Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[bornright]

I am just a farmer that believes everything in nature runs in cycles therefore I do doubt the global warming theory. The global warming theory is no more than a theory of what is going on from collected facts. Unfortunately many times that data is flawed....not neccessarily deliberately but in many cases through ignorance. The temperatures were according to your study done near or in cities. You do not need to be a scientist to realize that the concrete and asphalt draws and absorbs heat. In other words the further away from the large cities with all the concrete the tempatures would be cooler. If you doubt me feel free when the temperature is in the 90's lay on your grass for 5 min. then go lay on a concrete slab for 5 min.. Please do not protest to do away with concrete buildings and roads.

 

[Si modo]

What's your background? Your education? What field of science do you work in?

You can pretend this post doesn't exist, SAT, but your desperate wishful thinking alters reality not one whit.

I did ignore it, because it's usually pointless to put your credentials out in a discussion like this. I've had people argue with me about what happens at my job, when they've got no clue about it.

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused.

Then you won't have any trouble linking to any of them, will you?

Oh, wait...you haven't yet. You just keep weaseling out of it.

Yes, it's tough to find something that meets all of Si's demands-which is Si's game.

Are you joining her in claiming that there is no peer reviewed science on global warming that purports to show AGW?

Game?

This is no game.

This is just plain old simple logic.

So, as you cannot back up your claim - "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused." - it's false.

QED.

When or if you back it up, we move on.

Until then, your resistance to simple logic is beyond boring.

 

[SAT]

No. I am asking you to back up your claim, fuckwit.

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

Trust me, it's not rocket science.

Calm down.

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused. You can't be that deep in a state of denial. You don't have to agree with those studies to know that they exist.

What we're talking about now is you linking to something that rebuts those studies.

And again, if that link doesn't address your word string "You want me to prove that void", then have you got another way to say it?

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

It's not rocket science.

But, until you do back it up, your claim is utter bullshit.

That's how it works.

(I hope you realize how idiotic you are looking. Just so you know.)

Yes, anytime I spend with someone as pathetic as yourself harms my image. I agree. But human personality interests me, and you're a really amazing case. For example, your saying that "[my] claim is utter bullshit" unless I give you a link is uniquely abnormal. KWIM?

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

 

[Si modo]

Calm down.

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused. You can't be that deep in a state of denial. You don't have to agree with those studies to know that they exist.

What we're talking about now is you linking to something that rebuts those studies.

And again, if that link doesn't address your word string "You want me to prove that void", then have you got another way to say it?

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

It's not rocket science.

But, until you do back it up, your claim is utter bullshit.

That's how it works.

(I hope you realize how idiotic you are looking. Just so you know.)

Yes, anytime I spend with someone as pathetic as yourself harms my image. I agree. But human personality interests me, and you're a really amazing case. For example, your saying that "[my] claim is utter bullshit" unless I give you a link is uniquely abnormal. KWIM?

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

I, now, completely understand how simple logic - making a claim and supporting it - is "abnormal" to you.

Pssst. Science is never done by vote.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Calm down.

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused. You can't be that deep in a state of denial. You don't have to agree with those studies to know that they exist.

What we're talking about now is you linking to something that rebuts those studies.

And again, if that link doesn't address your word string "You want me to prove that void", then have you got another way to say it?

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

It's not rocket science.

But, until you do back it up, your claim is utter bullshit.

That's how it works.

(I hope you realize how idiotic you are looking. Just so you know.)

Yes, anytime I spend with someone as pathetic as yourself harms my image. I agree. But human personality interests me, and you're a really amazing case. For example, your saying that "[my] claim is utter bullshit" unless I give you a link is uniquely abnormal. KWIM?

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

a consensus statement on global warming

A consensus? LOL!

 

[SAT]

What's your background? Your education? What field of science do you work in?

I did ignore it, because it's usually pointless to put your credentials out in a discussion like this. I've had people argue with me about what happens at my job, when they've got no clue about it.

Then you won't have any trouble linking to any of them, will you?

Oh, wait...you haven't yet. You just keep weaseling out of it.

Yes, it's tough to find something that meets all of Si's demands-which is Si's game.

Are you joining her in claiming that there is no peer reviewed science on global warming that purports to show AGW?

Game?

This is no game.

This is just plain old simple logic.

So, as you cannot back up your claim - "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused." - it's false.

QED.

When or if you back it up, we move on.

Until then, your resistance to simple logic is beyond boring.

Well, there's the difference between us. I find your resistance to simple logic to be absolutely fascinating.

Reality is not dependent upon my posting a link. Is that over your head?

We both know that the Journal of Climatology exists. I don't have to give you a link to make it real, and if I don't post a link, that doesn't make the Journal of Climatology go away.

