Remember me
▼ Content

Going "Green"



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
04-02-2021 09:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote: IBD, You're full of it. Noone orders me todo anything.

Yes, we all understand that's what you were ordered to say. We get it.

keepit wrote:Your post is nothing but english lessons and fluff.

Yes, we all understand that presenting you with an opportunity to learn is in very poor taste. You have my apologies.

keepit wrote: You don't know a lot about the subject mater.

Now that you mention it, you remind me somewhat of Mater. Some day you might be as smart as he.



.


Mater was pretty smart on his own ground. I don't think keeping has come up to that level yet.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
04-02-2021 09:55
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
keepit wrote:
IBD,ITN, gfm,
You don't reason about issues. You just deny.
I'm guilty of the same thing. As a result debate becomes a bunch of wild goose chases.


I am feeling you.This forum is for climate debate however it would seem that Politiplex is not getting any traction so its been moved here.Illegitimi non carborundum.While were at it I am convinced CO2 has an effect on the temperature just a tiny amount as I have seen too many scientist agree to it and that there may have been some warming through the last few decades again it has stopped.This is based on local readings not global but does it hurt to shrug and go so what like the Canadian scientist I have just watched who has spent his entire career studying the effect of heat at a molecular level and he goes on to explain just how complicated the climate is and how difficult it is to understand.He also had no problem stating WE DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER BECAUSE IT IS BEYOND US TO CALCULATE.He dared to say fossil fuel as well.Bring it on 3 stooges.You know who you are


duncan61
04-02-2021 17:46
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2100)
keepit wrote:
So where do you get information from?

RQAA.
04-02-2021 18:16
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2100)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
So where do you get information from?


I don't know about everybody else, but I get information from all over the world, and all around me. I don't just switch on the 'magic box' each morning, then regurgitate what ever it tells me to believe. I don't put any value on opinion, of the people reporting the 'facts', because they tend to omit key facts, that they should have available. That isn't called reporting a story, it's called lying.

Same. I hardly ever turn on the 'magic box' anymore, especially when it comes to the ministry of societal manipulation. They are liars and manipulators, behaviors which are also attributed to Satan. I consider them to be "the enemy". I only switch on the 'magic box' once in a great while just to be aware of what "the enemy" is saying/doing.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Some people believe 'learning', is simply memorizing the contents of a textbook, or lecture, digesting. Others believe learning, is understand the information presented. They keep asking question, tearing things apart in their minds, until they understand why, they are being told to believe something is true, and factual. Some people you encounter are 'smart', in that they can recite a lot of stuff they memorized. But they aren't really, because they don't actually know what it means. There are 'smart' people, who may not know a huge variety of things, but the know how and why, and can actually use what they learned. They are also very good at figuring out new things, based on how they learned everything else in life.

Indeed. While I finished somewhere in the 20s out of around 120+ students in my grade in my high school in terms of GPA, I do believe that I was actually one of the overall smartest students in my grade (not tooting my own horn, but just speaking the truth). I know that I could've had a much higher GPA than my already quite good GPA if I would've put in any sort of an effort at all (I all but never studied any of the material outside of the school building itself).

The valedictorian of my grade, and plenty of the students who were "in the running" for it, were the 'smart' people that you're referring to here. They crammed the course material into their minds just so they could "ace the test", and then a week later they had no clue about the material that they "learned" and "knew", let alone any real world practical application of it.

But hey, at least they got extremely high GPAs!
04-02-2021 18:38
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2100)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
You're full of it. Noone orders me todo anything.
Your post is nothing but english lessons and fluff.
You don't know a lot about the subject mater.

Does your mind-master tell you to incessantly whine whenever someone who your mind-master tells you is "the enemy" happens to disagree with you? It sure seems like it to me.
04-02-2021 18:59
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
gfm7175 wrote:
keepit wrote:
IBD,
You're full of it. Noone orders me todo anything.
Your post is nothing but english lessons and fluff.
You don't know a lot about the subject mater.

Does your mind-master tell you to incessantly whine whenever someone who your mind-master tells you is "the enemy" happens to disagree with you? It sure seems like it to me.


That rant has absolutely no substance. Is this all you can bring to the board?
Edited on 04-02-2021 18:59
04-02-2021 19:22
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2100)
keepit wrote:
gfm,
Tell me more about this "ministry of societal manipulation".

