The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Issues of a more global nature: National Politics, etc.
Forum rules
Please Click Here To View Rules ---- To contact the administrator please email admin@southshoreforums.com
User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Bridges » Jul Fri 08, 2016 7:42 am

HokieAl wrote:Mercury has no atmosphere. Same reason the moon is hot as hell in the sun and cold as hell in the dark.
Gee - you seem to know an awful lot, for someone with about zero background in science, and who is wrong so often.

Yes, the thickness of the atmosphere is a factor. But it is NOT the only factor.

Let's see what knowledgeable experts have to say on the subject. We already know what Carl Sagan said decades ago (and he agreed with ME, not you).
So let's see what others say:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+is+Venus+hotte ... Mercury%3F

NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... st20feb_1/
NASA wrote:Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation beneath Venus's thick cloud cover. A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!
As for earth:

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci10 ... /venus.htm
Univ AZ wrote:Can we "prove" that the greenhouse effect is important in determining the temperature?

Image

These records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over time are based on studying the gases trapped deep in the Antarctic ice, brought up by drilling "ice cores." The plot indicates that carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has correlated very closely with temperature changes over this period buttonbook.jpg (10323 bytes). This is strong evidence that the CO2 greenhouse effect has a significant influence on temperature on the earth.
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12272
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by specialties » Jul Fri 08, 2016 4:57 pm

Geez, 400,000 years before the model 'T' even...

I think the Piltdown man started it...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Fri 08, 2016 5:15 pm

Bridges wrote:
Yes, the thickness of the atmosphere is a factor. But it is NOT the only factor.
Right. Another is that Venus' atmosphere is like being in a submarine 3000 feet down. Submarines can't go that deep and would be crushed.

So making your comparison like that is ridiculous since you can't compare Earth with Venus based on the atmosphere.

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Bridges » Jul Fri 08, 2016 6:15 pm

I am telling what NASA says. I am telling you what Carl Sagan said.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagan ... 1481304135
Carl Sagan 1980 wrote:Like Venus, the Earth also has a greenhouse effect due to its carbon dioxide and water vapor. The global temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water if not for the greenhouse effect. It keeps the oceans liquid and life possible. A little greenhouse is a good thing. Like Venus, the Earth also has about 90 atmospheres of carbon dioxide; but it resides in the crust as limestone and other carbonates, not in the atmosphere. If the Earth were moved only a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would increase slightly. This would drive some of the CO2 out of the surface rocks, generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which would in turn incrementally heat the surface further. A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates into CO2, and there would be the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect to very high temperatures. This is just what we think happened in the early history of Venus, because of Venus' proximity to the Sun. The surface environment of Venus is a warning: something disastrous can happen to a planet rather like our own.
Be careful when you quote people on a subject, and they in fact disagree with you. It makes you sound like an idiot...
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Fri 08, 2016 7:08 pm

Sounding and being are two different things. You fall into the latter category.

I quoted him in general. His quote was something to live by in general. Don't accept everything you read blindly.

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Bridges » Jul Fri 08, 2016 9:23 pm

HokieAl wrote:Sounding and being are two different things. You fall into the latter category.

I quoted him in general. His quote was something to live by in general. Don't accept everything you read blindly.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." -- Carl Sagan
Yet he CLEARLY believed in the perils of climate change - even way back in 1980! Went on and on about it.

So how do you reconcile the fact? Are you saying that his quote (which you cited) is worthless, as he himself was taken? Seems highly unlikely.
And now you are trying to claim that the thousands of climate scientists, and EVERY leading scientific organization, in countries all around the world, are ALL full of charlatans? :shock: Preposterous!

It's pretty simple.

Image

Image

Image

The correlation between CO2 and observed warming is striking.

Always been that way:

Image

As it is on Venus...
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Sat 09, 2016 2:18 pm

Bridges wrote:
The correlation between CO2 and observed warming is striking.

Always been that way:
Correlation, and that's it. No causation. You seem to consider yourself a scientist, and then you cite something like that. Dishonest garbage.

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13957
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by MCasper » Jul Sun 10, 2016 10:26 am

What the data says ...

Image

What the "climate Scientists" say ...