We both know that the Journal of Climatology has posted many articles of the type I describe.

Please don't let your anger blind you to this-I'm not asking that you agree with that POV. Just that such articles exist.

 

[uscitizen]

Grilled Crow Breast

Breast out crows the same way you would a dove. Soak the breast
in water with a tablespoon of salt for 30 minutes to draw out some
of the blood. Marinate the breast for 20 minutes in Dale's Steak
Sauce or other soy based sauce. Red wine also works well but
needs to soak overnight.
Drain off the marinade and place the breast on a hot grill with wet
hickory chips andcook for 10 minutes on each side. Avoid over
cooking as this tends to dry out the meat and toughen it. When
cooked properly the meat cuts and looks like grilled venison.

Line the bottom and sides of the crock pot with slices of potato to
keep the breast from touching the pot. Stack 24 breast which have
been pre-soaked into the pot. Sprinkle one package of onion soup
mix over the breast and add 1/2 cup of water. Cook on high setting
for 2 hours and then reduce to low for 4 hours. The breast will be
very tender done this was. If you like you can also add salt and
pepper to taste and a real onion and diced stalk of celery.

THE CROW ROOST : CROW HUNTING : CROW SHOOTING : CROW RECIPES : CROW VIDEOS : GUIDED HUNTS

 

[SAT]

I, now, completely understand how simple logic - making a claim and supporting it - is "abnormal" to you.

Pssst. Science is never done by vote.

We're both abnormal, or we wouldn't be doing this.

Scientists often develop a consensus about the state of knowledge in a field. You're trotting out every debunked line out there.

 

[daveman]

What's your background? Your education? What field of science do you work in?

You can pretend this post doesn't exist, SAT, but your desperate wishful thinking alters reality not one whit.

I did ignore it, because it's usually pointless to put your credentials out in a discussion like this. I've had people argue with me about what happens at my job, when they've got no clue about it.

Yet you expect that your demands for others' credentials be met.

Hypocrite.

Oh, and I'd say you have no particular education, training, or experience in any field of science. You really don't seem to understand science at all.

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused.

Then you won't have any trouble linking to any of them, will you?

Oh, wait...you haven't yet. You just keep weaseling out of it.

Yes, it's tough to find something that meets all of Si's demands-which is Si's game.

Are you joining her in claiming that there is no peer reviewed science on global warming that purports to show AGW?

She never claimed that, and neither have I. We just expect you to back up your claims.

So far, you have failed.

 

[daveman]

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

A statement is not science. A statement is opinion.

You really are not very bright.

 

[bripat9643]

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

A statement is not science. A statement is opinion.

You really are not very bright.

Anyone who claims a consensus is science unmasks himself as an ignoramus. If he claims to be a scientist, then he's a fraud.

 

[Si modo]

I did ignore it, because it's usually pointless to put your credentials out in a discussion like this. I've had people argue with me about what happens at my job, when they've got no clue about it.



Yes, it's tough to find something that meets all of Si's demands-which is Si's game.

Are you joining her in claiming that there is no peer reviewed science on global warming that purports to show AGW?

Game?

This is no game.

This is just plain old simple logic.

So, as you cannot back up your claim - "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused." - it's false.

QED.

When or if you back it up, we move on.

Until then, your resistance to simple logic is beyond boring.

Well, there's the difference between us. I find your resistance to simple logic to be absolutely fascinating.

Reality is not dependent upon my posting a link. Is that over your head?

We both know that the Journal of Climatology exists. I don't have to give you a link to make it real, and if I don't post a link, that doesn't make the Journal of Climatology go away.

We both know that the Journal of Climatology has posted many articles of the type I describe.

Please don't let your anger blind you to this-I'm not asking that you agree with that POV. Just that such articles exist.

You refuse to back up your claim.

And still do.

Your claim, therefore, means nothing.

You are not doing well so far.

I would say that you aren't out of the gate, but I suspect you can't even find the gate.



And, I predict your next post to me will still have nothing of substance - you will still refuse to back up your claim.

Prove me wrong. You know you want to.

 

[Si modo]

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

A statement is not science. A statement is opinion.

You really are not very bright.

I've told the kid twice what science is.

So, obviously, he has no interest in discussing science.

 

[daveman]

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

A statement is not science. A statement is opinion.

You really are not very bright.

Anyone who claims a consensus is science unmasks himself as an ignoramus. If he claims to be a scientist, then he's a fraud.

He's been programmed. That's all. He's a mindless sheep.

 

[daveman]

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

A statement is not science. A statement is opinion.

You really are not very bright.

I've told the kid twice what science is.