Sure thing.

The "Ministry of Societal Manipulation" (MoSM, if you will) is a term that I made up, [something that one can do when they still retain the ability to think for themselves], that was inspired by the mainstream media acronym 'MSM'. My initial goal was to replace the words behind that acronym with more accurate wording (IOW, to call out the mainstream media for what they really are).

I have since expanded upon that thought and now use the term as an all-encompassing term for any arm of the Uniparty whose goal is to brainwash people and to entice people into giving up their ability to think for themselves. This includes, but is not limited to, any mainstream media network (such as CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.), any "big tech" company (such as Twitter, YouTube, Google, Amazon, and Facebook), any "fact checker" (PolitiFact, Snopes, etc.), and Wikipedia.

All of those things, collectively, make up what I am calling the Ministry of Societal Manipulation.

keepit wrote:
Is it a filament of your imaginaton?

Did you mean "figment of my imagination"?

keepit wrote:
Can i look it up on google?

Sure. However, they ARE The Ministry, and the only results likely to pop up (if you type those words within quotation marks) are examples of me using the term on this forum, since I am the one who fairly recently came up with the term.

I am the authoritative source in this case, not Google.
Edited on 04-02-2021 19:54
04-02-2021 19:33
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2100)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:gfm, Tell me more about this "ministry of societal manipulation". Is it a filament of your imaginaton? Can i look it up on google?

The correct answer is that you cannot learn any information about it, so just fuuhgettaboutet.

.

I suppose I could have saved myself the time and just said this.

However, for anyone willing and capable of learning, I have included my explanation of the term that I came up with.
04-02-2021 20:00
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2100)
duncan61 wrote:
keepit wrote:
IBD,ITN, gfm,
You don't reason about issues. You just deny.
I'm guilty of the same thing. As a result debate becomes a bunch of wild goose chases.


I am feeling you.This forum is for climate debate however it would seem that Politiplex is not getting any traction so its been moved here.Illegitimi non carborundum.

The purpose of Politiplex, as I understand it, is to be a reference site rather than a forum. However, I am not the authoritative source on that matter since it is not my website.

duncan61 wrote:
While were at it I am convinced CO2 has an effect on the temperature just a tiny amount as I have seen too many scientist agree to it and that there may have been some warming through the last few decades again it has stopped.This is based on local readings not global but does it hurt to shrug and go so what like the Canadian scientist I have just watched who has spent his entire career studying the effect of heat at a molecular level and he goes on to explain just how complicated the climate is and how difficult it is to understand.He also had no problem stating WE DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER BECAUSE IT IS BEYOND US TO CALCULATE.He dared to say fossil fuel as well.Bring it on 3 stooges.You know who you are

CO2 cannot warm the Earth, not even a teeny tiny bit.
04-02-2021 20:45
keepit
★★★★★
(2235)
gfm,
How did you form such strong opinions of those media since you don't view them?
Did someone tell you to have that opinion?
04-02-2021 21:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9174)
gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote: I am feeling you.This forum is for climate debate however it would seem that Politiplex is not getting any traction so its been moved here.Illegitimi non carborundum.
The purpose of Politiplex, as I understand it, is to be a reference site rather than a forum. However, I am not the authoritative source on that matter since it is not my website.

You are correct. Politiplex exists as a reference site. You can write something once there and simply post links to it all over the internet instead of writing it over and over and over all over the internet. Also, commonly referenced items are there as well. The impetus for Politiplex was finding a home for The Manual and it just kind of grew from there.

There is no point in Politiplex gaining "traction." Duncan is just being a moron. Although, there was a point when I had 30+ visitors per day to the Das Kapital forum. The Debunking Signature also has sure gotten a lot of traffic.

gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:While were at it I am convinced CO2 has an effect on the temperature just a tiny amount as I have seen too many scientist agree to it ...
CO2 cannot warm the Earth, not even a teeny tiny bit.

Duncan is not rational. For him it's a religion. Notice how he insists that it is a matter of consensus, a subjective matter of opinion ... of the clergy who do his thinking for him.

Duncan is obviously not talking about science. Just let him worship as he wishes.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 04-02-2021 21:04
04-02-2021 21:11
keepit
★★★★★
(2235)
IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth. Is that a "filament" of your imagination?
04-02-2021 21:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9174)
keepit wrote: IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth.

