Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why are you asking people to back your ridiculous strawman?No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?That's what I knew. You are full of shit.Joe down the street.
Doesn't that embarass you?
So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.
Too bad.
It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.
Oh well.
Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.
No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?That's what I knew. You are full of shit.Joe down the street.
Doesn't that embarass you?
So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.
Too bad.
It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.
Oh well.
Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.
First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.
Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.
Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.
Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?
No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?That's what I knew. You are full of shit.
Doesn't that embarass you?
So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.
Too bad.
It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.
Oh well.
Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.
First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.
Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.
Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.
Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?
You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:
NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere
That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?
So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.
Too bad.
It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.
Oh well.
Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.
First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.
Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.
Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.
Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?
You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:
NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere
Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other
It's a simple question, why are you dodging it?Why are you asking people to back your ridiculous strawman?No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?That's what I knew. You are full of shit.
Doesn't that embarass you?
So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.
Too bad.
It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.
Oh well.
Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.
Are you a sock? Come on now, admitted it, you are in fact CrusaderFrank. No one but he is capable of posting one-line idiot-grams with such regularity.
For those who aren't aware, and idiot-gram is a post, most always a single sentence, totally void of anything substantive.
It's a simple question, why are you dodging it?Why are you asking people to back your ridiculous strawman?No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?
So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.
Too bad.
It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.
Oh well.
Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.
Are you a sock? Come on now, admitted it, you are in fact CrusaderFrank. No one but he is capable of posting one-line idiot-grams with such regularity.
For those who aren't aware, and idiot-gram is a post, most always a single sentence, totally void of anything substantive.
That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.
Too bad.
It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.
Oh well.
Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.
First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.
Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.
Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.
Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?
You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:
NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere
Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other
Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?That's what I knew. You are full of shit.
Doesn't that embarass you?
So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.
Too bad.
It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.
Oh well.
Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.
First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.
Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.
Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.
Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?
You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:
NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere
Oh really . dummy, you mean like consensus on FOX News.That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.
First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.
Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.
Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.
Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?
You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:
NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere
Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other
No, Honey Boo Boo, Denier, like Consensus, is a Cult word.
What does FOX News have to do with the subject?Oh really . dummy, you mean like consensus on FOX News.That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.
Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.
Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.
Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?
You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:
NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere
Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other
No, Honey Boo Boo, Denier, like Consensus, is a Cult word.
What does FOX News have to do with the subject?Oh really . dummy, you mean like consensus on FOX News.That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:
NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere
Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other
No, Honey Boo Boo, Denier, like Consensus, is a Cult word.
You are obviously deflecting.
Is that what your mother told you?What does FOX News have to do with the subject?Oh really . dummy, you mean like consensus on FOX News.That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other
No, Honey Boo Boo, Denier, like Consensus, is a Cult word.
You are obviously deflecting.
Luminol makes dried semen stains true blue
True story
Is that what your mother told you?What does FOX News have to do with the subject?Oh really . dummy, you mean like consensus on FOX News.That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.
No, Honey Boo Boo, Denier, like Consensus, is a Cult word.
You are obviously deflecting.
Luminol makes dried semen stains true blue
True story
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse EffectIt's great to see our education system turn out people who simply say
"You are lying."
I have yet to see anything that supports the claim yet.
Me, I am undecided.
But I get a little sick of people wasting bandwidth with these constant tripe chants.
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.
The American Institute of Physics is simply the biggest Scientific Society in the world. This site has many links to information and papers concerning the climate. It is not a blog by undegreed people with no credentials, but a site put together by real working scientists.
All right you lying sack of shit... Provided the data, method, and math which shows how you determined mans contribution and how that contribution has affected the planet. Hell, Even the IPCC recognizes that 65-75% of the rise is from natural causes and not man made...
Lets see some real science from you for once.
And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..
And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..
Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.
And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..
Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.
Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?
So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.
Too bad.
It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.
Oh well.
Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.
First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.
Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.
Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.
Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?
You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:
NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere
Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?
Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.
