No - just making fun of you, as I will every time you try to proclaim that you have some sort of superior scientific knowledge. You disdain science, and know little about it.
Scientific Proof: Warmers Hate Trees!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
No - just making fun of you, as I will every time you try to proclaim that you have some sort of superior scientific knowledge. You disdain science, and know little about it.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I don't believe such hogwash could be anyone actually even attempting to tell the truth. You're just straight up lying. You don't even care.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No - just making fun of you, as I will every time you try to proclaim that you have some sort of superior scientific knowledge. You disdain science, and know little about it.
I don't have any superior scientific knowledge, just the basic scientific knowledge most of us obtain through high school, and a little professional experience with industrial gases like CO2. Apparently that is quite enough to trump your religious viewpoints of science based on your faiths.
I don't disdain science, I disdain pinheads who fraudulently use science to advance their religious beliefs, like you and other liberals. If you or the other shithead would like to present some science here, we can debate it, but as it stands, you two just haven't. All you seem to know how to do, is chortle at each other and pretend you're looking down your noses at me.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What hogwash are you talking about?
That plants thrive on carbon dioxide?
That carbon dioxide is not toxic to humans?
That Earth previously was much richer in carbon dioxide?
That most plants evolved in a richer environment of carbon dioxide?
That carbon dioxide enables plants to retain more water?
Just jump in there with your evidence any of this is not true!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, that's not correct, and it's not what I said. It is a part of a sentence, idiot!
I do indeed have superior scientific knowledge to you! I don't think your limited brain even understands what science is! All you basically do is, repeat whatever you're told or shown, like a parrot or trained seal. For YOU, science is only a tool you can use to support your liberal-minded nonsense, and if science happens to contradict that, you claim science is inconclusive or vague.
Speaking of science... still waiting on you or the other Mr. Wizard to interject some!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I know you are filling the thread with your glorious pearls of wisdom, it's a shame I will not be responding to any of it.
Topspin
Verified User
which by responding you prove my point that your a redneck hick cousin kisser.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That has to be the most ironic post of all time.
The King of Strawmen stating that the use of strawmen is poor board etiquette.
ROFLMAO
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The thing is, the left most certainly IS trying to frame the argument as if CO2 is a pollutant, harmful to man... this is why the EPA announced it had the authority to regulate it. It's exactly the intent when pinheads like Maineman are pleading with us about the amount of "shit we spew" into the atmosphere, in the middle of the debate about CO2. Statement like "artificial CO2 and other pollutants" are designed to imply CO2 is harmful to man, like other pollutants or synthetics produced by man, when CO2 is a natural element.
When you call them on it, they do like Prissy and claim they've never said CO2 was harmful to man! That's precisely what they are saying, and Prissy is right, it is absurd beyond belief. It's pretty telling of how brainwashed you are, when you are making an argument so absurd you don't believe it yourself, but that is where we are with the left on the issue of CO2.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Nothing really more to add, I just saw Chicklet was bouncing his thread about global warming and decided to bump mine as well. No need in his lame ass thread getting all the attention here. And I really don't give a good goddamn if none of the left-wingers want to address my argument here, it won't keep me from pointing out what a bunch of idiots they are in threads like this. So you guys avoid this one... just stay the hell away from it... because you don't have anything to contradict what I've said, and you just look even more pathetic and stupid in responding. I don't blame you, I wouldn't dare post to this thread on topic if I were a Warmer!
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Global Warming is a Hoax???
No, not fire nor even ice: climate change stupidity will end the world
By Steven C. Day
Well, I guess its official. Meaningful climate change legislation and with it, quite possibly, the last real hope for humanitys future is dead in Congress for the foreseeable future: killed, at least in part, incredibly enough, by the current blizzards on the East Coast. You see, if it snows a lot in Washington, D.C. in February this proves that the scientific consensus on global warming is wrong, or so the talking points go. And this is true even though extreme winter weather, just like that reflected in these storms, is predicted to occur under climate change models.
But then why should we care about all that pointed-headed intellectual scientific stuff anyway? After all, we always have Sen. James Inhofe to set us straight.
Robert Frost once famously wrote:
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what Ive tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
How ironic that it turns out that probably neither fire nor ice will do the world in: instead, mind numbing stupidity will do the job or perhaps, more accurately, the soulless manipulation of that stupidity.
The truth is, of course, that something much worse than mere stupidity is at play here something more along the lines of criminal selfishness. Sure, there are plenty of just plain dumb (or at least ignorant) folks out there some stupid enough to buy into the current GOP blizzard-based campaign of global warning denial. Those, however, arent the people responsible for selling out this planet.
At the end of the day, global warming legislation isnt being killed by tea partiers, Rush Limbaugh or even Matt Drudge (although intelligent public discourse is). Its being killed by our elected representatives in Washington, a majority of whom fully understand the threat climate change poses, yet have chosen not to act. In the case of the GOP, theyve made the political calculation that it will help their party in the upcoming elections to obstruct all of Barack Obamas proposals, including those relating to climate change, regardless of their merits. And as to congressional Democrats, all too many seem to have made an equally immoral political calculation that it is simply too politically risky to fight back on this issue.
These politicians, knowing full well the danger we face, are placing a higher priority on their own personal political interests than on the safety of the earth and the future of human kind.
That goes beyond craven beyond immoral even. Its nothing less than a crime against humanity. And if there were any justice theyd all burn for it.
Sadly, however, it will probably our children and grandchildren who will burn in their place.