Image
Image

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4651
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Joseph » Jul Sun 10, 2016 4:25 pm

Some data and derived temp information shows that we are simply in the third of a cyclical warm-up since the year "0":

Image
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12272
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by specialties » Jul Sun 10, 2016 4:34 pm

That's a BUY on the Vinland property!!
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4651
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Joseph » Jul Sun 10, 2016 10:46 pm

specialties wrote:That's a BUY on the Vinland property!!
And you'll have about 300 years to enjoy before unloading it.
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Fri 15, 2016 4:33 pm

Bridges wrote: The correlation between CO2 and observed warming is striking.
most scientists have a rudimentary understanding of statistics, typically obtained from a few undergraduate courses in statistics taken en route to a scientific career, yet statistics underpins the critical determination of "statistical significance" of scientific data and the validity of scientific conclusions. Most scientists do not consult statisticians to validate and confirm their statistical conclusions, which enviably leads to false assumptions and conclusions based upon such simplistic analyses
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2016/ ... s-are.html

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Fri 15, 2016 4:37 pm

Bridges wrote: And now you are trying to claim that the thousands of climate scientists, and EVERY leading scientific organization, in countries all around the world, are ALL full of charlatans?
I wonder what it's up to now.
No warming in 18 years, no category 3-5 hurricane hitting the USA in ten years, seas rising at barely six inches a century: computer models and hysteria are consistently contradicted by Real World experiences.
So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defense Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity?
The answer is simple. The annual revenue of the Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! That’s equal to the annual economic activity generated by the entire US nonprofit sector, or all savings over the past ten years from consumers switching to generic drugs. By comparison, revenue for the much-vilified Koch Industries are about $115 billion, for ExxonMobil around $365 billion.
http://www.cfact.org/2015/08/22/climate ... -industry/

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9787
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by JIMD » Jul Thu 21, 2016 12:25 pm

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/21/stu ... ong-cells/

This has nothing to do with global warming but it has everything to do with science.

Loaded with goofballs
Good Dog

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9787
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by JIMD » Jul Thu 21, 2016 12:43 pm

https://pjmedia.com/blog/senate-dems-ge ... nge-event/

It'a amazing people like Markey and Feinstein get elected
Good Dog

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Mon 25, 2016 2:56 pm

This video is pretty good. It's long but lots of good info.

Bridges says the guy is a quack.

Doesn't sound like a quack to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Bridges » Jul Mon 25, 2016 7:36 pm

HokieAl wrote:This video is pretty good. It's long but lots of good info.

Bridges says the guy is a quack.

Doesn't sound like a quack to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
=)) That's because you have about much knowledge and training in climate science, as Steve Goddard (the pseudonym of Tony Heller)...in other words, you are both about as knowledgeable as Joe the Plumber.

Note that real scientists do NOT feel the need to use pseudonyms. And they publish in respected, peer-reviewed journals, not right-wing websites.

Now, lets talk about Goddards / Heller's credentials...Well...he has none.

http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/p/who ... ddard.html
So what are his qualifications to post on climate issues? Who has/does he work for? How credible should he be taken?

According to a question asked in one of his own postings Mr Goddard says;
“I have a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Masters In Electrical Engineering”
So academically he is about as qualified as myself and about as qualified as my cat to post his own analysis’s climate change.
=))

He has been proven wrong (and even been forced to admit) a number of times:
One of his pieces posted on Friday 15th August 2008 called ‘ “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered: There’s something rotten north of Denmark” he attacked the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

But after being contacted by Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC he was forced to issue a retraction;

Steven Goddard writes: “Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid…. It is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year – just as NSIDC had stated.”
Brilliant! =))

Goddard is so bad, that even other clueless, unqualified skeptic nutcases like Anthony Watts (of the infamous Watts up with That site) want nothing to do with him:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/24 ... lob/199871
Mediamatters.org wrote:Fox News is reviving accusations that NASA's peer-reviewed adjustments to temperature data are an attempt to "fak[e]" global warming, a claim that even a climate "skeptic" threw cold water on.

Tony Heller, a birther who criticizes climate science under the pseudonym "Steven Goddard," wrote a blog post that claimed "NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934." After the Drudge Report promoted a report of this allegation by the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph, conservative media from Breitbart to The Washington Times claimed the data was "fabricated" or "faked." On June 24, Fox & Friends picked it up, claiming that "the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s" but scientists had "faked the numbers":

However, the libertarian magazine Reason noted that even climate "skeptic" blogger Anthony Watts said that Goddard made "major errors in his analysis" and criticized the implication that "numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way."
Man, when Anthony Watts is bashing you, you KNOW you are bad... =))
Fox News has tried to scandalize needed adjustments to temperature data since at least 2007, but it's hard to see who would trust Fox News over NASA.
Oh, well, apparently JIMD is stupid enough to trust Fox News over NASA (until recently, run by serial molester Roger Ailes). :shock:
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Mon 25, 2016 8:44 pm

If we took a survey, I'm going to guess the result would be he's orders of magnitude smarter than the climate quacks.

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Wed 27, 2016 8:37 am

Obama Attendance at Paris Climate Change Conference Cost Taxpayers $4,165,068.40
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... 976296-20/

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Bridges » Jul Wed 27, 2016 8:09 pm

HokieAl wrote:
Obama Attendance at Paris Climate Change Conference Cost Taxpayers $4,165,068.40
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... 976296-20/
Of course, there's always another side to stories like this, and that's something you would never care to dig into.

1) This was shortly after the massive, deadly Paris attacks that killed something like 130 people. Obama thought going forward with visit would be a good way to say "In your face" to ISIS - we are going ahead with our planned business as usual, and will not be scared off. An act of defiance after ISIS terror attack.

If President Trump had visited Paris after a huge attack for some reason, you'd be praising him to high heaven, and you know it. :roll:

2) The Paris accord was critically important - the most meaningful climate accord ever reached. It was quite fitting he attend, to show that the US takes this seriously (even if the stupid GOP does not. Scientists take it seriously, and most of the rest of the world takes it seriously).

Of course, the bigger question is, why the *##*@*@ are you posting this?

Let's suppose for the sake of argument, that you folks are right - IN SPADES.

Suppose that :

1) The trip was a complete boondoggle.

2) The trip actually cost $4 Billion, instead of 4 million.

The question is: WOULD THOSE FACTS HAVE THE SLIGHTEST BEARING ON THE SCIENTIFIC REALITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE?

Of course, the answer is "NO, NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM". Only a complete #*##*@* moron would make such an assertion.

Suppose he had attended a conference that was studying gravity, and the trip cost the same amount.
Would the cost of the trip have any bearing on the theory of gravity? :shock:

Scientists KNOW, FOR A FACT, that climate change is real.

They can reproduce it via simple lab experiments.

They have planetary models (Venus).

There is a MASSIVE amount of evidence.

The cost of Obama's trip, or the size of Al Gore's house, or any variety of similar crap trotted out by the GOP over and over, is NOT science. It has NOTHING to do with science. It does not change the scientific reality in any way.

Here - read this NASA page on evidence for climate change:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Maybe you'll learn something (though I sincerely doubt it). :roll:
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13957
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by MCasper » Jul Wed 27, 2016 10:18 pm

Bridges wrote:
HokieAl wrote:
Obama Attendance at Paris Climate Change Conference Cost Taxpayers $4,165,068.40
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... 976296-20/
Of course, there's always another side to stories like this, and that's something you would never care to dig into.

1) This was shortly after the massive, deadly Paris attacks that killed something like 130 people. Obama thought going forward with visit would be a good way to say "In your face" to ISIS - we are going ahead with our planned business as usual, and will not be scared off. An act of defiance after ISIS terror attack.

If President Trump had visited Paris after a huge attack for some reason, you'd be praising him to high heaven, and you know it. :roll:
A non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument with a conclusion that does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false (because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion), but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true, and is thus fallacious.
Image

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Wed 27, 2016 10:50 pm

Bridges. Logic.

There's another non sequitur.

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Bridges » Jul Thu 28, 2016 5:34 am

And you completely ignored my main point that a politician attending a meeting (or the meeting itself, for that matter) has ZERO bearing on the scientific reality being discussed at that meeting.

What, you don't feeling like talking about that scientific reality in the midst of a massive heatwave that's enveloped the ENTIRE country?

And scientists are predicting above average temps for the next 3 months, over the ENTIRE country. NEVER happened before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... h-row.html
UK Daily Mai wrote:January to June was Earth's hottest half-year on record - as global temperature records are broken for 14th month in a row

Last month was the hottest June in modern history
Each of first six months of 2016 set a record as the warmest month globally
Nasa says two key climate change indicators - global surface temperatures and Arctic sea ice extent - have also broken numerous records
If things are normal, or this is part of some natural cycle, then you don't keep smashing records day after day, month after month.

It is clearly NOT natural. CO2 is higher than it's ever been, and temps have followed suit.
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9787
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by JIMD » Jul Thu 28, 2016 7:17 am

You're running the AC all week, so you are contributing to global warming just like the rest of us on the forum, you're no different as for as your CO2 footprint is.
Good Dog

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Bridges » Jul Thu 28, 2016 7:21 am

We've had this discussion, dolt.
I could be the world's biggest polluter...the world's biggest hypocrite.

Does not change the scientific reality at all, does it.
How does hypocrisy (or lack thereof) affect the science?

Are you so freakin' stupid, that you cannot grasp this?! :shock:
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9787
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by JIMD » Jul Thu 28, 2016 7:25 am

so what's your complaint?
Good Dog

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Thu 28, 2016 8:46 am

Bridges wrote: And scientists are predicting above average temps for the next 3 months, over the ENTIRE country.
And they'll manipulate the data to show that I'm sure. A self fulfilling prophecy.

UK Daily Mai wrote:January to June was Earth's hottest half-year on record
Another lie repeated by the hoodwinked.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12272
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by specialties » Jul Thu 28, 2016 9:06 am

Bernie, john effen, bama, et all agree, what a revolting developing this is!!! Gotta scare the kids while they steal the cheese...

The surface temperature average from about 1860 has risen 3/4 of one degree and the latest ice age is still in recession...
Will we adapt??

So what is the problem??
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3120
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by HokieAl » Jul Thu 28, 2016 9:12 am

And John Kerry equates ISIS and air conditioners.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12272
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by specialties » Jul Thu 28, 2016 10:28 am

:lol: TNX, I needed that!!!

All seriousness asside, where is bridge troll when we need the straight skinny??

Global stupidity is more like it... Go bernie!! new world order of stupid... ( read history )

And guess where PC came from, a pleasant bit of yesterday...

YES, herr bridge troll, your grand grand pappy made US go to government school if we had any questions concerning deviation of self thought vs. the 'state'...
( or chatter gums bridgey ) Are you self hating??

Pluck you, get weighed, and see ya later!!! Go sit on a Trump stick!!!

( meryl almost went orgasmic on the telly the other nite )
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9787
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by JIMD » Jul Thu 28, 2016 6:39 pm

Bridges, millions and millions of people just like you are very concerned about global warming and the possible catastrophes that are forecast.

Those millions and millions of people run the AC to keep cool in the heat. They consider global warming a threat but continue to cool the houses they live in. It makes absolutely no sense to me, when you see a real problem and are passionate about global warming and still use hydrocarbon fuels like everyone else.

Even if the science is correct and global warming is real, liberals continue to pollute just like everyone else. You could turn off the AC today and stop contributing to global warming. All the liberals could turn off the AC and make a difference.
Good Dog

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9787
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by JIMD » Aug Tue 09, 2016 12:28 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/ ... ing-ahead/


Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.

Why?
Good Dog

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12272
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by specialties » Aug Thu 11, 2016 11:59 am

Hot summer, eh, bridgy boy??... ( how about looping it in to the 'climate' for your unknown advantage ) ?? :neutral:

You outta get on to yourself, just a heads up...
Think you may have to take the recoil over all this soros/albore/bama/cellery foolishness??
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4651
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Joseph » Aug Tue 30, 2016 1:48 pm

Maura...Maura...Maura. What the hell are you doing, now?

Remember this?

"Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”

The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent.
"

....


"The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory."

http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-de ... believers/
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 940
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Vlad_Rap » Aug Tue 30, 2016 5:41 pm

"Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”
So the heads of these companies are not entitled to their opinions as guaranteed under the 1st amendment? These moonbat Attorney Generals , including our own Maura Healey, really have no use for The Constitution at all.

This Schneiderman guy is a lawyer. He's not even a hand picked climate scientist. Who is he to dictate what people believe?

I'll bet anything none of these bat AGs care much for the 2nd amendment either

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Bridges » Sep Mon 05, 2016 8:23 pm

Vlad_Rap wrote:
"Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”
So the heads of these companies are not entitled to their opinions as guaranteed under the 1st amendment? These moonbat Attorney Generals , including our own Maura Healey, really have no use for The Constitution at all.

This Schneiderman guy is a lawyer. He's not even a hand picked climate scientist. Who is he to dictate what people believe?

I'll bet anything none of these bat AGs care much for the 2nd amendment either
Since when do we allow companies to lie about the safety or efficacy of their products?

Answer - we don't. And we have not allowed that for decades.

We don't allow tobacco companies to argue that their products are safe. I am sure there are some in the industry that would make that claim. And in fact, there are even some "scientists" (and I use the term loosely), who have fairly recently argued that there is no link between smoking and lung diseases. Now - these are CLEARLY biased scientists - taking money from the industry. Which is not surprising - since some of these scientists I am talking about, are the very same scientists that you are citing as global warming skeptics.

They take money from tobacco, they take money from big oil. They don't care - they take the money, then they lie about the science.

For example, Fred Singer is one of these clowns you have cited a number of times. He has tried to argue that 2nd hand smoke is not harmful.
The govt. says no tobacco company can make that claim. Has nothing to do with Constitutional rights - has everything to do with science.
(Note - Fred Singer is also prominent global warming skeptic).

It's called consumer protection. Companies are not allowed to lie about safety or efficacy of their products. And that includes harmful effects to the environment. I think you will find SCOTUS has no problem with the constitutionality of consumer protection laws - they've upheld them time and time again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12272
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by specialties » Sep Sat 10, 2016 12:40 pm

First he throws away his birth right, then adopts global warming as his 'religion' rather than face pure evil...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Bridges » Sep Sat 10, 2016 1:15 pm

What are you talking about? I face you all the time...
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12272
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by specialties » Sep Sat 10, 2016 6:15 pm

Brilliant, get well...

Not to worry, mushy paid it all...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 940
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: The "Global Warming" Debates-a.k.a. "Arguing with Idiots"

Post by Vlad_Rap » Sep Mon 12, 2016 10:51 am

Fun With Definitions
Since when do we allow companies to lie about the safety or efficacy of their products?

Answer - we don't. And we have not allowed that for decades.

We don't allow tobacco companies to argue that their products are safe. I am sure there are some in the industry that would make that claim. And in fact, there are even some "scientists" (and I use the term loosely), who have fairly recently argued that there is no link between smoking and lung diseases. Now - these are CLEARLY biased scientists - taking money from the industry. Which is not surprising - since some of these scientists I am talking about, are the very same scientists that you are citing as global warming skeptics.

They take money from tobacco, they take money from big oil. They don't care - they take the money, then they lie about the science.

For example, Fred Singer is one of these clowns you have cited a number of times. He has tried to argue that 2nd hand smoke is not harmful.
The govt. says no tobacco company can make that claim. Has nothing to do with Constitutional rights - has everything to do with science.
(Note - Fred Singer is also prominent global warming skeptic).

It's called consumer protection. Companies are not allowed to lie about safety or efficacy of their products. And that includes harmful effects to the environment. I think you will find SCOTUS has no problem with the constitutionality of consumer protection laws - they've upheld them time and time again.
conceit
[kuh n-seet]
noun
1.
an excessively favorable opinion of one's own ability, importance, wit, etc.
2.
something that is conceived in the mind; a thought; idea:
He jotted down the conceits of his idle hours.
3.
imagination; fancy.
4.
a fancy; whim; fanciful notion.
5.
an elaborate, fanciful metaphor, especially of a strained or far-fetched nature.
6.
the use of such metaphors as a literary characteristic, especially in poetry.
7.
a fancy, purely decorative article.
This little tactic of yours of declaring something to be true, by itself, only by virtue of the fact you declared it, does not work any better now than it did 9 years and 138 pages ago. Everyone is onto you.
What are you talking about? I face you all the time...
What a hot sh**.

Post Reply