What a surprise. You are mistaken again.

Duncan thinks CO2 warms the atmosphere "a tiny bit." Take it up with him. Of course there are many warmizombies who are convinced CO2 will roast the planet alive.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 21:21
keepit
★★★★★
(2235)
Not true. IBD, you misinterpret again.
04-02-2021 22:38
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2100)
Swan wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
keepit wrote:
IBD,
You're full of it. Noone orders me todo anything.
Your post is nothing but english lessons and fluff.
You don't know a lot about the subject mater.

Does your mind-master tell you to incessantly whine whenever someone who your mind-master tells you is "the enemy" happens to disagree with you? It sure seems like it to me.


That rant has absolutely no substance. Is this all you can bring to the board?

So one post where I make note of keepit's incessant whining constitutes all that I bring to the board? hahahahahahahahaha
04-02-2021 22:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9174)
keepit wrote: Not true. IBD, you misinterpret again.

You are gibbering, keepit, as usual. Is this all you bring to this forum?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 22:55
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2100)
keepit wrote:
gfm,
How did you form such strong opinions of those media since you don't view them?

When did I ever say that I do not watch them at all? I watch mainstream media networks on occasion (just to be aware of what "the enemy" is saying), but more days than not I will purposely avoid it. Many years ago, I watched them much more often, pretty much on a daily basis. My opinions of them were formed during that time, and my more recent viewings have only further strengthened my disdain for them and their psyops.

keepit wrote:
Did someone tell you to have that opinion?

Nope. Unlike you, I have a free mind.
04-02-2021 23:01
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2100)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote: Not true. IBD, you misinterpret again.

You are gibbering, keepit, as usual. Is this all you bring to this forum?

.

Indeed... Maybe keepit is who Swan should be asking his question to...
04-02-2021 23:18
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2100)
IBdaMann wrote:
Duncan is not rational. For him it's a religion. Notice how he insists that it is a matter of consensus, a subjective matter of opinion ... of the clergy who do his thinking for him.

Duncan is obviously not talking about science. Just let him worship as he wishes.

.

Indeed... I guess I just don't understand why one would wish to be a practitioner of a religion after being made aware that the religion is directly refuted by science...

Oh wait... I suppose that would require one to still have a free mind, and duncan obviously doesn't have one anymore if he is allowing the clergy to do his thinking for him... Drats.
Edited on 04-02-2021 23:19
04-02-2021 23:43
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
keepit wrote:
IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth. Is that a "filament" of your imagination?



They used to say it, then said climate change and now are starting to say it again.
Technically speaking, because it increases the density of the atmosphere, it would have some affect on atmospheric temperature.
These guys don't understand how initially ice core researchers linked an increase of CO2 to a warmer atmosphere but such a link does exist. Is it the cause of warming or just a release of CO2 from bodies of water as the seas and oceans become warmer?
05-02-2021 00:29
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth. Is that a "filament" of your imagination?



They used to say it, then said climate change and now are starting to say it again.
Technically speaking, because it increases the density of the atmosphere, it would have some affect on atmospheric temperature.
These guys don't understand how initially ice core researchers linked an increase of CO2 to a warmer atmosphere but such a link does exist. Is it the cause of warming or just a release of CO2 from bodies of water as the seas and oceans become warmer?


They stopped referencing CO2 when the pause happened as CO2 continued to skyrocket
05-02-2021 00:38
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
Swan wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth. Is that a "filament" of your imagination?



They used to say it, then said climate change and now are starting to say it again.
Technically speaking, because it increases the density of the atmosphere, it would have some affect on atmospheric temperature.
These guys don't understand how initially ice core researchers linked an increase of CO2 to a warmer atmosphere but such a link does exist. Is it the cause of warming or just a release of CO2 from bodies of water as the seas and oceans become warmer?


They stopped referencing CO2 when the pause happened as CO2 continued to skyrocket



I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/


With me though, I have my own work that I'm pursuing and who said what and when did they say it is only a distraction.
05-02-2021 00:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
keepit wrote:
Not true. IBD, you misinterpret again.

So you are now saying the CO2 has no effect on Earth's temperature?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
05-02-2021 01:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
Swan wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth. Is that a "filament" of your imagination?