So, obviously, he has no interest in discussing science.

Of course not. He's an AGW cultist. They don't do science. They do religion.

 

[westwall]

Calm down.

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused. You can't be that deep in a state of denial. You don't have to agree with those studies to know that they exist.

What we're talking about now is you linking to something that rebuts those studies.

And again, if that link doesn't address your word string "You want me to prove that void", then have you got another way to say it?

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

It's not rocket science.

But, until you do back it up, your claim is utter bullshit.

That's how it works.

(I hope you realize how idiotic you are looking. Just so you know.)

Yes, anytime I spend with someone as pathetic as yourself harms my image. I agree. But human personality interests me, and you're a really amazing case. For example, your saying that "[my] claim is utter bullshit" unless I give you a link is uniquely abnormal. KWIM?

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

Here is a definition of consensus science.....As you can see it is a recent term and bears no relation to actual science. Now here's a question for you. The claim from the warmists is that if it gets warmer it will get colder. If it gets warmer it will get hotter, if it gets hotter it will rain less, if it gets hotter it will rain more. Do you understand what is occuring here?

Do you understand the very scientific term "Unfalsifiable Hypothesis". I suggest you look it up then get back to us. Then we'll find out if you're just another intellectually dishonest troll or not.


Consensus science is a term used to describe a theory or claim believed to be founded on insufficient evidence or research, and to owe its support primarily to popular opinion. The term may also be used by people wishing to revive a theory that is generally believed to be false, but that they believe has not been proven so. People using the term believe that the exclusive or primary use of scientific consensus constitutes an appeal to authority or appeal to the majority, and that the underlying evidence should be evaluated instead.

Note that the term scientific consensus refers to the actual majority agreement of a particular field, while the term consensus science refers to the use of that consensus as a primary means to demonstrate, establish, or promote a scientific hypothesis or theory.

One who perceives a scientific theory to be supported by both scientific consensus and conclusive evidence would not consider it "consensus science", because a supporting argument can be easily formulated using the existing conclusive evidence without relying primarily on consensus for support. The term "consensus science" does not refer simply to a scientific theory which has a consensus, but rather to one which uses that consensus as a primary support.



Consensus science - Definition | WordIQ.com

 

[westwall]

I did ignore it, because it's usually pointless to put your credentials out in a discussion like this. I've had people argue with me about what happens at my job, when they've got no clue about it.



Yes, it's tough to find something that meets all of Si's demands-which is Si's game.

Are you joining her in claiming that there is no peer reviewed science on global warming that purports to show AGW?

Game?

This is no game.

This is just plain old simple logic.

So, as you cannot back up your claim - "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused." - it's false.

QED.

When or if you back it up, we move on.

Until then, your resistance to simple logic is beyond boring.

Well, there's the difference between us. I find your resistance to simple logic to be absolutely fascinating.

Reality is not dependent upon my posting a link. Is that over your head?

We both know that the Journal of Climatology exists. I don't have to give you a link to make it real, and if I don't post a link, that doesn't make the Journal of Climatology go away.

We both know that the Journal of Climatology has posted many articles of the type I describe.

Please don't let your anger blind you to this-I'm not asking that you agree with that POV. Just that such articles exist.

No, the Journal of Climatology has published papers based on computer models. I have yet to see one scrap of empirical data in a paper on AGW.

 

[westwall]

I, now, completely understand how simple logic - making a claim and supporting it - is "abnormal" to you.

Pssst. Science is never done by vote.

We're both abnormal, or we wouldn't be doing this.

Scientists often develop a consensus about the state of knowledge in a field. You're trotting out every debunked line out there.

Nope. It is a very recent trend, beginning circa 1990. Before that scientists actually did real work, well good ones still do. Good scientists laugh at "consensus science".

 

[del]

I, now, completely understand how simple logic - making a claim and supporting it - is "abnormal" to you.

Pssst. Science is never done by vote.

We're both abnormal, or we wouldn't be doing this.

Scientists often develop a consensus about the state of knowledge in a field. You're trotting out every debunked line out there.

Nope. It is a very recent trend, beginning circa 1990. Before that scientists actually did real work, well good ones still do. Good scientists laugh at "consensus science".

does this mean that the earth isn't the center of the universe?

 

[westwall]

We're both abnormal, or we wouldn't be doing this.

Scientists often develop a consensus about the state of knowledge in a field. You're trotting out every debunked line out there.

Nope. It is a very recent trend, beginning circa 1990. Before that scientists actually did real work, well good ones still do. Good scientists laugh at "consensus science".

does this mean that the earth isn't the center of the universe?

Ohhh geez Del, now you're asking some tricky questions!