No, not fire nor even ice: climate change stupidity will end the world
By Steven C. Day
Well, I guess its official. Meaningful climate change legislation and with it, quite possibly, the last real hope for humanitys future is dead in Congress for the foreseeable future: killed, at least in part, incredibly enough, by the current blizzards on the East Coast. You see, if it snows a lot in Washington, D.C. in February this proves that the scientific consensus on global warming is wrong, or so the talking points go. And this is true even though extreme winter weather, just like that reflected in these storms, is predicted to occur under climate change models.
But then why should we care about all that pointed-headed intellectual scientific stuff anyway? After all, we always have Sen. James Inhofe to set us straight.
Robert Frost once famously wrote:
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what Ive tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
How ironic that it turns out that probably neither fire nor ice will do the world in: instead, mind numbing stupidity will do the job or perhaps, more accurately, the soulless manipulation of that stupidity.
The truth is, of course, that something much worse than mere stupidity is at play here something more along the lines of criminal selfishness. Sure, there are plenty of just plain dumb (or at least ignorant) folks out there some stupid enough to buy into the current GOP blizzard-based campaign of global warning denial. Those, however, arent the people responsible for selling out this planet.
At the end of the day, global warming legislation isnt being killed by tea partiers, Rush Limbaugh or even Matt Drudge (although intelligent public discourse is). Its being killed by our elected representatives in Washington, a majority of whom fully understand the threat climate change poses, yet have chosen not to act. In the case of the GOP, theyve made the political calculation that it will help their party in the upcoming elections to obstruct all of Barack Obamas proposals, including those relating to climate change, regardless of their merits. And as to congressional Democrats, all too many seem to have made an equally immoral political calculation that it is simply too politically risky to fight back on this issue.
These politicians, knowing full well the danger we face, are placing a higher priority on their own personal political interests than on the safety of the earth and the future of human kind.
That goes beyond craven beyond immoral even. Its nothing less than a crime against humanity. And if there were any justice theyd all burn for it.
Sadly, however, it will probably our children and grandchildren who will burn in their place.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Aww.... how sweet... another Liberal Blogger weighs in with his profound pinhead wisdom on the issue!
"You see, if it snows a lot in Washington, D.C. in February this proves that the scientific consensus on global warming is wrong, or so the talking points go."
No you goofy bitch, that doesn't prove anything and no one said it did! First of all, there never was a consensus on this, it was widely controversial from the onset. The so-called "data" used for most of this so-called "consensus" that never was, is tainted... meaningless... without basis for support! A year or two ago, before the email scandal broke, before we knew that data had been suppressed, before we knew about the Medieval warming period, you could argue that a "consensus" of leading scientists believed the global warming theories, but that is no longer the case. Why can't you people get that through your pathetically stupid heads? You are trying to make an argument based on old information which is no longer relevant, and you are using the "facts" that have now been discredited!
Here's your LEADING guy... the one who started this whole convoluted debate about global warming and greenhouse effect changing the climate....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html
Imagine a man who has spent the better part of the past 25 years toiling to convince the world of CO2-forced 20th-century warming now admitting that the difference in warming rates for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-40 and 1975-2009 is statistically insignificant. Jones even acceded that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995; that in fact, global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002, although he denied the statistical significance of the -0.12C per decade decline.
It's over pinheads... give it up!
"You see, if it snows a lot in Washington, D.C. in February this proves that the scientific consensus on global warming is wrong, or so the talking points go."
No you goofy bitch, that doesn't prove anything and no one said it did! First of all, there never was a consensus on this, it was widely controversial from the onset. The so-called "data" used for most of this so-called "consensus" that never was, is tainted... meaningless... without basis for support! A year or two ago, before the email scandal broke, before we knew that data had been suppressed, before we knew about the Medieval warming period, you could argue that a "consensus" of leading scientists believed the global warming theories, but that is no longer the case. Why can't you people get that through your pathetically stupid heads? You are trying to make an argument based on old information which is no longer relevant, and you are using the "facts" that have now been discredited!
Here's your LEADING guy... the one who started this whole convoluted debate about global warming and greenhouse effect changing the climate....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html
Imagine a man who has spent the better part of the past 25 years toiling to convince the world of CO2-forced 20th-century warming now admitting that the difference in warming rates for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-40 and 1975-2009 is statistically insignificant. Jones even acceded that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995; that in fact, global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002, although he denied the statistical significance of the -0.12C per decade decline.
It's over pinheads... give it up!
Did you EVEN READ the link that went to the actual bbc interview?
No you didn't.
I'll post the actual text of the BBC interview, which is linked in your rightwing article.
Get that? The guy FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE, says the warming is most likely predominantly man made.
God, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
No you didn't.
I'll post the actual text of the BBC interview, which is linked in your rightwing article.
Get that? The guy FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE, says the warming is most likely predominantly man made.
God, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
LMAO....
Yes Prissy... It's absolutely a possibility that it is likely that man could maybe be effecting the climate!
It's also absolutely a possibility that it is likely that maybe Paris Hilton could possibly come give me a blowjob tonight while I sleep!
YOU HAVE NO MORE EVIDENCE!
IT IS OVER!
GIVE IT UP!
Yes Prissy... It's absolutely a possibility that it is likely that man could maybe be effecting the climate!
It's also absolutely a possibility that it is likely that maybe Paris Hilton could possibly come give me a blowjob tonight while I sleep!
YOU HAVE NO MORE EVIDENCE!
IT IS OVER!
GIVE IT UP!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The warming he admitted wasn't happening and hasn't happened since 1995?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why do the warmers hate our trees? 