Here's the period to the "Global Warming is a scam"

[DC Tom]

Nice.

 

I wish I were making that up; I still have fond memories of reading that for the first time and screaming "BUT YOU CAN'T !@#$ING DO THAT, YOU !@#$S! That's not a valid comparison!"

[Booster4324]

I wish I were making that up; I still have fond memories of reading that for the first time and screaming "BUT YOU CAN'T !@#$ING DO THAT, YOU !@#$S! That's not a valid comparison!"

 

No, you have said something similar before and I looked it up then. I believe you, if my post came across wrong, my bad.

[Chef Jim]

I wish I were making that up; I still have fond memories of reading that for the first time and screaming "BUT YOU CAN'T !@#$ING DO THAT, YOU !@#$S! That's not a valid comparison!"

 

It's like saying....saying....!@#$, I can't even come up with an analogy that is that !@#$ing stupid.

[drnykterstein]

I expect you to understand that taking 130 years of data and trying to tell me that "it's all man-made" is exactly as dopey as trying to tell me that he world is only 6000 years old. I expect you to stop treating this like a religion, and realize that there is a hell of a lot of significance when the pope of your religion goes out and blatantly blasphemes.

 

I don't know about crazy, because I can be pretty crazy at times , but he might be as smart. The difference is: I don't have to make money off of idiots.

 

You are the dimwit who suggested Al Gore getting a house would be the "the period to the Global Warming is a scam". That is a riot. If Al Gore flushes his toilet five times fast, does gravity cease to exist?

 

This just in: Al Gore eats a hot dog, puts a period to the "Earth is round scam".

[Booster4324]

You are the dimwit who suggested Al Gore getting a house would be the "the period to the Global Warming is a scam". That is a riot. If Al Gore flushes his toilet five times fast, does gravity cease to exist?

 

This just in: Al Gore eats a hot dog, puts a period to the "Earth is round scam".

 

You are genuinely bad at this. Note that most are not arguing the fact the Earth is warmer (we really aren't sure, since the record has been discredited). They are arguing that the science is bad or are at least biased. They are noting the advocates (in many cases) are making money off this. You will not address any point made. Instead you say Nasa can prove it. When they are discredited to a certain degree, you fall back to ice core samples. There are articles out there showing they can be off a bit.

 

You would advocate your religion better if you managed to try and incorporate ideas and not just spout out what you read. Just my advice.

[DC Tom]

No, you have said something similar before and I looked it up then. I believe you, if my post came across wrong, my bad.

 

No, it didn't. I was just expounding on my experience reading that. It still blows my mind; redefining "normal" to prove your point.

 

"But it's science!" Conner says. No, conner, no it's not. That, precisely, is why it's not.

 

Gene's post above on the 800ky ice core data inspired me to dig into some of that. "Discrepancies larger than 3 kyr arise during MIS 5.4, 5.5 and 6, which points to anomalies in either snow accumulation or mechanical flow during these time periods." Yeah, sure...couldn't be a flaw in the EDC3 chronological model, it's that the freakin' weather was wrong.

[erynthered]

130 years

 

The data also lines up very well with the CO2 correlations warming predictions made. If science predicts something .. and then data shows the prediction to be right, you should do like DC Tom would and call the scientists crazy.

 

 

OK I'm going though this one post at a time. Post 10.

 

 

Moran, sems to work for this one.

[erynthered]

This whole thread is worthless.

 

 

..........and yet you keep trying

[Gene Frenkle]

Oh really? Then why were all of you fools parading around with your dvd copies of "An Inconvenient Truth"? Why were you all telling us we were wrong because Al Gore won a Nobel Prize? Please.

 

Come on dude, where do you think Al Gore gets his info from? The very same "infallible" scientists that we keep hearing about. You didn't think he was dumb, or smart, enough to make this up all by himself? These scientists have been caught lying and it's high time you acknowledge that. I didn't make them fudge their data, so don't try to make this about me. You can't separate ALGORE, inc. from these "infallible" scientists anymore than you can separate white from rice.

 

Here's the thing: the burden of proof is on you, not on me. You have to convince us. You haven't. You have to convince us that this isn't merely a backhanded way to accomplish a goal that you can never get done at the ballot box = redistribution of wealth. I am not saying it's definitely not real. I am saying give me something more than fudged data, Al Gore's movie, newspaper articles, an undergrad thesis study, and a giant "because I say so", to prove it. If this is about survival of our way of life and keeping people from dying, then why is everything they do seem to be much more about imposing socialist economics, instead of the supposed main goal?

I don't believe I can convince you of anything. Either you're objectively interested in the science and what it might say, or you have an agenda based on politics or preconceived notions. You can think whatever you like because this is America.

 

On the other hand, if you want to persuade someone of your way of thinking, wouldn't it be better to cite some facts to backup what you're arguing? Maybe reference some actual science in an objective manner? All you offer are non-sequiturs and ad hominem attacks on irrelevant people. When I call you on it you offer more of the same. What's the point?

[Gene Frenkle]

Fair point. And I don't think there has been any dispute that the planet has warmed considerably over the past 130 or so years. I think the question is why. Were we going through an usually cold spell when records were being kept? Perhaps because of major volcanic eruptions like this one or this one. Are humans the cause? I don't know the answer, but spending trillions because well-maybe-we-caused-it doesn't seem like a prudent use of resources.

Can I see a link to the trillions we are spending on this research?

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't believe I can convince you of anything. Either you're objectively interested in the science and what it might say, or you have an agenda based on politics or preconceived notions. You can think whatever you like because this is America.

 

On the other hand, if you want to persuade someone of your way of thinking, wouldn't it be better to cite some facts to backup what you're arguing? Maybe reference some actual science in an objective manner? All you offer are non-sequiturs and ad hominem attacks on irrelevant people. When I call you on it you offer more of the same. What's the point?

There is a big difference between not being able to convince me because you are an idiot, and not being able to convince me so far, because I haven't heard anything convincing. And, you have to admit you have real problems now that all of the ALGORE, inc. stuff has come out. At this point, this looks a hell of a lot more like scam than "science".

 

To wit:

1. Al Gore can in no possible way be considered irrelevant to this issue. He has been the leader of this entire movement, and they gave him, not somebody else, a noble prize which proves that.

2. There is nothing ad hominem about my attacks on him, because he represents the movement itself, as its leader. I can see if I was trying to discredit him about something like taxes. But, buying a house on a coast that the movement believes will be under water in a short period of time if their policies aren't followed is a direct contradiction of the movement's policies by the leader of the movement. So, no, by definition there can be nothing ad hominem about my attacks.

3. Where exactly is the non-sequitur in:

a. Global Warming says California will be under water

b. Al Gore is the leader of Global Warming

c. Al Gore gets his info from "science"

d. The vast majority of Global Warming acolytes recognize Al Gore as their leader, and gave him a Nobel Prize as such

e. Al Gore buys a house in California

 

f. If the "science" is true, and, Al Gore is not an idiot, then Gore does not buy a house in an area that will be under water.

g. If the "science" is true, and, Al Gore is an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will be under water.

h. If the "science" is false, and, Al Gore is an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will NOT be under water.

i. If the "science" is false, and, Al Gore is not an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will NOT be under water.

 

The only case that bears out what you are saying is: g. And, if g is true: why on God's green earth are we listening to an idiot? Moreover, why has the Global Warming movement chose him as their leader/gave him a nobel prize? And since Al Gore is an idiot, we should feel free to disregard anything he has said, especially the supposed "science" in his idiot movie.

 

This of course implies that there is some non-Gore science that you can show me that proves Global Warming. And we have already heard about the 400 year small ice age that preceded this 400 years NSF study. So don't include that either.

[Booster4324]

1. Al Gore can in no possible way be considered irrelevant to this issue. He has been the leader of this entire movement, and they gave him, not somebody else, a noble prize which proves that.

2. There is nothing ad hominem about my attacks on him, because he represents the movement itself, as its leader. I can see if I was trying to discredit him about something like taxes. But, buying a house on a coast that the movement believes will be under water in a short period of time if their policies aren't followed is a direct contradiction of the movement's policies by the leader of the movement. So, no, by definition there can be nothing ad hominem about my attacks.

3. Where exactly is the non-sequitur in:

a. Global Warming says California will be under water

b. Al Gore is the leader of Global Warming

c. Al Gore gets his info from "science"

d. The vast majority of Global Warming acolytes recognize Al Gore as their leader, and gave him a Nobel Prize as such

e. Al Gore buys a house in California

 

f. If the "science" is true, and, Al Gore is not an idiot, then Gore does not buy a house in an area that will be under water.

g. If the "science" is true, and, Al Gore is an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will be under water.

h. If the "science" is false, and, Al Gore is an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will NOT be under water.

i. If the "science" is false, and, Al Gore is not an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will NOT be under water.

 

The only case that bears out what you are saying is: g. And, if g is true: why on God's green earth are we listening to an idiot? Moreover, why has the Global Warming movement chose him as their leader/gave him a nobel prize? And since Al Gore is an idiot, we should feel free to disregard anything he has said, especially the supposed "science" in his idiot movie.

 

 

Oh uggh, I hate being on the same side of an issue with you.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh uggh, I hate being on the same side of an issue with you.

Yes I have noticed you tend to enjoy the beatings. It's no fun for you when you aren't getting spanked is it?

 

EDIT: and hey, he chose to bring out the logic-speak, so I merely replied in kind.

[Booster4324]

Yes I have noticed you tend to enjoy the beatings. It's no fun for you when you aren't getting spanked is it?

 

This from the man who posts naked.

 

Refresh my beatings in debate.

 

Oh, going to sleep now, so plenty of time for you to demonstrate how you B word slapped me. Take your time.

[OCinBuffalo]

This from the man who posts naked.

 

Refresh my beatings in debate.

Gene:

 

Now this is an proper example of an ad hominem argument. Please take note.

[Booster4324]

Gene:

 

Now this is an proper example of an ad hominem argument. Please take note.

 

Takes a

[DC Tom]

This from the man who posts naked.

 

Refresh my beatings in debate.

 

You mean you don't remember the time when you were all like "uh-huh" and then he was like "nuh-uh" then you were all "uh-HUH!" and he was totally like "NUH-UH!!!" and you lost because like the keyboard only has one caps lock key?

[ExiledInIllinois]

2010 is on track to be the hottest year on record.

2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade on record.

2009 was the 2nd hottest year on record.

 

!@#$ al gore, this is real.

 

Who cares?

 

I don't.

[murra]

Who cares?

 

I don't.

 

This is one of the times when not caring is totally the way to go.

 

Anyone arrogant enough to think that they can change the weather shouldn't be allowed to leave a room with white padded walls.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

So you're saying there is no historical proof that the planet warms and cools on it's own?

Cancer happens normally, also. Therefore cigarettes don't cause cancer. See, its easy to be a corporate tool!

 

Oh that's right, corporations are not government so they are always right

 

Corporations