"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???
- Thread starter tobinates559
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
No one cares to admit it. But these fools know full well why AGW was changed to ACC.
Everyone does. If anything proves there is no man-made warming, it is this. They are gearing up to blame the next generation of young PattytBucks, for Man Made Cooling. The Saganist will say, we tried to tell you the climate was changing. We tried to warn you back in the 9Os.
Climate Change???? That has to be the the most foolish weather joke there is.
Knock knock - Who there?
Climate Change.
Why does the little idiot think the Climate is changing?
They looked out the window.
Ha Haaaa.
Everyone does. If anything proves there is no man-made warming, it is this. They are gearing up to blame the next generation of young PattytBucks, for Man Made Cooling. The Saganist will say, we tried to tell you the climate was changing. We tried to warn you back in the 9Os.
Climate Change???? That has to be the the most foolish weather joke there is.
Knock knock - Who there?
Climate Change.
Why does the little idiot think the Climate is changing?
They looked out the window.
Ha Haaaa.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Another recent canard spread by the Climate Nazis is that there is now more extreme weather here in the US because of ACC.
Pure piffle.
This guy has an interesting perspective.
[h=3]Buffett: Climate change not causing more disasters[/h]
http://www.wsfa.com/story/24868401/buffett-climate-change-not-causing-more-disasters
Pure piffle.
This guy has an interesting perspective.
[h=3]Buffett: Climate change not causing more disasters[/h]
http://www.wsfa.com/story/24868401/buffett-climate-change-not-causing-more-disasters
Doer
Well-Known Member
What we have here is the UN-concious linkages. It is what I call emotion tampering. But, still that is too many syllables for the usual clod around here. So, I changed, for them, to Mind Fuck.
Here is mind fuck. Blaming the CA drought on Global Warming. Niotice how CNN is not so stupid as to call it climate change. They still need to sell Ad spots.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/05/news/companies/global-warming-chipotle-guacamole/
Here is mind fuck. Blaming the CA drought on Global Warming. Niotice how CNN is not so stupid as to call it climate change. They still need to sell Ad spots.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/05/news/companies/global-warming-chipotle-guacamole/
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Actually he's citing a WaPo article from July 9, 1971. Pretty shitty deflection. I wonder if you're this emotional or you're just deliberately deceitful. Either way, poor form.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
They mentioned "climate change" at the end of the article when forecasting a 40% cut in avocado production.
Mixed message?
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
You might want to brush up on your critical thinking skills. I thought you had an open mind.
He did not say that. My guess is that he suspects we could have been placed here by a third party of some kind. Which isn't entirely out of the question. We could have even been created. Seeing as how we create things genetically, it's not a huge stretch.
Not to speak for him, I probably shouldn't and I have no idea really what he believes, but you sure seem to think you do. Most of your posts in this thread are logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
I sit on the fence with AGW. I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest outside forces are causing our climate shifts much more so than we are. See, for example, other planets and their relative temperatures and weather patterns as observed by NASA. They are experiencing similar things. Coincidentally the Sun recently completely flipped it's axis. This seems to indicate there are outside forces at work. Which really shouldn't be a shock to any reasonable human being. Of course, most human beings are emotionally driven and not reasonable at all.
Doer
Well-Known Member
It is slander the person to protect the Saganist Lie. It is formally called in Rhetoric, the argumentum ad hominem.
Technically it is considered a genetic fallacy of logic, in the subclass of irrelevance.
That is the height of Buck MO here, if you have noticed. It just is lower self debasesment from there.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
What would they lose exactly?
You do realize who owns the patents for alternative energy sources, right?
Peak oil was a theory created by the oil companies. I wonder why?
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Yup.
JP Morgan was financing him until he realized that he wouldn't be able to meter the power being generated. Uncontrolled? That's no good at all.
He also figured out the frequency of the earth about 50 years before anyone else and was able to cause an earthquake in New York with a tiny steam powered machine that operated at the same frequency (those in fracking know whats up with this).
Doer
Well-Known Member
But, what was the CNN Headline? And what prompted them to dig into the finance forecast, is what MoneyCNN does.They mentioned "climate change" at the end of the article when forecasting a 40% cut in avocado production.
Mixed message?
What prompted the Corporation is obvious. Blame shedding.
What prompted CNN to go with that headline? Mind Fuck.
Doer
Well-Known Member
All these PattyBucks are somewhat retarded, don't you know?
They have to have Belief, but have rejected religion.
Doer
Well-Known Member
That is funny since you act like you just work up yesterday, and even failed at that.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Deliberately deceitful for agenda. He is no dumb bunny, that much is obvious.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Sounds reasonable to me. CNN is just as sensationalist as FOX or MSNBC.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Speaking of emotional pleas.
The areas that will be "hit the hardest" are those of the third world
according to the "science".
We are made to believe that if we have large footprints, such as those from
highly inefficient grows or anyone not riding a single cylinder motorcycle
(suck that prius heads) that we create typhoons and disaster to the third world.
We ignore the economic damage the third world suffers as a result of green policy.
So we can stop growing inefficiently and talking and driving to possibly stop
a hurricane years from now based on bogus science or..........
We can ditch all the stupid policies and have unrestricted trade allowing them
an economic come up right now.
Which one is less stupider?
The areas that will be "hit the hardest" are those of the third world
according to the "science".
We are made to believe that if we have large footprints, such as those from
highly inefficient grows or anyone not riding a single cylinder motorcycle
(suck that prius heads) that we create typhoons and disaster to the third world.
We ignore the economic damage the third world suffers as a result of green policy.
So we can stop growing inefficiently and talking and driving to possibly stop
a hurricane years from now based on bogus science or..........
We can ditch all the stupid policies and have unrestricted trade allowing them
an economic come up right now.
Which one is less stupider?
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Who finances most AGW research? Oh, it's the same people, through different channels. This line of argument is weak, because the money behind all this is funding both sides of the argument. For example Greenpeace receives a lot of money from the Rockefeller foundation. Greenpeace was one of the first to scream about the GCC being industry schills. Yet, they receive a lot of funding from big time share holders in said industry.
Why would they do that you might ask? Politics. Divide and conquer.
The truth of the situation isn't well understood. And those proclaiming to understand it with any large degree of certainty, well, they're fucking morons. To put it kindly. Even dumber are those who want to implement policy certain to negatively impact peoples lives in a huge way (including but not limited to death), ultimate jackasses.
You want to clean up the world? Push for hemp based industry. It would be like night and day. Durable products that last. Renewable resource. Huge energy production potential. Biodegradable products. And its carbon neutral, not that I necessarily think that really matters all that much, but just in case.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Ahh yes, solar panels and energy efficiency. That's a good one. Last I saw it took more energy to create one than they could ever recover.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Fuckin .......A.