Hottest Minute in the last 37 Minutes!

[elektra]

You haven't addressed SHIT. Telling us that 2 links went to Slate does not tell us why you think those two Wikipedia articles and, apparently, the 164 references they use, are conveying a lie. And last I checked, you had provided ZERO links I might address.

Once again, tell us why you believe 97% is a lie or be fucking man enough to admit that you cannot.

Post the names and where they work, their degrees, a cut/paste with zero commentary is simply spamming the thread.

So you can cut/paste from wikipedia, and all it is, is a parrot stating 97% agree?

How many scientists are there and how many have made the statement that the agree, where is that, your link and your cut/paste has no such information.

You are making the claim that certain scientists are in agreement, 97%, so prove your claim, if you think anyone of you 100's of references prove your claim go ahead and link and quote.

Not one of your references prove what you assert, they do not even reflect what you state, if you think so, pick one and lets begin.

Not one of your links contains the names of those who agree and those who disagree. I would honestly like to check if it is close to 97%, why wont you simply show us.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Mrs. Elektra, none of that is necessary. Not when the totality of the scientific community states that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and present danger.

 

[elektra]

Now Mrs. Elektra, none of that is necessary. Not when the totality of the scientific community states that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and present danger.

Then give us the names, if it is easier give us the names of the deniers, at least tell us how many, easy ss pie, right?

But, we all know you are a liar and know nothing of basic math, so at best all you can do is make a proclamation.

 

[jc456]

Natural cycles get the AGW k00ks all riled up some years..........some years not!! ( like the bitterly cold last 2 winters here in the US......record breaking btw ). They get all giddy when one of the years it is a trite warmer!!

Natural cycles s0ns!!! Its called "climate" and its been doing it forever!!

they don't understand what an average means. How it is mathematical and requires high and low temperatures. They use the word average as normal temps. Funny stuff.

Average temperatures are never normal temperatures. I have to laugh at these fools.

 

[Crick]

Now Mrs. Elektra, none of that is necessary. Not when the totality of the scientific community states that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and present danger.

Then give us the names, if it is easier give us the names of the deniers, at least tell us how many, easy ss pie, right?

But, we all know you are a liar and know nothing of basic math, so at best all you can do is make a proclamation.

I wish you'd step back and see what you look like demanding a list of nine or ten thousand names. And I guarantee you Old Rocks is better at math than anything you've demonstrated here. Your contention that building a solar or wind power facility uses more energy than it will produce in its lifetime is a failure on a grade school level. So what does it say when you call him a liar without the slightest shred of an argument to support such a charge? It makes you look so ignorant you fail to understand basic morality.

 

[elektra]

Now Mrs. Elektra, none of that is necessary. Not when the totality of the scientific community states that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and present danger.

Then give us the names, if it is easier give us the names of the deniers, at least tell us how many, easy ss pie, right?

But, we all know you are a liar and know nothing of basic math, so at best all you can do is make a proclamation.

I wish you'd step back and see what you look like demanding a list of nine or ten thousand names. And I guarantee you Old Rocks is better at math than anything you've demonstrated here. Your contention that building a solar or wind power facility uses more energy than it will produce in its lifetime is a failure on a grade school level. So what does it say when you call him a liar without the slightest shred of an argument to support such a charge? It makes you look so ignorant you fail to understand basic morality.

You made a statement you can not support, that is all, I know you can not, will not, ever produce a list or even state exactly how many are for, or against. You are repeating a lie, that is why I challenge you to prove yourself, I am beyond confident that you can not produce the names. I will go as far to say that I am certain you will never ever provide the names.

Old Crock is better at math than I? Did you miss the exchange, I think it began with something you posted? Yes? That 1 amp does not produce 12 watts, Old Crock laughed at that and gave the formula as W=IR. So Old Crock stated it was impossible for 1 amp to produce 12 watts. Is Old Crock, right or wrong, on both questions the formula and the answer?

On the last point, link, link, link, search all my posts, search the titles of all my threads, and link, link, link, or simply be a filthy liar. Of course you thought you could deduct your mortgage from your gross income and then the banks would pay you money to buy your house so I can see how it must be really hard with an IQ of "dotcom" to figure out what I am saying.

