Red1966
Well-Known Member
No, it hasn't been cited, liar. So being a government employee makes me a prostitute? You're getting desperate.
"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???
- Thread starter tobinates559
- Start date
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Why is it up to us to tell you how to prove your point?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Translation: You must make my point for me. you're retarded if you don't....lol......
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
What a partisan hack lie baby.
Whatcha got?
Oh please bring it up yet again "i dont think its a good idea" I have been craving a spam sandwich.
The fact is I don't think the Interstate Commerce Clause should be allowed to be interpreted as "the precious" UncleNumbNuts.
None of this deters anyone from realizing that you got banned while calling a black dood racial slurs.
I know how honest you expect everyone on here to be so go ahead and attempt a denial.
I really enjoy irony, do you get your wherewithal cheap on the internet?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I am asking you what you would accept as proof
None of you silly fucks can answer that because THERE IS NOTHING YOU WOULD ACCEPT AND YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY TO ADMIT IT
It's already been proven - a tiny fraction of the evidence has been posted repeatedly in this thread and you just don't accept it. That's how the scientifically illiterate operate, they offer no counter evidence or actual science to back anything they say up, all they have is bought and paid for individuals masquerading as real scientists to publish criticisms that can't even make it past the peer review stage, which renders them as useless as an opinion piece in Cosmo. You get your hands on a handful of papers from people like that then hold them up as if THAT renders all the real science explaining anthropogenic climate change useless. Meanwhile you simultaneously ignore the tens of thousands of PEER REVIEWED papers published in science journals and built from decades of previous research. "Peer reviewed", meaning some scientist did some experiment and wrote down his findings, then dozens to hundreds of other scientists from around the world who have zero affiliation with that original person or his funders performs that same exact experiment and all come up with the exact same answers, it passes peer review and gets published. THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS!
For your idiotic theory to be possible, every single other scientist who performs the experiment has to be in the governments pocket, too. Consider the implications of this... Hundreds of thousands of individuals..
Now if none of you can tell me what I need to show you in order for you to accept anthropogenic climate change, then I'll accept that as a final admission that you're wrong. Every single theory in science can be verified or falsified, THAT is how science works.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Are you kidding me? What is accepted as proof, is proof. You want to equivocate on what is proof? Consensus is not Proof. The Church has complete consensus on a Fairy tale.
And a pick and choose poll of "top scientists" is not even consensus of anything except Rice Bowl clinging.
In math there is proof and in science there is proof. But, we can only prove our Current Understanding. You are trying to develop a CA, politically and call on science to prove it,while calling the consensus, evidence.
We, in science cannot go there. And I say we, because I am deep into weather modeling on vast compute resources, these days. Every time we do a breakthrough in Hardware, our group produces new computation science to harness that. Patents fly around, etc.
That last sentence is wrong. But, the answer is quite easy and I have said before and you are not listening. Here is proof for me.
- Models in Cloud Effect, that AGREE with SAT data, land and sea sub-surface data. IT DOES NOT.
---------Simply put the models predict warming but when we apply to current data, NO WARMING
- Create a Model that can show this 17 years of no warming in the atmosphere
- Show any result of warming
------20 meter ocean depth warming
------sea level rise, year over year
------a decease of sea ice Albedo in either WINTER
------a slowing of the Gulf Stream and the Arctic descending current
So, stop trying to pretend you know anything about science or how it works or what has to be proved.
You don't even have a Theory. Nice try, That is the top of Science and you don't have it. So, without that you have muttering conjecture, childish right fights of politic, and desperate polling for Rice Bowl. And you have data sets that make your climate models look stupid. So, some basic education for you.
Big Bang is Theory and yet, it is just about falsified already for me. Plenty of other, better (imo) math now. For a Theory, all 1)observation has to agree with 2) the math and vice verse. For Big Bang those 2 are now divergent.
For AGW, you have nothing...less than nothing. New Colonialism to me. Play on the superstition, keep their societies from using current Tech and play up for $$, the superior science of Whites.
So, this is AGW Snake Oil, not Theory.
And a pick and choose poll of "top scientists" is not even consensus of anything except Rice Bowl clinging.
In math there is proof and in science there is proof. But, we can only prove our Current Understanding. You are trying to develop a CA, politically and call on science to prove it,while calling the consensus, evidence.
We, in science cannot go there. And I say we, because I am deep into weather modeling on vast compute resources, these days. Every time we do a breakthrough in Hardware, our group produces new computation science to harness that. Patents fly around, etc.
