Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore
- Thread starter closet.cult
- Start date
myrevolution11
New Member
You obviously support the FED and a Carbon Tax that goes into those private bankers pockets. Scare tactics = money.
medicineman
New Member
You are obviously an Idiot if you get that from the above post. I wonder why the mods can't keep you out of here? Seems like they need to get a hacker to burn down your computer. Even an idiot knows when they are not wanted. You must really be a scary guy, like a serial killer or something. Another dude to put on my face to face list. At least you sometimes post something worth reading, although very seldom.
ccodiane
New Member
Global warming = 30 years of information
Global cooling = 1 year of information
Age of the Earth = 4 billion years?
4,000,000,000/30 = 7.5 (-09)
4,000,000,000/1 = 2.5 (-10)
Proportionally speaking, a drop in the bucket, no? To think you can glean any useful information about climate change using 30 bits of information out of 4 billion bits of information is ridiculous. Or is that illogical? And...........how many tons of CO2 do termites create in a year? You should look it up.
Global cooling = 1 year of information
Age of the Earth = 4 billion years?
4,000,000,000/30 = 7.5 (-09)
4,000,000,000/1 = 2.5 (-10)
Proportionally speaking, a drop in the bucket, no? To think you can glean any useful information about climate change using 30 bits of information out of 4 billion bits of information is ridiculous. Or is that illogical? And...........how many tons of CO2 do termites create in a year? You should look it up.
towlie
Well-Known Member
Lol. I would defy anyone to find a single instance in which one of my sincere questions was directly answered. If I were to re-post my questions and their corresponding responses it would chronicle a state of dementia that could only be described as creepy. The one thing Ive learned from this debate is how the general populous took merely 1,500 years to be convinced of a round earth after Ptolemaeus first calculated its circumference Ya The scientists are usually a little bit ahead of the curve, but Im sure the antagonists are correct this time.
I entered this debate realizing that not a single person pushing the multitude of conspiracy theories has even the slightest clue as to how science works. So I took the time to bang out a brief scientific history, and asked Dont you agree that science must be conducted under a rigorous method of testing and review. And nobody would respond to it.
Sure When I referenced, what is in my opinion, the single biggest scientific-methodology blunder in recent memory, a person responded with. I dabble in Thermodynamics. So Ya I guess that one got answered directly.
When finally someone piped up and said With all due respect Towlie we dont need a history lesson. And then after asking several more times I got Yes. I admit it. Now quit asking. So how many scientific references did this person have? Any guesses? Anyone?
There has not been a single scientific shred of evidence presented by anyone pushing this debate. Ive seen a multitude of people repeatedly claim to be scientifically-minded but I have yet to see a single person pushing this debate behave like it.
Case in point:
I defy anyone to find a single instance in which anyone pushing the validity of Global Warming has used the above um moronically retarded argument. And yet this dude sincerely believes he is making an argument against it Lol.
It is amazing to me that the people who are clearly the most lacking in scientific education the people coincidentally attempting to debunk GW would have the hubris to openly analyze it.
I think without exception, everyone pushing this conspiracy theory has made absolutely brainless deductions similar to the one above. And correct me if Im wrong but without exception every dimwitted deduction is accompanied with a statement to the affect: Wow. This shit is really complex! How could anyone figure this out. The case in point this time is To think you can glean any useful information about climate change using 30 bits of information our of 4 billion bits of information is ridiculous. Holy shit Im so embarrassed for these people.
Questions the people pushing this debate are refusing to answer:
1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And dont go with tectonic plates. Lets try something relevant.)
2) If youre still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates could you please explain why youre citing references that deceitfully misquote the facts pertaining to them? If youre going deny this will you please address the example I previously gave?
3) Furthermore if youre still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates would you please cite a scientific reference supporting this? (Youre scientifically minded right?)
4) May I see your best scientific study please?
Answer: Do your own goddamn research
5) Youre argument is reduced to saying that the scientists disagree, but when I point out the similarly weighted consensus on UFOs, 6,000 y/o earth, 911 conspiracy, etc. You completely ignore it. Could you please respond?
6) I offered you 4 published and renowned climatological research centers. I said pick one, or pick any one you can find youre a scientifically minded person right??? And lets perform a search and choose the first 3, 5, 7, returns and see what they say.
ViRedd
New Member
1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And dont go with tectonic plates. Lets try something relevant.)
I don't believe there is a "consensus." A consensus implies that the debate is over.
Comments About Global Warming (by John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel)
Vi
I don't believe there is a "consensus." A consensus implies that the debate is over.
Comments About Global Warming (by John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel)
Vi
towlie
Well-Known Member
Dont get side tracked. It was a simple question and deserves a simple answer. Weve already been over the definition of consensus. Perhaps you could look it up in anticipation of your answer?
Also, why is it that no one pushing this rubbish can answer a question directly???
HotNSexyMILF
Well-Known Member
medicineman
New Member
So are you agreeing with me that there is global warming and that Mankind has some culpability in it. Geeze, I wonder why 2/3 of this forum cannot see this and why they think the global warming "conspiricists" are harboring the idea in hopes of making money from it? I think the anti-global warming conspiricists are all right wingnuts, Just my opinion, because the people that will gain by ignoring it, are the corporations and most corporate types are right wingnuts, Deductive logic my dear Watson.Lol. I would defy anyone to find a single instance in which one of my sincere questions was directly answered. If I were to re-post my questions and their corresponding responses it would chronicle a state of dementia that could only be described as creepy. The one thing I’ve learned from this debate is how the general populous took merely 1,500 years to be convinced of a round earth after Ptolemaeus first calculated it’s circumference… Ya’… The scientists are usually a little bit ahead of the curve, but I’m sure the antagonists are correct this time.
I entered this debate realizing that not a single person pushing the multitude of conspiracy theories has even the slightest clue as to how science works. So I took the time to bang out a brief scientific history, and asked “Don’t you agree that science must be conducted under a rigorous method of testing and review.” And nobody would respond to it.
Sure… When I referenced, what is in my opinion, the single biggest scientific-methodology blunder in recent memory, a person responded with. “I dabble in Thermodynamics.” So… Ya’… I guess that one got answered directly.
When finally someone piped up and said “With all due respect Towlie we don’t need a history lesson.” And then after asking several more times I got “Yes. I admit it. Now quit asking.” So how many scientific references did this person have? Any guesses? Anyone?
There has not been a single scientific shred of evidence presented by anyone pushing this debate. I’ve seen a multitude of people repeatedly claim to be “scientifically-minded” but I have yet to see a single person pushing this debate behave like it.
Case in point:
I defy anyone to find a single instance in which anyone pushing the validity of Global Warming has used the above… um… moronically retarded argument. And yet this dude sincerely believes he is making an argument against it… Lol.
It is amazing to me that the people who are clearly the most lacking in scientific education… the people coincidentally attempting to debunk GW… would have the hubris to openly analyze it.
I think without exception, everyone pushing this conspiracy theory has made absolutely brainless deductions similar to the one above. And correct me if I’m wrong but without exception every dimwitted deduction is accompanied with a statement to the affect: “Wow. This shit is really complex! How could anyone figure this out.” The case in point this time is “To think you can glean any useful information about climate change using 30 bits of information our of 4 billion bits of information is ridiculous.” Holy shit… I’m so embarrassed for these people.
Questions the people pushing this debate are refusing to answer:
1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)
2) If you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates could you please explain why you’re citing references that deceitfully misquote the facts pertaining to them? If you’re going deny this will you please address the example I previously gave?
3) Furthermore if you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates… would you please cite a scientific reference supporting this? (You’re scientifically minded right?)
4) May I see your best scientific study please?
Answer: Do your own goddamn research
5) You’re argument is reduced to saying that the scientists disagree, but when I point out the similarly weighted consensus on UFO’s, 6,000 y/o earth, 911 conspiracy, etc. You completely ignore it. Could you please respond?
6) I offered you 4 published and renowned climatological research centers. I said pick one, or pick any one you can find… you’re a scientifically minded person right??? And let’s perform a search and choose the first 3, 5, 7, returns and see what they say.
towlie
Well-Known Member
Uhmm. I had to revise this and tone back my initial response.Two words.. self research.
Have you met my friend google?
My Question to Vi: Do you [Vi] believe the opinions of scientists to be historically more accurate than that of the general populous on matters of science?
MILF’s rejoin: Two words: Self research. Have you met my friend Google?
The suggestion that he look up the word consensus was because he posted a single opinion of a weather man as rebuttal against every scientific study ever published. The suggestion that he look up the third grade reading level word of ‘CONSENSUS’ was no more than pointing out that he was using the term incorrectly… It’d be just peachy that in the future you try to keep up before asking to explain myself.
towlie
Well-Known Member
Holy shit. I just read the referenced article. Why is it that the people pushing this debate completely ignore everything I said when responding to me?
[cut&paste] I entered this debate realizing that not a single person pushing the multitude of conspiracy theories has even the slightest clue as to how science works. So I took the time to bang out a brief scientific history, and asked Dont you agree that science must be conducted under a rigorous method of testing and review. And nobody would respond to it.
[cut&paste] There has not been a single scientific shred of evidence presented by anyone pushing this debate. Ive seen a multitude of people repeatedly claim to be scientifically-minded but I have yet to see a single person pushing this debate behave like it.
So the refute you offer against every peer reviewed scientifically published study conducted by the world renowned global climate research scientists at NASA are the unpublished comments of a San Diego Weatherman whos claim to fame is founding the Weather Channel? Nice one. You really got me there. By now Im not the least bit surprised that with your opening reference you have set the bar so wretchedly low And there we have it. The line of consensus starts with John Coleman Real life weatherman in San Diego Lol
That said. I do appreciate the reference because it clearly proves my assertion that you are pushing a conspiracy theory. These are his words:
Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the research to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
The above statement quite clearly admits there is a scientific consensus and rationalizes a conspiracy theory! Its so true. Throughout history the scientists who reject large sums of easy high pay money posting articles (I.E. opinion. Not science.) paid for hand over fist by large industry (see: petroleum), but rather study the science intimately are the ones in it for the money This is becoming embarrassing.
I also love how he addresses the science:
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
Ahummm Hes read dozens of scientific papers but cant seem to remember any of them. Apparently this repetitive bullshit story happens at all levels of this debate.
[cut&paste] I entered this debate realizing that not a single person pushing the multitude of conspiracy theories has even the slightest clue as to how science works. So I took the time to bang out a brief scientific history, and asked Dont you agree that science must be conducted under a rigorous method of testing and review. And nobody would respond to it.
[cut&paste] There has not been a single scientific shred of evidence presented by anyone pushing this debate. Ive seen a multitude of people repeatedly claim to be scientifically-minded but I have yet to see a single person pushing this debate behave like it.
So the refute you offer against every peer reviewed scientifically published study conducted by the world renowned global climate research scientists at NASA are the unpublished comments of a San Diego Weatherman whos claim to fame is founding the Weather Channel? Nice one. You really got me there. By now Im not the least bit surprised that with your opening reference you have set the bar so wretchedly low And there we have it. The line of consensus starts with John Coleman Real life weatherman in San Diego Lol
That said. I do appreciate the reference because it clearly proves my assertion that you are pushing a conspiracy theory. These are his words:
Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the research to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
The above statement quite clearly admits there is a scientific consensus and rationalizes a conspiracy theory! Its so true. Throughout history the scientists who reject large sums of easy high pay money posting articles (I.E. opinion. Not science.) paid for hand over fist by large industry (see: petroleum), but rather study the science intimately are the ones in it for the money This is becoming embarrassing.
I also love how he addresses the science:
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
Ahummm Hes read dozens of scientific papers but cant seem to remember any of them. Apparently this repetitive bullshit story happens at all levels of this debate.
towlie
Well-Known Member
Jesus! The level of delusion clearly demonstrated on this thread alone required to believe this conspiracy should be proof enough alone. Every global climatological research center is saying that the time is now or quite possibly we're totally fucked, and as a matter of fact it might already be too late... The US Army is claiming Global Warming to be the largest single US security threat & these people address the potential consequences that "The government should help clean up the environment." If I posed as a troll attempting to expose the idiocy in their debate, I would do it exactly as it has played out on this thread.
Questions the people pushing this debate are refusing to answer:
1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this?
2) If youre still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates could you please explain why youre citing references that deceitfully misquote the facts pertaining to them? If youre going deny this will you please address the example I previously gave?
3) Furthermore if youre still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates would you please cite a scientific reference supporting this? (Youre scientifically minded right?)
4) May I see your best scientific study please?Answer: Do your own goddamn research
5) Youre argument is reduced to saying that the scientists disagree, but when I point out the similarly weighted consensus on UFOs, 6,000 y/o earth, 911 conspiracy, etc. You completely ignore it. Could you please respond?
6) I offered you 4 published and renowned climatological research centers. I said pick one, or pick any one you can find youre a scientifically minded person right??? And lets perform a search and choose the first 3, 5, 7, returns and see what they say.
medicineman
New Member
A simple yes or no would have sufficed. You confuse with too much doubletalk. I am not a scientist so I have to go by what I read and see. I can see without any outside influences a trend in extreme weather patterns. Example: Tornados in January. I believe people that disagree with global warming are either mental or have an agenda, as in, they're getting paid.
ViRedd
New Member
Question: Assuming that we really do have a MAN MADE global warming "crisis," what would we have to do, world-wide, on a collective basis, in order to reverse the trend? What would be the impact on living standards, not only for us here in the U.S., and other developed countries, but world-wide? How would we, in the devoloped nations, be sure that Third World countries could/would comply with any regulations and/or costs involved?
Is the only answer world socialism and the death of capitalism?
Vi
Is the only answer world socialism and the death of capitalism?
Vi
medicineman
New Member
Take a course in environmentalism. I don't have all the answers. In fact it may be too late to affect significant change. But for you, buy that Prius and change your light bulbs, that may help.
ViRedd
New Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRedd
Question: Assuming that we really have a MAN MADE global warming "crisis," what would we have to to world-wide on a collective basis to reverse the trend? What would be the impact on the living standard, not only for us here in the U.S. and other developed countries, but world' wide?
Vi
Take a course in environmentalism. I don't have all the answers. In fact it may be too late to affect significant change. But for you, buy that Prius and change your light bulbs, that may help.
Have you ever considered the answers to the questions I posed? How about you other guys? If we are to arrest MAN MADE global warming, if such a thing exists, what would the ramifications be to life as we know it?
Vi
Originally Posted by ViRedd
Question: Assuming that we really have a MAN MADE global warming "crisis," what would we have to to world-wide on a collective basis to reverse the trend? What would be the impact on the living standard, not only for us here in the U.S. and other developed countries, but world' wide?
Vi
Take a course in environmentalism. I don't have all the answers. In fact it may be too late to affect significant change. But for you, buy that Prius and change your light bulbs, that may help.
Have you ever considered the answers to the questions I posed? How about you other guys? If we are to arrest MAN MADE global warming, if such a thing exists, what would the ramifications be to life as we know it?
Vi
medicineman
New Member
Take a course in environmentalism: You may have to move to the Gobi desert and live in a tent. I'm not sure it can be reversed. but by switching places with the worlds poorest people, you may get a feel for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRedd
Question: Assuming that we really have a MAN MADE global warming "crisis," what would we have to to world-wide on a collective basis to reverse the trend? What would be the impact on the living standard, not only for us here in the U.S. and other developed countries, but world' wide?
Vi
Take a course in environmentalism. I don't have all the answers. In fact it may be too late to affect significant change. But for you, buy that Prius and change your light bulbs, that may help.
Have you ever considered the answers to the questions I posed? How about you other guys? If we are to arrest MAN MADE global warming, if such a thing exists, what would the ramifications be to life as we know it?
Vi
ViRedd
New Member
This response is so typical of you, Med. Now, how about making an attempt at answering my questions? I mean, you guys believe in MAN MADE global warming and want to reverse it, right? Surely you folks have contemplated what those changes would mean for all of Mankind, no?
Vi
medicineman
New Member
No..................................................
