Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
12th Man

Global Warm, er, Climate Chan, er, SCIENCE = WRONG!

Recommended Posts

 

Don't scientists mess around with biological warfare? Nazis had scientists working around the clock too.

 

Should we trust those ones?

Probably not, but what percent is that of all scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, it is tough to respond seriously to a post about people distrusting scientists. I apologize and I edited the post. Whether or not MMGW is real people do not get in that field because they are greedy.

 

A quick google search shows the average climatologist makes 89,000 , where as the average drilling engineer makes 125,000 a year depending on the company. Instead of falsifying numbers to make more money they could just as easily switch fields and then the average climatologist would make 30+k more a year.

 

In addition to there being more money, there are historically more job openings. Even now with the low oil prices in West Texas we are having trouble getting enough engineers onsite.

 

climatologist:

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+climentoligist+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=average+climatologist+salary

 

drilling engineer:

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+drilling+engineer+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, it is tough to respond seriously to a post about people distrusting scientists. I apologize and I edited the post. Whether or not MMGW is real people do not get in that field because they are greedy.

 

A quick google search shows the average climatologist makes 89,000 , where as the average drilling engineer makes 125,000 a year depending on the company. Instead of falsifying numbers to make more money they could just as easily switch fields and then the average climatologist would make 30+k more a year.

 

In addition to there being more money, there are historically more job openings. Even now with the low oil prices in West Texas we are having trouble getting enough engineers onsite.

 

climatologist:

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+climentoligist+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=average+climatologist+salary

 

drilling engineer:

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+drilling+engineer+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

cause going from climatologist to drilling engineer is just a common switch? I am going to ask my doctor if he can be my lawyer

 

its not just about salaries its also about grants, and in order to keep those grants coming the have to have someone willing to give them that money for whatever cause

 

and just to put it into an easier correlation you dont think there are conversations similar to that in the pharm business?

 

hows that experimental drug we wanted you to create to solve dislexia

 

oh its going good, I think we are on the right track, we will be starting clinical trials shortly, we need more grant money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

cause going from climatologist to drilling engineer is just a common switch? I am going to ask my doctor if he can be my lawyer

 

its not just about salaries its also about grants, and in order to keep those grants coming the have to have someone willing to give them that money for whatever cause

 

and just to put it into an easier correlation you dont think there are conversations similar to that in the pharm business?

 

hows that experimental drug we wanted you to create to solve dislexia

 

oh its going good, I think we are on the right track, we will be starting clinical trials shortly, we need more grant money

 

You could not switch directly, but you can become a mud engineer and work you way to a drilling engineer. The average salary of mud engineer is lower because it is typically an entry level position and most either go offshore where the average salary is much higher or they are promoted to other positions after 5-10 years. I started as a mud engineer along with biologists, chemists, etc and I was only a mud engineer for a year before getting a new position.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=degree+needed+for+drilling+engineer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=mud+engineer+average+salary

 

To address your second point.

 

That is a problem and will always be a problem, there are crooked people in every industry. That does not mean all science can be distrusted. There are new treatments being discovered all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You could not switch directly, but you can become a mud engineer and work you way to a drilling engineer. The average salary of mud engineer is lower because it is typically an entry level position and most either go offshore where the average salary is much higher or they are promoted to other positions after 5-10 years. I started as a mud engineer along with biologists, chemists, etc and I was only a mud engineer for a year before getting a new position.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=degree+needed+for+drilling+engineer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=mud+engineer+average+salary

 

To address your second point.

 

That is a problem and will always be a problem, there are crooked people in every industry. That does not mean all science can be distrusted. There are new treatments being discovered all the time.

 

ok so you are talking from experience, I like that, I often tell people there are jobs out there in the casino if you start in housekeeping for a year, and move into blackjack you go from 20k a year to 90k a year

 

I just think most climatologists might actually like doing what they do, as far as the 2nd point, I am not saying its about being crooked at all, most of these people truly believe they are onto something or are at least trying

 

the issue is nobody can prove

 

a) whether MMCC is real (a bunch of scientists with theories isnt proof to me)

B) that its the end of the world catastrophic

c) that there is a way to solve this

d) that throwing a bunch of money at it will find a solution

 

3 years ago, nobody would have thought that a country like Germany running on purely green energy, would be a bad thing, but its now being proven to have had a zero positive effect. Electricity costs have skyrocketed 35%, they have no way of storing it, and the latest (CO2 is bad theory) Germany's CO2 levels have increased more than the US over that time framem meanwhile, fossil fuel energy continues to become cleaner and cleaner each year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ok so you are talking from experience, I like that, I often tell people there are jobs out there in the casino if you start in housekeeping for a year, and move into blackjack you go from 20k a year to 90k a year

 

I just think most climatologists might actually like doing what they do, as far as the 2nd point, I am not saying its about being crooked at all, most of these people truly believe they are onto something or are at least trying

 

the issue is nobody can prove

 

a) whether MMCC is real (a bunch of scientists with theories isnt proof to me)

B) that its the end of the world catastrophic

c) that there is a way to solve this

d) that throwing a bunch of money at it will find a solution

 

3 years ago, nobody would have thought that a country like Germany running on purely green energy, would be a bad thing, but its now being proven to have had a zero positive effect. Electricity costs have skyrocketed 35%, they have no way of storing it, and the latest (CO2 is bad theory) Germany's CO2 levels have increased more than the US over that time framem meanwhile, fossil fuel energy continues to become cleaner and cleaner each year

 

a. Easiest way to explain is that CO2 reacts to infrared wavelength radiation in the same way that water reacts to micro wavelength radiation. You can measure what types of radiation different molecules absorb in a lab, it is not a theory that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, the theories come in about what CO2 does with that energy that it absorbs.

b. I am with you, I do not think it is a big deal

c. nuclear power

d. nuclear power

 

 

My concern about carbon dioxide isn't even related to global warming, as an offshore fisherman it is related to the acidification of the ocean. Nobody else cares about this as it does not seem to get any headlines. Maybe it is not a big deal.

 

This is an equilibrium reaction, which means that the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean the more carbonic acid is formed.

C02+H2O <-> H2CO3

 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 



Sorry, it is tough to respond seriously to a post about people distrusting scientists. I apologize and I edited the post. Whether or not MMGW is real people do not get in that field because they are greedy.

A quick google search shows the average climatologist makes 89,000 , where as the average drilling engineer makes 125,000 a year depending on the company. Instead of falsifying numbers to make more money they could just as easily switch fields and then the average climatologist would make 30+k more a year.

In addition to there being more money, there are historically more job openings. Even now with the low oil prices in West Texas we are having trouble getting enough engineers onsite.

climatologist:
https://www.google.com/search?q=average+climentoligist+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=average+climatologist+salary

drilling engineer:
https://www.google.com/search?q=average+drilling+engineer+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


So there's more motivation for climatologist to keep the myth going? :wave:

A drilling engineer is going to eat either way. The climatologist can go be a weatherman if he can find the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

a. Easiest way to explain is that CO2 reacts to infrared wavelength radiation in the same way that water reacts to micro wavelength radiation. You can measure what types of radiation different molecules absorb in a lab, it is not a theory that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, the theories come in about what CO2 does with that energy that it absorbs.

b. I am with you, I do not think it is a big deal

c. nuclear power

d. nuclear power

 

 

My concern about carbon dioxide isn't even related to global warming, as an offshore fisherman it is related to the acidification of the ocean. Nobody else cares about this as it does not seem to get any headlines. Maybe it is not a big deal.

 

This is an equilibrium reaction, which means that the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean the more carbonic acid is formed.

C02+H2O <-> H2CO3

 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/

 

if you read thru from the start I said nuclear is the best option, problem is the same people pushing climate change, will fight against the fallacy of nuclear energy being bad

 

CO2 creates more plant life and more food as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, it is tough to respond seriously to a post about people distrusting scientists. I apologize and I edited the post. Whether or not MMGW is real people do not get in that field because they are greedy.

 

 

I believe you are correct that most people don't enter the field of studying climate change because of greed or money. Why do you think they do then? I have my theory, but I'd like to hear yours first. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe you are correct that most people don't enter the field of studying climate change because of greed or money. Why do you think they do then? I have my theory, but I'd like to hear yours first. :cheers:

 

I am a son of a mining engineer, the grandson of a petroleum engineer, the brother of a mining engineer, the husband of a chemical engineer, and the son in law of a civil engineer.

 

Most people's careers run in their family. Isn't your wife an engineer as well? What did your parents do?

 

I would assume that most climatologists had parents that were weathermen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am a son of a mining engineer, the grandson of a petroleum engineer, the brother of a mining engineer, the husband of a chemical engineer, and the son in law of a civil engineer.

 

Most people's careers run in their family. Isn't your wife an engineer as well? What did your parents do?

 

I would assume that most climatologists had parents that were weathermen.

 

impressive

 

my dad worked in water treatment, my mom grew weed, I am a blackjack dealer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am a son of a mining engineer, the grandson of a petroleum engineer, the brother of a mining engineer, the husband of a chemical engineer, and the son in law of a civil engineer.

 

Most people's careers run in their family. Isn't your wife an engineer as well? What did your parents do?

 

I would assume that most climatologists had parents that were weathermen.

 

My dad was a foreman in a shoe factory, and my mom was a secretary. I'm the first in my family to go to college. But your point is valid, in that my brother, wife, and wife's brother are all engineers, and my first two kids or on that path. But the type varies (electrical, materials, mechanical). Your point was that money-driven engineers/scientists would seek out other, more lucrative fields.

 

My contention is: they enter it because it is a religion. MIT for instance has an Office of Sustainability. https://sustainability.mit.edu/about

 

Do you think people enter that area wanting to do objective research which may disprove MMCC? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My dad was a foreman in a shoe factory, and my mom was a secretary. I'm the first in my family to go to college. But your point is valid, in that my brother, wife, and wife's brother are all engineers, and my first two kids or on that path. But the type varies (electrical, materials, mechanical). Your point was that money-driven engineers/scientists would seek out other, more lucrative fields.

 

My contention is: they enter it because it is a religion. MIT for instance has an Office of Sustainability. https://sustainability.mit.edu/about

 

Do you think people enter that area wanting to do objective research which may disprove MMCC? :dunno:

I think there are are climatologists that do objective research and I do believe there climatologists that only do research that would further the mmgw agenda. Same as in any other field of study.

 

I think that most climatologists get into the field because they want to study weather patterns. I do not think that most climatologists would work with mmgw and would instead focus on other areas of research, drought patterns, hurricanes, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are are climatologists that do objective research and I do believe there climatologists that only do research that would further the mmgw agenda. Same as in any other field of study.

 

I think that most climatologists get into the field because they want to study weather patterns. I do not think that most climatologists would work with mmgw and would instead focus on other areas of research, drought patterns, hurricanes, etc.

 

To be fair, when we say "climatologists" in the context of this discussion, we are talking about those focused on MMGW, not other areas. And while I agree that there are "un-objective" scientists in all fields, the level of "unobjectivity" is nowhere near the same. People don't enter any other scientific field I can think of to further a single premise like they do MMCC. Maybe life on other planets? Even then I can see people motivated on both sides. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem rational did you you watch the Rogan Carlson video. I would like another opinion on it

I guess I am not too concerned whether global warming is real or not. The benefit of increased solar panel efficiency, cars with better gas mileage, better batteries, less pollution are good. Even without global warming I like the direction that less co2 output takes us.

 

I am also not worried if the issue is tackled quickly, because I am not too concerned about any possible effects of global warming.

 

The only reason I posted in this thread was to defend scientists, not discuss global warming.

 

 

It was a long post, but that is why I will not watch that video, I do not watch or read pro global warming articles either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I am not too concerned whether global warming is real or not. The benefit of increased solar panel efficiency, cars with better gas mileage, better batteries, less pollution are good. Even without global warming I like the direction that less co2 output takes us.

I am also not worried if the issue is tackled quickly, because I am not too concerned about any possible effects of global warming.

The only reason I posted in this thread was to defend scientists, not discuss global warming.

It was a long post, but that is why I will not watch that video, I do not watch or read pro global warming articles either.

We were going there long before the MMGW people showed up. The MMGW people are just there to siphon funds that were meant to help this cause. Ironic isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were going there long before the MMGW people showed up. The MMGW people are just there to siphon funds that were meant to help this cause. Ironic isn't it.

At least you are using the appropriate acronym with MMGW.

Nobody denies climate change, right?

 

Also, I have always enjoyed Skibums comments on these types of subjects. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a son of a mining engineer, the grandson of a petroleum engineer, the brother of a mining engineer, the husband of a chemical engineer, and the son in law of a civil engineer.

 

Most people's careers run in their family. Isn't your wife an engineer as well? What did your parents do?

 

I would assume that most climatologists had parents that were weathermen.

Nobody in my or my wife's family is a physician :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

 

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

 

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

 

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

 

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

 

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

 

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

 

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

 

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

 

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

 

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

 

Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”

 

The new study will be included in petitions by conservative groups to the EPA to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which gave the agency its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

 

Sam Kazman, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said the study added an “important new piece of evidence to this debate” over whether to reopen the endangerment finding. CEI petitioned EPA to reopen the endangerment finding in February.

 

“I think this adds a very strong new element to it,” Kazman told TheDCNF. “It’s enough reason to open things formally and open public comment on the charges we make.”

 

Since President Donald Trump ordered EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan, there’s been speculation the administration would reopen the endangerment finding to new scrutiny.

 

The Obama-era document used three lines of evidence to claim such emissions from vehicles “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

 

D’Aleo and Wallace filed a petition with EPA on behalf of their group, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC). They relied on past their past research, which found one of EPA’s lines of evidence “simply does not exist in the real world.”

 

Their 2016 study “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”

 

“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered.

 

Pruitt’s largely been silent on whether or not he would reopen the endangerment finding, but the administrator did say he was spearheading a red team exercise to tackle climate science.

 

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry also came out in favor of red-blue team exercises, which are used by the military and intelligence agencies to expose any vulnerabilities to systems or strategies.

 

Environmental activists and climate scientists largely panned the idea, with some even arguing it would be “dangerous” to elevate minority scientific opinions.

 

“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientist Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.

 

“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

 

“Frankly, I think you could do a red-blue team exercise as part of reviewing the endangerment finding,” Kazman said.

 

Though Kazman did warn a red team exercise could be a double-edged sword if not done correctly. He worries some scientists not supportive of the idea could undermine the process from the inside and use it to grandstand.

Link to Study Paper

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Hawking is just a meatbag puppet, with Al Gore controlling his speaker box.

 

:lock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This global warming movement is cooling off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brand-new US Navy warship trapped in Canada amid cold and ice

 

A brand-new U.S. Navy warship has not moved from Montreal since Christmas Eve and will spend the winter stuck in Canada due to cold and ice.

 

The USS Little Rock – unveiled in a ceremony on Dec. 16 in Buffalo, New York and attended by nearly 9,000 people – has not moved far since due to adverse weather conditions that kept the warship trapped at bay in Canada, the Toronto Star reported

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/22/brand-new-us-navy-warship-trapped-in-canada-amid-cold-and-ice.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, it is tough to respond seriously to a post about people distrusting scientists. I apologize and I edited the post. Whether or not MMGW is real people do not get in that field because they are greedy.

 

A quick google search shows the average climatologist makes 89,000 , where as the average drilling engineer makes 125,000 a year depending on the company. Instead of falsifying numbers to make more money they could just as easily switch fields and then the average climatologist would make 30+k more a year.

 

In addition to there being more money, there are historically more job openings. Even now with the low oil prices in West Texas we are having trouble getting enough engineers onsite.

 

climatologist:

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+climentoligist+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=average+climatologist+salary

 

drilling engineer:

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+drilling+engineer+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Wut?

 

You're claiming that you can tell if someone is honest by looking at the money they make?

 

Ayuh. That would explain all those corrupt cops.

 

:lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you dont understand something, doesnt mean it isnt true.

 

And just because someone whose livelihood depends on there being a crisis claims something, doesn't make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you dont understand something, doesnt mean it isnt true.

Yes, it is sad people don’t understand that the entire MMGW theory is based on doctored information and human assumptions. It is nothing more than a money grab. It is sad people dont understand that the earths climate has been changing for over 3 billion years and has been much warmer than it is today quite often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is sad people don’t understand that the entire MMGW theory is based on doctored information and human assumptions. It is nothing more than a money grab. It is sad people dont understand that the earths climate has been changing for over 3 billion years and has been much warmer than it is today quite often.

 

I'm going to say it's more sad that most of you don't seem to understand basic principles of science. For instance, when water gets hot, it causes this thing called evaporation. Then as it cools back down, these little water molecules form into bigger drops of water, and cause this thing called precipitation. This could be in the form of rain, snow, hail, etc. etc. Furthermore, the earth has this giant circulation of wind. It causes things like the gulf stream, high and low pressures, etc. When you have massive glaciers melting in the Arctic, obviously that is going to impact the weather across the rest of the planet. When a summer is abnormally hot, it will generally lead to a harsher winter.

 

Now, I'm not going to sit here and claim that global warming is the biggest threat to humanity, and obviously science is ever evolving. But, I'm going to trust the words of an overwhelming majority of scientists over a politician being bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry, when it comes to things relating to science. Just like I'd trust a brain surgeon over a starbucks barista if I need an operation. By the same token, when I read posts from retards asking where global warming is, when they're getting snowed on, I'm going to have to assume they don't understand VERY basic principles of how the climate works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to say it's more sad that most of you don't seem to understand basic principles of science. For instance, when water gets hot, it causes this thing called evaporation. Then as it cools back down, these little water molecules form into bigger drops of water, and cause this thing called precipitation. This could be in the form of rain, snow, hail, etc. etc. Furthermore, the earth has this giant circulation of wind. It causes things like the gulf stream, high and low pressures, etc.

Point out which person in this forearm doesn't understand this, and then explain why you felt you needed to tell us.

 

When you have massive glaciers melting in the Arctic, obviously that is going to impact the weather across the rest of the planet. When a summer is abnormally hot, it will generally lead to a harsher winter.

And? These things are cyclical. You're still not delving into the real points of contention wrt to AGW.

 

Now, I'm not going to sit here and claim that global warming is the biggest threat to humanity, and obviously science is ever evolving.

Oh, it's 'evolving' alright. It's 'evolving' nearly exactly as the FBI has evolved. It's 'evolved' to a weaponized political entity.

 

But, I'm going to trust the words of a scientist over a politician, when it comes to things relating to science.

No, you don't get to make it so simplistic, as plenty of scientists occupy both sides of these AGW debates. You trust the words of scientists who you believe are credible, and only them. You are part of the group which attempts to characterize and marginalize those scientists who do not comply. You are part of the 'science via consensus' cadre.

 

That cadre has developed for one reason only: when you inject political bias into science, you cease to obey scientific principle, and have to subjugate them, instead, to 'ruling by majority' - while remaining blissfully ignorantly obtuse to the fact that the only way such a thing can possibly happen is by drawing conclusions using something OTHER than the Scientific Method.

 

Hence the "the debate is over" crowd.

 

Just like I'd trust a brain surgeon over a starbucks barista if I need an operation.

You have truly bought the Kool-Aid. There are plenty of brain surgeons who absolutely disagree with your brain surgeons.

 

By the same token, when I read posts from retards asking where global warming is, when they're getting snowed on, I'm going to have to assume they don't understand VERY basic principles of how the climate works.

That you haven't explained in your silly screed in any way, shape or form.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point out which person in this forearm doesn't understand this, and then explain why you felt you needed to tell us.

 

 

And? These things are cyclical. You're still not delving into the real points of contention wrt to AGW.

 

 

Oh, it's 'evolving' alright. It's 'evolving' nearly exactly as the FBI has evolved. It's 'evolved' to a weaponized political entity.

 

 

No, you don't get to make it so simplistic, as plenty of scientists occupy both sides of these AGW debates. You trust the words of scientists who you believe are credible, and only them. You are part of the group which attempts to characterize and marginalize those scientists who do not comply. You are part of the 'science via consensus' cadre.

 

That cadre has developed for one reason only: when you inject political bias into science, you cease to obey scientific principle, and have to subjugate them, instead, to 'ruling by majority' - while remaining blissfully ignorantly obtuse to the fact that the only way such a thing can possibly happen is by drawing conclusions using something OTHER than the Scientific Method.

 

Hence the "the debate is over" crowd.

 

 

You have truly bought the Kool-Aid. There are plenty of brain surgeons who absolutely disagree with your brain surgeons.

 

 

That you haven't explained in your silly screed in any way, shape or form.

 

I think you have me confused with someone that would waste a minute of my time debating with an azzhole like you. You lost that privilege when you personally attacked me and my family. Die in a puddle of aids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×