Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 28

Thread: Unreal.....

  1. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by commtech77 View Post
    First I research quite a bit before I post things of a political or financial nature on this or any other forum.


    Second you wont get any thanks from me for posting subjective garbage like that as a scientific resource.

    You know how Wiki works right ???? The people who fill it's virtual pages are not vetted in the least.

    But you're going to argue that based someones interpretation as presented on Wikipedia that with out a doubt anthropogenic climate change is occurring and the only solution is for massive governmental intervention in the form of punitive tax's and regulation against corporations and the tax payer.

    Or crappy GM cars subsidized by the American tax payer because NO ONE wants to buy them.


    That somehow dolling out billions to now bankrupt "green energy " companies and trying to shut down industries that are the life's blood of our economy is going to fix "climate change" ?

    That setting up a carbon trading enterprise that charges companies and people for emitting a gas that currently in our atmosphere represents on a molecular level about a 1/25000 ratio of Co2 molecules to air is going to save us from eminent doom ?

    Forget the fact that Al Gore who pushed for carbon trading was financially attached to a number of green energy companies.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html

    You realize that a doubling of our Co2 in the atmosphere minus any outside non man influenced changes like volcano's, weather patterns, sun anomalies, etc would cause less than a 1 degree C increase in surface temperatures ?

    Thats a doubling of the above ratio which we wouldn't see at current levels for hundreds and hundreds of years.

    But we need liberal politicians to indoctrinate our kids through public schools with crap like "A inconvenient Truth " to save the earth.

    Get a look at his new diggs off the coast of Montecrito California, According to "A inconvenient truth " it's supposed to be under water in a couple of years. Nice huh ?
    http://www.worldpropertychannel.com/...maker-2525.php

    It's "inconvenient" that the University of East Anglia refuses to provide raw data to back up it's assertions that we were causing global warming even when pressed by legal methods AND when E-mails were exposed showing their researchers manipulated historical temperature data to get the conclusion they wanted.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-sceptics.html

    I could go on and and with verifiable links ( Not Wikipedia ) that shows how "climate change" has basically been used as a tool by politicians to gain money and power but with little evidence to back up their theories people like you should know by now that you've been had.
    Slatts posts an article based on mainstream science, up to date peer-reviewed scientific climatology research which you immediately scorn as unvetted and biased.

    So after congatulating yourself on the depth and objectivity of your research, we find that your self-praised research consists of two articles about Al Gore and an outdated op-ed.

    Not really what any resonably intelligent person would call credible.



    By the way, eight independant investigations found no evidence of manipulation of data or fraud on the part of the climate scientists.



    You ridicule wiki but it could have spared you from posting such laughable content.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  2. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Paper Street Soap Company
    Posts
    2,298
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    Slatts posts an article based on mainstream science, up to date peer-reviewed scientific climatology research which you immediately scorn as unvetted and biased.

    So after congatulating yourself on the depth and objectivity of your research, we find that your self-praised research consists of two articles about Al Gore and an outdated op-ed.

    Not really what any resonably intelligent person would call credible.



    By the way, eight independant investigations found no evidence of manipulation of data or fraud on the part of the climate scientists.



    You ridicule wiki but it could have spared you from posting such laughable content.
    Hard to investigate when you dont have all of the facts or data. East Anglia refuses to release pertinant data under the freedom of information act . Or did you ignore my links ? For some reason I couldnt find it on Wiki.

    Oh and feel free to post links to your assertions of objective investigations. or am I supposed to take your word for it ?

    The links to informatuon that uncovers the climate scam are unending. I posted. 2 or 3. You posted zero.

    Just the usual condensending tone and general rhetoric because someone challenged your reality. Its nothing new.

    And so easy to rebut. Can you post objective resources that counters anything I said in my resppnse to Slatts ?

    Peer reviewed in your reality means its the goda honest truth. The debate is over. because Al Gore has investors he needs to answer to.

    Forget about the peers that dont agree that massive taxs and stifling govt regulations are whats needed to save the world from......wait for it........C02.

    Its not my fault you're so easily manipulated. So easily fooled. Thats a personal problem.

  3. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    6,656
    I like some of the british history shows that you can watch on you tube. Some of them even in their entirety instead of being broken up into parts.

    Never have watched wheeler dealers though I did start to watch an episode on you tube and then remembered that I have no interest in automobiles....

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by commtech77 View Post
    Hard to investigate when you dont have all of the facts or data. East Anglia refuses to release pertinant data under the freedom of information act . Or did you ignore my links ?
    Your one link was outdated. You may adhere to such sloppy standards but fortunately informed people don't.

    For some reason I couldnt find it on Wiki.
    The world is not responsible for your intellectual incompetence. There are whole pages concerning this very issue on wiki and other sources if you are frightened of wiki.

    Oh and feel free to post links to your assertions of objective investigations. or am I supposed to take your word for it ?
    Don't take my word for it, educate yourself. I believe it was you that boasted of your research powers.




    The links to informatuon that uncovers the climate scam are unending. I posted. 2 or 3. You posted zero.
    You posted one op-ed that was outdated.

    No doubt there are links to numerous right wingnut, anti-science sources but your task is to find one that is both up to date and credible.

    Good luck with that.


    Just the usual condensending tone and general rhetoric because someone challenged your reality. Its nothing new.
    Condescension seemed the proper tone.

    And so easy to rebut. Can you post objective resources that counters anything I said in my resppnse to Slatts ?
    First of all your reply to Slatts was no reply at all. He posted an article based on mainstream, peer-reviewed science concerning CO2 as it relates to world climate.


    You post a link about Al Gore's real estate activity, a link about Al Gore's business dealings and an outdated link about the HadCrut affair.

    This would be what judges call non-responsive.


    Peer reviewed in your reality means its the goda honest truth. The debate is over. because Al Gore has investors he needs to answer to.
    Actually it means that it is provisional, subject to new evidence or re-interpretation of exsisting evidence.

    That being said, peer-review is the gold standard in science.

    Peer-reviewed papers published in respected science journals represents the nexus of scientific research and critical scrutiny


    Perhaps in your world you feel that internet articles and outdated op-eds are the pinnacle of scientific knowledge.



    Forget about the peers that dont agree that massive taxs and stifling govt regulations are whats needed to save the world from......wait for it........C02.
    I would suggest these "peers" publish their concerns in peer-reviewed science and economic journals if they feel their views aren't taken seriously.



    Its not my fault you're so easily manipulated. So easily fooled. Thats a personal problem.
    This from a person who posts real estate articles and outdated op-eds in response to peer-reviewed science.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    That being said, peer-review is the gold standard in science.
    This is pretty much the crux of the matter and why I continually warn that we must seperate fact from theory. Casting doubt on a theory does not make a fact go away.

    As it is with evolution, Darwin was always very careful in his work to make a distinction between his two very great but very seperate accomplishments; establishing evolution as a fact through observation, and then proposing a theory, Natural Selection, to explain the mechanisms under which the observation occurred.

    But when all is said and done, man evolved from ape-like creatures whether by Darwins' proposed mechanism or some other yet to be discovered.

    Casting doubt on how Global Warming has or is occuring does NOT mean that it is NOT occuring!

    Debating rival theories is not only healthy for science, it is also when science is the most fun!
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Paper Street Soap Company
    Posts
    2,298
    geerair you got me. you won. that emoticon laughing hysterically at the bottom of your post was just the right amount of ofjective information to win over the masses who participate in the global warming debate.

    No links to credible sources, no data to back up your blind allegiance, just a cartoon and cartoonish rhezoric preceeding it.

    The people who are succeptible to demagoguery and scare tactics are the eco- fringes army. Useful idiots that push their radical agenda hidden under the facade of GW.

    Personally I would rather have a mind of my own. The hive mind experience has never appealed to me.

  7. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    239
    The earth is 4.54 billion years old, we have been recording temperature somewhat accurately for about 100 years. There has been a lot of history before man was a participant on this world. Just using 4 billion as a number, the percentage for the amount of time they are using to push GW as fact is 0.0000025%. Kinda of weak to use this amount of time to prove a point.

    We have have also been told that early in earth's history that CO2 levels were higher and temperatures were warmer. It has also been said that at those times life was abundant and plant life was lush and plentiful. So how is it that back then global warming was a good thing but now its bad? Anybody?

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Paper Street Soap Company
    Posts
    2,298
    Its a eco- agenda pushed by a political agenda that hides radical left wing ideology. I dont have time now but I will post multiple links that shows how deep and insidious the scam is.

  9. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Paper Street Soap Company
    Posts
    2,298
    If the " debate is over" and the science is sound geerair should have no problem rebutting them.

  10. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsma View Post
    The earth is 4.54 billion years old, we have been recording temperature somewhat accurately for about 100 years. There has been a lot of history before man was a participant on this world. Just using 4 billion as a number, the percentage for the amount of time they are using to push GW as fact is 0.0000025%. Kinda of weak to use this amount of time to prove a point.

    We have have also been told that early in earth's history that CO2 levels were higher and temperatures were warmer. It has also been said that at those times life was abundant and plant life was lush and plentiful. So how is it that back then global warming was a good thing but now its bad? Anybody?
    There are other ways to determine the history of temperature than the way we've recorded data in the last 100 years. One way would be to use ice cores to examine the air bubbles. The amount of isotopes in the oxygen is relative to temperature.

    As for your second paragraph, it's not true. In some cases some life benefitted, but usually during the more extreme events, life as a whole suffered.

    In fact, there is an interesting link to extinctions and climate events.

    As a matter of fact, one such warming event illustrated an evolutionary point with regards to the giraffe. At one point, it was so hot and humid that trees grew like weeds making photosyenthesis for underlying vegetation a problem. This had a huge and intense effect on the overall eco-system and many species that fed on low lying vegetation died off.

    Here's what's intersting about it; Giraffes already had long necks for whatever reason so it wasn't a matter of adaptation for them. So they survived. One could say that, in a sense, they cheated evolutionary processes as they were already adapted.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by commtech77 View Post
    geerair you got me. you won. that emoticon laughing hysterically at the bottom of your post was just the right amount of ofjective information to win over the masses who participate in the global warming debate.
    Nice of you to concede but actually it was less about me winning than you shooting yourself in the foot.

    No links to credible sources, no data to back up your blind allegiance, just a cartoon and cartoonish rhezoric preceeding it.
    I often make the mistake of assuming folks are more informed than they actually are.....especially those who brag about their research prowess.

    The details of the investigations that cleared the scientists involved in "Climategate" were announced in all sections of the media and are still readily available on the net.

    I can only conclude that your ignorance of this issue is self-inflicted.


    The people who are succeptible to demagoguery and scare tactics are the eco- fringes army. Useful idiots that push their radical agenda hidden under the facade of GW.
    I assign little credibility or importance to neither AGW nor anti-AGW fringes.

    My only guide is the science of the issue.

    I would also say that this obssession you have about Al Gore and conspiracy theories is not healthy.



    Personally I would rather have a mind of my own. The hive mind experience has never appealed to me.
    From all indications of your literary output here you have a clear copy of Limbaugh's mind.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  12. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    This is pretty much the crux of the matter and why I continually warn that we must seperate fact from theory. Casting doubt on a theory does not make a fact go away.

    As it is with evolution, Darwin was always very careful in his work to make a distinction between his two very great but very seperate accomplishments; establishing evolution as a fact through observation, and then proposing a theory, Natural Selection, to explain the mechanisms under which the observation occurred.

    But when all is said and done, man evolved from ape-like creatures whether by Darwins' proposed mechanism or some other yet to be discovered.

    Casting doubt on how Global Warming has or is occuring does NOT mean that it is NOT occuring!

    Debating rival theories is not only healthy for science, it is also when science is the most fun!
    Bravo scrog.....nothing I can add to your excellent comments.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  13. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    There are other ways to determine the history of temperature than the way we've recorded data in the last 100 years. One way would be to use ice cores to examine the air bubbles. The amount of isotopes in the oxygen is relative to temperature.
    Good point. Scientific methodologies allow scientists to examine climate conditions millions of years ago.


    As for your second paragraph, it's not true. In some cases some life benefitted, but usually during the more extreme events, life as a whole suffered.
    Some win some lose.

    It was a catastrophe that allowed the emergence of mammals which eventually led to man.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event