan wrote:
Acting like it isn't going to happen is not the solution.

It is not going to happen. Your 'end of the world is nigh' is false.
GreenMan wrote:
If you want to ignore it then you should ignore it, and take the responsibility for your actions.

I take responsibility for all my actions.
GreenMan wrote:
But I can assure you, you don't want to take the responsibility for your actions, if you are responsible for misleading other people down the wrong path to their own destruction. And that is what you are doing, through willful negligence on your part to investigate the validity of your own claims. You have provided no evidence of ever proving any of your claims, which contradict those of the scientific community regarding Greenhouse Gases. Simply stating that there is no such thing, doesn't count as evidence of anything, other than your own stupidity.

Science isn't consensus. Consensus is not used in science. The Church of Global worships the Great God Consensus as well as the Great Goddess Gaia.

You are making yet another thought terminating cliche. It comes right out of your Holy Scriptures of the Church of Global Warming.

Science is not based on consensus. No university, government, corporation, church, political organization, peer group, individual or group of individuals owns science. No one votes on science.

Science makes no use of supporting evidence. The only evidence of any interest to science is conflicting evidence.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 06:47
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
A man with such good avoidance skills would be good to have in a dog fight. Unfortunately, this isn't a dog fight. There is no paradox in my statements.


Which is it, dude?

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

I usually include the phrase, "if nothing changes" in that.
Because if nothing changes and we continue business as usual, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Liar. You've been saying the planet will become uninhabitable no matter what we do.

And I stand with that. It doesn't matter if we completely eliminate CO2 and CH4 pollution, the earth's temperature will continue to climb for hundreds or even thousands of years, because that's how long CO2 stays in the air. The only real hope we have is if we can develop a technology to remove CO2 from the air. I don't expect that to happen though. What I expect to happen instead is an eruption of a Caldera, as predicted in the Bible. That will cool the planet, but it will also kill everyone in the immediate vicinity. It will also disrupt any kind of society we still have left.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I am one of those who are for implementing changes that will move humanity off of its fossil fuel dependency.

Fossils don't burn. It doesn't HAVE a fossil fuel industry. You can drop the use of this buzzword now.

I have a better idea. You can drop the harassment about using the term, "fossil fuel." It is a term that is understood to mean coal and oil, and has nothing to do with actual fossils. And some coal has fossils, so some fossils do burn.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I see us as changing our ways, but only after serious consequences are felt. Though it would be better if we actually made those changes ahead of feeling the consequences, because it will hurt even more to change then, when your resources are dwindling away.

You mean like oil? Oil is a renewable resource. So is methane. So is hydroelectric.

Oil is renewable, in a sense, in that it will eventually be replenished. After a few million or more years. It's not what we usually refer to when we use the term "renewable resource," because we mean renewable in our lifetime, lol.

But no, those aren't the resources that I think will start to dwindle away. I'm talking about the green stuff. The green stuff that grows in the fields that we eat, and feed to our other favorite animal, cattle. That goes eventually, as the temperature around the world continues to climb. People like you will realize then, that you can't eat coal and wash it down with oil, no matter how much money you have.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Everyone is into reincarnation, whether they believe in it [is that what you mean by "into it?"] or not, lol. Only a moron would believe that they are a spiritual being inhabiting a physical body, and that they can just do it once.


I'll just leave this religious argument for all to see as an example of what you think a 'proof' is, and your insistence on telling others what religions to believe in.

Your two religions are conflicting with each other, building your paradox.


I have no religion, either spiritualistic or materialistic.

A liar once again. You have three: Reincarnation, the Church of Global Warming, and the Church of Karl Marx.

You are a lunatic. Reincarnation isn't a religion. It is a spiritual belief. It didn't even come from a religion. There is no Church of Global Warming, except in your mind. There is actually a science behind it. And I have no idea why you think I belong to the Church of Karl Marx. That's just stupid.

People do need to know about their own spirituality, as it is motivation for ending the relentlessness pollution of our planet. It's easy to say that it's someone else's problem, because I won't be alive when it gets too hot to live. But if people understood that the world is our playground, that we get to come back to life again and play in, then it becomes more personal.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I don't believe in Global Warming just because someone tells me that it's real.

Liar. Yes you do.

About tired of you calling me a liar, BOY! [reaches through screen, jap slaps the Parrot Faced professor]
I believe in Global Warming because I built a Climate Model that proves that Greenhouse Gases do help in controlling the earth's climate. So I know for sure, without taking anyone's word for it, that it is real. And it does threaten humanity in the long run.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Nor do I believe that my Being is Spiritual, just because someone tells me that either.

I will call this argument 1.
GreenMan wrote:
But both of those beliefs did originate with someone initially telling me of both.

I will call this argument 2. Welcome to your new paradox.

Not a paradox, dumbass. Just because a belief originates from the knowledge of someone else, doesn't make it a religion, or not provable. I proved both to myself. Anyone can do either, as well. It just takes a lot of time, patience, and desire to know the truth.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And my curiosity compelled me to investigate both. My conclusion after a lifetime of investigation is that we are indeed spiritual Beings, in need of a place to live in the physical and call Home. That is the planet earth, and we are supposed to be the guardians of life on it, because we are the highest order of life on the planet.

Meh. This is a religious argument. This forum is about 'climate change' or 'global warming'.

Since our spiritual beliefs play a part in our understanding of everything else, we shouldn't leave them totally out. But feel free to, if you want to.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It is unfortunate that we do it, so people like you, who do not care about future life, can have it also.

Thought terminate cliche and circular argument based on a rash assumption.
GreenMan wrote:
We do that, just to insure that we too can live, even though it doesn't really make that much sense. It would be better if all of the people like you, who think they need to sit around creating ways to confuse other people about Global Warming, would get together, and travel to your favorite spot on the earth, and isolate yourself from the rest of the people. Because you idiots are surely going to roast by your own stupidity. And it's a shame to see you cause so much grief for those you persuade.

No one is going to roast from 'global warming'. You can't even define what it is!
GreenMan wrote:

Already have defined it several times in here for you. Global Warming happens when it gets warmer as the years advance. I'm not sure what you think is so hard about that.

Into the Night wrote:
The only real paradox we have here, is yours. You live, yet you refuse to let others live.

This is not a paradox. This is a cliche the Church of Global Warming taught you.

No one taught me that, lol. It's what came to mind when thinking of you. Your attitude will prevent many people in the future from being able to live, if not for those who oppose you.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You don't value you own life, is why you don't value the future of the human race.

Unlike you, I actually HAVE cleaned up pollution. I don't sit around and whine about it.

You don't know what I've done. But you are right about that. I haven't been involved in any clean up efforts. Its a good thing that you cared about our environment at one time. What happened? Did you decide that it was better to live with the filth as long as it doesn't affect you directly? That's kind of like flushing your toilet into the creek behind your house.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It's lunacy to continue doing something you know is going to end in the death of the entire human race.

How long do you want to continue this cliche?

Not a cliche, dumbass. And I will continue to say it as long as there are idiots like you that demand it being said.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Acting like it isn't going to happen is not the solution.

It is not going to happen. Your 'end of the world is nigh' is false.

You don't know that it's not going to happen. You don't know anything, and are only motivated by your desire to continue living the high life. This is what's going to happen, idiot.

That's a hockey stick on steroids. That climate model very accurately backcasts the earth's climate for 800,000 years, with a margin of error less than 3.5C. It clearly forecasts a global average of over 50C above what is currently is. Even if it only gets a fraction of that, we are all doomed.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
If you want to ignore it then you should ignore it, and take the responsibility for your actions.

I take responsibility for all my actions.

And how will you manage that, when you are on the internet influencing countless people with your junk science? How will you make it up to those people, when the temperature continues to climb and it is too late for them to do anything about it, or about living in it?

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
But I can assure you, you don't want to take the responsibility for your actions, if you are responsible for misleading other people down the wrong path to their own destruction. And that is what you are doing, through willful negligence on your part to investigate the validity of your own claims. You have provided no evidence of ever proving any of your claims, which contradict those of the scientific community regarding Greenhouse Gases. Simply stating that there is no such thing, doesn't count as evidence of anything, other than your own stupidity.

Science isn't consensus. Consensus is not used in science. The Church of Global worships the Great God Consensus as well as the Great Goddess Gaia.

You can poke fun of the scientific community's consensus if you want, but it only shows your lack of intelligence.

Into the Night wrote:

You are making yet another thought terminating cliche. It comes right out of your Holy Scriptures of the Church of Global Warming.

Science is not based on consensus. No university, government, corporation, church, political organization, peer group, individual or group of individuals owns science. No one votes on science.

Science makes no use of supporting evidence. The only evidence of any interest to science is conflicting evidence.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


You really need to take that argument elsewhere. Perhaps to your local university, and see if they can help you understand what science is a little better. Science is a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the natural world, among other things.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
28-08-2017 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
A man with such good avoidance skills would be good to have in a dog fight. Unfortunately, this isn't a dog fight. There is no paradox in my statements.


Which is it, dude?

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

I usually include the phrase, "if nothing changes" in that.
Because if nothing changes and we continue business as usual, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Liar. You've been saying the planet will become uninhabitable no matter what we do.

And I stand with that. It doesn't matter if we completely eliminate CO2 and CH4 pollution, the earth's temperature will continue to climb for hundreds or even thousands of years, because that's how long CO2 stays in the air. The only real hope we have is if we can develop a technology to remove CO2 from the air. I don't expect that to happen though. What I expect to happen instead is an eruption of a Caldera, as predicted in the Bible. That will cool the planet, but it will also kill everyone in the immediate vicinity. It will also disrupt any kind of society we still have left.

Then you insist on arguing irrationally. You can't have it both ways!

CO2 and methane don't warm the Earth. You still don't see the perpetual motion machine you are describing.

We don't need to remove CO2 from the air. You should probably study the carbon cycle a bit.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I am one of those who are for implementing changes that will move humanity off of its fossil fuel dependency.

Fossils don't burn. It doesn't HAVE a fossil fuel industry. You can drop the use of this buzzword now.

I have a better idea. You can drop the harassment about using the term, "fossil fuel." It is a term that is understood to mean coal and oil, and has nothing to do with actual fossils. And some coal has fossils, so some fossils do burn.

Nothing doing. I am tired of you idiots redefining words. You use 'fossil fuel' to mean anything that is an 'evil' energy source, as opposed to a 'good' energy source. You use it like a bigot would.

The fossils embedded in coal do not burn.

Coal is not a fossil. Oil is not a fossil. Methane is not a fossil.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I see us as changing our ways, but only after serious consequences are felt. Though it would be better if we actually made those changes ahead of feeling the consequences, because it will hurt even more to change then, when your resources are dwindling away.

You mean like oil? Oil is a renewable resource. So is methane. So is hydroelectric.

Oil is renewable, in a sense, in that it will eventually be replenished. After a few million or more years. It's not what we usually refer to when we use the term "renewable resource," because we mean renewable in our lifetime, lol.

We can synthesize oil from non-biological sources (and do on an industrial scale) in a matter of hours, using processes that are similar to conditions found underground.

It's time to put away your image of dinosaurs and oil.

GreenMan wrote:
But no, those aren't the resources that I think will start to dwindle away.

Ok. Let's hear your dodge.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm talking about the green stuff. The green stuff that grows in the fields that we eat, and feed to our other favorite animal, cattle. That goes eventually, as the temperature around the world continues to climb.

Do you know what the tropics contain? Vegetation!
Do you know what the area around Seattle, Canada, and Anchorage contain? Vegetation!
Do you not realize that we grow more food than ever? Using land that was once not arable?
Do you not realize that cattle eat grass, which grows ANYWHERE there is any vegetation at all?
Do you not realize that plants USE carbon dioxide?

GreenMan wrote:
People like you will realize then, that you can't eat coal and wash it down with oil, no matter how much money you have.


All you have is predictions of doom and gloom, coming from your chicken entrails. You are fed this stuff from your religions. You have NEVER looked out in the country where people actually live close to nature, harness it, make use of it, and provide YOU with the food you eat so you can spew your doom and gloom!


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
You are a lunatic. Reincarnation isn't a religion. It is a spiritual belief.

That makes it a religion, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
It didn't even come from a religion.

Correct. It IS a religion.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. The circular argument itself is not a fallacy, but failing to recognize it is.

GreenMan wrote:
There is no Church of Global Warming, except in your mind.

There certainly is. I coined the term. You are pushing a religion.
GreenMan wrote:
There is actually a science behind it.

None whatsoever.
GreenMan wrote:
And I have no idea why you think I belong to the Church of Karl Marx. That's just stupid.

Because you spew socialist, fascist, and communist ideals...ideals that come directly form Karl Marx.
GreenMan wrote:
People do need to know about their own spirituality, as it is motivation for ending the relentlessness pollution of our planet.

You can't pollute a planet. It is not possible.
GreenMan wrote:
It's easy to say that it's someone else's problem, because I won't be alive when it gets too hot to live. But if people understood that the world is our playground, that we get to come back to life again and play in, then it becomes more personal.

I guess you don't visit the tropics much. I hear Hawaii is a wonderful place (I should know...I lived there for two years).

Someday you'll understand that spring is planting time...you know...when the temperature warms up.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 21:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No one is going to roast from 'global warming'. You can't even define what it is!

Already have defined it several times in here for you. Global Warming happens when it gets warmer as the years advance. I'm not sure what you think is so hard about that.


Circular definition. Not allowed. You can't define 'global warming' as 'global warming'.

Only religions have to do that.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 21:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I take responsibility for all my actions.

And how will you manage that, when you are on the internet influencing countless people with your junk science? How will you make it up to those people, when the temperature continues to climb and it is too late for them to do anything about it, or about living in it?

The laws of thermodynamics and Planck's laws are not junk science.

You are still arguing your paradox. 1) We must do something NOW 2) It's too late to do anything about it.

Which is it dude?


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science is not based on consensus. No university, government, corporation, church, political organization, peer group, individual or group of individuals owns science. No one votes on science.

Science makes no use of supporting evidence. The only evidence of any interest to science is conflicting evidence.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


You really need to take that argument elsewhere. Perhaps to your local university, and see if they can help you understand what science is a little better. Science is a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the natural world, among other things.


No university owns science.

Science does not link isolated facts into a coherent and comprehensive 'understanding'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Anything can inspire a theory. All theories begin as circular arguments. What makes a theory part of the body of science is the test of falsifiability, the test of internal consistency (which all theories must pass, even non-scientific ones), and the test of external consistency.

If a theory passes these tests, it AUTOMATICALLY becomes part of the body of science.

No theory is ever proven. No supporting evidence is used in science. No peer review, vote, consensus, university, or governmental blessing, makes a theory part of science.

Science itself can't predict. It can only describe. A theory must be formalized into a closed system, such as mathematics, to gain the power of prediction.

There is no official 'scientific method'. The method of science has one and only purpose: to support the definition of science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2017 09:38
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science is not based on consensus. No university, government, corporation, church, political organization, peer group, individual or group of individuals owns science. No one votes on science.

Science makes no use of supporting evidence. The only evidence of any interest to science is conflicting evidence.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


You really need to take that argument elsewhere. Perhaps to your local university, and see if they can help you understand what science is a little better. Science is a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the natural world, among other things.


No university owns science.

Science does not link isolated facts into a coherent and comprehensive 'understanding'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Anything can inspire a theory. All theories begin as circular arguments. What makes a theory part of the body of science is the test of falsifiability, the test of internal consistency (which all theories must pass, even non-scientific ones), and the test of external consistency.

If a theory passes these tests, it AUTOMATICALLY becomes part of the body of science.

No theory is ever proven. No supporting evidence is used in science. No peer review, vote, consensus, university, or governmental blessing, makes a theory part of science.

Science itself can't predict. It can only describe. A theory must be formalized into a closed system, such as mathematics, to gain the power of prediction.

There is no official 'scientific method'. The method of science has one and only purpose: to support the definition of science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


......says the infamous Professor Parrot Face, to his adoring crowd of AGW Denial nut cases.

I think I will stick with understanding science to be knowledge of the known universe. You can call it what you will, as you attempt to assassinate a theory that doesn't agree with you.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
31-08-2017 19:17
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Oil is a renewable resource. So is methane. So is hydroelectric.

In the 1960's average oil well depths were less than 2500 feet. Presently, average oil well depths are approaching 8000 feet.
It nice to know we'll be going back to those 2500 foot oil wells, soon.
31-08-2017 19:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Oil is a renewable resource. So is methane. So is hydroelectric.

