Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?

[Dr Kynes]

lol his timing with the first ALGORE..etc was perfect with your rant he must have known you were coming

and as to him blaming bush? you do a lovely job raising gore to that level

orly? i havent mentioned al gore in months, and until the idiotic claim that "climate deniers are in it for the money" i hadnt mentioned him in this thread,, bush however is on bucky';s clipboard ready to paste in at a whim.

i happen to read a lot, on many subjects, and when you drag up the climate change doomsayers and their proposals that we all just jump in a volcano to save the planet, i got reams of examples of silly lefty programs that follow the same pattern,, and each one shockingly enough comes up the same way, MORE trouble than the problem they tried to fix.

lefties are the fumble fingered moron do-it-yourselfer who tries to fix his toaster and winds up breaking his TV, electrocuting his dog, burning down his garage and irradiating himself with pollonium in an escalating series of increasingly improbable attempts to make that fucking english muffin pop up.

the lefties do it all the fucking time.

 

[UncleBuck]

Ginja, no disrespect to Pad but the premise of this thread was unchallenged from the start. 90% of scientists believe AGW is what is implied from the title and accompanying back-up post to it. OK, numbers please. And no one can provide them yet it's an accepted premise and on we go. Next. Americans don't believe it. Bullshit. More believe it than don't.
If we're going to have a rational discussion about this thread or anything lets define the terms. I didn't make the claim. You didn't either. But if you're gonna support it, support it. With Fact! Not a journalists perusal of articles for fucks sake!

i think we're both pretty close but the fun of arguing makes us seem further apart.

even that fellow christy who you are fond of accepts that the earth is warming, and humans are at least partially to blame.

the real question(s) are to what degree are we responsible, what will be the affects, and what is the best way to manage/avert the affects (if possible).

it's once you get into these questions that things get interesting and consensus gets blurry.

 

[UncleBuck]

orly? i havent mentioned al gore in months, and until the idiotic claim that "climate deniers are in it for the money" i hadnt mentioned him in this thread,, bush however is on bucky';s clipboard ready to paste in at a whim.

i happen to read a lot, on many subjects, and when you drag up the climate change doomsayers and their proposals that we all just jump in a volcano to save the planet, i got reams of examples of silly lefty programs that follow the same pattern,, and each one shockingly enough comes up the same way, MORE trouble than the problem they tried to fix.

lefties are the fumble fingered moron do-it-yourselfer who tries to fix his toaster and winds up breaking his TV, electrocuting his dog, burning down his garage and irradiating himself with pollonium in an escalating series of increasingly improbable attempts to make that fucking english muffin pop up.

the lefties do it all the fucking time.

funny, you cited carbon credits as an example of this fuckuppery, yet that was a right wing idea.

what's up, doc?

 

[ArcticGranite]

he reads the articles then catalogues them why is there something wrong with that?

http://www.jamespowell.org/Rejections/index.html

theres the link for the 24 that disagree

find any more published studies and you've proved him wrong


EDIT how else do you count them?

Count em one, two, three. And I'm not being a smart ass nor demeaning. Like my link abot the EPA IG. Youre's doesn't wash. It's a comparison of papers written. If we really want to chew fat we should ask- How many climatologists are there? How many support AGW and how many oppose.

 

[Dr Kynes]

yeah, george w bush, who signed that into law, was such a liberal.

and i'm marie of romania.

ORLY? bush banned non CFL lightbulbs? REALLY!!@??!!

cuz here in califorenia i can still buy incandescent bulbs of every description.

there IS NO BAN ON LIGHTBULBS YOU DUMB FUCK! BUSH DID NOT SIGN THE IMAGINARY LAW, BECAUSE IT IS IMAGINARY!

california currently has it's own dumbass proposals to ban lightbubs but they are currently stalled.
for a guy who relishes the opportunity to call other stupid you sure do say the stupidest things buck.
if you didnt grow weed...

 

[ginjawarrior]

Ginja, no disrespect to Pad but the premise of this thread was unchallenged from the start. 90% of scientists believe AGW is what is implied from the title and accompanying back-up post to it. OK, numbers please. And no one can provide them yet it's an accepted premise and on we go. Next. Americans don't believe it. Bullshit. More believe it than don't.
If we're going to have a rational discussion about this thread or anything lets define the terms. I didn't make the claim. You didn't either. But if you're gonna support it, support it. With Fact! Not a journalists perusal of articles for fucks sake!

you dont need me to dance for you for you to beable to refute pad's premise

 

[UncleBuck]

ORLY? bush banned non CFL lightbulbs? REALLY!!@??!!

cuz here in califorenia i can still buy incandescent bulbs of every description.

there IS NO BAN ON LIGHTBULBS YOU DUMB FUCK! BUSH DID NOT SIGN THE IMAGINARY LAW, BECAUSE IT IS IMAGINARY!

california currently has it's own dumbass proposals to ban lightbubs but they are currently stalled.
for a guy who relishes the opportunity to call other stupid you sure do say the stupidest things buck.
if you didnt grow weed...

[h=4]B. Lighting Energy Efficiency[/h]

• Requires roughly 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This effectively bans the manufacturing and importing of most current incandescent light bulbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#B._Lighting_Energy_Efficiency

too fucking easy, doc. i'm not paying you to talk.

 

[ArcticGranite]

lefties are the fumble fingered moron do-it-yourselfer who tries to fix his toaster and winds up breaking his TV, electrocuting his dog, burning down his garage and irradiating himself with pollonium in an escalating series of increasingly improbable attempts to make that fucking english muffin pop up.

Hence my avi. Jam anyone?

 

[ArcticGranite]

you dont need me to dance for you for you to beable to refute pad's premise

Luv the sig! Throw in- I'd toss salad for dressing!

 

[ginjawarrior]

Count em one, two, three. And I'm not being a smart ass nor demeaning. Like my link abot the EPA IG. Youre's doesn't wash. It's a comparison of papers written. If we really want to chew fat we should ask- How many climatologists are there? How many support AGW and how many oppose.

the link i posted showed the methodology that he used

and it was a repeat of a similar study some 5 years back (which showed the similar results)

all it is claiming to have done is count the discrepancy between the 2 sides

it did that,

now apart from argument from incredulence how about finding a good reason to invalidate it

you could also look at this page if you so wish

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

[UncleBuck]

lefties are the fumble fingered moron do-it-yourselfer who tries to fix his toaster and winds up breaking his TV, electrocuting his dog, burning down his garage and irradiating himself with pollonium in an escalating series of increasingly improbable attempts to make that fucking english muffin pop up.

smart liberals do it the right way.

 

[fb360]

smart liberals do it the right way.

Funny you say "right" way, instead of "correct" way. Maybe you're trying to get at something

 

[ArcticGranite]

the link i posted showed the methodology that he used

and it was a repeat of a similar study some 5 years back (which showed the similar results)

all it is claiming to have done is count the discrepancy between the 2 sides

it did that,

now apart from argument from incredulence how about finding a good reason to invalidate it

you could also look at this page if you so wish

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

That's a good link and site. Read from it aplenty. If you haven't already, take and moment and look at Dr. Christy's testimony too. I'm re-claiming my former sig now.

 

[Dr Kynes]

B. Lighting Energy Efficiency

• Requires roughly 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This effectively bans the manufacturing and importing of most current incandescent light bulbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#B._Lighting_Energy_Efficiency

too fucking easy, doc. i'm not paying you to talk.

i thought that one died in committee.

looks like i gotta make with the head,.

 

[ArcticGranite]

i think we're both pretty but the arguing makes us seem further apart.

that fellow you are fond of accepts blame.

the real question(s) are to what degree are we responsible, what will be the affects, and what is the best way to manage/avert the affects (if possible).

Just pm me.

 

[UncleBuck]

i thought that one died in committee.

looks like i gotta make with the head,.

stop being humble and funny, i can't be liking the person with whom i share opposing worldviews, that would personalize you.

you're just an automaton in my google machine.

 

[ginjawarrior]

That's a good link and site. Read from it aplenty. If you haven't already, take and moment and look at Dr. Christy's testimony too. I'm re-claiming my former sig now.

i had read a fair way down + his conclusions and it doesnt fit with the evidence that i have seen

the skepticalscience site i linked to above has a section on him with detailed run down on his different claims

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

 

[ArcticGranite]

stop being humble and funny, i can't be liking the person with whom i share opposing worldviews, that would personalize you.

you're just an automaton in my google machine.

Best first laugh of the new year!

 

[ArcticGranite]

i had read a fair way down + his conclusions and it doesnt fit with the evidence that i have seen

the skepticalscience site i linked to above has a section on him with detailed run down on his different claims

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

I shall go read, thanks.

 

[ArcticGranite]

i had read a fair way down + his conclusions and it doesnt fit with the evidence that i have seen

the skepticalscience site i linked to above has a section on him with detailed run down on his different claims

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

He is portrayed as a skeptic on that site. Even from the multiple cookie cutter response links in the "science says" column I didn't see his research getting debunked. I sure liked his Senate testimony though. Pretty plain and understandable.