Remember me
▼ Content

More Claims Shattered



Page 1 of 212>
More Claims Shattered06-03-2017 17:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
There are people that think that the output of the Sun is being claimed to be a climate modifier. The truth is that the Sun's output is pretty stable since it is in middle age and will remain this way for another billion years or so.

The actual climate modifier is the Melankovitch Cycles. Presently the Earth's orbit is closer to the Sun lending more energy. And the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun.

So we are seeing ice melting in the Arctic and ice building in the Antarctic. These things seem difficult for uneducated people to grasp apparently so they prefer to follow Al Gore like sheep.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php\

If you read http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html when you get down to figure 2-11 you will see that there is a VERY sharp deliniation of solar energy received on a particular area due to the angle to the Sun. This is why Milankovitch Cycles are so important to the climate of the Earth and why what would appear to be even slight variations have remarkable results.
Edited on 06-03-2017 17:42
06-03-2017 19:27
spot
★★★★☆
(1233)
Wake wrote:
There are people that think that the output of the Sun is being claimed to be a climate modifier. The truth is that the Sun's output is pretty stable since it is in middle age and will remain this way for another billion years or so.

The actual climate modifier is the Melankovitch Cycles. Presently the Earth's orbit is closer to the Sun lending more energy. And the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun.


Are the Melankovitch cycles anything like the Milankovitch cycles?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
06-03-2017 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
There are people that think that the output of the Sun is being claimed to be a climate modifier. The truth is that the Sun's output is pretty stable since it is in middle age and will remain this way for another billion years or so.

The actual climate modifier is the Melankovitch Cycles. Presently the Earth's orbit is closer to the Sun lending more energy. And the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun.

So we are seeing ice melting in the Arctic and ice building in the Antarctic. These things seem difficult for uneducated people to grasp apparently so they prefer to follow Al Gore like sheep.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php\

If you read http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html when you get down to figure 2-11 you will see that there is a VERY sharp deliniation of solar energy received on a particular area due to the angle to the Sun. This is why Milankovitch Cycles are so important to the climate of the Earth and why what would appear to be even slight variations have remarkable results.


Presently the Earth is moving AWAY from the Sun, as we continue to approach our summer aphelion, which occurs July 3rd, at 2011 hours UTC this year.

We will not reach perihelion until Jan 3rd, at 0520 UTC, 2018.

We are currently approaching the Spring Equinox, when NEITHER northern or southern hemisphere are pointing toward the Sun. THAT will take place this year on Mar 20th, 0430 UTC.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-03-2017 21:22
06-03-2017 22:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
There are people that think that the output of the Sun is being claimed to be a climate modifier. The truth is that the Sun's output is pretty stable since it is in middle age and will remain this way for another billion years or so.

The actual climate modifier is the Melankovitch Cycles. Presently the Earth's orbit is closer to the Sun lending more energy. And the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun.

So we are seeing ice melting in the Arctic and ice building in the Antarctic. These things seem difficult for uneducated people to grasp apparently so they prefer to follow Al Gore like sheep.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php\

If you read http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html when you get down to figure 2-11 you will see that there is a VERY sharp deliniation of solar energy received on a particular area due to the angle to the Sun. This is why Milankovitch Cycles are so important to the climate of the Earth and why what would appear to be even slight variations have remarkable results.


Presently the Earth is moving AWAY from the Sun, as we continue to approach our summer aphelion, which occurs July 3rd, at 2011 hours UTC this year.

We will not reach perihelion until Jan 3rd, at 0520 UTC, 2018.

We are currently approaching the Spring Equinox, when NEITHER northern or southern hemisphere are pointing toward the Sun. THAT will take place this year on Mar 20th, 0430 UTC.


Are you aware that the difference in the aphelion and the perihelion is 1.7%?

I was speaking of precession and not the elliptical orbit of the Earth which makes almost undetectable differences.

Be careful or pretty quick you'll be sounding like spot who thinks that he is smart because he can spot a typo.
07-03-2017 01:14
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]spot wrote: Are the Melankovitch cycles anything like the Milankovitch cycles?

Melankovitch cycles have more melanin in them than Milankovitch cycles, so ya don' get as much of a radiation burn from the sun.
Edited on 07-03-2017 01:19
07-03-2017 01:22
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs" the elliptical orbit of the Earth which makes almost undetectable differences.

Johannes Kepler could tell.
07-03-2017 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
There are people that think that the output of the Sun is being claimed to be a climate modifier. The truth is that the Sun's output is pretty stable since it is in middle age and will remain this way for another billion years or so.

The actual climate modifier is the Melankovitch Cycles. Presently the Earth's orbit is closer to the Sun lending more energy. And the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun.

So we are seeing ice melting in the Arctic and ice building in the Antarctic. These things seem difficult for uneducated people to grasp apparently so they prefer to follow Al Gore like sheep.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php\

If you read http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html when you get down to figure 2-11 you will see that there is a VERY sharp deliniation of solar energy received on a particular area due to the angle to the Sun. This is why Milankovitch Cycles are so important to the climate of the Earth and why what would appear to be even slight variations have remarkable results.


Presently the Earth is moving AWAY from the Sun, as we continue to approach our summer aphelion, which occurs July 3rd, at 2011 hours UTC this year.

We will not reach perihelion until Jan 3rd, at 0520 UTC, 2018.