But for now, I will call baby boy crick, a filthy liar until baby boy can prove me wrong on 1 of 3, of his assertions. Just 1 crick, that is all, pick the easiest one and respond, if you are right, you can gloat in victory and I will start a thread stating I suck and am the liar.

1 out of 3, certainly the baby boy can do that.

 

[jc456]

You're a fucking idiot who has no facts to back up your unsupportable claims. If you think 97% is a lie, tell us why. If you can't, be fucking man and admit it.

because it was only 75 of 77 scientists. You think that's all the scientists in the world? ok, .........hahahahahaahahahahahahahaha

 

[jc456]

Now Mrs. Elektra, none of that is necessary. Not when the totality of the scientific community states that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and present danger.

Then give us the names, if it is easier give us the names of the deniers, at least tell us how many, easy ss pie, right?

But, we all know you are a liar and know nothing of basic math, so at best all you can do is make a proclamation.

I wish you'd step back and see what you look like demanding a list of nine or ten thousand names. And I guarantee you Old Rocks is better at math than anything you've demonstrated here. Your contention that building a solar or wind power facility uses more energy than it will produce in its lifetime is a failure on a grade school level. So what does it say when you call him a liar without the slightest shred of an argument to support such a charge? It makes you look so ignorant you fail to understand basic morality.

well actually, he spot on. You have to include the manufacture cost and output of actual energy. then take out the subsidies, cause those will be gone.

How much do wind turbines cost?

"How much do wind turbines cost?


Home or Farm Scale Wind Turbines

Wind turbines under 100 kilowatts cost roughly $3,000 to $8,000 per kilowatt of capacity. A 10 kilowatt machine (the size needed to power a large home) might have an installed cost of $50,000-$80,000 (or more).

Wind turbines have significant economies of scale. Smaller farm or residential scale turbines cost less overall, but are more expensive per kilowatt of energy producing capacity. Oftentimes there are tax and other incentives that can dramatically reduce the cost of a wind project."

 

[Billy_Bob]

The 33 references cited by the second linked Wikipedia article:

References

1. Jump up^ T. R. Stewart, J. L. Mumpower, P. Reagan-Cirincione, "Scientists' Agreement and Disagreement about Global Climate Change: Evidence from Surveys", 15.
2. Jump up^ Albandy.edu
3. Jump up^ R. Nixon, "Limbaughesque Science", citing a press release by Gallup in the San Francisco Chronicle, 9/27/92.
4. Jump up^ Steve Rendall, "The Hypocrisy of George Will", FAIR report, citing the San Francisco Chronicle, 9/27/92.
5. Jump up^ Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch (1999). "Climate Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 80 (3): 439–455. Bibcode:1999BAMS...80..439B. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<0439:CSAEEO>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
6. Jump up^ Citizens For a Sound Economy Foundation
7. Jump up^ "Climate Scientists’ Perceptions of Climate Change Science.".
8. Jump up^ Climate scientists’ views on climate change: a survey
9. Jump up^ Naomi Oreskes (January 21, 2005) [December 3, 2004]. "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686.doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)
10. Jump up^ Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
11. Jump up^ Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don't Trust the Media's Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
12. ^ Jump up to:a b c Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2010). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (PDF).
13. Jump up^ Bray, Dennis (August 2010). "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited".Environmental Science & Policy 13 (5). doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.04.001. RetrievedDecember 1, 2014., copy online at [1]
14. Jump up^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science". Science Communication 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.Copy available online at [2], retrieved Nov. 30, 2014
15. Jump up^ Doran and Zimmerman. "Consensus on Climate Change (Note: the misspelling is only in the URL)". Prof. Peter Doran: My Soapbox/Public Outreach. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
16. ^ Jump up to:a b Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). EOS 90 (3): 22–23.Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
17. ^ Jump up to:a b c William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of S ciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.
18. ^ Jump up to:a b Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper by Eli Kintisch, "Science Insider", Science (journal), 21 June 2010
19. Jump up^ Bodenstein, Lawrence (December 28, 2010). "Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (52): E188.Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.188B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1013268108.
20. Jump up^ Anderegg, William R. L.; coauthors (December 28, 2010). "Reply to Bodenstein: Contextual data about the relative scale of opposing scientific communities". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (52): E189. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.189A.doi:10.1073/pnas.1015419108.
21. Jump up^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
22. ^ Jump up to:a b c Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011. Paywalled; full test online here, retrieved Nov. 30, 2014. From Table I, "Q: In your opinion, is human-induced greenhouse warming now occurring?" Yes, 84%. No, 5%. Don't Know, 12%
23. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Lefsrud, L. M.; Meyer, R. E. (2012). "Science or Science Fiction? Professionals' Discursive Construction of Climate Change". Organization Studies 33 (11): 1477.doi:10.1177/0170840612463317.
24. ^ Jump up to:a b "Risk Management Approach Could Motivate Climate Change Action", Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer, Social Science Space, March 19, 2013
25. ^ Jump up to:a b Cook, John; Dana Nuccitelli; Sarah A Green; Mark Richardson; Bärbel Winkler; Rob Painting; Robert Way; Peter Jacobs; Andrew Skuce (May 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) 8 (2). Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C.doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
26. Jump up^ Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we're not wrong?". Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren (PDF). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 72. Retrieved 9 August 2013. [Scientists] generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees
27. Jump up^ Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change, Science & Education2015, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 299-318.
28. Jump up^ The Myth of the Climate Change '97%', By Joseph Bast And Roy Spencer. Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2014
29. Jump up^ The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science by Matt Ridley, Quadrant magazine, June 19th 2015. Ridley credits Joanne Nova for this summary of Tol's views.
30. Jump up^ The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust, reply posted at Skeptical Science, last updated 5 May 2014
31. Jump up^ Learning from mistakes in climate research
32. Jump up^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
33. Jump up^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved12 June 2014.

