Creationism and Climate Change

[Discombobulated]

Liberals believe in rationality and science so they reject it, it really is that simple.

Yet their ideologic beliefs where politics is concerned is pure fantasy. How ironic..They first consider the source to decide which lies to believe.

By contrast so called conservatives conduct extensive research before deciding which lies to believe. Or they just watch FOX News.

They report... we decide.

As opposed to MSNBC and their goverment approved censored format. "NEWS THAT'S FIT FOR CONSUMPTION!"

Is that how it works genius? Following your delusional version of logic then we have to assume that FOX News becomes the government approved censored format when Republicans are in the White House. Will you be attending the ceremony when FOX News takes over that role in 2016?

Moron Troll Alert ^

Not much to you.....is there.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yet their ideologic beliefs where politics is concerned is pure fantasy. How ironic..They first consider the source to decide which lies to believe.

By contrast so called conservatives conduct extensive research before deciding which lies to believe. Or they just watch FOX News.

They report... we decide.

As opposed to MSNBC and their goverment approved censored format. "NEWS THAT'S FIT FOR CONSUMPTION!"

Is that how it works genius? Following your delusional version of logic then we have to assume that FOX News becomes the government approved censored format when Republicans are in the White House. Will you be attending the ceremony when FOX News takes over that role in 2016?

Thanks for the admission.

Nope, Republicans don't need a doctile press to provide cover for their lies.

Why would they when they have such an active participant like FOX News?

Fox News
Fox News

I take their reports with a grain of salt. After all... journalists on every station are predominantly liberal. Bill O'Reilly for example. Born in New York, attended Boston school of journalism, attended Harvard, graduated with a masters in public administration.
.

 

[Discombobulated]

By contrast so called conservatives conduct extensive research before deciding which lies to believe. Or they just watch FOX News.

They report... we decide.

As opposed to MSNBC and their goverment approved censored format. "NEWS THAT'S FIT FOR CONSUMPTION!"

Is that how it works genius? Following your delusional version of logic then we have to assume that FOX News becomes the government approved censored format when Republicans are in the White House. Will you be attending the ceremony when FOX News takes over that role in 2016?

Thanks for the admission.

Nope, Republicans don't need a doctile press to provide cover for their lies.

Why would they when they have such an active participant like FOX News?

Fox News
Fox News

I take their reports with a grain of salt. After all... journalists on every station are predominantly liberal. Bill O'Reilly for example. Born in New York, attended Harvard school of Journalism.

Oh, I get it now. Satire........pretty funny.

 

[PredFan]

Liberals believe in rationality and science so they reject it, it really is that simple.

Yet their ideologic beliefs where politics is concerned is pure fantasy. How ironic..They first consider the source to decide which lies to believe.

By contrast so called conservatives conduct extensive research before deciding which lies to believe. Or they just watch FOX News.

They report... we decide.

As opposed to MSNBC and their goverment approved censored format. "NEWS THAT'S FIT FOR CONSUMPTION!"

Is that how it works genius? Following your delusional version of logic then we have to assume that FOX News becomes the government approved censored format when Republicans are in the White House. Will you be attending the ceremony when FOX News takes over that role in 2016?

Moron Troll Alert ^

Emphasis on moron.

 

[mudwhistle]

They report... we decide.

As opposed to MSNBC and their goverment approved censored format. "NEWS THAT'S FIT FOR CONSUMPTION!"

Is that how it works genius? Following your delusional version of logic then we have to assume that FOX News becomes the government approved censored format when Republicans are in the White House. Will you be attending the ceremony when FOX News takes over that role in 2016?

Thanks for the admission.

Nope, Republicans don't need a doctile press to provide cover for their lies.

Why would they when they have such an active participant like FOX News?

Fox News
Fox News

I take their reports with a grain of salt. After all... journalists on every station are predominantly liberal. Bill O'Reilly for example. Born in New York, attended Harvard school of Journalism.

Oh, I get it now. Satire........pretty funny.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Liberals run this country bro. They're pulling scams on us constantly. Pitting us against each other. Just to get $$$$.

 

[mudwhistle]

They report... we decide.

As opposed to MSNBC and their goverment approved censored format. "NEWS THAT'S FIT FOR CONSUMPTION!"

Is that how it works genius? Following your delusional version of logic then we have to assume that FOX News becomes the government approved censored format when Republicans are in the White House. Will you be attending the ceremony when FOX News takes over that role in 2016?

Thanks for the admission.

Nope, Republicans don't need a doctile press to provide cover for their lies.

Why would they when they have such an active participant like FOX News?

Fox News
Fox News

I take their reports with a grain of salt. After all... journalists on every station are predominantly liberal. Bill O'Reilly for example. Born in New York, attended Harvard school of Journalism.

