Right then and there you know it is bullshit. Unemployed paralegal tries to portray himself as a lawyer. Fact is he too stupid for that as he proves all the time. Like now.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Study finds Climate Change is a NATURAL occurrence - Liberals Shocked & Dismayed
- Thread starter Bigdog
- Start date
Right then and there you know it is bullshit. Unemployed paralegal tries to portray himself as a lawyer. Fact is he too stupid for that as he proves all the time. Like now.
Does a graph exist that indicates climate was static for eternity up until 1980? I seriously doubt one exists that disproves his position.
That's a giant question, isn't it. It is both instructive and unimportant at the same time in the matter at hand. If your point is we may all die some die, sure, party like it's 1999.
We developed a civilization designed to prevent people like you from becoming powerful. I hear Rev Jim Jones is taking on students though.
The climate is warming. It is bad. We are contributing. Maybe we can ameliorate it. What about that do you hate? Oh, wrong team jersey. Well isn't that just great.
Sailor
Verified User
This message is hidden because Sailor is on your ignore list.
Today, 11:13 AM
Sailor
Verified User
This message is hidden because Sailor is on your ignore list.
Sorry stupid fool loser, I wont let you join my party. Go sit with Jub jub. You can't pledge my frat.
Verified User
This message is hidden because Sailor is on your ignore list.
Today, 11:13 AM
Sailor
Verified User
This message is hidden because Sailor is on your ignore list.
Sorry stupid fool loser, I wont let you join my party. Go sit with Jub jub. You can't pledge my frat.
OK I need to go argue for causes that pay me. Bye bye.
The reason the lying sack of shit is dead broke. LMAO!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You're not even worth the time of day. I can't believe your father, assuming you even know who he is or that you're not lying about him, would seriously contend that NASA engineers and rocket scientists are incapable of understand a simple graph? Richard Lindzen has said many times that climatology does not tend to attract the first rate minds like physics, maths and chemistry and that is undoubtedly true. Freeman Dyson, the greatest living theoretical physicist has nothing but contempt for the discipline and indeed thinks that climate models are next to useless.Sorry, astronauts aren't climate scientists, dummy.
97%
Deal with it.
Last edited:
You're not even worth the time of day. I can't believe your father, assuming that you're not lying, would seriously contend that NASA engineers and rocket scientists are incapable of understand a simple graph? Richard Lindzen has said many times that climatology does not tend to attract the first rate minds like physics, maths and chemistry and that is undoubtedly true. Freeman Dyson, the greatest living theoretical physicist has nothing but contempt for the discipline and indeed thinks that climate models are next to useless.
So a hasbeen /perhaps neverwas guy with a claimed chemistry degree is invoking the snobbery of "hard science" over "soft science."
By all rights, the questions of "soft" science are more intractable, so they should be more revered than science involving lots of controls and ability to shut out the complexity and noise of the world.
You can put a photon through a piece of paper much easier than you can tease out all the noise in the environment to isolate AGW while at once fending off a cabal of oily disinformation haters.
Nonetheless, I can assume that climate scientists have hard science credentials in training. Just look into the prerequisites for the graduate programs. They all require much more than you have.
Or an astronaut.
Sorry, but climate science is the new sexy science of today. It's the new nuclear physics. The best and brightest are going there. That and biotech and neuroscience. Fact. Choke on it, old man. Stuff it up your venn diagram.
So fuck off, stupid climate science denier.
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Wow, including Organic I and II with labs, 2 semesters of P.Chem , two of biochemistry and one of Quantitative Analysis? I'm impressed. One doesn't often see lawyers with that kind of educational background, but I'm not here to compare penis size or how much pussy I got in college .I don't know what you have, but I bet I have more science than you think a lawyer would possess. I had the same college chem as you,
I don't claim to be an expert, just the messenger. I'll defer to the two guys with a PhD in Physical Chem that published a landmark paper. I notice you cut and paste newspaper articles about science while I cut and past actual excerpts from scientific publications. Big difference.Again, I'm sure you know enough of my background to know that I know if you do not possess the EXACT credential, you are speaking out of school.
Sorry, a dentist don't cut it, and I don't care if you are the surgeon general of Alaskan dentists. Same result. -0- nullset fail.
Last edited:
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Does a graph exist that indicates climate was static for eternity up until 1980?
Long way of saying you can't. Of course not. That's why I told crow the OP was merely sarcasm.That's a giant question, isn't it. It is both instructive and unimportant at the same time in the matter at hand. If your point is we may all die some die, sure, party like it's 1999.
We developed a civilization designed to prevent people like you from becoming powerful. I hear Rev Jim Jones is taking on students though.
The climate is warming. It is bad. We are contributing. Maybe we can ameliorate it. What about that do you hate? Oh, wrong team jersey. Well isn't that just great.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Adopting the overwhelming consensus opinion of peer reviewed science in a discipline above the ken of laity which has coalesced over 30 years is not political, it is a matter of applying rationality and logic.
Unless one is a climate scientist the mere venturing of an opinion is an act of irrationality, and upon hearing it, any rational person is fully justified in rejecting it completely on that basis alone.
