Global Warming Update!

[TxHoops]

6 minutes ago, Englebert said:

So you refuse to point to the correct link? Why is that? I'm pretty sure I (and everyone) knows.

What makes you think I didn't read them? Must be that Liberal logic to draw conclusions based on faulty data, skewed data, made-up data, or no data. I'm beginning to see how the Man-Made Global Warming theory took hold.

I recommended you click on each link.  It is obvious to me you need to read each one to help you gain a better understanding of the topic (which you consistently display, to those who actually do have a grasp of it, a severe lack of any such understanding).  I am being sincere when I say “all of them.”   I am not here to teach a science class.  But I am happy to provide the data for one to educate themselves, if they are so capable.

And I think you didn’t read them because you didn’t.  If you’re honest, you would admit that. 

[TxHoops]

18 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I hope his show is not on the same time as The View. Now that is must see TV. Is that what the sharpest knives tune to?

I have seen very, very little of that show other than a few clips.  I have heard much more of Limbaugh than those ladies.  But from I can gather, they target a similar audience, albeit from different sides of the aisle so to speak. 

[Englebert]

3 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I recommended you click on each link.  It is obvious to me you need to read each one to help you gain a better understanding of the topic (which you consistently display, to those who actually do have a grasp of it, a severe lack of any such understanding).  I am being sincere when I say “all of them.”   I am not here to teach a science class.  But I am happy to provide the data for one to educate themselves, if they are so capable.

And I think you didn’t read them because you didn’t.  If you’re honest, you would admit that. 

You typify the Man-Made Global Warming theorists. You guess, then state it as fact. You refuse to give any evidence. No need to admit it, we can all easily see this.

And I would be willing to bet that I've read more articles, papers, journals, etc. on Man-Made Global Warming than you can even imagine. (I will not state that as fact because that would make me no better than those "scientists".) It is clear that you have done little research. You seem to rely on others telling you what you should believe, with little to no skepticism. Sorry, but I will not "take someone's word for it" on this subject. The "evidence" you provided is shockingly bad, and nobody should fall for such nonsense. I'm curious as to how someone can draw conclusions on data that dismisses many, many, many mitigating factors. That one little tidbit of fact should lead anyone reading on the subject to be highly skeptical. Couple that with the fact that every single (not most, not the majority...every single) forecasting module has been wrong. Not a little wrong, but wildly wrong. And not wrong on both sides, but always wrong on the warmer side. Why is that? Is that cause for skepticism? I won't get into the fact that the data has been altered and manipulated, which basically shouts that everyone should be highly skeptical of any analysis based on this data. I just want to concentrate on the lack of evidence of Man's involvement. We spent trillions of dollars on research for the scientists to tell us "Hey, the Earth is changing." Why can't they produce the evidence showing Man's involvement. Is it a secret? Do they think we can't handle the truth. Or is it more of the case that they can't. I'm guessing the latter. I don't think I've ever ran across a theory that had 98% agreement with no evidence. The supporting evidence for any theory with 98% agreement should be a simple Bing/Google search away. Do you find this puzzling? Should this be cause for skepticism?

Let's say you want to clean up the environment. Not just here, but the whole world. This will cost a lot of money...trillions of dollars. How would you go about this? You can ask the taxpayers to support this effort. You can run on the platform "If elected I will spend trillions of dollars cleaning up pollution, no matter how much it impacts our economy. I will also give trillions of dollars to all of the foreign countries so they might clean their environment also." Do you think you would be elected. Conversely, you could stage a crisis. You can tell all of the sheeple to donate their wealth (forced through taxation) so that we can avoid this catastrophe. If anyone dares question this eminent demise, you immediately shun them and call them cute little derogatory names. You send out the SS/Blackshirts/Liberal media to make sure this type of talk is not tolerated. In fact, you make it a crime to even question the veracity of your unsubstantiated claims. (See my earlier post.) You must resort to these tactics because you cannot convince enough people to support your endeavor simply by flowery talk. Luckily, we still have enough skeptics to prevent such tactics from succeeding.

[LumRaiderFan]

55 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I would highly recommend it.  It is obvious who his target audience is.  Let’s just say it’s not the sharpest knives in the drawer.  If he were honest, even Rush would admit this. 

lol...you talk yourself into believing the silliest statements, just because you say them.

Hoops, do you believe that there was once an ice age?

Simple question, yes or no.

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

I would highly recommend it.  It is obvious who his target audience is.  Let’s just say it’s not the sharpest knives in the drawer.  If he were honest, even Rush would admit this. 

Pray tell- exactly who are the "sharpest knives in the drawer" and exactly who is qualified to make that "declaration"?

[Englebert]

The thing that concerns me the most about this whole subject is not that it is leading many people to distrust the government and scientists. Skepticism for both is healthy. My biggest concern is that it will turn people away from protecting our environment. I'm afraid that many people will return to polluting and unhealthy practices upon our land. Any admonishment delivered or attempts to reign this in will be met with the "there's goes those nutjob, lying environmentalists again". In my opinion, that will be the outfall of this movement. The Man-Made Global Warmest nazis do not have the evidence, and many, if not most, are slowly starting to realize this. The retribution for being duped could be quite seriously harmful to this planet. That is the real crisis.

