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.
I get the feeling there is no amount of evidence you would find compelling.No scientist's word is to be accepted at face value when it comes to issues of science, regardless of issues of responsible or irresponsible. Climate science is based upon supporting evidences not the reputations or behaviors of individuals. Thus far you have presented no objective, compelling evidence of any single scientist who has acted irresponsibly, yet alone that all or even most climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly.
True, with that. Him thinking we'll take the bait is just too friggin' hilarious.
Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?
Well, for sure that is not going to happen with you fellows.
However, for those observing the conversation, it is pretty obvious who is presenting evidence, and who is presenting BS.
"Evidence" being defined, of course, as "anything that supports AGW".
I have Peer Reviewed this post and find it 100% Accurate
If we get one more Peer review, we have Consensus; two more and it's "Settled Science"
Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?
Well, for sure that is not going to happen with you fellows.
However, for those observing the conversation, it is pretty obvious who is presenting evidence, and who is presenting BS.
"Evidence" being defined, of course, as "anything that supports AGW".
Nobody has prevented you from presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources that would support your opinion. You do understand what a peer reviewed source is, don't you?
Yes. It's a publication that has been blessed by the AGW elite. Without their say-so, nothing gets published.
Okay, you're a fraud too, Trakar. Can see even correcting that one link, the posts you made after it and comments into it, no evidence will ever be enough for you. I'm not wasting any time on you either. Into the dumfuckery with the rest of the chicken littles. You're just another acolyte of ecofascism not worth listening to.
Take the politics out of your science and you have nothing.
Take the politics out of your science and you have nothing.
Must be a contagious affliction, now you too appear to be looking in the mirror and thinking you are seeing other people's situations.
I understand why you don't want to talk about science, it can be intimidating for those who aren't used to the rigors of thought and analysis that the physcial sciences demand. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and is something that you can remedy with some time and effort.
Here we go again, when presented with real sources of information, resort to senseless yap-yap.
Since you have yet to present any real evidence for your opinion, it strikes me that it is based on faith, with is, of course, religion.
I see. When faced with the evidence presented by the AGU, AIP, and the Royal Society, you scream, 'Deception!'. And post dingbat blogs.
Poor Meister, determined to prove himself an ingnoramous.
95 out of 97 climatologists state the AGW is real. The two that don't, also testified in front of Congress that tobacco was harmless.
religious conditioning can be overcome with hoverbikes.Take the politics out of your science and you have nothing.
Must be a contagious affliction, now you too appear to be looking in the mirror and thinking you are seeing other people's situations.
I understand why you don't want to talk about science, it can be intimidating for those who aren't used to the rigors of thought and analysis that the physcial sciences demand. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and is something that you can remedy with some time and effort.
I also understand that your religion of AGW is a powerful belief.....you too can remedy with time and effort. Maybe I should have said, "take the religion out of science and you have nothing." In the end, sonny, you have nothing. Now run along back to your sandbox.
Have some more Kool-Aid.Have you been paying attention at all?
Obviously moreso than you have, if your posts are any indication of your actual percpetions and understandings.
"Burn the witch!!"That didn't take long to figure out did it? I thought it funny I read this only after I had posted mine.I get the feeling there is no amount of evidence you would find compelling.No scientist's word is to be accepted at face value when it comes to issues of science, regardless of issues of responsible or irresponsible. Climate science is based upon supporting evidences not the reputations or behaviors of individuals. Thus far you have presented no objective, compelling evidence of any single scientist who has acted irresponsibly, yet alone that all or even most climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly.
I'm sure that if confronted with the Algorical himself recanting everything every said with the empirical evidence to back it, Trakar would be first in line with a pitchfork to compost him.
No reason I should bother, really. You continually prove you accept nothing as "reputable, objective, non-partisan" unless it meshes perfectly with your pre-conceived notions.And as we saw with Climategate, these types of communications show manipulation and intent to deceive.
If climate scientists object to releasing such communications, perhaps they need to stop colluding among themselves and start practicing science the way it's supposed to be done.
Amazing that you actually persist in promoting this multipley disproven set of perceptions?!
Please cite any reputable, objective, non-partisan evaluation of the incident and the emails which supports your assertions!
Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?
Well, for sure that is not going to happen with you fellows.
However, for those observing the conversation, it is pretty obvious who is presenting evidence, and who is presenting BS.
"Evidence" being defined, of course, as "anything that supports AGW".
I have Peer Reviewed this post and find it 100% Accurate
If we get one more Peer review, we have Consensus; two more and it's "Settled Science"
When do the grants start rolling in?
I seriously doubt that.I get the feeling there is no amount of evidence you would find compelling.No scientist's word is to be accepted at face value when it comes to issues of science, regardless of issues of responsible or irresponsible. Climate science is based upon supporting evidences not the reputations or behaviors of individuals. Thus far you have presented no objective, compelling evidence of any single scientist who has acted irresponsibly, yet alone that all or even most climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly.
Well, its nice to see that your psychic abilities are on par with your scientific and social skills. It was the solid, verifiable and compelling scientific evidence that changed my perspective on this issue once, and if there is compelling scientific evidence indicating that I need to revise or change my position again, I have no problem with that, It would certainly be comforting to be wrong about an issue with the implications that climate change possesses.
Riiiight. So what happens when not enough people voluntarily alter their lifestyles to suit the solution?Really? Didn't you just have this conversation with Big Fitz? Every "voluntary" measure you presented was not, in fact, voluntary, but forced on the public by government.Strawman
Please indicate any climate scientist or even any group of climate activists that have advocated socialism as a remedy for AGW.
To paraphrase your own admonishing, characterizing people, actions and ideas you don't like as "socialist/ism" is not sufficient to actually make such ideas representative of socialism.
No that was Fitz's assertion made, obviously without reading the supporting references I gave, not an accurate evaluation of the exchange and offerings.