They used to say it, then said climate change and now are starting to say it again.
Technically speaking, because it increases the density of the atmosphere, it would have some affect on atmospheric temperature.
These guys don't understand how initially ice core researchers linked an increase of CO2 to a warmer atmosphere but such a link does exist. Is it the cause of warming or just a release of CO2 from bodies of water as the seas and oceans become warmer?


They stopped referencing CO2 when the pause happened as CO2 continued to skyrocket

What 'pause'? In what?
Yes...skyrockets put out CO2.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 05-02-2021 01:01
05-02-2021 01:39
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
Can I have a definition of MORON its not a term we use here.The term dickhead is popular.Yes I am loving and worshipping the preachers of my faith that are random scientists I choose to watch present information and my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect
I am on a gun forum and if this site was moderated like Enough gun 3 posters would no longer be here and have to rejoin under different names.Skeptical Science will not let me back in on the desktop as they have the IP address.There was an ice age or is it all made up.The planet did show a warming trend for a while and now its stopped and its called the pause.This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control and it is not.My personal CO2 readings show a 30ppm drop since I have had the device.All this stuff is not 100% proof of anything but at least I am looking for the reality.I am sure many people visit this site and consider contributing then see all the insults and do not bother.Cut it out clowns.Have you considered if you can not share your point of veiw for the benifit of others dont post at all.Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.Right on I am the cyber police.I like people like Swan and Sponge bob as the need more information not being told there in some sort of cult.CAN YOU DIG IT
05-02-2021 02:19
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
duncan61 wrote:
Can I have a definition of MORON its not a term we use here.The term dickhead is popular.Yes I am loving and worshipping the preachers of my faith that are random scientists I choose to watch present information and my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect
I am on a gun forum and if this site was moderated like Enough gun 3 posters would no longer be here and have to rejoin under different names.Skeptical Science will not let me back in on the desktop as they have the IP address.There was an ice age or is it all made up.The planet did show a warming trend for a while and now its stopped and its called the pause.This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control and it is not.My personal CO2 readings show a 30ppm drop since I have had the device.All this stuff is not 100% proof of anything but at least I am looking for the reality.I am sure many people visit this site and consider contributing then see all the insults and do not bother.Cut it out clowns.Have you considered if you can not share your point of veiw for the benifit of others dont post at all.Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.Right on I am the cyber police.I like people like Swan and Sponge bob as the need more information not being told there in some sort of cult.CAN YOU DIG IT



If you read the link, read it a few times. There is this;
Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south. Right now we believe that these "climate ripples", the bipolar swings, can be explained through an interaction between the atmosphere and ocean currents. More we do not know just now.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/


Initially, the rise in CO2 levels was thought to be at the end of the ice age. This was used to promote the "fact" that CO2 caused the ice age to end. Then with better testing, CO2 levels rose about 800 years after the end of the ice age. And this is about the amount of time that it takes the thermohaline circulation to go around the world 1 time. And when water warms, it releases CO2.
Today, we're trashing our environment and we do need the ozone layer.
05-02-2021 02:30
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Can I have a definition of MORON its not a term we use here.The term dickhead is popular.Yes I am loving and worshipping the preachers of my faith that are random scientists I choose to watch present information and my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect
I am on a gun forum and if this site was moderated like Enough gun 3 posters would no longer be here and have to rejoin under different names.Skeptical Science will not let me back in on the desktop as they have the IP address.There was an ice age or is it all made up.The planet did show a warming trend for a while and now its stopped and its called the pause.This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control and it is not.My personal CO2 readings show a 30ppm drop since I have had the device.All this stuff is not 100% proof of anything but at least I am looking for the reality.I am sure many people visit this site and consider contributing then see all the insults and do not bother.Cut it out clowns.Have you considered if you can not share your point of veiw for the benifit of others dont post at all.Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.Right on I am the cyber police.I like people like Swan and Sponge bob as the need more information not being told there in some sort of cult.CAN YOU DIG IT



If you read the link, read it a few times. There is this;
Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south. Right now we believe that these "climate ripples", the bipolar swings, can be explained through an interaction between the atmosphere and ocean currents. More we do not know just now.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/


Initially, the rise in CO2 levels was thought to be at the end of the ice age. This was used to promote the "fact" that CO2 caused the ice age to end. Then with better testing, CO2 levels rose about 800 years after the end of the ice age. And this is about the amount of time that it takes the thermohaline circulation to go around the world 1 time. And when water warms, it releases CO2.
Today, we're trashing our environment and we do need the ozone layer.