Oh, I get it now. Satire........pretty funny.

BTW, most Tea Party types tend to get angry when their representatives are caught lying to them. They vote accordingly, and Democraps know this only too well, cuz their voters don't seem to mind a lie if it assures a win.

 

[BULLDOG]

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

So, in your "mind", no scientist is a good or valid scientist unless he has published papers in every single scientific disipline there is?

You are an idiot.

How brain dead do you have to be to get that out of what I wrote?

Because that's what you wrote dumbass.

No. First, training in one specific field doesn't give you knowledge in all fields. A geologist is not a climatologist. If his knowledge in climatology is so vast, and he disagrees with the vast majority of climatologists, publishing a paper with his information would work a lot better than posting on a silly political discussion forum. You really need to work on your comprehension.

 

[westwall]

Hey I fully support man-made climate change!!

With the sub-tropics being hotter, hurricanes will not dump their heat on us any more but will be more like Sandy, hitting northern areas and leaving us alone.

And I will be laffing all the way to the bank when the climate change deniers deny causes the seas to rise to the point where we, being 20 miles inland, find we can sell our new BEACHFRONT property for a tidy sum of cash.

Keep fueling your Ford F-150 's with cheap fossil fuel and make this here property value rise along with the seas!

Thank yew very much!

Regards from Rosie

Yeah, given the current rate of rise in 30,000 years you might have something to your plan there!

 

[PredFan]

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

So, in your "mind", no scientist is a good or valid scientist unless he has published papers in every single scientific disipline there is?

You are an idiot.

How brain dead do you have to be to get that out of what I wrote?

Because that's what you wrote dumbass.

No. First, training in one specific field doesn't give you knowledge in all fields. A geologist is not a climatologist. If his knowledge in climatology is so vast, and he disagrees with the vast majority of climatologists, publishing a paper with his information would work a lot better than posting on a silly political discussion forum. You really need to work on your comprehension.

You moved the goal posts. Old trick, I'm not fooled or impressed.

 

[westwall]

I've been retired for over a decade and a half and I am published in many Journals thank you very much.

Congratulations. Which ones?

Bulletin of the Geological Society of America
Geology
The Journal of Geology
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology
The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society

Among others.....

Come on man. It's your claim. work with me here. Anybody can come up with a list of periodicals. Gimme dates, titles, something. Otherwise, you're just another guy on the internet making claims. I could claim I was an astronaut who played bagpipes in the New York Philharmonic on weekends without some way to prove it.

I hate to break it to you but this is an ANONYMOUS Board. I could care less whether you believe me in fact don't believe anything I've said about myself. Instead, look at everything I post with a critical eye. Then, look at everything you look at that supports AGW with the same critical eye. Ignore the credentials of everyone who posts on the subject. Just look at the data.

So you made some unbelievable claims that you can't back up. That's about what I figured. That's all you ever hear from right wingers.

No, I merely stated who I am. I don't care if you believe me or not. I do however value my anonymity, especially in light of the nut jobs on this site. But, as I said. Instead of evaluating information based on who it is from, evaluate it based on whether it is accurate or not. For every peer reviewed paper you point to in support of AGW I can point to one that counters it.

Further, we can point to the now well known (but ignored by the AGW supporters) fact that the peer review process in climatology has been terribly corrupted. The degree of unethical behavior exhibited within the ranks of the climatology community is truly astounding.

But those are facts, and as we all know, cultists don't do facts.

 

[westwall]

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

I heard somewhere that Professor Westfall's thesis on string theory overturns relativity. Einstein's ghost should be pissed.

Ahhh yes, the typical religious nutter turns to juvenile insults and hyperbole combined with outright lies to try and discredit the person who disagrees with the prophet. So nice to see you follow the playbook so closely.

Let us know when you develop a brain of your own...mmmmm'kay!

No doubt your dedication to intensive study on climate change determined your completely unbiased opinion.

No, my extensive study of the planet over the last 50 years has led me to the conclusion that the theory has failed. I was a supporter of the theory in the 1970's when it first emerged. However, as we have been able to test the hypothesis it has failed every one. \

Thus, as a good scientist I reject the theory. That's what the scientific method is for.

 

[westwall]

Next time I have a geology question I'll ask a climate scientist.

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

I heard somewhere that Professor Westfall's thesis on string theory overturns relativity. Einstein's ghost should be pissed.

Truly a legend in his own mind.

His cure for cancer based on his extensive knowledge of geology is nothing short of groundbreaking.

Typical ad-hom attack from a person with no relevant argument. This is why no one can take any of you seriously anymore. When presented by actual facts your brain freezes and reverts to Neanderthal mode and you lash out with insults.
Typical.

 

[westwall]

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

So, in your "mind", no scientist is a good or valid scientist unless he has published papers in every single scientific disipline there is?

