Cancel 2018.1
New member
More wisdom from G & T:
.
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
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yeah so rather than leave it at that, you then go into one of your ritual snidefests for which you're so well known. I would rather take the word of people of calibre of those 49 ex-NASA alumni than hactivists like James Hansen who was rightly booted out of NASA GISS for being too political and cooking the books.What about "I agree that it has been politicized" do you not understand, fool. Wasn't that your sub-thesis? Yikes. You don't even read the TOTAL CONCESSION before you launch into an insult tirade. Take a chill pill, loser.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Wow, hadn't come across that paper before. Must take some time to read it, there's some serious maths in there as well.Wow, I was about to post almost the exact same thing as a quote form the landmark Gerlich and Tscheuschner article Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
Consensus isn't science and isn't an argument from science. It is purely a political argument.
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.
Wow, hadn't come across that paper before. Must take some time to read it, there's some serious maths in there as well.
Is it mathy? OMG. It must be true. Take some tissues with you into the outhouse.
Yeah so rather than leave it at that, you then go into one of your ritual snidefests for which you're so well known. I would rather take the word of people of calibre of those 49 ex-NASA alumni than hactivists like James Hansen who was rightly booted out of NASA GISS for being too political and cooking the books.
Sorry, astronauts aren't climate scientists, dummy.
97%
Deal with it.
Cancel 2018.1
New member
I went over it with a fine toothed comb 2 or 3 years ago in a debate with an alarmist. I've read it several times and understood it pretty well. The paper makes complete sense and is of course peer reviewed.Wow, hadn't come across that paper before. Must take some time to read it, there's some serious maths in there as well.
Although I had two semesters of Physical Chemistry in undergrad most of the equations were too much for me.
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
3 part answer:
1. I agree it has been politicized. That is lamentable. 2. Our side has the insurance policy that it will follow the consensus science, whereas yours is wed to counter-narrative and politics.
3. To an extent politics is unavoidable because remedying the situation requires people to act in ways they will not act on their own. There was an extant situation and an ideal situation. In addition to attempting to achieve a best case result, it requires fending off you people who appear to desire to make the situation as bad as possible. So we do gooders have two enemies, the reality of the climate science and you morons fighting against us and proclaiming a false reality.
And, yes, I've pretty much described a situation which if you believe we believe this, that then you should understand why we more or less believe your ilk are pretty delusional or evil fuckers. Your pick.
Hell I hope the sea levels rise and soon. My mountain retreat could become ocean front property and we will have the added benefit of wiping out and killing left wing states and their residents. Win win in my book.
Tell me again why I should want to stop that?
Increased property values for me. Dead liberals. Sounds like nirvana.
Bring it on bitches
More wisdom from G & T:
.
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.
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Oh it's true alright.Is it mathy? OMG. It must be true.
I went over it with a fine toothed comb 2 or 3 years ago in a debate with an alarmist. I've read it several times and understood it pretty well. The paper makes complete sense and is of course peer reviewed.
Although I had two semesters of Physical Chemistry in undergrad most of the equations were too much for me.
You aren't a climate scientist. You fill cavities. err, make dental techs do it.
Oh it's true alright.
Does it have a little math proof symbol at the end? Well then, that's a horse of a differen color
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Yet I have far more of a scientific background and therefore understanding of it than you. Even you'd have to admit that if you were honest.You aren't a climate scientist. You fill cavities. err, make dental techs do it.
You don't really believe the climate started changing around 1980, do you? The OP was obviously being sarcastic. Lighten up.
As far as the graph, there are so many out there pertaining to climate, showing only one is pretty meaningless unless it's to clarify a scientific article.
But you know all that, right? Right?
And so what are the odds that a skeptic in randomly cropping a sciency looking graph he doesn't care to look at or understand would post one that disproves his position. Like 100 percent. Right?
Yet I have far more of a scientific background and therefore understanding of it than you. Even you'd have to admit that if you were honest.
If PackD does in fact have any legal background at all, is it surprising the dumbfuck is unemployed? Dude could not win a case in a kangaroo court.
Yet I have far more of a scientific background and therefore understanding of it than you. Even you'd have to admit that if you were honest.
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, was an "A" physics student, managed somehow to pass computer science 101 and two years college math-calculus.
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.
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Does a graph exist that indicates climate was static for eternity up until 1980? I seriously doubt one exists that disproves his position.And so what are the odds that a skeptic in randomly cropping a sciency looking graph he doesn't care to look at or understand would post one that disproves his position. Like 100 percent. Right?
Consensus isn't science and isn't an argument from science. It is purely a political argument.
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.
Sailor
Verified User
This message is hidden because Sailor is on your ignore list.
Fuck off loser, I'm having more fun abusing your two best buddies.
Worth repeating as you just proved it. Again. Aloysiousis kicking your ass. Again. If PackD does in fact have any legal background at all, is it surprising the dumbfuck is unemployed? Dude could not win a case in a kangaroo court.