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.
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!
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.
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
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.
So you don't doubt the truth of what he's saying, you scold his laziness?
Good Point. Claiming anonymous credential does not improve your creditably. In fact, I think it does the opposite. You're judge by your knowledge of the issue and your responses.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
Any time someone try's to establish anonymous credentials you can assume they're lying.
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!
There is a LOT behind hurricanes moving northward, and that is in the last decade.
When Florida cuts the cost of the state-owned hurricane insurance pool, that is saying tons.
It is time more northerly climes began to feel like the ten pin at your local bowling alley.
We have moved on from it and it is terrific.
Regards from Rosie
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?
Good Point. Claiming anonymous credential does not improve your creditably. In fact, I think it does the opposite. You're judge by your knowledge of the issue and your responses.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
Any time someone try's to establish anonymous credentials you can assume they're lying.
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.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.So you claim zero emission vehicles and hybrids pollute more than fossil fuel vehicles?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you don't doubt the truth of what he's saying, you scold his laziness?
I don't claim to be an expert in a wide range of fields as he does, so I have to stick with the majority opinion of the experts in the specific field, so yes, I doubt what he is saying. I also said that if he was right, all he had to do was to share his vast knowledge with the experts and convince them. At that point, I would believe what ever he said.
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?
Do you have nothing but ad-hom attacks? Is that truly the limits of your debate skills? I feel sorry that you are so poorly prepared to defend your position. It's typical of the brainless progs who are the only believers in AGW that are left.
It is funny to hear you whine and snivel about how the "deniers" are eveil (a religious term), or morally deficient (yet another religious term), or how deniers should be persecuted for their non-belief (yet another trait of religious fanaticism), and all the while claiming that you are followers of science. Science that you can't understand, articulate, or demonstrate.
Thanks for the laughs, because that's all you provide, some serious laughs....at your expense.
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.
So you don't doubt the truth of what he's saying, you scold his laziness?
I don't claim to be an expert in a wide range of fields as he does, so I have to stick with the majority opinion of the experts in the specific field, so yes, I doubt what he is saying. I also said that if he was right, all he had to do was to share his vast knowledge with the experts and convince them. At that point, I would believe what ever he said.
He doesn't claim to be an expert in a wide range, he says that geology covers climatology. He claims to be a geologist. You are simply trying to discount his claims by applying an arbitrary rule, one that for anonimity's sake, he'd be stupid to comply with.
Nothing you are doing changes his point or proves AGW. It's a waste of time.
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.
So you don't doubt the truth of what he's saying, you scold his laziness?
I don't claim to be an expert in a wide range of fields as he does, so I have to stick with the majority opinion of the experts in the specific field, so yes, I doubt what he is saying. I also said that if he was right, all he had to do was to share his vast knowledge with the experts and convince them. At that point, I would believe what ever he said.
He doesn't claim to be an expert in a wide range, he says that geology covers climatology. He claims to be a geologist. You are simply trying to discount his claims by applying an arbitrary rule, one that for anonimity's sake, he'd be stupid to comply with.
Nothing you are doing changes his point or proves AGW. It's a waste of time.
And nothing you or he have posted disproves the opinion of the vast majority of credible scientists in the field.
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.
So you don't doubt the truth of what he's saying, you scold his laziness?
I don't claim to be an expert in a wide range of fields as he does, so I have to stick with the majority opinion of the experts in the specific field, so yes, I doubt what he is saying. I also said that if he was right, all he had to do was to share his vast knowledge with the experts and convince them. At that point, I would believe what ever he said.
He doesn't claim to be an expert in a wide range, he says that geology covers climatology. He claims to be a geologist. You are simply trying to discount his claims by applying an arbitrary rule, one that for anonimity's sake, he'd be stupid to comply with.
Nothing you are doing changes his point or proves AGW. It's a waste of time.
And nothing you or he have posted disproves the opinion of the vast majority of credible scientists in the field.
Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution. There seems to be a very close correlation between these people and folks who deny the facts of climate change. Since they reject the undeniable scientific fundamentals of evolution how can anyone take them seriously on any issue concerning science? Why would their opinions matter?
In U.S. 42 Believe Creationist View of Human Origins
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.
So you don't doubt the truth of what he's saying, you scold his laziness?
I don't claim to be an expert in a wide range of fields as he does, so I have to stick with the majority opinion of the experts in the specific field, so yes, I doubt what he is saying. I also said that if he was right, all he had to do was to share his vast knowledge with the experts and convince them. At that point, I would believe what ever he said.
He doesn't claim to be an expert in a wide range, he says that geology covers climatology. He claims to be a geologist. You are simply trying to discount his claims by applying an arbitrary rule, one that for anonimity's sake, he'd be stupid to comply with.
Nothing you are doing changes his point or proves AGW. It's a waste of time.
And nothing you or he have posted disproves the opinion of the vast majority of credible scientists in the field.
Perhaps I missed it, but where was "the vast majority of credible scientists in the field" proven, rather than simply asserted?
So you don't doubt the truth of what he's saying, you scold his laziness?