Why wouldn't CO2 levels drop after the ice age as new forest sequestered that available CO2.

Yawn
05-02-2021 03:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9174)
duncan61 wrote: ... my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect

You ommitted option 3, 4 & 5.

3. Go with science, not people's opinions. Trust the falsifiable models that have not been able to be falsified by anyone.

4. Go with science instead of being a gullible dumbass who simply OBEYS every wacko political activist who claims to be a "scientist."

5. Go with science instead of claims that you already know are violations of physics. That never ends well.

duncan61 wrote: ... if this site was moderated like Enough gun

You mispelled "censored." You meant to write that if this site were censored like other leftist-controlled sites that people like me would be censored. No schit Genius. What I find disappointing is both your science denial and your wish to censor those who disagree with you because they do not subscribe to your WACKY religion.

You asked for a definition of "moron" and for the moment "Duncan" is a good start. Do you need me to elaborate further?

duncan61 wrote:The planet did show a warming trend for a while

Nope. You are well aware that no one can know the temperature of the earth to any usable accuracy yet you work overtime to delude yourself into believing that those of your church somehow do. I'm sure you can see how pathetic you've become.

duncan61 wrote: This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control

... only in that competing religion that does not differ in any substantive way from your religion. Both religions worship Climate and Greenhouse Effect. The only difference between your religions is the superficial disagreement as to whether the undefined Climate Change will prove "catastrophic."

Big fuuuúkking difference!

duncan61 wrote: Cut it out clowns.
Stop posting stupid dumbass things if you don't appreciate critical commentary. I thought we had sufficiently discussed this but apparently not.

If and when you post STUPID schitt, you should entirely expect to be mocked, ridiculed, jabbed and lampooned. Perhaps the internet is not for you, especially considering your insistence in holding deeply-seated beliefs that atmospheric gases have magickal superpowers to defy physics. You should be able to write a book on how you are going to be lambasted for weeks at a time.

You deliberately chose your WACKY beliefs despite counsel to the contrary so you entirely deserve all the mockery you receive. The fault is yours. Sit on this and spin around.

Have you considered that your inability to accept science is not going to garner you a lot of respect? If you cannot handle your WACKY religious beliefs being put to scrutiny then don't post at all.

duncan61 wrote: Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.

Any poster who continually asks the same question that has been already answered multiple times should simply have all his posts automatically deleted as spam because that's what they have become.

Are you trying to compete with keepit for the Brain-Dead award? If so, you win. Congratulations.

.
Attached image:

05-02-2021 04:28
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
Swan wrote:
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Can I have a definition of MORON its not a term we use here.The term dickhead is popular.Yes I am loving and worshipping the preachers of my faith that are random scientists I choose to watch present information and my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect
I am on a gun forum and if this site was moderated like Enough gun 3 posters would no longer be here and have to rejoin under different names.Skeptical Science will not let me back in on the desktop as they have the IP address.There was an ice age or is it all made up.The planet did show a warming trend for a while and now its stopped and its called the pause.This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control and it is not.My personal CO2 readings show a 30ppm drop since I have had the device.All this stuff is not 100% proof of anything but at least I am looking for the reality.I am sure many people visit this site and consider contributing then see all the insults and do not bother.Cut it out clowns.Have you considered if you can not share your point of veiw for the benifit of others dont post at all.Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.Right on I am the cyber police.I like people like Swan and Sponge bob as the need more information not being told there in some sort of cult.CAN YOU DIG IT



If you read the link, read it a few times. There is this;
Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south. Right now we believe that these "climate ripples", the bipolar swings, can be explained through an interaction between the atmosphere and ocean currents. More we do not know just now.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/


Initially, the rise in CO2 levels was thought to be at the end of the ice age. This was used to promote the "fact" that CO2 caused the ice age to end. Then with better testing, CO2 levels rose about 800 years after the end of the ice age. And this is about the amount of time that it takes the thermohaline circulation to go around the world 1 time. And when water warms, it releases CO2.
Today, we're trashing our environment and we do need the ozone layer.


Why wouldn't CO2 levels drop after the ice age as new forest sequestered that available CO2.