[TxHoops]

27 minutes ago, Englebert said:

You typify the Man-Made Global Warming theorists. You guess, then state it as fact. You refuse to give any evidence. No need to admit it, we can all easily see this.

And I would be willing to bet that I've read more articles, papers, journals, etc. on Man-Made Global Warming than you can even imagine. (I will not state that as fact because that would make me no better than those "scientists".) It is clear that you have done little research. You seem to rely on others telling you what you should believe, with little to no skepticism. Sorry, but I will not "take someone's word for it" on this subject. The "evidence" you provided is shockingly bad, and nobody should fall for such nonsense. I'm curious as to how someone can draw conclusions on data that dismisses many, many, many mitigating factors. That one little tidbit of fact should lead anyone reading on the subject to be highly skeptical. Couple that with the fact that every single (not most, not the majority...every single) forecasting module has been wrong. Not a little wrong, but wildly wrong. And not wrong on both sides, but always wrong on the warmer side. Why is that? Is that cause for skepticism? I won't get into the fact that the data has been altered and manipulated, which basically shouts that everyone should be highly skeptical of any analysis based on this data. I just want to concentrate on the lack of evidence of Man's involvement. We spent trillions of dollars on research for the scientists to tell us "Hey, the Earth is changing." Why can't they produce the evidence showing Man's involvement. Is it a secret? Do they think we can't handle the truth. Or is it more of the case that they can't. I'm guessing the latter. I don't think I've ever ran across a theory that had 98% agreement with no evidence. The supporting evidence for any theory with 98% agreement should be a simple Bing/Google search away. Do you find this puzzling? Should this be cause for skepticism?

Let's say you want to clean up the environment. Not just here, but the whole world. This will cost a lot of money...trillions of dollars. How would you go about this? You can ask the taxpayers to support this effort. You can run on the platform "If elected I will spend trillions of dollars cleaning up pollution, no matter how much it impacts our economy. I will also give trillions of dollars to all of the foreign countries so they might clean their environment also." Do you think you would be elected. Conversely, you could stage a crisis. You can tell all of the sheeple to donate their wealth (forced through taxation) so that we can avoid this catastrophe. If anyone dares question this eminent demise, you immediately shun them and call them cute little derogatory names. You send out the SS/Blackshirts/Liberal media to make sure this type of talk is not tolerated. In fact, you make it a crime to even question the veracity of your unsubstantiated claims. (See my earlier post.) You must resort to these tactics because you cannot convince enough people to support your endeavor simply by flowery talk. Luckily, we still have enough skeptics to prevent such tactics from succeeding.

Once again, you post a wordy dissertation that amounts to no more than “nuh uh.”  The fact that you quote “facts” that there are no facts is what leads me to believe you have merely been spoon fed the hypothesis that you regurgitate over and over.  I HIGHLY doubt you have read more than I have on this subject.  But the bet to which you allude is useless, since it is unquantifiable (unlike a previous bet I proposed). 

But here is one study that has been endorsed by virtually every scientific organization in the world (if we are talking actual science - not the junk deny, deny, deny by those whose agenda it does not fit and who shovel it in the gullets of those hangers on who may die in ignorance. The answer to some of the questions you ask are located therein:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[TxHoops]

27 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

lol...you talk yourself into believing the silliest statements, just because you say them.

Hoops, do you believe that there was once an ice age?

Simple question, yes or no.

Yes

[TxHoops]

22 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Pray tell- exactly who are the "sharpest knives in the drawer" and exactly who is qualified to make that "declaration"?

That is an idiom for the most intelligent people. 

[TxHoops]

24 minutes ago, Englebert said:

TThe thing that concerns me the most about this whole subject is not that it is leading many people to distrust the government and scientists. Skepticism for both is healthy. My biggest concern is that it will turn people away from protecting our environment. I'm afraid that many people will return to polluting and unhealthy practices upon our land. Any admonishment delivered or attempts to reign this in will be met with the "there's goes those nutjob environmentalists again". In my opinion, that will be the outfall of this movement. The Man-Made Global Warmest nazis do not have the evidence, and many, if not most, are slowly starting to realize this. The retribution for being duped could be quite seriously harmful to this planet. That is the real crisis.

This concern is as laughable as you general premise on the subject.  In point of fact, despite your kind’s best efforts, the exact opposite has been the general effect. 

[stevenash]

" Intelligence" from my experience and perspective is a very relative term.

[Englebert]

15 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Once again, you post a wordy dissertation that amounts to no more than “nuh uh.”  The fact that you quote “facts” that there are no facts is what leads me to believe you have merely been spoon fed the hypothesis that you regurgitate over and over.  I HIGHLY doubt you have read more than I have on this subject.  But the bet to which you allude is useless, since it is unquantifiable (unlike a previous bet I proposed). 

But here is one study that has been endorsed by virtually every scientific organization in the world (if we are talking actual science - not the junk deny, deny, deny by those whose agenda it does not fit and who shovel it in the gullets of those hangers on who may die in ignorance. The answer to some of the questions you ask are located therein:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

I read that one a long time ago. And in typical fashion, does NOT provide any evidence that man is the cause of a changing climate. That is not even worth the proverbial "nice try". Please provide evidence that is discernible to someone outside your head.

Oh, and those forecasting models included in that paper...how did those turn out? Would you like to guess? And that paper also failed to account for many, many factors that most likely contribute way more than Man. Why did it leave those factors out? And the paper also "touched on" the fact that the data has been altered/manipulated, and gave a pathetic excuse for the reasoning.

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I read that one a long time ago. And in typical fashion, does NOT provide any evidence that man is the cause of a changing climate. That is not even worth the proverbial "nice try". Please provide evidence that is discernible to one's outside your head.

Reading comprehension - NOT your friend lol

[TxHoops]

Wait - my bad.  I forgot Engy has his own scientific troup - tin foil hats and all!

[Englebert]

5 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

This concern is as laughable as you general premise on the subject.  In point of fact, despite your kind’s best efforts, the exact opposite has been the effect. 

Just because you can't understand or can't forsee the inevitable doesn't make your statement true. In fact, it illustrates the narrowmindedness that is typical of the a Man-Made Global Warming nazi. 

[Englebert]

4 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Reading comprehension - NOT your friend lol

Wow, did you come up with that conclusion all by yourself? Admit it, you must be in a 3rd grade classroom soliciting help.

[LumRaiderFan]

6 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Yes

So we have obviously gone through global warming, correct?

...without any help from man...why so hard to believe it's not happening now?

[Englebert]

5 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Wait - my bad.  I forgot Engy has his own scientific troup - tin foil hats and all!

Says the man that refuses to provide evidence for his contentions. I think I was wrong earlier, you must be soliciting in a fourth grade class. 

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So we have obviously gone through global warming, correct?

...without any help from man...why so hard to believe it's not happening now?

It is not solely man’s cause, nor is that the claim.  But exacerbation, that’s another issue entirely...

[TxHoops]

7 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Wow, did you come up with that conclusion all by yourself? Admit it, you must be in a 3rd grade classroom soliciting help.

 

5 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Says the man that refuses to provide evidence for his contentions. I think I was wrong earlier, you must be soliciting in a fourth grade class. 

Sport, I have already offered to put my money where my mouth is when it comes to proving which classroom we belong.  Specifically, in a quantifiable exam measuring solely one’s logical and analytical reasoning (of which you seem to be pretty self-impressed).  But I understand - you want no part of that.  After all, one can’t bluster or name call one’s way through such a test.  And you would have ZERO chance of winning such test anyway.  You could conceivably tie - but I would put another obscene side bet against that as well.  Carry on to the fifth grade now lol

[Englebert]

6 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

It is not solely man’s cause, nor is that the claim.  But exacerbation, that’s another issue entirely...

Enough to cause a shutdown of our entire way of life? Or give trillions of dollars to third world countries (including China, who owns much of our debt.)?  And where is this evidence that shows exacerbation. If the scientists are so right, why have their forecasting models been so wrong. Go back and read the forecasting models section. I bet you can't without laughing.

[LumRaiderFan]

9 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

It is not solely man’s cause, nor is that the claim.  But exacerbation, that’s another issue entirely...

That is the claim by many, and they want to regulate accordingly.

As far as exacerbation, you are living in Al Gore's space...we MUST regulate before the earth is destroyed.

By the way, his doomsday deadline has passed.

[Englebert]

13 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

 

Sport, I have already offered to put my money where my mouth is when it comes to proving which classroom we belong.  Specifically, in a quantifiable exam measuring solely one’s logical and analytical reasoning (of which you seem to be pretty self-impressed).  But I understand - you want no part of that.  After all, one can’t bluster or name call one’s way through such a test.  And you would have ZERO chance of winning such test anyway.  You could conceivably tie - but I would put another obscene side bet against that as well.  Carry on to the fifth grade now lol

What makes you think I want no part of it. Oh I forgot, just making up facts again. How logical. Or would that be analytical?

And which classroom did I say you belong. Try reading my post again, slowly, and tell me which classroom I said you belong to. The evidence is about the same as your Global Warming evidence, i.e. nonexistent.

And are you really accusing me of name calling when you started this whole conversation with heavy condescension? I'm guessing analytics is not a strong point for you, especially seeing how you are so easily manipulated by garbage "science".

Sounds to me like you are not having as much fun as I am.

[Tigers2010]

Okay how about this:

Global Warming is a natural process that has occurred over the course of Earth's history. 

The advancement of Man has sped up the process to some degree, but that, in itself, is also a natural part of life.

[stevenash]

Wasn't Manhattan supposed to be under water by now?