I don't claim to be an expert in a wide range of fields as he does, so I have to stick with the majority opinion of the experts in the specific field, so yes, I doubt what he is saying. I also said that if he was right, all he had to do was to share his vast knowledge with the experts and convince them. At that point, I would believe what ever he said.
He doesn't claim to be an expert in a wide range, he says that geology covers climatology. He claims to be a geologist. You are simply trying to discount his claims by applying an arbitrary rule, one that for anonimity's sake, he'd be stupid to comply with.
Nothing you are doing changes his point or proves AGW. It's a waste of time.
And nothing you or he have posted disproves the opinion of the vast majority of credible scientists in the field.
Perhaps I missed it, but where was "the vast majority of credible scientists in the field" proven, rather than simply asserted?
Peer review. What other proof would you accept? Is there a single, or multiple authorities whose word you would accept, other than fox, as far as the validity of the state of climate science?
I don't claim to be an expert in a wide range of fields as he does, so I have to stick with the majority opinion of the experts in the specific field, so yes, I doubt what he is saying. I also said that if he was right, all he had to do was to share his vast knowledge with the experts and convince them. At that point, I would believe what ever he said.
He doesn't claim to be an expert in a wide range, he says that geology covers climatology. He claims to be a geologist. You are simply trying to discount his claims by applying an arbitrary rule, one that for anonimity's sake, he'd be stupid to comply with.
Nothing you are doing changes his point or proves AGW. It's a waste of time.
And nothing you or he have posted disproves the opinion of the vast majority of credible scientists in the field.
Perhaps I missed it, but where was "the vast majority of credible scientists in the field" proven, rather than simply asserted?
Peer review. What other proof would you accept? Is there a single, or multiple authorities whose word you would accept, other than fox, as far as the validity of the state of climate science?
So the handful of people that a journal sends an article to for review proves "vast majority of credible scientists"? I'm afraid that math just doesn't work.
At this point, I would just like any reference to "vast majority" that actually deals with the vast majority, and we can work from there. And hollering demonizing buzz words at me doesn't work, so you might as well save your keystrokes for saying something substantial . . . if you can.
He doesn't claim to be an expert in a wide range, he says that geology covers climatology. He claims to be a geologist. You are simply trying to discount his claims by applying an arbitrary rule, one that for anonimity's sake, he'd be stupid to comply with.
Nothing you are doing changes his point or proves AGW. It's a waste of time.
And nothing you or he have posted disproves the opinion of the vast majority of credible scientists in the field.
Perhaps I missed it, but where was "the vast majority of credible scientists in the field" proven, rather than simply asserted?
Peer review. What other proof would you accept? Is there a single, or multiple authorities whose word you would accept, other than fox, as far as the validity of the state of climate science?
So the handful of people that a journal sends an article to for review proves "vast majority of credible scientists"? I'm afraid that math just doesn't work.
At this point, I would just like any reference to "vast majority" that actually deals with the vast majority, and we can work from there. And hollering demonizing buzz words at me doesn't work, so you might as well save your keystrokes for saying something substantial . . . if you can.
So you think peer review only includes a small group selected by any particular journal? Obviously you don't understand what peer review is. Typical ignorant response from a typical climate science denier.
There is a cottage industry on the Internet of AGW deniers and supporters who distort every study, paper, or new set of data released in order to support their claims. You can choose to believe these radicals or you can choose to believe the statements from nearly all the major scientific academies and institutes. In the end, what you believe today may make absolutely no difference. The cost of converting from fossil fuels to alternative fuel sources are estimated at 50 trillion dollars which is about 3/4 of the Gross National Product of the whole world. The chances of that are about zero. The only way we're going to replace fossil fuels is to find a real cost effective alternative. Fusion power generation will probably be practical someday but who knows when that will happen.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?
Do you have nothing but ad-hom attacks? Is that truly the limits of your debate skills? I feel sorry that you are so poorly prepared to defend your position. It's typical of the brainless progs who are the only believers in AGW that are left.
It is funny to hear you whine and snivel about how the "deniers" are eveil (a religious term), or morally deficient (yet another religious term), or how deniers should be persecuted for their non-belief (yet another trait of religious fanaticism), and all the while claiming that you are followers of science. Science that you can't understand, articulate, or demonstrate.
Thanks for the laughs, because that's all you provide, some serious laughs....at your expense.
I never claimed to completely understand climate science. I can only articulate what credible sources have said. And I am neither equipped or inclined to demonstrate any of the findings of the vast majority of the experts in the field. Other than some silly claims that you can't backup about your superior expertise in the field, you can't either. You want me to accept the word of some anonymous person over overwhelming agreement by credible experts. That won't happen for me or any other sane person, but I'm sure crazy teabaggers will be happy to jump on your bandwagon. If you even know what a scientist is instead of just claiming to be one, you should understand how unreasonable your hope is. Convince credible people who have demonstrated knowledge above what people on discussion boards possess, and you might have something. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a nut on the street corner holding a sign that says "The End Is Near"