Yawn



Trolling? You didn't mention how much CO2 was released by the warming oceans. How did you miss that minor detail?
05-02-2021 07:26
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3400)
How could the oceans be warming, if they hadn't already released the CO2? Besides, natural CO2 doesn't warm. Only man-made CO2 is destroying the planet. Big difference, though I'll admit, I don't know how they can tell the difference between the two types of CO2. But, a consensus of climate scientists, insist there is a difference.
05-02-2021 12:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
duncan61 wrote:
Can I have a definition of MORON its not a term we use here.

The term 'moron' generally refers to someone with low intelligence or a marked inability to learn. It is of course colloquial in use.
duncan61 wrote:
The term dickhead is popular.

Another such term. Yes. 'dickhead' seems to be popular in the UK, Australia, Canada, some parts of the old British empire, and of course, the States.
duncan61 wrote:
Yes I am loving and worshipping the preachers of my faith that are random scientists I choose to watch present information and my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect

Believe theories of science. Believe mathematics. You need not believe anyone or anything else. Scientists say all kinds of wacky things. They are people, and they have their beliefs and religions just like everyone else. Scientists are not science.
duncan61 wrote:
I am on a gun forum and if this site was moderated like Enough gun 3 posters would no longer be here and have to rejoin under different names.

Many forums ban folks for political reasons. Personally I don't waste much time trying to get on such obviously biased sites.
Gun laws in Austrailia are different from those in the States of course. All of the States mention the right to bear arms in their constitutions, and the Constitution of the United States specifically forbids the State and federal governments from passing any law restricting any type of weapon (including any type of gun). The Democrats do not recognize the Constitution or State constitution, however. They are the ones constantly trying to limit or ban guns.

Guns are banned or severely limited in the SOTC, the SODC, and the SOTNY.

duncan61 wrote:
Skeptical Science will not let me back in on the desktop as they have the IP address.

Censorship suck's, doesn't it?
duncan61 wrote:
There was an ice age or is it all made up.

Unknown.
duncan61 wrote:
The planet did show a warming trend for a while and now its stopped and its called the pause.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control and it is not.

[/quote]
Yup. That's the usual Doom and Gloom preached by many religions, including the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, and the Church of Covid.
duncan61 wrote:
My personal CO2 readings show a 30ppm drop since I have had the device.All this stuff is not 100% proof of anything but at least I am looking for the reality.I am sure many people visit this site and consider contributing then see all the insults and do not bother.Cut it out clowns.Have you considered if you can not share your point of veiw for the benifit of others dont post at all.

There is no absolute reality. Discussions about politics or religions tend to have a lot of insults. The Church of Global Warming is both. I am not responsible for the offense taken by others.

I wear Hawaiian shirts. People find that offensive and racist.
I wear a gun. People find that offensive and racist.
I own a tractor. People find that 'redneck' (an insult) and racist.
I am a conservative. People find that 'quaint', 'old fashioned', 'treason', 'racist', or many other insults.
I support the Constitution of the United States and the concept of a republic. People find that offensive, 'old fashioned', 'treason', 'uncaring', and many other insults.
I support capitalism. People find that offensive, 'evil', 'theft', 'murder', and many other insults.
I am a Christian. People find that offensive, 'evil', 'murder', 'sexist', 'criminal', 'idiocy', 'clueless', etc.

I read what you post in support of censorship and I am offended. I take it as an insult.
You call me a clown as an insult, but you don't want me to throw insults. It isn't a one way street, clown.
You rant about people throwing insults while you throw insults. Kettle logic.
I note that you completely ignore insults thrown by keepit, James, or yourself. I take offense to that. I consider it an insult.

I have been insulted more than you know. I could care less, except to point out the hypocrisy of your position, or the use of insults with no argument presented at all.

Toughen up, wimp.

duncan61 wrote:
Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.

Keep the spam, but suspend the guy pointing out the spam, eh? People who ask questions that have already been answered are just spamming the board. Fortunately, your attempt at censorship doesn't apply here.
duncan61 wrote:
Right on I am the cyber police.I like people like Swan and Sponge bob as the need more information not being told there in some sort of cult.CAN YOU DIG IT

You are not the cyber police. You are not the king. You are not in charge of anything here except the content of your own posts.

