Oh no he didn't!

#76
#76
lawgator1 said:
You don't think that almost five years later, and given the worldwide cricisim, if there was WMD, they'd have figured out a way to let us know? At leats claim there was some but it cannot be disclosed at this point? I mean Cheney flat out says there was none.

You say I'm reading between the lines. You are just flat out making stuff up.
Click to expand...

Obama claims Global Warming is real. You going to be pissed 4 years from now when he can't find it? Going to call him out on it?
 
#77
#77
Uhhh, allvol123, I hope that wasn't climate change denial I read in your post. Care to elaborate on how you are smarter than the vast majority of the scientific community, or are you going to admit that a bunch of lobbyists and your own personal reading doesn't carry as much weight as decades of research and a scientific consensus?
 
#78
#78
Snakes on a Wii said:
Uhhh, allvol123, I hope that wasn't climate change denial I read in your post. Care to elaborate on how you are smarter than the vast majority of the scientific community, or are you going to admit that a bunch of lobbyists and your own personal reading doesn't carry as much weight as decades of research and a scientific consensus?
Click to expand...

No denial necessary. That would imply there was something worth denying.
 
#79
#79
Snakes on a Wii said:
Uhhh, allvol123, I hope that wasn't climate change denial I read in your post. Care to elaborate on how you are smarter than the vast majority of the scientific community, or are you going to admit that a bunch of lobbyists and your own personal reading doesn't carry as much weight as decades of research and a scientific consensus?
Click to expand...
Did you post this in 2006 or early in 2007?
 
#80
#80
Snakes on a Wii said:
Uhhh, allvol123, I hope that wasn't climate change denial I read in your post. Care to elaborate on how you are smarter than the vast majority of the scientific community, or are you going to admit that a bunch of lobbyists and your own personal reading doesn't carry as much weight as decades of research and a scientific consensus?
Click to expand...
care to elaborate on what a scientific consensus is? follow that up with how you cannot possibly be right in using that terminology. I'm also confused as to how lobbyists can be muddying the waters on decades of clear research results and scientific consensus. Them thar lobbyists must be some sure bright and powerful folk.
 
Last edited:
#81
#81
BigPapaVol said:
care to elaborate on what a scientific consensus is? follow that up with how cannot possibly be right in using that terminology. I'm also confused as to how lobbyists can be muddying the waters on decades of clear research results and scientific consensus. Them thar lobbyists must be some sure bright and powerful folk.
Click to expand...

That is government science.
 
#82
#82
#83
#83
Snakes on a Wii said:
So, a 10,000 year trend showing warming directly correlated to CO2, an international research endeavor, and a scientific consensus is not enough for you?

Is it perhaps that you are smarter than all these well-trained men or women? Or is it that you have an ideological and political objection to the notion of climate change and you're attempting to deny it in order to suppress your own cognitive dissonance?
Click to expand...
you do recall the pending ice age that your nebulous "science" was predicting in the 70s? Maybe you recall that they've been wrong more than they've been right in their theorizing about our world. Maybe the warming trend from 325K years ago bothers you too. I'm certain fossil fuels were the culprit, I just haven't figured out how. International research endeavor is simply code for worthless expenditure of time and money. Scientific consensus is simply a lie.
 
Last edited:
#84
#84
BigPapaVol said:
care to elaborate on what a scientific consensus is? follow that up with how you cannot possibly be right in using that terminology. I'm also confused as to how lobbyists can be muddying the waters on decades of clear research results and scientific consensus. Them thar lobbyists must be some sure bright and powerful folk.
Click to expand...

This energy lobby.

And they're not convincing any scientists; they're spreading disinformation among the public. It's the same old tactics of sowing doubt that every denialist uses, be it Moon landing deniers, climate change deniers, or evolution deniers.
 
#85
#85
Snakes on a Wii said:
So, a 10,000 year trend showing warming directly correlated to CO2, an international research endeavor, and a scientific consensus is not enough for you?

Is it perhaps that you are smarter than all these well-trained men or women? Or is it that you have an ideological and political objection to the notion of climate change and you're attempting to deny it in order to suppress your own cognitive dissonance?
Click to expand...

....or could it be the cyclical weather patterns that have affected the Earth for a few eons?
 
#86
#86
Snakes on a Wii said:
This energy lobby.

And they're not convincing any scientists; they're spreading disinformation among the public. It's the same old tactics of sowing doubt that every denialist uses, be it Moon landing deniers, climate change deniers, or evolution deniers.
Click to expand...
all this perfectly cut and dried info and nobody can seem to make the case without lies, half-truths and distortions, a la the high priest of GW himself, one Al Gore. He doesn't seem to be making any real traction, but he sure is making one helluva lot of money.
 
#87
#87
BigPapaVol said:
you do recall the pending ice age that your nebulous "science" was predicting in the 70s? Maybe you recall that they've been wrong more than they've been right in their theorizing about our world.
Click to expand...

Right. Science is wrong now because it was wrong before. Just like how modern medicine doesn't work because people used to practice bloodletting and trepanning.

Yawn. Maybe if you had any evidence you wouldn't have to misdirect the debate. The fact is, climate change is happening; this is indisputable, and if you want to argue against it you ought to produce evidence.
 
