Adam Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 But it will be when the water levels rise That Al Gore...he's a planner. Maybe he'll collect on the insurance?
drnykterstein Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Moran [snipped out big list of links] Good golly that is so many links, that is just so many words. How will I ever argue with so many words? You know what else has a ton of words? The Koran. This means that since the Koran is so big, and has so many words, it must be true. It's huge! Maybe I will call someone a "moran" and paste the text of the Koran in here? I could not possibly be wrong because my post would be so huge!
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Good golly that is so many links, that is just so many words. How will I ever argue with so many words? You know what else has a ton of words? The Koran. This means that since the Koran is so big, and has so many words, it must be true. It's huge! Maybe I will call someone a "moran" and paste the text of the Koran in here? I could not possibly be wrong because my post would be so huge! How can you not see the irony in this?
Alaska Darin Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Really. I did not know that. Of course you don't. There's not much money in it.
Alaska Darin Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 How can you not see the irony in this? Conner, This is what's known as a rhetorical question. Please don't respond to it.
IDBillzFan Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Conner, This is what's known as a rhetorical question. Please don't respond to it. Conner, Don't listen to AD. It wasn't a rhetorical question. Please respond at your earliest.
Booster4324 Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Conner, Don't listen to AD. It wasn't a rhetorical question. Please respond at your earliest. Agreed, preferably with a condescending insult about his wife.
Wacka Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Connor, Did you take any science classes after 8th grade?
/dev/null Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 How can you not see the irony in this? Because when Conner does the same thing, it's different
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Because when Conner does the same thing, it's different I just want to preempt conner's response to this with: conner, you're an idiot. When you respond to /dev/null, you'll see what I mean.
Chef Jim Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 I just want to preempt conner's response to this with: conner, you're an idiot. When you respond to /dev/null, you'll see what I mean. Your an idiot sivant.
drnykterstein Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Oh the name-calling. Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is an 8th grade class wacka.
drnykterstein Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Only with you, dumbass...and like I've said, I'm well beyond caring what you think. That is because I seem to be the only person here who appreciates a well researched and well defended position backed by evidence that is peer reviewed. So yes, if you get a paper published in a respected scientific journal on the subject of climatology it would carry weight with me. You would have had to know what you are talking about, you would have had to do a lot of research, and you would have to provide peer reviewable evidence. All these things are respectable. So, "Only with you, dumbass" does explain this board. I am the only dumbass who appreciates knowledge apparently. The rest of you are content in the bosom of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. A global conspiracy of scientists that are doing false research and providing false information in order to push some leftist liberal agenda on you and your loved ones. Knowledge be damned, scientists are all leftist liberal scum. (and since none of you have a real response to this, you act like 8th graders and call me names)
Booster4324 Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 That is because I seem to be the only person here who appreciates a well researched and well defended position backed by evidence that is peer reviewed. So yes, if you get a paper published in a respected scientific journal on the subject of climatology it would carry weight with me. You would have had to know what you are talking about, you would have had to do a lot of research, and you would have to provide peer reviewable evidence. All these things are respectable. So, "Only with you, dumbass" does explain this board. I am the only dumbass who appreciates knowledge apparently. The rest of you are content in the bosom of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. A global conspiracy of scientists that are doing false research and providing false information in order to push some leftist liberal agenda on you and your loved ones. Knowledge be damned, scientists are all leftist liberal scum. (and since none of you have a real response to this, you act like 8th graders and call me names) When you keep throwing that 96% figure around, is this what you are mean?
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 That is because I seem to be the only person here who appreciates a well researched and well defended position backed by evidence that is peer reviewed. So yes, if you get a paper published in a respected scientific journal on the subject of climatology it would carry weight with me. You would have had to know what you are talking about, you would have had to do a lot of research, and you would have to provide peer reviewable evidence. All these things are respectable. So, "Only with you, dumbass" does explain this board. I am the only dumbass who appreciates knowledge apparently. The rest of you are content in the bosom of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. A global conspiracy of scientists that are doing false research and providing false information in order to push some leftist liberal agenda on you and your loved ones. Knowledge be damned, scientists are all leftist liberal scum. (and since none of you have a real response to this, you act like 8th graders and call me names) As though you'd know peer-reviewed research if it bit you in the ass. You cite Bill Nye and wikipedia, for Christ's sake. You are not even smart enough to discuss the topic - your only knowledge of the subject is "but there's consensus!" And you think that's an argument about the science being right or wrong. It's not. It's about your complete inability to understand it. THAT is how completely lost you are in this discussion.
Wacka Posted May 28, 2010 Posted May 28, 2010 That is because I seem to be the only person here who appreciates a well researched and well defended position backed by evidence that is peer reviewed. So yes, if you get a paper published in a respected scientific journal on the subject of climatology it would carry weight with me. You would have had to know what you are talking about, you would have had to do a lot of research, and you would have to provide peer reviewable evidence. All these things are respectable. So, "Only with you, dumbass" does explain this board. I am the only dumbass who appreciates knowledge apparently. The rest of you are content in the bosom of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. A global conspiracy of scientists that are doing false research and providing false information in order to push some leftist liberal agenda on you and your loved ones. Knowledge be damned, scientists are all leftist liberal scum. (and since none of you have a real response to this, you act like 8th graders and call me names) Why don't you provide a peer reviewed journal article about how WTC7 was brought down by explosives instead of a big chunk of the WTC hitting it? Asking your education level in science is not calling you names. Calling you a moran is calling you names.
Simon Posted May 28, 2010 Posted May 28, 2010 Really. I did not know that. Do a little research on Urban Heat Islands. Then when you think you've got a handle on it, do a little research on the mountain pine beetle. Then bang your head off your keyboard several times and run screaming from the room. By then, you should be as clueless as everybody else on the planet who doesn't have adequate data either.
Booster4324 Posted May 28, 2010 Posted May 28, 2010 When you keep throwing that 96% figure around, is this what you are mean? Connor?
Gene Frenkle Posted May 29, 2010 Posted May 29, 2010 Connor? I know you're trying to prove some sort of a point, but replying to your own post is not cool.
Recommended Posts