You are an idiot.

How brain dead do you have to be to get that out of what I wrote?

Because that's what you wrote dumbass.

No. First, training in one specific field doesn't give you knowledge in all fields. A geologist is not a climatologist. If his knowledge in climatology is so vast, and he disagrees with the vast majority of climatologists, publishing a paper with his information would work a lot better than posting on a silly political discussion forum. You really need to work on your comprehension.

No, a geologist is a practitioner of a hard science. That means I can teach any climatology class there is. A climatologist on the other hand can't teach every geology class there is. It's that simple. I can teach anything they can, and they can't teach anything I can. So who is more qualified?

And if you would care to do so I suggest you look up the requirements for a PhD in geology, versus one for climatology. Then come back and tell us how climatologists are so smart.

For the record, most climatologists start with a degree in geography. Most geographers are geologists who drop out of the geology programs in the third year because the classes are too hard.

True story.

 

[BULLDOG]

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

So, in your "mind", no scientist is a good or valid scientist unless he has published papers in every single scientific disipline there is?

You are an idiot.

How brain dead do you have to be to get that out of what I wrote?

Because that's what you wrote dumbass.

No. First, training in one specific field doesn't give you knowledge in all fields. A geologist is not a climatologist. If his knowledge in climatology is so vast, and he disagrees with the vast majority of climatologists, publishing a paper with his information would work a lot better than posting on a silly political discussion forum. You really need to work on your comprehension.

You moved the goal posts. Old trick, I'm not fooled or impressed.

Bullshit, but I'll play along for a little while. The man claimed the information believed by most experts in the field was wrong, and he had superior knowledge to prove it. I asked him why he hadn't published any papers sharing his vast superior knowledge, because that would be much more effective than posting on a silly political discussion board. How is that moving the goalpost? Trust me, whether you are impressed doesn't really matter.

 

[BULLDOG]

Next time you make a stupid statement like that remember I am fully qualified to teach ANY climatology class, all the way up through the graduate level. A PhD climatologist can teach 1st and 2nd year geology, and then they're screwed.

So, you'll take the word of someone who can't teach the classes I do, yet ignore me, who CAN teach their classes.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless!

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

I heard somewhere that Professor Westfall's thesis on string theory overturns relativity. Einstein's ghost should be pissed.

Truly a legend in his own mind.

His cure for cancer based on his extensive knowledge of geology is nothing short of groundbreaking.

Typical ad-hom attack from a person with no relevant argument. This is why no one can take any of you seriously anymore. When presented by actual facts your brain freezes and reverts to Neanderthal mode and you lash out with insults.
Typical.

Oh, you're still here? We thought you had cut and run after making such silly unsupported claims, and we were laughing at you. I'm sure everybody would be thrilled to hear anything you might want to add to the subject. Does being a geologist also qualify you to design a space shuttle, or do brain surgery, or just climatology?

 

[PredFan]

So, in your "mind", no scientist is a good or valid scientist unless he has published papers in every single scientific disipline there is?

You are an idiot.

How brain dead do you have to be to get that out of what I wrote?

Because that's what you wrote dumbass.

No. First, training in one specific field doesn't give you knowledge in all fields. A geologist is not a climatologist. If his knowledge in climatology is so vast, and he disagrees with the vast majority of climatologists, publishing a paper with his information would work a lot better than posting on a silly political discussion forum. You really need to work on your comprehension.

You moved the goal posts. Old trick, I'm not fooled or impressed.

Bullshit, but I'll play along for a little while. The man claimed the information believed by most experts in the field was wrong, and he had superior knowledge to prove it. I asked him why he hadn't published any papers sharing his vast superior knowledge, because that would be much more effective than posting on a silly political discussion board. How is that moving the goalpost? Trust me, whether you are impressed doesn't really matter.

So again you are back to your claim that since he hasn't published anything, he's not a real scientist. Back where we started.

 

[BULLDOG]

I am truly impressed. Why haven't you published any papers for peer review? I'm sure someone with your superior knowledge could easily convince most of the climate scientists in the world that they are wrong. Instead of wasting your time on this silly little discussion forum, You need to be out there leading all your soon to be followers that you will have as soon as you publish all your unquestionable proof. When you receive your Nobel Prize for being such a cool and smart scientist, I can say I knew you before all your accolades. Anything less than that, and you will be nothing more than another blowhard spouting crap Rush told you.

So, in your "mind", no scientist is a good or valid scientist unless he has published papers in every single scientific disipline there is?

You are an idiot.

How brain dead do you have to be to get that out of what I wrote?

Because that's what you wrote dumbass.

No. First, training in one specific field doesn't give you knowledge in all fields. A geologist is not a climatologist. If his knowledge in climatology is so vast, and he disagrees with the vast majority of climatologists, publishing a paper with his information would work a lot better than posting on a silly political discussion forum. You really need to work on your comprehension.

No, a geologist is a practitioner of a hard science. That means I can teach any climatology class there is. A climatologist on the other hand can't teach every geology class there is. It's that simple. I can teach anything they can, and they can't teach anything I can. So who is more qualified?

And if you would care to do so I suggest you look up the requirements for a PhD in geology, versus one for climatology. Then come back and tell us how climatologists are so smart.

For the record, most climatologists start with a degree in geography. Most geographers are geologists who drop out of the geology programs in the third year because the classes are too hard.

True story.

As I said before, I'm truly impressed. I just don't understand why you're wasting all that vast knowledge here instead of going strait to all those other scientists and convincing them. It should be easy for someone such as yourself.

 

[BULLDOG]

How brain dead do you have to be to get that out of what I wrote?

Because that's what you wrote dumbass.

No. First, training in one specific field doesn't give you knowledge in all fields. A geologist is not a climatologist. If his knowledge in climatology is so vast, and he disagrees with the vast majority of climatologists, publishing a paper with his information would work a lot better than posting on a silly political discussion forum. You really need to work on your comprehension.

You moved the goal posts. Old trick, I'm not fooled or impressed.

Bullshit, but I'll play along for a little while. The man claimed the information believed by most experts in the field was wrong, and he had superior knowledge to prove it. I asked him why he hadn't published any papers sharing his vast superior knowledge, because that would be much more effective than posting on a silly political discussion board. How is that moving the goalpost? Trust me, whether you are impressed doesn't really matter.

So again you are back to your claim that since he hasn't published anything, he's not a real scientist. Back where we started.

No. I'm just questioning his choice of how he is spreading the benefit of his vast knowledge. Most sane people here will believe the recognized experts before they believe some anonymous poster. Anybody can see posting his info here is a dumb way to change beliefs about climate change, unless he is just full of shit, and he knows the experts have already looked at his claims and dismissed them.

 

[Flopper]

Well, if most fossil fuels were used for racing then maybe you would have a point. The fact is the internal combustion engine is incredibly inefficient. Only 18% to 25% of the energy actually makes it to the wheels. Most of the energy, 58% to 62% is expended as heat.

Concern over pollution, global warming, and fuel cost has created a demand for more efficient cars. Hybrids boast an efficiency of about 40%. Electric motor efficiency is 75% to 99%. The Hydrogen Ion efficiency exceeds 75%, However a supporting infrastructure will have to be developed for electric cars and hydrogen ions cars..

Except in special applications, alternative fuel sources have a long ways to go. A number of potential energy sources such as fusion has not been developed for practical use. However, given time, one or more of these alternative fuels sources will replace fossil fuels as a primary fuel source. It may take a hundred years, but it will happen because the problems we have now with global warming, pollution, and geopolitical problems over petroleum are going to continue to increase along with development and improvement of the cost effectiveness of alternative energy sources.

We have no problem with "global warming" that is a fraud. Pollution IS a problem but none of the "solutions" to control CO2 emissions have the slightest provision to control pollution you just have to pay more to do it. A thinking person would wonder why it was OK to continue to pollute with all the terrible things that will supposedly happen.

So you claim zero emission vehicles and hybrids pollute more than fossil fuel vehicles?

Currently, yes. The combined pollution to produce the hybrids and EV's is greater than that to produce a F-150 pickup truck. That was actually one of the major selling points for Musk to choose Nevada for his gigafactory. There is a lithium mine in close proximity to the plant site. He realizes that to support the claims for being green he had to cut out the thousands and thousands of transport mileage that building the batteries entails.

That may be true as far as it goes, but the fact is the reduced emissions of electric vehicle over there life time more makes for any increased pollution due to manufacturing.
Electric Car Pollution Much Less Than Gas or Diesel Car Pollution

Not true, the vast majority of energy to recharge the batteries comes from fossil fuels. This may not be true in Washington state where a good proportion comes from hydroelectric power, but for the rest of the country it is.

It's not just where hydroelectric power generation is located but in all other areas where electricity is produced by non-fossil fuels which now account for 31% of our electric power generation. The pollution caused by delivery of the fuel to 5,000 fossil fuel power plants has to be much less than delivery of the product 190,000,000 autos. Although I don't have any data, it would seem that controlling emissions at thousands of power plants should be far easier than controlling it in hundreds of millions of motor vehicles.

I agree that EV's are not the complete answer to controlling pollution everywhere, but they can certainly reduce pollution in many parts of the US and the world where clean electric power is available.

 

[Flopper]

The wonderful and terrible thing about the Internet is a person can be anything they want to be, any persona they choose, a scientist, a lawyer, a government official, a devil or saint