Now that you've spewed insults and ranted about people spewing insults, shall we dispense with the bull?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 05-02-2021 12:26
05-02-2021 12:30
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
You mean like this

ANTI 2A The Constitution Under Attack
Congressional Bill H.R. 127- To Provide for the Licensing of Firearms and Ammunition.....
Written by:
K. Clemens
Posted on:
January 28, 2021

H.R.127 – To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

This Bill was introduced by Sheila Jackson (D) TX Congressional District 18 on January 4, 2021. There are no co-sponsors. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

The Text for The Bill was released on January 28th, H.R. 127

A brief overview:

Seeks the following:

Licensing of Firearms and Ammunition-
Firearm Registration System.—

REQUIRED INFORMATION.—Under the firearm registration system, the owner of a firearm shall transmit to the Bureau-"(A) the make, model, and the serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person.

DEADLINE FOR SUPPLYING INFORMATION.—The transmission required by paragraph (1) shall be made— in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of this section, within 3 months after the effective date of this section; or in the case of a firearm acquired on or after the effective date, on the date the owner acquires the firearm



Database to store above information in which Law Enforcement, The US Military AND the public have access to.
Licensing Requirements- MUST be licensed to possess firearm AND Ammunition

Must be 21 years of age.
Undergo a criminal background check.
Undergo a psychological evaluation and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm. As deemed necessary by the licensed psychologist involved, the evaluation included a psychological evaluation of other members of the household in which the individual resides; and As part of the psychological evaluation, the licensed psychologist interviewed any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.
successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 24 hours of training.
On issuance of the license, the individual will have in effect an insurance policy.
FEE.—The fee for the license is $800.
It shall be unlawful for a person to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the sale or gift.
It shall be unlawful for a person to loan a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the loan, including the identity of such other person and the period for which the loan is made.
It shall be unlawful for a person to transfer a firearm or ammunition to a person who is not licensed.
It shall be unlawful for a person to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the sale or gift.
It shall be unlawful for a person to loan a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the loan, including the identity of such other person and the period for which the loan is made.
It shall be unlawful for a person holding a valid license issued under section 932(c)(1) to transfer a firearm to an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.
It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.
It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."
Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(4) shall be fined not less than $75,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both, except that if the transferee of the firearm possess or uses the firearm during or in relation to a crime, an unintentional shooting, or suicide, the transferor shall be fined not less than $100,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 25 years and not more than 40 years, or both
05-02-2021 12:35
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
Thats of Enough gun here in Australia.
05-02-2021 13:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
duncan61 wrote:
You mean like this

ANTI 2A The Constitution Under Attack
Congressional Bill H.R. 127- To Provide for the Licensing of Firearms and Ammunition.....
Written by:
K. Clemens
Posted on:
January 28, 2021

H.R.127 – To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

This Bill was introduced by Sheila Jackson (D) TX Congressional District 18 on January 4, 2021. There are no co-sponsors. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

The Text for The Bill was released on January 28th, H.R. 127

A brief overview:

Seeks the following:

Licensing of Firearms and Ammunition-
Firearm Registration System.—

REQUIRED INFORMATION.—Under the firearm registration system, the owner of a firearm shall transmit to the Bureau-"(A) the make, model, and the serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person.

DEADLINE FOR SUPPLYING INFORMATION.—The transmission required by paragraph (1) shall be made— in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of this section, within 3 months after the effective date of this section; or in the case of a firearm acquired on or after the effective date, on the date the owner acquires the firearm



Database to store above information in which Law Enforcement, The US Military AND the public have access to.
Licensing Requirements- MUST be licensed to possess firearm AND Ammunition

Must be 21 years of age.
Undergo a criminal background check.
Undergo a psychological evaluation and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm. As deemed necessary by the licensed psychologist involved, the evaluation included a psychological evaluation of other members of the household in which the individual resides; and As part of the psychological evaluation, the licensed psychologist interviewed any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.
successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 24 hours of training.
On issuance of the license, the individual will have in effect an insurance policy.
FEE.—The fee for the license is $800.
It shall be unlawful for a person to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the sale or gift.
It shall be unlawful for a person to loan a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the loan, including the identity of such other person and the period for which the loan is made.
It shall be unlawful for a person to transfer a firearm or ammunition to a person who is not licensed.
It shall be unlawful for a person to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the sale or gift.
It shall be unlawful for a person to loan a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the loan, including the identity of such other person and the period for which the loan is made.
It shall be unlawful for a person holding a valid license issued under section 932(c)(1) to transfer a firearm to an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.
It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.
It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."
Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(4) shall be fined not less than $75,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both, except that if the transferee of the firearm possess or uses the firearm during or in relation to a crime, an unintentional shooting, or suicide, the transferor shall be fined not less than $100,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 25 years and not more than 40 years, or both