That last sentence is wrong. But, the answer is quite easy and I have said before and you are not listening. Here is proof for me.
- Models in Cloud Effect, that AGREE with SAT data, land and sea sub-surface data. IT DOES NOT.
---------Simply put the models predict warming but when we apply to current data, NO WARMING
- Create a Model that can show this 17 years of no warming in the atmosphere
- Show any result of warming
------20 meter ocean depth warming
------sea level rise, year over year
------a decease of sea ice Albedo in either WINTER
------a slowing of the Gulf Stream and the Arctic descending current
So, stop trying to pretend you know anything about science or how it works or what has to be proved.
You don't even have a Theory. Nice try, That is the top of Science and you don't have it. So, without that you have muttering conjecture, childish right fights of politic, and desperate polling for Rice Bowl. And you have data sets that make your climate models look stupid. So, some basic education for you.
Big Bang is Theory and yet, it is just about falsified already for me. Plenty of other, better (imo) math now. For a Theory, all 1)observation has to agree with 2) the math and vice verse. For Big Bang those 2 are now divergent.
For AGW, you have nothing...less than nothing. New Colonialism to me. Play on the superstition, keep their societies from using current Tech and play up for $$, the superior science of Whites.
So, this is AGW Snake Oil, not Theory.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Wow, now it's up to 18 points from 7 then 10 then 11, now 18. The lie just keeps growing.certainly not as stupid as the guy who looked at simple scientific presidential polling and was off by 18 full percentage points.
muyloco's prediction: 54-40 romney
reality: 51-47 obama
error size: 18 percentage points
but even though you can't analyze simple polling data, i'm sure you're way ahead of publishing climatologists on this issue.
Hannity broken record says what?
The opinion of someone who simply stated Gallup's and Rasmussen's polling data at the time it was reported is far greater than an idiot who botches simple division on a regular basis. Again, How many zeroes are in a million? And don't get me started on percentages, because you've shown you can't handle those as well.
Clown shoes you are.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Im more than happy to elaborate on what proof would be necessary. Just as soon as you back up your criticism of my assertion that you want legislation to be enacted. Simply state for the record that you don't want ANY government action to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases. Then I will give a concise answer to your query.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
These upcoming lawsuits do not bode well for the supporters of APGW.
They are quite likely to be exposed as the charlatans they are if these cases go to trial.
Even though the science is settled...lol.
https://www.rollitup.org/technology-science/802149-bbow-global-warming-proof.html#post10246387
They are quite likely to be exposed as the charlatans they are if these cases go to trial.
Even though the science is settled...lol.
https://www.rollitup.org/technology-science/802149-bbow-global-warming-proof.html#post10246387
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link to that thread, I somehow missed it and the article. What a glorious day it is when the charlatans that Pad and UB prop up as experts are sued for every penny they have for propagating this suicidal hoax. Funny how EVERY Progressive claim eventually pans out to be false.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
You are more than welcome.
I am looking forward to Mann v Steyn with anticipatory glee.
Should be quite entertaining.
Consensus claims and other silly pronouncements will not hold up very well in the courtroom.
I have a hunch that these cases will never be adjudicated. They will probably, unfortunately, settle out of the courts.
Sad.
Doer
Well-Known Member
And Lying to the American People can be quite the offense to bring Articles against. We will see. This Global Deceit (not the usual political lying) can easily get to modern day version of Tar and Feathers. And that would be quite different in practice according to the Culture.You are more than welcome.
I am looking forward to Mann v Steyn with anticipatory glee.
Should be quite entertaining.
Consensus claims and other silly pronouncements will not hold up very well in the courtroom.
I have a hunch that these cases will never be adjudicated. They will probably, unfortunately, settle out of the courts.
Sad.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Here is something for you to chew on Padwan..
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17736-no-proof-of-man-made-climate-change-says-greenpeace-co-founder
Greenpeace co-founder admits Global warming is a Hoax...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17736-no-proof-of-man-made-climate-change-says-greenpeace-co-founder
Greenpeace co-founder admits Global warming is a Hoax...
Doer
Well-Known Member
NOT Green Peace! Say it isn't so!!!!!
Here is the deal, me druggies. Don't get fooled again. Fooled, the first time? I was. I fought the Law in front of Monsanto. I didn't win.
Since I have been peppering my DMI with old terms, like Colonialism, Snake Oil and Tar-Feathers, you should understand that this rip-off is so obvious from History.
The youth are fooled by their Idols, in so many ways, every single generation, for money and power. In the old days, no sophistication was required, Tie Glory to Sex with stirring Innuendo. Tie Sex to Protection and Protection to Glory. Good for 10K years.
Now we think we are so improved, so sophisticated, but youts are merely quick. The Deceitful and Ruthless elders, the ones not like me, who decided turn and jerk you youts around instead of making Rail against it all, have fooled you again. They chased failure into the Flame and got fat and Gored, now they expect you sheep to ether merge with the Lie Flame or perish as a muttering old fool that life's opportunities have passed by.
I chose the Rail.
Every day, new minted, 20-something,fools rush in, where many of us, all, did. And some will become the Flame of Lies, and some will, wise up, fly back, and try to DMI the ones that are not too close and are not too blinded.
Here is the deal, me druggies. Don't get fooled again. Fooled, the first time? I was. I fought the Law in front of Monsanto. I didn't win.
Since I have been peppering my DMI with old terms, like Colonialism, Snake Oil and Tar-Feathers, you should understand that this rip-off is so obvious from History.
The youth are fooled by their Idols, in so many ways, every single generation, for money and power. In the old days, no sophistication was required, Tie Glory to Sex with stirring Innuendo. Tie Sex to Protection and Protection to Glory. Good for 10K years.
Now we think we are so improved, so sophisticated, but youts are merely quick. The Deceitful and Ruthless elders, the ones not like me, who decided turn and jerk you youts around instead of making Rail against it all, have fooled you again. They chased failure into the Flame and got fat and Gored, now they expect you sheep to ether merge with the Lie Flame or perish as a muttering old fool that life's opportunities have passed by.
I chose the Rail.
Every day, new minted, 20-something,fools rush in, where many of us, all, did. And some will become the Flame of Lies, and some will, wise up, fly back, and try to DMI the ones that are not too close and are not too blinded.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't want any government action to limit GHG emissions
Now what would you accept as undeniable proof of anthropogenic climate change?
"The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space."
From your own source. Not sure if it was you, but climate change deniers on one of these three threads going have stated they don't believe the climate changes at all, and other have stated there's been no warming within the last two decades. So it's one or the other because we have only increased GHG emissions..
OH NOES! I guess all the decades of science are pure shit now!
Doesn't change a thing. People are not tied to scientific theories. It wouldn't matter if Darwin denounced the theory of evolution before he died, the theory of evolution would still be valid
Doer
Well-Known Member
You are so right. But Darwin was a scientist and observer who's works were completely misinterpreted for Power. And so it doesn't matter nor has any scientist cared about renunciation and recant, since Galileo. How dumb.
This Theory of Evolution cannot be proven without a Time Machine. Yet, there is no evidence for anything else. And since all observations so far, fit an evolutionary Theory, it has no challenge as our Current Understanding.
You get all pissy when I say there is no Current Understanding in Science about AGW. So, puts you on par with the Church with your renunciation ignorance.
But, the evidence is very scant,for Evolution, but it does exist. And that is quite unlike your Sagansim, for which there is no evidence at all.
In fact, in Cloud Science, it is quite easy for me to propose the entire idea of AGW is preposterous. And there is plenty of evidence that this is a balanced system, and no evidence that it is not.
It is quite possible, however, to fool some of the People, all of the time.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How are murder cases solved without time machines?
You are misrepresenting the fact that there is a near universal agreement on the scientific consensus of ACC. You are either purposefully lying when you say there is no current understanding or you're willfully ignorant of that fact
What evidence is there that supports the theory of evolution but isn't conclusive enough to prove it to you? What would prove to you evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth?
What are your credentials?
Doer
Well-Known Member
You think solving a case for a jury is the same as proving a case scientifically? No wonder you are so confused.
No. You are lying when you say this.
You are misrepresenting the fact that there is a near universal agreement on the scientific consensus of ACC.
Are you even listening to yourself?
All the scant evidence points to Evolutionary process in species and selection, etc. And there is no other evidence at present to say, this is not the way it is.
That is the opposite of AGW and though I explain it chapter and verse, it is obvious you already embrace the Lie and are blind.
In fact the big Glaring Gorilla in the room is you don't know anything, have not been right one time, you Saganists. about predicting anything in Climate. And the things you did predict are shown to be not happening. No warming.
And the things the same Saganists predicted before, did not happen. We were not in Global Cooling in the 70s. Methane was not a problem in the 90s. And carbon is not a problem now. All made up and all wrong.
It is the worse track record, ever, second only to the Church.
I made a list of acceptable evidence and you said nothing about any of it. So, stand mute and be laughed at.
Credentials? A lot more than your none. And that is the Fact.