Too bad for the non-expert heterodoxy. You fail before go.
My wisdom. You'd be wise to put more stock in that. I'm the real deal. Not a poser or a copier.
Above the ken of laity, what a pompous fucking arsehole!!
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yeah fuck off!!OK I need to go argue for causes that pay me. Bye bye.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Man you are a truly ignorant and arrogant Septic, as if there weren't enough of those already.So a hasbeen /perhaps neverwas guy with a claimed chemistry degree is invoking the snobbery of "hard science" over "soft science."
By all rights, the questions of "soft" science are more intractable, so they should be more revered than science involving lots of controls and ability to shut out the complexity and noise of the world.
You can put a photon through a piece of paper much easier than you can tease out all the noise in the environment to isolate AGW while at once fending off a cabal of oily disinformation haters.
Nonetheless, I can assume that climate scientists have hard science credentials in training. Just look into the prerequisites for the graduate programs. They all require much more than you have.
Or an astronaut.
Sorry, but climate science is the new sexy science of today. It's the new nuclear physics. The best and brightest are going there. That and biotech and neuroscience. Fact. Choke on it, old man. Stuff it up your venn diagram.
So fuck off, stupid climate science denier.
jmotivator
Verified User
Adopting the overwhelming consensus opinion of peer reviewed science in a discipline above the ken of laity which has coalesced over 30 years is not political, it is a matter of applying rationality and logic.
Unless one is a climate scientist the mere venturing of an opinion is an act of irrationality, and upon hearing it, any rational person is fully justified in rejecting it completely on that basis alone.
Too bad for the non-expert heterodoxy. You fail before go.
Nope. Arguing consensus is the work of group think for people unwilling to consider the available data and draw their own conclusions.
Consensus is not science.
To quote Richard Feynman: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts."
The problems with the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory begin down are the fundamental mathematical level and those faults propagate and multiply all the way up through the discipline.
Wow, including Organic I and II with labs, 2 semesters of P.Chem , two of biochemistry and one of Quantitative Analysis? I'm impressed. One doesn't often see lawyers with that kind of educational background, but I'm not here to compare penis size or how much pussy I got in college . I don't claim to be an expert, just the messenger. I'll defer to the two guys with a PhD in Physical Chem that published a landmark paper. I notice you cut and paste newspaper articles about science while I cut and past actual excerpts from scientific publications. Big difference.
This is going to leave a mark! HA!!
jmotivator
Verified User
Again, another loser inferior fool who can't read. Read it all again until it takes, ignorant right wing dumbass denier. Go home and sway and pray stroking a bible or something.
Pro Tip: The faster you rush to personal insults the less you appear to understand the subject matter. I'm sorry we seem to have exceeded your comfort zone so quickly.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The pompous fucker said much the same thing before now claiming that he would only read papers from Nature or Science. I posted several from those publications but the slimeball tried to weasel his way out of that as well. Total shitbag, who's not worth the time of day.This is going to leave a mark! HA!!
The pompous fucker said much the same thing before now claiming that he would only read papers from Nature or Science. I posted several from those publications but the slimeball tried to weasel his way out of that as well. Total shitbag, who's not worth the time of day.
I watch you slap him around Corazon and chuckle. Keep doing so!
Cancel 2018.1
New member
So a hasbeen /perhaps neverwas guy with a claimed chemistry degree is invoking the snobbery of "hard science" over "soft science."
By all rights, the questions of "soft" science are more intractable, so they should be more revered than science involving lots of controls and ability to shut out the complexity and noise of the world.
You can put a photon through a piece of paper much easier than you can tease out all the noise in the environment to isolate AGW while at once fending off a cabal of oily disinformation haters.
Nonetheless, I can assume that climate scientists have hard science credentials in training. Just look into the prerequisites for the graduate programs. They all require much more than you have.
Or an astronaut.
Sorry, but climate science is the new sexy science of today. It's the new nuclear physics. The best and brightest are going there. That and biotech and neuroscience. Fact. Choke on it, old man. Stuff it up your venn diagram.
So fuck off, stupid climate science denier.
Wow I read that and can hardly believe he posted it . Not only does it support our positions but what you've just witnessed is the famous temper tantrum rambling he displayed more often in the past when he's been surrounded by unfettered logic and has nowhere to run or hide.Man you are a truly ignorant and arrogant ...
Cancel 2018.1
New member
I've said almost exactly the same myself. The so called discipline has never come up with a scientific theory much less a scientific Law. Only conjecture based on hypotheses.Richard Lindzen has said many times that climatology does not tend to attract the first rate minds like physics, maths and chemistry and that is undoubtedly true. Freeman Dyson, the greatest living theoretical physicist has nothing but contempt for the discipline and indeed thinks that climate models are next to useless.
I've said almost exactly the same myself. The so called discipline has never come up with a scientific theory much less a scientific Law. Only conjecture based on hypotheses.
Which is why people like PackD fall for it so easily. They select their politicians the same way. Herd mentality.