An unconstitutional bill, both under the Texas State constitution and under the Constitution of the United States. Note that this is yet another Democrat that doesn't recognize either document.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
06-02-2021 02:36
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
It should get thrown out but it gives an indication of the mind set
06-02-2021 03:05
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3400)
The 2nd Amendment has stood the test of time. They have tried, and fought hard, with very little results. I'm doubtful they can really mess with it, in any significant way. People of all political parties, know that guns are needed these for protection. The police rarely show up, before you need to pull the trigger. People also understand, that criminals don't respect laws, that's why we call them criminals. Regardless of what's on paper, they still break those laws. Laws aren't to victimize honest, hard working patriots.
06-02-2021 03:10
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The 2nd Amendment has stood the test of time. They have tried, and fought hard, with very little results. I'm doubtful they can really mess with it, in any significant way. People of all political parties, know that guns are needed these for protection. The police rarely show up, before you need to pull the trigger. People also understand, that criminals don't respect laws, that's why we call them criminals. Regardless of what's on paper, they still break those laws. Laws aren't to victimize honest, hard working patriots.


Dude they want to do away with cops too. Furthermore you only have the right to own whatever gun that the government lets you own so the second amendment is trash
06-02-2021 03:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The 2nd Amendment has stood the test of time. They have tried, and fought hard, with very little results. I'm doubtful they can really mess with it, in any significant way. People of all political parties, know that guns are needed these for protection. The police rarely show up, before you need to pull the trigger. People also understand, that criminals don't respect laws, that's why we call them criminals. Regardless of what's on paper, they still break those laws. Laws aren't to victimize honest, hard working patriots.


Dude they want to do away with cops too. Furthermore you only have the right to own whatever gun that the government lets you own so the second amendment is trash


WRONG.

The right of self defense is inherent. it is not granted by a piece of paper. I can own any weapon I wish. The 2nd amendment directs the federal and State governments that they have no authority to pass any law infringing upon that inherent right.

NOTHING can stop that. No government can stop that.

If the SODC wants to try to grab all the guns, they will find that EXTREMELY difficult to do. All they will do is label much of the population criminals. That's a good way to start a war.

A war they cannot win.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 06-02-2021 03:25
06-02-2021 04:26
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3400)
I don't think they really intend to take guns away from people. It's just another scam to generate tax money. Consider that cigarettes were determined to be a serious health issue, addictive. They literately cost pennies per pack, to produce. The bulk of the retail price, is tax. Why do the continue to allow sales, of a hazardous product? A whole lot of other product, get pulled off the market, do to health and safety issues. Guns are the same way, people want and need them, and will continue to pay cash to have them. Every time they put up legislation like this, guns and ammo sales skyrocket. People who thought about getting a gun, rush to get it, while the still can. Government gets some cash, out of each sale, adds up quick. We don't write the check directly to the Treasury Dept., so nobody really knows how much of these 'taxes', actually makes it.
06-02-2021 15:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they really intend to take guns away from people. It's just another scam to generate tax money. Consider that cigarettes were determined to be a serious health issue, addictive. They literately cost pennies per pack, to produce. The bulk of the retail price, is tax. Why do the continue to allow sales, of a hazardous product? A whole lot of other product, get pulled off the market, do to health and safety issues. Guns are the same way, people want and need them, and will continue to pay cash to have them. Every time they put up legislation like this, guns and ammo sales skyrocket. People who thought about getting a gun, rush to get it, while the still can. Government gets some cash, out of each sale, adds up quick. We don't write the check directly to the Treasury Dept., so nobody really knows how much of these 'taxes', actually makes it.


They really intend to take guns away from people.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate Going "Green":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Green Hydrogen Survey for scientific research602-12-2020 18:37
Climate change in green land4204-04-2020 00:41
Forget New Green Deal, Let's make BIS(Basic Infrastructure And Service) Free.1215-01-2020 20:30
Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?121-09-2019 03:46
The Real, 'Green New Deal'419-08-2019 02:52
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact