An example of how much we don't know regarding this Planet...

[TakeAStepBack]

Moving the goal posts now?



You're too stupid to bother with, ClosedCognition.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Because in 1977 Science wasn't very sciencey... Now they've got it right... It's definitely Global Warming this time... And anyway, whatever it is, it's Big Fat Bald White Oil's fault and America's dominance in the World must be knocked down a peg or two... Amirite?



peace...

I often hope that conservatives will actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues instead of bouncing like a pinball from one set of reactionary yet unsubstantiated charges to another set of partisan accusations which later turn out to be untrue like is so often the case. But it appears to be a hope that is a complete waste of time on my part.

At this point, I wish someone would offer an explanation. Are conservatives just plain stupid? Or do they simply not care about what's true as long as they can stir the pot?

If it's stupidity, there's a cure for that. It's the aforementioned education. But a person has to be willing to learn. He or she has to be open to differentiating fact from fancy because, simply put, believing something and knowing something are not the SAME thing. You see, it is possible to believe things that are not true and not know things that are true. That's a pretty close definition of ignorance. And while ignorance is not something to be ashamed of because we're all ignorant about some things, willful ignorance is shameful if a person refuses to learn from their mistakes.

With that in mind, I'm gong to do you a favor which you could have done yourself if you would have just taken a little time to check the facts. You see, global coooling (or the so-called coming ice age) was never a widely held belief within the scientific community any more than the belief in Sasquatch is.

Below is a link that will explain it for you, mal.

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, is there a point to all this? Yes, there is. And here it is: If I see you post this drivel again (which is exactly what it is), then I will know you're either an ignoramus, a fool, or just someone who's not serious and should be ignored.

That goes for the rest of the lemmings who jumped on this thread to do an imitation of Al Pacino in a scene from "Scent of a Woman."

But but but...they have a magazine cover!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Moving the goal posts now?



You're too stupid to bother with, ClosedCognition.

Moved? I thought this was about the consensus not being there? This guy just said its not there. Upon closer inspection it is there. Isnt that enough for you or do ou require proof from me but not that guy in the name of fairness?

 

[Mustang]

Because in 1977 Science wasn't very sciencey... Now they've got it right... It's definitely Global Warming this time... And anyway, whatever it is, it's Big Fat Bald White Oil's fault and America's dominance in the World must be knocked down a peg or two... Amirite?



peace...

I often hope that conservatives will actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues instead of bouncing like a pinball from one set of reactionary yet unsubstantiated charges to another set of partisan accusations which later turn out to be untrue like is so often the case. But it appears to be a hope that is a complete waste of time on my part.

At this point, I wish someone would offer an explanation. Are conservatives just plain stupid? Or do they simply not care about what's true as long as they can stir the pot?

If it's stupidity, there's a cure for that. It's the aforementioned education. But a person has to be willing to learn. He or she has to be open to differentiating fact from fancy because, simply put, believing something and knowing something are not the SAME thing. You see, it is possible to believe things that are not true and not know things that are true. That's a pretty close definition of ignorance. And while ignorance is not something to be ashamed of because we're all ignorant about some things, willful ignorance is shameful if a person refuses to learn from their mistakes.

With that in mind, I'm gong to do you a favor which you could have done yourself if you would have just taken a little time to check the facts. You see, global coooling (or the so-called coming ice age) was never a widely held belief within the scientific community any more than the belief in Sasquatch is.

Below is a link that will explain it for you, mal.

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, is there a point to all this? Yes, there is. And here it is: If I see you post this drivel again (which is exactly what it is), then I will know you're either an ignoramus, a fool, or just someone who's not serious and should be ignored.

That goes for the rest of the lemmings who jumped on this thread to do an imitation of Al Pacino in a scene from "Scent of a Woman."

But but but...they have a magazine cover!

Perhaps his next thread will have pictures of Sasquatch which, of course, proves his existence just like the Creation Museum's display of a dinosaur with a saddle on it proves that dinosaurs and man coexisted in the Garden of Eden before "The Fall."

Stay tuned for the next thread where the secrets of the philosophers' stone will be discussed at great length.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Moving the goal posts now?



You're too stupid to bother with, ClosedCognition.

Moved? I thought this was about the consensus not being there? This guy just said its not there. Upon closer inspection it is there. Isnt that enough for you or do ou require proof from me but not that guy in the name of fairness?

There is no consensus. the mem was destroyed. The beliefs regarding climate change range drastically and there are serious questions about man's participation in climate change.

Read my lips, Dullard, in the scientific world, there is absolutely no consensus on AGW. None. Not even within a margin of error. That is peer reviewed, scientific fact. So the only "closer inspection" you have on the matter, is what you've concocted in that pea sized brain of yours.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Moving the goal posts now?



You're too stupid to bother with, ClosedCognition.

Moved? I thought this was about the consensus not being there? This guy just said its not there. Upon closer inspection it is there. Isnt that enough for you or do ou require proof from me but not that guy in the name of fairness?

There is no consensus. the mem was destroyed. The beliefs regarding climate change range drastically and there are serious questions about man's participation in climate change.

Read my lips, Dullard, in the scientific world, there is absolutely no consensus on AGW. None. Not even within a margin of error. That is peer reviewed, scientific fact. So the only "closer inspection" you have on the matter, is what you've concocted in that pea sized brain of yours.

Sure there is its been reviewed by peers. That link hasn't been reviewed by anyone but you swallow it hook deep. Why?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The link hasn't been peer reviewed, Dullard. You are correct. The paper cited within the link, has been peer reviewed. You lose. Like every other lazy LOLberal moron out there. There is no consensus on AGW. None.

 

[JoeNormal]

At this point, I wish someone would offer an explanation. Are conservatives just plain stupid? Or do they simply not care about what's true as long as they can stir the pot?

I think it's a matter of in for a penny, in for a pound. You've probably noticed that the new conservative tactic in government is doubling down. They're convinced that if they double down enough times, eventually things will go their way. Add to that their natural dis-inclination to change viewpoints even when given additional facts (hence the conservation of old ideas) and you have the makings of a very rigid ideology.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The link hasn't been peer reviewed, Dullard. You are correct. The paper cited within the link, has been peer reviewed. You lose. Like every other lazy LOLberal moron out there. There is no consensus on AGW. None.

No it hasn't unless that peer review is somewhere else because it isn't in that link. Sorry to break it to you.

GW has been agreed on by peers. The doubters doubts haven't been peer reviewed which makes their opinion just as valid as yours or mine.

 

[Redfish]

The link hasn't been peer reviewed, Dullard. You are correct. The paper cited within the link, has been peer reviewed. You lose. Like every other lazy LOLberal moron out there. There is no consensus on AGW. None.

No it hasn't unless that peer review is somewhere else because it isn't in that link. Sorry to break it to you.

GW has been agreed on by peers. The doubters doubts haven't been peer reviewed which makes their opinion just as valid as yours or mine.

Continuing to repeat a lie does not magically change it to the truth--------move on before you make a complete fool of yourself.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So, your assertion is that the Science and Education Journal published this piece without peer review?




You have fucking rocks in your head, kid.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The link hasn't been peer reviewed, Dullard. You are correct. The paper cited within the link, has been peer reviewed. You lose. Like every other lazy LOLberal moron out there. There is no consensus on AGW. None.

No it hasn't unless that peer review is somewhere else because it isn't in that link. Sorry to break it to you.

GW has been agreed on by peers. The doubters doubts haven't been peer reviewed which makes their opinion just as valid as yours or mine.

Continuing to repeat a lie does not magically change it to the truth--------move on before you make a complete fool of yourself.

And continuing to avoid providing evidence to your assertions does not magically change it to truth

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No it hasn't unless that peer review is somewhere else because it isn't in that link. Sorry to break it to you.

GW has been agreed on by peers. The doubters doubts haven't been peer reviewed which makes their opinion just as valid as yours or mine.

Continuing to repeat a lie does not magically change it to the truth--------move on before you make a complete fool of yourself.

And continuing to avoid providing evidence to your assertions does not magically change it to truth

You mean like you've been doing in this thread? Yes. Yes. Exactly liek that. You've continuously asserted that there is a sceintific consensus on AGW and hve not provided a single, solitary piece of evidence to back it up.

You're, like other lazy LOLberal morons, blowing smoke up our ass. There is no consensus from scientists on the existence of AGW, or those who make predictions. .3% is all you have.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Continuing to repeat a lie does not magically change it to the truth--------move on before you make a complete fool of yourself.

And continuing to avoid providing evidence to your assertions does not magically change it to truth

You mean like you've been doing in this thread? Yes. Yes. Exactly liek that. You've continuously asserted that there is a sceintific consensus on AGW and hve not provided a single, solitary piece of evidence to back it up.

You're, like other lazy LOLberal morons, blowing smoke up our ass. There is no consensus from scientists on the existence of AGW, or those who make predictions. .3% is all you have.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

 

[Big Black Dog]

A friend of mine got too close to the edge and fell off. Haven't seen him since.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

Ahahahahahaha

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And continuing to avoid providing evidence to your assertions does not magically change it to truth

You mean like you've been doing in this thread? Yes. Yes. Exactly liek that. You've continuously asserted that there is a sceintific consensus on AGW and hve not provided a single, solitary piece of evidence to back it up.

You're, like other lazy LOLberal morons, blowing smoke up our ass. There is no consensus from scientists on the existence of AGW, or those who make predictions. .3% is all you have.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

You do realize, you inbred moron, that this study by Cook has been scientifically vetted adn found wanting. The peer reviewed and published work by Legate et al. "debunked" this load of nonsense. Cook's paper is flawed, and the no name, no credit "consensus project" is not a credited source.




Fucking morons like you are so lazy you dont even know whats going on right in front of you. I just exposed this piece of trash for what it is (trash) and then you fucking cite it as proof of consensus.

 

[ClosedCaption]

ClosedCaption's Proof: 1
Takealeap's Proof: Zilch

 

[TakeAStepBack]

.3% consensus. Sit and spin, [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]

 

[ClosedCaption]

No proof 100% consensus you're a retard