We are currently approaching the Spring Equinox, when NEITHER northern or southern hemisphere are pointing toward the Sun. THAT will take place this year on Mar 20th, 0430 UTC.


Are you aware that the difference in the aphelion and the perihelion is 1.7%?

I was speaking of precession and not the elliptical orbit of the Earth which makes almost undetectable differences.

Be careful or pretty quick you'll be sounding like spot who thinks that he is smart because he can spot a typo.


I am fully aware of the difference. Are you aware that this is not the issue I raised, which countered your statement? Is this something you want to actually argue about?

Are you also aware that the precession of Earth doesn't affect anything but where our seasons land during the year? Regardless of where Earth is in its precession, the tilt angle remains the same relative to the Sun. The period of precession is about 26000 years.

The only effect of precession is that what we call Polar Star today is a different than what we would have used several thousand years ago (we are currently moving closer to the current star).

Having said all of this, the Earth DOES move very slightly slower while it is at aphelion (July). While we are slightly further from the Sun, the Northern hemisphere spends just a bit more time leaning at it.

This is probably not what is affecting the Arctic ice. It probably has more to do with volcanic activity under that polar sea than anything else. There is a range of volcanoes under there, and they have been active. After all, the Northern summer is when we've been at aphelion for thousands of years. We've had many increases and decreases in the average Arctic ice cap during that time (averaging out winters and summers) in just our recorded history of the place.

Changes from the turn of the century to the 60's maximums to the present day just doesn't add up to being something to do with Earth's orbital mechanics.

The same is true for Antarctica. Something else is causing the ice buildup there, not the orbit.

What that something else is, we do not know. Jumping to the conclusion of ozone holes and global warming is literally that...jumping to conclusions. That's religion for ya.


The Parrot Killer
07-03-2017 21:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
There are people that think that the output of the Sun is being claimed to be a climate modifier. The truth is that the Sun's output is pretty stable since it is in middle age and will remain this way for another billion years or so.

The actual climate modifier is the Melankovitch Cycles. Presently the Earth's orbit is closer to the Sun lending more energy. And the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun.

So we are seeing ice melting in the Arctic and ice building in the Antarctic. These things seem difficult for uneducated people to grasp apparently so they prefer to follow Al Gore like sheep.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php\

If you read http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html when you get down to figure 2-11 you will see that there is a VERY sharp deliniation of solar energy received on a particular area due to the angle to the Sun. This is why Milankovitch Cycles are so important to the climate of the Earth and why what would appear to be even slight variations have remarkable results.


Presently the Earth is moving AWAY from the Sun, as we continue to approach our summer aphelion, which occurs July 3rd, at 2011 hours UTC this year.

We will not reach perihelion until Jan 3rd, at 0520 UTC, 2018.

We are currently approaching the Spring Equinox, when NEITHER northern or southern hemisphere are pointing toward the Sun. THAT will take place this year on Mar 20th, 0430 UTC.


Are you aware that the difference in the aphelion and the perihelion is 1.7%?

I was speaking of precession and not the elliptical orbit of the Earth which makes almost undetectable differences.

Be careful or pretty quick you'll be sounding like spot who thinks that he is smart because he can spot a typo.


I am fully aware of the difference. Are you aware that this is not the issue I raised, which countered your statement? Is this something you want to actually argue about?

Are you also aware that the precession of Earth doesn't affect anything but where our seasons land during the year? Regardless of where Earth is in its precession, the tilt angle remains the same relative to the Sun. The period of precession is about 26000 years.

The only effect of precession is that what we call Polar Star today is a different than what we would have used several thousand years ago (we are currently moving closer to the current star).

Having said all of this, the Earth DOES move very slightly slower while it is at aphelion (July). While we are slightly further from the Sun, the Northern hemisphere spends just a bit more time leaning at it.

This is probably not what is affecting the Arctic ice. It probably has more to do with volcanic activity under that polar sea than anything else. There is a range of volcanoes under there, and they have been active. After all, the Northern summer is when we've been at aphelion for thousands of years. We've had many increases and decreases in the average Arctic ice cap during that time (averaging out winters and summers) in just our recorded history of the place.

Changes from the turn of the century to the 60's maximums to the present day just doesn't add up to being something to do with Earth's orbital mechanics.

The same is true for Antarctica. Something else is causing the ice buildup there, not the orbit.

What that something else is, we do not know. Jumping to the conclusion of ozone holes and global warming is literally that...jumping to conclusions. That's religion for ya.


The precession and obliquity effects which of the hemispheres face the Sun in which season. The difference in the energy falling on the Earth is relatively unaffected by the elliptical orbit. While if everything occurred at once it certainly would have an additional effect, that alone is relatively unimportant. Remember that we can observe the heat readings from many different sources from the Vostok (and other) ice cores and dendrochronology and geological marks and past warm periods have actually heated more than our present warm period.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/

You and I have to remember that this AGW isn't the work of many real scientists but by far the work of a few discredited scientists and mostly politicians. And by discredited I don't mean their educational standards but the papers they wrote. Papers are wrong all of the time. Half of all papers published are correcting papers published before. And even these corrections often require corrections after additional study.

We have these absolutely HUGE cancer studies with control groups working on drugs that show strong effects.

Later we do exactly the same study on the same drugs and find the opposite or a null effect.

So Dr. Mann was wrong. Since I don't know all of the science behind his paper, and although the group was criticized for changing the results to fit the actual temperature changes none of these people were punished in any way that I can discover.

So my assumption is that these people did NOT change the prediction to match the results. They were simply wrong. Dr. Mann remains convinced that CO2 is a problem but he hasn't managed to make a successful prediction. None of the models have matched the actual climate. And those using paleoclimatology have pretty successfully refuted the CO2/greenhouse gas hypothesis.

Do we need to discuss what is causing the warm period after the NASA paper?
08-03-2017 20:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1233)
Wake wrote:
Be careful or pretty quick you'll be sounding like spot who thinks that he is smart because he can spot a typo.


I would not comment normally on a thing like that but you are the one saying that everyone who differs with you on this subject is an uneducated moron, and then you make a stupid mistake like that. You are asking for the piss to be ripped from you.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-03-2017 23:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
Be careful or pretty quick you'll be sounding like spot who thinks that he is smart because he can spot a typo.


I would not comment normally on a thing like that but you are the one saying that everyone who differs with you on this subject is an uneducated moron, and then you make a stupid mistake like that. You are asking for the piss to be ripped from you.


People disagree with me all the time. But they have REASONS to do so and are willing to discuss it. You do nothing but press a political position and to hell with reality.
08-03-2017 23:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
There are people that think that the output of the Sun is being claimed to be a climate modifier. The truth is that the Sun's output is pretty stable since it is in middle age and will remain this way for another billion years or so.

The actual climate modifier is the Melankovitch Cycles. Presently the Earth's orbit is closer to the Sun lending more energy. And the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun.

So we are seeing ice melting in the Arctic and ice building in the Antarctic. These things seem difficult for uneducated people to grasp apparently so they prefer to follow Al Gore like sheep.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php\

If you read http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html when you get down to figure 2-11 you will see that there is a VERY sharp deliniation of solar energy received on a particular area due to the angle to the Sun. This is why Milankovitch Cycles are so important to the climate of the Earth and why what would appear to be even slight variations have remarkable results.


Presently the Earth is moving AWAY from the Sun, as we continue to approach our summer aphelion, which occurs July 3rd, at 2011 hours UTC this year.

We will not reach perihelion until Jan 3rd, at 0520 UTC, 2018.

We are currently approaching the Spring Equinox, when NEITHER northern or southern hemisphere are pointing toward the Sun. THAT will take place this year on Mar 20th, 0430 UTC.


Are you aware that the difference in the aphelion and the perihelion is 1.7%?

I was speaking of precession and not the elliptical orbit of the Earth which makes almost undetectable differences.

Be careful or pretty quick you'll be sounding like spot who thinks that he is smart because he can spot a typo.


I am fully aware of the difference. Are you aware that this is not the issue I raised, which countered your statement? Is this something you want to actually argue about?

Are you also aware that the precession of Earth doesn't affect anything but where our seasons land during the year? Regardless of where Earth is in its precession, the tilt angle remains the same relative to the Sun. The period of precession is about 26000 years.

The only effect of precession is that what we call Polar Star today is a different than what we would have used several thousand years ago (we are currently moving closer to the current star).

Having said all of this, the Earth DOES move very slightly slower while it is at aphelion (July). While we are slightly further from the Sun, the Northern hemisphere spends just a bit more time leaning at it.

This is probably not what is affecting the Arctic ice. It probably has more to do with volcanic activity under that polar sea than anything else. There is a range of volcanoes under there, and they have been active. After all, the Northern summer is when we've been at aphelion for thousands of years. We've had many increases and decreases in the average Arctic ice cap during that time (averaging out winters and summers) in just our recorded history of the place.

Changes from the turn of the century to the 60's maximums to the present day just doesn't add up to being something to do with Earth's orbital mechanics.

The same is true for Antarctica. Something else is causing the ice buildup there, not the orbit.

What that something else is, we do not know. Jumping to the conclusion of ozone holes and global warming is literally that...jumping to conclusions. That's religion for ya.


The precession and obliquity effects which of the hemispheres face the Sun in which season. The difference in the energy falling on the Earth is relatively unaffected by the elliptical orbit.

Earth's orbit changes from a near circular orbit to a one with greater eccentricity and back again. This cycle can certainly make a big difference in the amount of energy the Earth receives. We do not know what causes this cycle, but a recorded observation by astronomers shows we are moving into a more circular orbit. The current theory is that Jupiter and Saturn cause this change, but I have my doubts about this theory, considering the orbital periods of all three planets is considerably shorter than the 46000 year cycle suggested by observations. There may not even be a cycle. We just don't know.

Using core data from various sources, we know that ice ages have occurred simultaneously in both hemispheres at different periods in the past. That period is not constant.
Wake wrote:
While if everything occurred at once it certainly would have an additional effect, that alone is relatively unimportant

It really is hard to say.
Wake wrote:
Remember that we can observe the heat readings from many different sources from the Vostok (and other) ice cores and dendrochronology and geological marks and past warm periods have actually heated more than our present warm period.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/

It is not possible to observe past heat of Earth. Heat is a flow, not an amount of energy. I believe the term you want is 'temperature'.

The Vostok cores have indicated some kind of cycle, but the period varies from 1x to 2x the frequency. The most recent period observed through the use of these cores seems to center around 100000 years. We do not know what causes this period or why it changed from an earlier shorter period (apparently suddenly).
Wake wrote:
You and I have to remember that this AGW isn't the work of many real scientists but by far the work of a few discredited scientists and mostly politicians.

I would say it's more than a few discredited scientists, but I agree.
Wake wrote:
And by discredited I don't mean their educational standards but the papers they wrote. Papers are wrong all of the time. Half of all papers published are correcting papers published before. And even these corrections often require corrections after additional study.

It is quite true that any idiot can write a paper and get it published.
Wake wrote:
So Dr. Mann was wrong. Since I don't know all of the science behind his paper, and although the group was criticized for changing the results to fit the actual temperature changes none of these people were punished in any way that I can discover.

So my assumption is that these people did NOT change the prediction to match the results. They were simply wrong.

I don't agree. I think Dr. Mann was intentionally manufacturing data. He knew he was doing so. No prediction is possible, because no equation for Global Warming or greenhouse effect has ever yet been formed. No theory, even a scientific theory, can predict in and of itself. It can only describe. It MUST turn to a closed system, such as mathematics to gain that power of prediction. Only closed systems have the power of prediction and formal proof.
Wake wrote:
Dr. Mann remains convinced that CO2 is a problem but he hasn't managed to make a successful prediction.

Because CO2 is not a problem.
Wake wrote:
None of the models have matched the actual climate.

Such models mean very little. They are methods whereby one manufactures data with a computer.
Wake wrote:
And those using paleoclimatology have pretty successfully refuted the CO2/greenhouse gas hypothesis.

Here I agree, although there are issues concerning CO2 and ice. Ice is permeable to CO2 and other gases under most conditions.
Wake wrote:
Do we need to discuss what is causing the warm period after the NASA paper?

No. Discussing the 'warm' period is pointless. We are not able to measure or calculate the global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy with the instrumentation we now have.

This alone makes the theory of Global Warming unfalsifiable, and therefore not a scientific theory. It is just a plain old theory.

The usual theories given for greenhouse effect are not externally consistent. That keeps it from being a scientific theory. In addition, many explanations are also not internally consistent. They result in logical fallacies and paradoxes.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-03-2017 23:50
09-03-2017 00:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
No. Discussing the 'warm' period is pointless. We are not able to measure or calculate the global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy with the instrumentation we now have.

This alone makes the theory of Global Warming unfalsifiable, and therefore not a scientific theory. It is just a plain old theory.

The usual theories given for greenhouse effect are not externally consistent. That keeps it from being a scientific theory. In addition, many explanations are also not internally consistent. They result in logical fallacies and paradoxes.


I find it somewhat surprising that scientists would use a measure such as mean global temperature since absolutely minute changes can mean huge differences in local weather.

Certainly if you don't have any proof and still insist that an unproven hypothesis is a FACT you can never falsify it because you are making a flat statement with absolutely nothing to back it up.

I do have a concern, however, that we have people that are not only willing to make this claim, but to stick to it when the original hypothesis is proven wrong. Exactly what are they attempting to gain? The four that we've watched here apparently have nothing to gain but to blame others for what they perceive to be their own loses.
09-03-2017 21:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. Discussing the 'warm' period is pointless. We are not able to measure or calculate the global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy with the instrumentation we now have.

This alone makes the theory of Global Warming unfalsifiable, and therefore not a scientific theory. It is just a plain old theory.

The usual theories given for greenhouse effect are not externally consistent. That keeps it from being a scientific theory. In addition, many explanations are also not internally consistent. They result in logical fallacies and paradoxes.


I find it somewhat surprising that scientists would use a measure such as mean global temperature since absolutely minute changes can mean huge differences in local weather.

Certainly if you don't have any proof and still insist that an unproven hypothesis is a FACT you can never falsify it because you are making a flat statement with absolutely nothing to back it up.

I do have a concern, however, that we have people that are not only willing to make this claim, but to stick to it when the original hypothesis is proven wrong. Exactly what are they attempting to gain? The four that we've watched here apparently have nothing to gain but to blame others for what they perceive to be their own loses.


You forget that what you are dealing with here is a Religion. Like all religions, this one too is based on an initial circular argument (the globe is warming) upon which the entire collection of scriptural references depend upon.

You and I are Outsiders. These people see themselves almost as holy warriors, bringing the Truth to the world. Any Outsider that makes any statement against them is immediately deemed an evil and ignorant infidel that are out to destroy the world.

Logic...mathematics...science...philosophy...all of these mean nothing to their Religion. Like some religious zealots, they feel compelled to bring the Truth to you, whether you want it or not.

You should be concerned. Such people are inherently dangerous to society.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-03-2017 21:09
09-03-2017 21:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
You forget that what you are dealing with here is a Religion. Like all religions, this one too is based on an initial circular argument (the globe is warming) upon which the entire collection of scriptural references depend upon.

You and I are Outsiders. These people see themselves almost as holy warriors, bringing the Truth to the world. Any Outsider that makes any statement against them is immediately deemed an evil and ignorant infidel that are out to destroy the world.

Logic...mathematics...science...philosophy...all of these mean nothing to their Religion. Like some religious zealots, they feel compelled to bring the Truth to you, whether you want it or not.

You should be concerned. Such people are inherently dangerous to society.


I'm afraid you hit too close to home. Perhaps my belief in real science prevents me from understanding the motivations of people like this.
09-03-2017 23:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You forget that what you are dealing with here is a Religion. Like all religions, this one too is based on an initial circular argument (the globe is warming) upon which the entire collection of scriptural references depend upon.

You and I are Outsiders. These people see themselves almost as holy warriors, bringing the Truth to the world. Any Outsider that makes any statement against them is immediately deemed an evil and ignorant infidel that are out to destroy the world.

Logic...mathematics...science...philosophy...all of these mean nothing to their Religion. Like some religious zealots, they feel compelled to bring the Truth to you, whether you want it or not.

You should be concerned. Such people are inherently dangerous to society.


I'm afraid you hit too close to home. Perhaps my belief in real science prevents me from understanding the motivations of people like this.


There is a massive trait in humanity to need a religion. I see religion as the greatest weakness and evil of humanity but there does seem to be a large number of people who need such a thing.

The principal requirement of such is a jump into a mind set where reality is avoided and seen as impolite. Thus anybody who points it out is socially ostricised, they have broken the social rules. The more obvious the break from actual facts and the notion of truth the better.

I give post modernism as an example of this. Or communist economics. Or just communism.

The AGW cult is, I find, very similar.
09-03-2017 23:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You forget that what you are dealing with here is a Religion. Like all religions, this one too is based on an initial circular argument (the globe is warming) upon which the entire collection of scriptural references depend upon.

You and I are Outsiders. These people see themselves almost as holy warriors, bringing the Truth to the world. Any Outsider that makes any statement against them is immediately deemed an evil and ignorant infidel that are out to destroy the world.

Logic...mathematics...science...philosophy...all of these mean nothing to their Religion. Like some religious zealots, they feel compelled to bring the Truth to you, whether you want it or not.

You should be concerned. Such people are inherently dangerous to society.


I'm afraid you hit too close to home. Perhaps my belief in real science prevents me from understanding the motivations of people like this.


There is a massive trait in humanity to need a religion. I see religion as the greatest weakness and evil of humanity but there does seem to be a large number of people who need such a thing.

The principal requirement of such is a jump into a mind set where reality is avoided and seen as impolite. Thus anybody who points it out is socially ostricised, they have broken the social rules. The more obvious the break from actual facts and the notion of truth the better.

I give post modernism as an example of this. Or communist economics. Or just communism.

The AGW cult is, I find, very similar.


Do you find something wrong with Christianity and the teaching of "turn the other cheek" and to forgive is divine? After what most of the non-religious people do in this world I find it most refreshing.

Most of the basis of the free world stands on the teachings of Jesus.
15-03-2017 14:48
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Well, it looks like this thread is leaving the realm of science. I do appreciate the introduction of the plausible theory of the changing shape of the earth's orbit causing climate change. This certainly makes more sense than blaming it all on a life sustaining gas such as CO2.
15-03-2017 15:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Well, it looks like this thread is leaving the realm of science. I do appreciate the introduction of the plausible theory of the changing shape of the earth's orbit causing climate change. This certainly makes more sense than blaming it all on a life sustaining gas such as CO2.


Well, sorry to see you go. Reasonable people are very difficult to find in the realm of climate change. We have scientists speaking of how CO2 actually makes the upper atmosphere colder while we have people here screaming that the entire world is going to die unless YOU stop your standard of living so that they can retain theirs.
15-03-2017 16:30
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
There is room for all of us. But, when an unproven theory is turned into a misguided international policy that not only affects our standard of living but wastes billions of dollars, it is time to wake up. If the planet is warming, learn to adapt to it. Trust me, that is way better than a radically cooling planet.
15-03-2017 16:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
There is room for all of us. But, when an unproven theory is turned into a misguided international policy that not only affects our standard of living but wastes billions of dollars, it is time to wake up. If the planet is warming, learn to adapt to it. Trust me, that is way better than a radically cooling planet.


Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age.
15-03-2017 21:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There is room for all of us. But, when an unproven theory is turned into a misguided international policy that not only affects our standard of living but wastes billions of dollars, it is time to wake up. If the planet is warming, learn to adapt to it. Trust me, that is way better than a radically cooling planet.


Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age.

This study doesn't actually exist, does it? You can't link to it because you just invented it. This is called lying.

You can't just make up any old shit and call it an argument. Gullible fools like GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.
15-03-2017 22:04
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.


And that's all I've ever asked for is some evidence that CO2 is causing this scheduled lackluster heatwave. I'm talking about evidence I can see out my window. Where is it?!!


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
15-03-2017 23:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.


And that's all I've ever asked for is some evidence that CO2 is causing this scheduled lackluster heatwave. I'm talking about evidence I can see out my window. Where is it?!!

There are very few natural phenomena that can be examined simply by looking out your window. You can't, for example, examine atoms, black holes, cells, Pluto, etc. by looking out your window. Almost everything that we know about reality has been determined by knowledgeable people using dedicated instruments, who then publish what they discover in scientific journals. These published results are what I am referring to as evidence.
15-03-2017 23:28
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
Surface Detail wrote:

There are very few natural phenomena that can be examined simply by looking out your window. You can't, for example, examine atoms, black holes, cells, Pluto, etc. by looking out your window. Almost everything that we know about reality has been determined by knowledgeable people using dedicated instruments, who then publish what they discover in scientific journals. These published results are what I am referring to as evidence.


But I read things like 5 million people are DEAD per year due to global warming. Surely I can see SOMETHING of evidence in my back yard??


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
16-03-2017 04:35
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
Climate Change Kills 5 Million People Every Year

December 27, 2012
GET MIC DAILY:
A report released earlier this year from the climate change watch group DARA estimates that the deaths related to climate change and its chief driver, fossil fuels, were roughly 5 million in 2010. That number makes climate change one of the leading causes of death in the world; for comparison, cancer causes about 7.6 million deaths per year....

Here's the link for the entire report.
https://mic.com/articles/21419/climate-change-kills-5-million-people-every-year#.vMURss6g6
16-03-2017 15:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There is room for all of us. But, when an unproven theory is turned into a misguided international policy that not only affects our standard of living but wastes billions of dollars, it is time to wake up. If the planet is warming, learn to adapt to it. Trust me, that is way better than a radically cooling planet.


Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age.

This study doesn't actually exist, does it? You can't link to it because you just invented it. This is called lying.

You can't just make up any old shit and call it an argument. Gullible fools like GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.


I finally realized with this posting that you're nothing but a little kid with a computer.

Are you shivering in fear that because you are the smallest and weakest that people won't make room for you in the lifeboat that you imagine will be necessary?

Well, we're done funding your fantasies.
16-03-2017 15:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There is room for all of us. But, when an unproven theory is turned into a misguided international policy that not only affects our standard of living but wastes billions of dollars, it is time to wake up. If the planet is warming, learn to adapt to it. Trust me, that is way better than a radically cooling planet.


Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age.

This study doesn't actually exist, does it? You can't link to it because you just invented it. This is called lying.

You can't just make up any old shit and call it an argument. Gullible fools like GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.


I finally realized with this posting that you're nothing but a little kid with a computer.

Are you shivering in fear that because you are the smallest and weakest that people won't make room for you in the lifeboat that you imagine will be necessary?

Well, we're done funding your fantasies.

While you keep lying, I'll keep calling you out on your lies.
16-03-2017 15:50
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs": I finally realized with this posting that you're nothing but a little kid with a computer. Are you shivering in fear...Well, we're done funding your fantasies.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" totes its egotistical macho sigh-ants, based on math errors it adores & holds close to its macho puffed chest.
Don' worra. "Don'T rump" will kill lotsa science to satisfy all the science illiterate re-pubic-lick-uns, who never had science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.
Macho duck.... macho duck..... macho duck.
17-03-2017 13:44
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There is room for all of us. But, when an unproven theory is turned into a misguided international policy that not only affects our standard of living but wastes billions of dollars, it is time to wake up. If the planet is warming, learn to adapt to it. Trust me, that is way better than a radically cooling planet.


Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age.

This study doesn't actually exist, does it? You can't link to it because you just invented it. This is called lying.

You can't just make up any old shit and call it an argument. Gullible fools like GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.


I finally realized with this posting that you're nothing but a little kid with a computer.

Are you shivering in fear that because you are the smallest and weakest that people won't make room for you in the lifeboat that you imagine will be necessary?

Well, we're done funding your fantasies.


So you can't produce the non-existent 'study' - because you lied.
Edited on 17-03-2017 13:44
17-03-2017 13:58
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.


And that's all I've ever asked for is some evidence that CO2 is causing this scheduled lackluster heatwave. I'm talking about evidence I can see out my window. Where is it?!!

I'm shocked you haven't yet sealed your window with layers and layers of aluminium foil to stop the gubmint and black helicopters from spying on you.
17-03-2017 15:09
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
I'm shocked you haven't yet sealed your window with layers and layers of aluminium foil to stop the gubmint and black helicopters from spying on you.


Oh holy gubmint. Where the hell do you live where they get everything right and the country belongs to the people that live in it, work in it and PAY for it?

We're losing that here in the US. Just over half don't pay income tax and would rather be on the gov entitlement list. Funny, a huge percentage of that crowd is ones pushing for climate reform.

Libs always want to tear down the top instead of bringing the bottom up.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Edited on 17-03-2017 15:09
17-03-2017 16:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There is room for all of us. But, when an unproven theory is turned into a misguided international policy that not only affects our standard of living but wastes billions of dollars, it is time to wake up. If the planet is warming, learn to adapt to it. Trust me, that is way better than a radically cooling planet.


Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age.

This study doesn't actually exist, does it? You can't link to it because you just invented it. This is called lying.

You can't just make up any old shit and call it an argument. Gullible fools like GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.


I finally realized with this posting that you're nothing but a little kid with a computer.

Are you shivering in fear that because you are the smallest and weakest that people won't make room for you in the lifeboat that you imagine will be necessary?

Well, we're done funding your fantasies.


So you can't produce the non-existent 'study' - because you lied.


I see that this comes under your usual definition of "lied" - a typo meaning it was supposed to be 125,000 years ago. But then stupid people have nothing other to fall back on but using typos as when you accused me of not working with Dr. Mullis when I misspelled his first name after 25 years lapse.
17-03-2017 17:56
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There is room for all of us. But, when an unproven theory is turned into a misguided international policy that not only affects our standard of living but wastes billions of dollars, it is time to wake up. If the planet is warming, learn to adapt to it. Trust me, that is way better than a radically cooling planet.


Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age.

This study doesn't actually exist, does it? You can't link to it because you just invented it. This is called lying.

You can't just make up any old shit and call it an argument. Gullible fools like GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.


I finally realized with this posting that you're nothing but a little kid with a computer.

Are you shivering in fear that because you are the smallest and weakest that people won't make room for you in the lifeboat that you imagine will be necessary?

Well, we're done funding your fantasies.


So you can't produce the non-existent 'study' - because you lied.


I see that this comes under your usual definition of "lied" - a typo meaning it was supposed to be 125,000 years ago. But then stupid people have nothing other to fall back on but using typos as when you accused me of not working with Dr. Mullis when I misspelled his first name after 25 years lapse.


So no link to the supposed study, and now you're making up even more shit?

Where did I accuse you of a typo and not working with some Dr? Weird.

You're sounding more and more mentally unhinged.
Edited on 17-03-2017 18:06
17-03-2017 18:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There is room for all of us. But, when an unproven theory is turned into a misguided international policy that not only affects our standard of living but wastes billions of dollars, it is time to wake up. If the planet is warming, learn to adapt to it. Trust me, that is way better than a radically cooling planet.


Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age.

This study doesn't actually exist, does it? You can't link to it because you just invented it. This is called lying.

You can't just make up any old shit and call it an argument. Gullible fools like GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.


I finally realized with this posting that you're nothing but a little kid with a computer.

Are you shivering in fear that because you are the smallest and weakest that people won't make room for you in the lifeboat that you imagine will be necessary?

Well, we're done funding your fantasies.


So you can't produce the non-existent 'study' - because you lied.


I see that this comes under your usual definition of "lied" - a typo meaning it was supposed to be 125,000 years ago. But then stupid people have nothing other to fall back on but using typos as when you accused me of not working with Dr. Mullis when I misspelled his first name after 25 years lapse.


So no link to the supposed study, and now you're making up even more shit?

Where did I accuse you of a typo and not working with some Dr? Weird.

You're sounding more and more mentally unhinged.


I could produce a study but it's much more entertaining to see your inability to find it.
17-03-2017 19:59
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There is room for all of us. But, when an unproven theory is turned into a misguided international policy that not only affects our standard of living but wastes billions of dollars, it is time to wake up. If the planet is warming, learn to adapt to it. Trust me, that is way better than a radically cooling planet.


Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age.

This study doesn't actually exist, does it? You can't link to it because you just invented it. This is called lying.

You can't just make up any old shit and call it an argument. Gullible fools like GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.


I finally realized with this posting that you're nothing but a little kid with a computer.

Are you shivering in fear that because you are the smallest and weakest that people won't make room for you in the lifeboat that you imagine will be necessary?

Well, we're done funding your fantasies.


So you can't produce the non-existent 'study' - because you lied.


I see that this comes under your usual definition of "lied" - a typo meaning it was supposed to be 125,000 years ago. But then stupid people have nothing other to fall back on but using typos as when you accused me of not working with Dr. Mullis when I misspelled his first name after 25 years lapse.


So no link to the supposed study, and now you're making up even more shit?

Where did I accuse you of a typo and not working with some Dr? Weird.

You're sounding more and more mentally unhinged.


I could produce a study but it's much more entertaining to see your inability to find it.


This is the shit you posted:

"Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age."

yet you expected other people to go find the study when you made such glaring mistakes in what you wrote?

By the way, despite your silly mistakes, I found the paper, downloaded it and the supplementary materials and read it. SMH, You didn't actually READ the paper did you?

Hoffman, J. S., Clark, P. U., Parnell, A. C., & He, F. (2017). Regional and global sea-surface temperatures during the last interglaciation. Science, 355(6322), 276-279.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276


So please provide links (or at least titles/authors) to these supposed "Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age" that you claim exist.

You can't, because they don't exist. You just continue to tell lies and talk shit.

Just more mindless regurgitation of shit from the crank junkscience conspiracy blogs you read.
Edited on 17-03-2017 20:07
17-03-2017 22:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Ceist wrote:

Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age.

This study doesn't actually exist, does it? You can't link to it because you just invented it. This is called lying.

You can't just make up any old shit and call it an argument. Gullible fools like GasGuzzler and Into the Night may happily swallow whatever crap you come out with, but rational folk demand actual evidence to back up claims.[/quote]

I finally realized with this posting that you're nothing but a little kid with a computer.

Are you shivering in fear that because you are the smallest and weakest that people won't make room for you in the lifeboat that you imagine will be necessary?

Well, we're done funding your fantasies.[/quote]

So you can't produce the non-existent 'study' - because you lied.[/quote]

I see that this comes under your usual definition of "lied" - a typo meaning it was supposed to be 125,000 years ago. But then stupid people have nothing other to fall back on but using typos as when you accused me of not working with Dr. Mullis when I misspelled his first name after 25 years lapse.[/quote]

So no link to the supposed study, and now you're making up even more shit?

Where did I accuse you of a typo and not working with some Dr? Weird.

You're sounding more and more mentally unhinged.[/quote]

I could produce a study but it's much more entertaining to see your inability to find it.[/quote]

This is the shit you posted:

"Funny "science": An article in science news quoted a study that it was "this warm" 25,000 years ago but New Orleans was under between 16 and 60 feet of water. If it was "this warm" why was the sea level so high? Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age."

yet you expected other people to go find the study when you made such glaring mistakes in what you wrote?

By the way, despite your silly mistakes, I found the paper, downloaded it and the supplementary materials and read it. SMH, You didn't actually READ the paper did you?

Hoffman, J. S., Clark, P. U., Parnell, A. C., & He, F. (2017). Regional and global sea-surface temperatures during the last interglaciation. Science, 355(6322), 276-279.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276


So please provide links (or at least titles/authors) to these supposed "Some studies think that the sea level rise we have had over the last couple of centuries is about to stop because the weather simply isn't that bad and all we've been doing is recovering from the Little Ice Age" that you claim exist.

You can't, because they don't exist. You just continue to tell lies and talk shit.

Just more mindless regurgitation of shit from the crank junkscience conspiracy blogs you read.[/quote]

So when someone holds your hand and points to the article you CAN find it huh? More proof what a joke you are.
18-03-2017 05:23
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
So when someone holds your hand and points to the article you CAN find it huh? More proof what a joke you are.


Sheesh. You can't even quote a post correctly, so I left out all the mess you made.

1. You made a wildly incorrect assertion about a sciencenews article and a paper it referenced (out by 100,000 years, got the sea levels wrong, and the paper itself never said anything about New Orleans)

2. You couldn't link to the sciencenews article or the paper it referenced yourself.

3. You admitted that you had made a dumbarse mistake with a 'typo' (and accused me of some other bizarre shit about some Dr.)

4. I then looked up the sciencenews article based on the accurate time period,
then downloaded and read the referenced paper and the supplementary material recently published by Hoffman et al in Science in Jan 2017.

5. You asked a dumbarse question that showed you clearly hadn't even read the paper.

6. I provide the citation and link to the paper (as you were incapable of doing so)

7. You probably can't even access the paper because it's paywalled and I doubt you've ever had University proxy access to online Journal databases. It's obvious you are completely clueless when it comes to researching the published literature.

8. You made even more ridiculous lying claims about more non-existent 'papers'.

9. You were unable to provide citations or links for these further non-existent papers you lied about.

10. What an idiotic scientifically illiterate pathological liar you are.

Edited on 18-03-2017 05:45
18-03-2017 17:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
So when someone holds your hand and points to the article you CAN find it huh? More proof what a joke you are.


Sheesh. You can't even quote a post correctly, so I left out all the mess you made.

1. You made a wildly incorrect assertion about a sciencenews article and a paper it referenced (out by 100,000 years, got the sea levels wrong, and the paper itself never said anything about New Orleans)

2. You couldn't link to the sciencenews article or the paper it referenced yourself.

3. You admitted that you had made a dumbarse mistake with a 'typo' (and accused me of some other bizarre shit about some Dr.)

4. I then looked up the sciencenews article based on the accurate time period,
then downloaded and read the referenced paper and the supplementary material recently published by Hoffman et al in Science in Jan 2017.

5. You asked a dumbarse question that showed you clearly hadn't even read the paper.

6. I provide the citation and link to the paper (as you were incapable of doing so)

7. You probably can't even access the paper because it's paywalled and I doubt you've ever had University proxy access to online Journal databases. It's obvious you are completely clueless when it comes to researching the published literature.

8. You made even more ridiculous lying claims about more non-existent 'papers'.

9. You were unable to provide citations or links for these further non-existent papers you lied about.

10. What an idiotic scientifically illiterate pathological liar you are.


I really love this:

1. I made a typo and you grabbed at a straw. Now you compound it by not being able to convert between metric and English measurements. But it only shows your intellectual capacity.

2. As stupid as you are even you should be able to tell the difference between a transference of a thought and giving you a "reference". I wasn't even talking to you but you don't mind butting into a conversation. What a clown.

3. It's pretty funny that you don't remember your comments regarding Dr. Mullis. Or was that your alter ego surface detail? In any case the four of you seem to have exactly the same sort of personality which demonstrates a level of scientific incompetence that was also show by one other person on another group which also uses the same wording as you do but under yet another name.

4. And it said what I was telling others. And now you can't convert metric to English measurements. What a surprise.

5. Funny how you don't have that question at hand while always screaming for "references" which you then can't understand because you can't make simple conversions.

6. Did I ask for a citation AFTER I had already read it? You keep being tripped up by your lack of any ability to know what you read.

7. Since I have a subscription to Science, Astronomy, Science News and many other technical magazines exactly why would I want to pay to gain access to the same article on the Internet? Your intellectual abilities are very much in question.

8. You had to be pointed at one article and have your hand held. I didn't read you saying that you were wrong and that there WAS such a paper. Now you're telling me that there aren't these other papers. You grow more entertaining by the second. Are you sure your real name isn't Jack in the Box?

9. As your comments show you don't even have sufficient command of English to make the three false points you were trying to make. May I suggest an English class instead of sitting home in your mother's basement pretending that you're too smart to get a job?

10. You just repeated yourself for the third time. Apparently your mind only works in circles.
18-03-2017 21:12
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: Just over half don't pay income tax....

Et times, Boeing don' pay incum texas.... neider don' "Don'T rump" pays incum texas. Ifn ya pays lotsa campain contrabushuns, ya don' hafta pays no incum texas.
18-03-2017 23:47
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
What exactly is it that you know about running a business?
How much do you pay in income taxes?
What percent should Trump Pay?
What percent should be the top bracket?
at what income level?
What percent of your income would you give if you could lower the global temp 1 degree?
Edited on 18-03-2017 23:48
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate More Claims Shattered:

Remember me

▲ 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