Jump to content

Photo

The Global Warming Fraud


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#61 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,900 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:20 PM

They should call it climate religion instead of climate science!
  • 0

#62 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,281 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:52 PM

They should call it climate religion instead of climate science!

I agree, then we can support a religious fundamentalist to actually make progress on our agenda :P
  • 0

#63 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,407 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 06:07 PM

They should call it climate religion instead of climate science!


So you're admitting religion is bullsh!t or that man made climate change is real? or do you want it which ever way serves your purpose? :P
  • 0

I'm here for the party


#64 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,900 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 11:10 AM

So you're admitting religion is bullsh!t or that man made climate change is real? or do you want it which ever way serves your purpose? :P


Neither! I am saying that AGW has become a matter of faith for environmentalists. The left also bows at the altar of any government programs created under the FDR and LBJ administrations. They have shown a willingness, a zeal, to destroy the "99%" they purport to fight for.
  • 0

#65 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,407 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 10:17 AM

It's not an "If you know Jesus but deny him you're going to hell" kind of thing.

It's a "The evidence that smoking causes cancer is negligible so I'm going to keep smoking - the odds are with me - I have a greater chance to be killed in a car accident" kind of thing. The basic scientific data supports this opinion - and yet we now understand how to put the data into the appropriate context.

The layperson has seen enough life-experience evidence to understand the statistical relevance. It's really in our best interest to not smoke - it's not worth the risk as small as it may seem on paper.

AGW lacks the life experience -- Now this is just me but it seems logical to conclude that, as I said before, to kill the planet is not the same as watching deaths attributed to smoking pile up. It's a one shot deal. We need to trust analogous results because the hard result is irreversible.


AGW is based on science. Not one or two inconclusive studies but many many many studies by many many independent (and partisan on both sides of the argument) researchers, using many many different methods. It's not at all a matter of faith. It's not a matter of propaganda. It's a matter of scientific relevance. The preponderance of the evidence supports AGW.

Your statements lead me to believe that you do not understand the science. You do not understand what constitutes a statistically relevant result in science. The people on the street do not understand why climatologosts are able to say "Sure there is some doubt" The people on the street do not understand the context.
  • 0

I'm here for the party


#66 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,900 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 12:08 AM

AGW is based on science.


Some science.

http://online.wsj.co...1838421366.html
  • 0

#67 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,407 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 09:37 AM

I reject the idea that "some science" is anything to base an educated opinion on. You have to take it ALL. The preponderance of the evidence I'm speaking about includes your "some."

You are getting your "some" from data specifically selected by special interest groups.


You do not understand -- my opinion is based on ALL science pro and con. As I wrote -- I can cherry pick studies proving smoking doesn't have significant impact on one particular aspect on one particular lung illness. But when you put ALL the data together the picture is very clear. Smoking causes significant harm to your lungs.


You don't understand - or you think I don't understand. I do, so be truthful -- as you started out in this thread. If you ARE ashamed of your short-term gains stance -- then maybe you need to do some soul searching, because you can't change the science.

Also please note this is 16 scientists and a very carefully worded "drastic action" published in a publication tailored for the business industry --- this is not a refutation of AGW if that's what you're selling. I repeat - either you do not understand or you think I don't.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 03 March 2012 - 09:46 AM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#68 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,900 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 03:47 PM

This was good for a laugh. A crackpot who links birth control with reducing global warming. Science or left-wing politics, you be the judge!


http://dailycaller.c...global-warming/
  • 0

#69 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,618 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 03:51 PM

A complete list of things caused by global warming.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#70 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,407 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 10:05 PM

This was good for a laugh. A crackpot who links birth control with reducing global warming. Science or left-wing politics, you be the judge!


http://dailycaller.c...global-warming/

Neither. It's some woman's opinion. Sure decreased population should theoretically free up resources, but it's pretty obvious increased access to birth control has done zip to control population. Famine and disease has historically been the only successful population reducer. Even then humans respond as all animals and step up reproduction with any mass population cut back. Anyhow it's irrelevant to the science in support of AGW as is Daniel's link.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 03 March 2012 - 10:09 PM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#71 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,900 posts

Posted 04 March 2012 - 12:52 AM

Pepperkorn, I believe that the science is corrupted because the scientists have been corrupted. I know you consider Climategate a one-off. I don't. I think it's the tip of the iceberg (good global-warming pun, no?). The hidden iceberg is deceit that runs all the way to the United Nations and the EPA.

But let's say you're right, that global warming is not a scam. Would you support going to war with China over it?
  • 0

#72 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,407 posts

Posted 04 March 2012 - 09:43 AM

China is leading the pack in alternative energy research. No I wouldn't support going to war because coal is their weakness. They cannot control their HUGE population with no cheap alternative. Hence their leading the technology drive. Are you going to get your panties in a whiney bunch when China smacks our ass in the technology department and we lose our global positioning chasing an antiquated paradigm?

The facts are China has more human resources than we and can divide her efforts more economically. : noclue:

Where is the deceit and misinformation really coming from? I think from companies who's profits are driven by an old paradigm and you think a global independent community of scientists. Thousands. With varied research goals. Which is really the more likely deceiver?

Edited by Pepperkorn, 04 March 2012 - 09:44 AM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#73 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,900 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:48 PM

Dissension within NASA! Good for these folks.

http://notrickszone....laughing-stock/
  • 0

#74 njdevsfn95

njdevsfn95

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:56 AM

For a bunch of scientists, they wrote that letter to look good either way.

They're calling on NASA to not take a stance until the "science is settled." Which gives away nothing on their stance of whether global warming or climate change is man made, man affected, or neither.

If the science is settled (whatever that statement means), they can say "Hey! we told NASA to hold off until..." or "Hey! Look how we told NASA they were wrong..."

It's a mighty wide fence they are sitting on.

Edited by njdevsfn95, 15 April 2012 - 10:57 AM.

  • 0

#75 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,618 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:21 PM

Dissension within NASA! Good for these folks.

http://notrickszone....laughing-stock/


It's a pretty meaningless stunt if you ask me. They don't attempt to refute anything in any concrete way. Rather it's merely an appeal to authority. Of course, the other side does it as well.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#76 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,407 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:59 PM

What next? "80 Retired Researchers, Engineers and Test Drivers from Automobile Industry Call Out Global Warming Fraud; Question Development of Hybrid and Electric Cars"

letter says something along the lines of "we all think we ought to keep some gas powered engines in development in case we don't actually NEED alternative fuel sources ever"



When this is the best you've got, I feel a lot better about the direction the debate is going in.
  • 0

I'm here for the party


#77 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,382 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 11:12 AM

Is this better then PK?


More Science
  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia

#78 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,618 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:26 PM

Is this better then PK?


More Science


This is a response someone made in the comments:

Uhm, you know this article is butchering the original study right? The original study was localized. This article says that the local study applies globally - that's bad science. Also, the original study was credited to changes in tilt and orbital elongation - no mention of that here. This is little more than lies. You people who believe this without researching it, really don't know very much. Google the professor and you can find more accurate articles on his study than this. This article is nothing but spin.

- Ed, New Jeruselum, Indiana, 11/7/2012 20:05

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz20LNRJOTj


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users