#88
#88
Snakes on a Wii said:
So, a 10,000 year trend showing warming directly correlated to CO2, an international research endeavor, and a scientific consensus is not enough for you?

Is it perhaps that you are smarter than all these well-trained men or women? Or is it that you have an ideological and political objection to the notion of climate change and you're attempting to deny it in order to suppress your own cognitive dissonance?
Click to expand...

Wow, you mean the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports the idea of climate change and a UN body does too. You win.
 
#89
#89
Snakes on a Wii said:
Right. Science is wrong now because it was wrong before. Just like how modern medicine doesn't work because people used to practice bloodletting and trepanning.

Yawn. Maybe if you had any evidence you wouldn't have to misdirect the debate. The fact is, climate change is happening; this is indisputable, and if you want to argue against it you ought to produce evidence.
Click to expand...

Sharpen your pencil dude, it has always happened. Who would ever claim climate is static?
 
#90
#90
SavageOrangeJug said:
....or could it be the cyclical weather patterns that have affected the Earth for a few eons?
Click to expand...

You do realize that every time there's a catastrophic change in climate, like you are citing, that there are many extinctions that follow along? Because it doesn't matter that the Earth's been hotter or colder in the past, because the fact is that a continued warming trend would have devastating effects on the economy and human life and the best correlation we have so far with this trend is *drumroll* Atmospheric CO2 levels.
 
#91
#91
Snakes on a Wii said:
Right. Science is wrong now because it was wrong before. Just like how modern medicine doesn't work because people used to practice bloodletting and trepanning.

Yawn. Maybe if you had any evidence you wouldn't have to misdirect the debate. The fact is, climate change is happening; this is indisputable, and if you want to argue against it you ought to produce evidence.
Click to expand...
science gets a jaundiced eye because it has been sure as the day is long many times and been dead wrong. It's not about anything else. Science politicizing an issue should bring about massive skepticism and it has.

Anthropogenic causes of the warming trend is where the correlation problems come in. Show me your perfect correlation there. Got one?

Your certainty gives everyone with any ability to reason absolute backdrop to think you just a mindless clown. Please come up with something better.

Finally, why do I need evidence when you're the one with the agenda.
 
#92
#92
allvol123 said:
Wow, you mean the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports the idea of climate change and a UN body does too. You win.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you have to scroll down to the bottom of the third link to see how much I win. Right there you'll find the signatures of of the National Academies of Sciences of Brazil, USA, China, India, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, the Royal societies of Canada and Britain, and the Science Council of Japan.

It's almost as if it's not a UN conspiracy and there's something to this thing!

Or are all of those bodies stupid or in on some massive political conspiracy?
 
#93
#93
BigPapaVol said:
science gets a jaundiced eye because it has been sure as the day is long many times and been dead wrong. It's not about anything else. Science politicizing an issue should bring about massive skepticism and it has.

Anthropogenic causes of the warming trend is where the correlation problems come in. Show me your perfect correlation there. Got one?

Your certainty gives everyone with any ability to reason absolute backdrop to think you just a mindless clown. Please come up with something better.

Finally, why do I need evidence when you're the one with the agenda.
Click to expand...

Again, the fact that we were wrong about bloodletting is quite clear evidence that we should not trust modern medicine.

If you would look at that chart or read the report, you will see a marked increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from the last century.

Why do you need evidence? Why should I need evidence to say we didn't land on the moon? You need evidence to prove any position you want to make, unless there is a lack of evidence and you're simply being skeptical.

But clearly, there is no lack of evidence that global warming is happening right now.
 
#94
#94
rjd970 said:
Shock Docrtine postulates that a singular or short term, traumatic event causes a collective reaction of the populate to allow dramatic change in policy. I just don't see that with greenhouse emissions or social security.
Click to expand...

How frequently do we see natural disasters (Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, yes even earthquakes) attributed to global warming?
 
#95
#95
Snakes on a Wii said:
The fact is, climate change is happening; this is indisputable, and if you want to argue against it you ought to produce evidence.
Click to expand...

The fact is that climate has been changing for millions of years. I'd like to see some evidence that man is driving current change.
 
#98
#98
kptvol said:
Observing X increasing and Y increasing does not equate to evidence that more X creates more Y.
Click to expand...

It does when the correlation extends for 10,000 years during which time there exists no other strong with X, Y, and any other variable except things known to be direct consequences of X and Y.
 
#99
#99
Snakes on a Wii said:
It does when the correlation extends for 10,000 years during which time there exists no other strong with X, Y, and any other variable except things known to be direct consequences of X and Y.
Click to expand...

I'd say the rising temperatures of other planets is a pretty strong indicator. Unfortunately we can't analyze the temperatures on Venus for the past 10,000 years. Regardless, the plans thus far proposed to reduce CO2 emissions have been predicted to show extremely small temperature reductions in the next century.
 
#100
#100
kptvol said:
I'd say the rising temperatures of other planets is a pretty strong indicator.
Click to expand...

Never seen this. Do you have a link, because I'd like to read about that.

Unfortunately we can't analyze the temperatures on Venus for the past 10,000 years. Regardless, the plans thus far proposed to reduce CO2 emissions have been predicted to show extremely small temperature reductions in the next century.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. But it's important that we halt further warming as much as possible.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top