In the 1960's average oil well depths were less than 2500 feet. Presently, average oil well depths are approaching 8000 feet.
It nice to know we'll be going back to those 2500 foot oil wells, soon.


It looks like the ignorant moron doesn't know that the first "oil wells" were oil oozing out onto the surface in areas all over the world. "Lamp oil" wasn't drilled for.

But as larger sources were discovered underground it was drilled for. Now this crazed chowder brained fool believes that the deeper the wells the more oil we're using up. There is more oil in the recent discoveries in Montana than we knew existed in 1950.

But with a mighty "DUHHHHH" he climbs upon his horse named Pocohantas and tells us like it is.

Tell the truth I didn't believe people as stupid as litebrain existed outside of mental institutions so that's how we can tell how he gets the way to an Internet interface.
31-08-2017 23:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science is not based on consensus. No university, government, corporation, church, political organization, peer group, individual or group of individuals owns science. No one votes on science.

Science makes no use of supporting evidence. The only evidence of any interest to science is conflicting evidence.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


You really need to take that argument elsewhere. Perhaps to your local university, and see if they can help you understand what science is a little better. Science is a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the natural world, among other things.


No university owns science.

Science does not link isolated facts into a coherent and comprehensive 'understanding'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Anything can inspire a theory. All theories begin as circular arguments. What makes a theory part of the body of science is the test of falsifiability, the test of internal consistency (which all theories must pass, even non-scientific ones), and the test of external consistency.

If a theory passes these tests, it AUTOMATICALLY becomes part of the body of science.

No theory is ever proven. No supporting evidence is used in science. No peer review, vote, consensus, university, or governmental blessing, makes a theory part of science.

Science itself can't predict. It can only describe. A theory must be formalized into a closed system, such as mathematics, to gain the power of prediction.

There is no official 'scientific method'. The method of science has one and only purpose: to support the definition of science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


......says the infamous Professor Parrot Face, to his adoring crowd of AGW Denial nut cases.

I think I will stick with understanding science to be knowledge of the known universe. You can call it what you will, as you attempt to assassinate a theory that doesn't agree with you.


You think you will stick with your religion, you mean.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without resorting to circular definitions, or by using links or quotes.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2017 23:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Oil is a renewable resource. So is methane. So is hydroelectric.

In the 1960's average oil well depths were less than 2500 feet. Presently, average oil well depths are approaching 8000 feet.
It nice to know we'll be going back to those 2500 foot oil wells, soon.


Only our deepest wells go that deep.

Oil is still found at many depths. Thanks again for confirming that oil is found well below any fossil layers.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-08-2017 23:21
31-08-2017 23:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Oil is a renewable resource. So is methane. So is hydroelectric.

In the 1960's average oil well depths were less than 2500 feet. Presently, average oil well depths are approaching 8000 feet.
It nice to know we'll be going back to those 2500 foot oil wells, soon.


It looks like the ignorant moron doesn't know that the first "oil wells" were oil oozing out onto the surface in areas all over the world. "Lamp oil" wasn't drilled for.

True. We also harpooned it. Big oil saved the whales.
Wake wrote:
But as larger sources were discovered underground it was drilled for. Now this crazed chowder brained fool believes that the deeper the wells the more oil we're using up. There is more oil in the recent discoveries in Montana than we knew existed in 1950.

True.
Wake wrote:
But with a mighty "DUHHHHH" he climbs upon his horse named Pocohantas and tells us like it is.

I don't think litebeer owns a horse. They pollute the environment by leaving shit everywhere.
Wake wrote:
Tell the truth I didn't believe people as stupid as litebrain existed outside of mental institutions so that's how we can tell how he gets the way to an Internet interface.

You're in Oakland, aren't you? You DO see the mental cases wandering the streets among the drug users, don't you?

Not that litebeer is wandering the streets like that. He's just an indian that has more chips on his shoulder than most welfare recipients.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-08-2017 23:29
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Climate change and galactic Position?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Earth's position in the Milky Way208-09-2019 20:32
IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data, so we do not accept IPCC's position3829-02-2016 01:07
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact