It's the Winds Man, It's the Winds Fault

[UncleBuck]

As the great white bear said during one of these debates. How bout figuring out how to get us off this rock?

And yes, we will adapt.

And yes, over 99% of species have gone extinct. Forcing me to change my life to save the Arizona sand gnat is not really an option I cling to.

see, you claim to be a proponent of human caused global warming, then you repeat denier talking points of zero truth value all day.

you are a two face dumbass.

 

[ginwilly]

Well I'm not sure what you're referring to so I'm going to assume you're doing it again. I like how you came into the thread trying to sound like you were moderate and open minded but have your feet firmly planted in the denier camp. That was a smart strategy, most people won't see through you.

Noticed you attacked me after pointing out your own hypocrisy, stick with science, the sky is falling!

 

[UncleBuck]

95% of the scientists are paid to prove global warming and people wonder why we have so much data supporting it... LOL!!!

Religion....

they're actually paid to do science, their conclusions are their own.

for example, NASA pays skeptic/denier roy spencer to do science, and he reaches conclusions that are way out of the mainstream.

you are trying to make a conspiracy where none exists and demonstrable counterexamples prove you wrong.

shut the fuck up you deluded dumb piece of fuck.

 

[ginwilly]

AGENDA! AGENDA! AGENDA!

you are false, and an idiot.

scientists are doing science, and idiots like you are buying into the AGENDA of the same organizations and institutions which mere decades ago were pushing an AGENDA to fuzzy the science on the dangers of tobacco in order to delay legislation.

idiots like you refuse to learn from history, revise it, or deny it completely, so of course we are repeating history again.

that is 100% thanks to idiots like you buying a bogus AGENDA.

notice how i used the word AGENDA correctly, shitloaf?

go sit in the corner you fucking dunce.

So when you come in and post charts that are based on the highest prediction of the modeling and only the highest prediction, you are doing so for altruistic reasons?

Nobody believes you anymore Buck. You've done that to yourself man.

 

[abandonconflict]

Noticed you attacked me after pointing out your own hypocrisy, stick with science, the sky is falling!

The stakes are high was my argument, you turned it into the sky is falling.

The stakes are high. If the vast majority of climate scientists are correct, we're imperiling our planet and every ecosystem on it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Noticed you attacked me after pointing out your own hypocrisy, stick with science, the sky is falling!

notice how you're a fucking idiot trying to sell a false bill of goods and retarded AGENDA?

 

[UncleBuck]

So when you come in and post charts that are based on the highest prediction of the modeling and only the highest prediction, you are doing so for altruistic reasons?

what in the holy stupid fuck are you even blathering about, tardloaf?

 

[ginwilly]

The stakes are high was my argument, you turned it into the sky is falling.

The stakes are high. If the vast majority of climate scientists are correct, we're imperiling our planet and every ecosystem on it.

In what ways? How high are the stakes? Can it actually be improving some ecosystems while damaging others or are you going to stick with every ecosystem while demanding everyone else stick to the science?

 

[UncleBuck]

check out this graph about how the sea ice is growing and i only include the highest (in this case lowest) predictions!

fucking retarded, ginwilly.

go be stupid elsewhere. you are making a complete stooge out of yourself here.

i wouldn't trust you to take my blood pressure, that is how dumb you are.

 

[ginwilly]

what in the holy stupid fuck are you even blathering about, tardloaf?

Ah, so you don't even know what you are posting... I kind of figured that.

Let's do some science, what percentage of posts have you made today where you didn't attack someone? Your low self esteem is really sad, but it's getting old.

 

[abandonconflict]

In what ways? How high are the stakes? Can it actually be improving some ecosystems while damaging others or are you going to stick with every ecosystem while demanding everyone else stick to the science?

OK, so are you suggesting that global warming is good for some ecosystems?

That would mean you admit that the science does point to global warming, however, I will give you a pass and not assume you admit it is man made.

 

[UncleBuck]

Ah, so you don't even know what you are posting... I kind of figured that.

i know what i am posting, and i know your retarded words have no bearing on the reality of what i am posting, beause you are dumber than a fucking overcooked pancake.

 

[abandonconflict]

i know what i am posting, and i know your retarded words have no bearing on the reality of what i am posting, beause you are dumber than a fucking overcooked pancake.

That's pretty dumb. Useless too.

 

[UncleBuck]

OK, so are you suggesting that global warming is good for some ecosystems?

That would mean you admit that the science does point to global warming, however, I will give you a pass and not assume you admit it is man made.

he is repeating the latest talking point of the oil companies: global warming does exist, but who knows why and it will probably be good for us!

i would not be surprised if he is being paid $0.08 a post to supplement his income, since clearly he is such a shitty nurse who posts here all day instead of doing actual medical work.

 

[kelly4]

I have to go drop a Shaggy...Science!

 

[abandonconflict]

he is repeating the latest talking point of the oil companies: global warming does exist, but who knows why and it will probably be good for us!

i would not be surprised if he is being paid $0.08 a post to supplement his income, since clearly he is such a shitty nurse who posts here all day instead of doing actual medical work.

He feels that I distort his arguments, so I was simply asking him if he realizes that that is what is implied by his assertion.

 

[ginwilly]

OK, so are you suggesting that global warming is good for some ecosystems?

That would mean you admit that the science does point to global warming, however, I will give you a pass and not assume you admit it is man made.

What? I've admitted several times man is screwing the pooch when it comes to mother earth.

I've also admitted we are in a warming period and it's most likely man is a major contributor as the science says.

And yes, some plant and animal life will thrive with warmer temperatures. Some will not.

You made the claim that every ecosystem will be damaged, not much after you said stick with science, so back up that claim.

 

[ginwilly]

He feels that I distort his arguments, so I was simply asking him if he realizes that that is what is implied by his assertion.

example? I'm not implying anything other than I said. It was your implying, directly after you said stick to science that I questioned.

Stick to science, shit's going to be bad, really bad, all ecosystems are going to be fucked up... followed by no science.

 

[abandonconflict]

What? I've admitted several times man is screwing the pooch when it comes to mother earth.

I've also admitted we are in a warming period and it's most likely man is a major contributor as the science says.

And yes, some plant and animal life will thrive with warmer temperatures. Some will not.

You made the claim that every ecosystem will be damaged, not much after you said stick with science, so back up that claim.

So specifically, you are fixated on my statement, "we're imperiling our planet and every ecosystem on it.", even though you misquoted me yet again. I said imperiling, not damaging. You also seem to have an issue with my statement "the stakes are high" which you have also distorted into "the sky is falling".

I'm just making sure you are in fact saying what I think you are, even though you have distorted my arguments twice.

So do I have your argument understood?

 

[ginwilly]

So specifically, you are fixated on my statement, "we're imperiling our planet and every ecosystem on it.", even though you misquoted me yet again. I said imperiling, not damaging. You also seem to have an issue with my statement "the stakes are high" which you have also distorted into "the sky is falling".

I'm just making sure you are in fact saying what I think you are, even though you have distorted my arguments twice.

So do I have your argument understood?

OK, let's use your exact words.

Stick to science, the stakes are high.
How high? where's the science to back this up?

We are imperiling every ecosystem... followed by no science.

Does changing the paraphrase to the exact words change any of it?