These last two references, are to SLATE! Grow up, Slate is an extreme Leftist website!

Seriously, Wikipedia can not be your source, crick must no that using wikipedia and links to Slate is pure propaganda.

I have a feeling that Crick is actually William Connely.. The idiot who changes Wiki for the OWG-AGW agenda.. WIKI is not accepted at any reputable firm or college due to its massive inaccuracies. One must remember Crick is given his opinions and he must obey his masters.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now Mrs. Elektra, none of that is necessary. Not when the totality of the scientific community states that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and present danger.

Then give us the names, if it is easier give us the names of the deniers, at least tell us how many, easy ss pie, right?

But, we all know you are a liar and know nothing of basic math, so at best all you can do is make a proclamation.

I wish you'd step back and see what you look like demanding a list of nine or ten thousand names. And I guarantee you Old Rocks is better at math than anything you've demonstrated here. Your contention that building a solar or wind power facility uses more energy than it will produce in its lifetime is a failure on a grade school level. So what does it say when you call him a liar without the slightest shred of an argument to support such a charge? It makes you look so ignorant you fail to understand basic morality.

well actually, he spot on. You have to include the manufacture cost and output of actual energy. then take out the subsidies, cause those will be gone.

How much do wind turbines cost?

"How much do wind turbines cost?


Home or Farm Scale Wind Turbines

Wind turbines under 100 kilowatts cost roughly $3,000 to $8,000 per kilowatt of capacity. A 10 kilowatt machine (the size needed to power a large home) might have an installed cost of $50,000-$80,000 (or more).

Wind turbines have significant economies of scale. Smaller farm or residential scale turbines cost less overall, but are more expensive per kilowatt of energy producing capacity. Oftentimes there are tax and other incentives that can dramatically reduce the cost of a wind project."

There you go again JC, inserting facts into a fantasy of the alarmists. Exposing their lies and deceptions.. Well Done!

 

[Crick]

Now Mrs. Elektra, none of that is necessary. Not when the totality of the
scientific community states that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and
present danger.

Then give us the names, if it is easier give us the names of the deniers, at
least tell us how many, easy ss pie, right?
But, we all know you are a liar and know nothing of basic math, so at best
all you can do is make a proclamation.

So, you reject the various studies, polls and surveys listed in the
well-worn Wikipedia articles Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and
Surveys of Scientists Views on Global Warming, because the names of the
scientists are not given. I take it then you reject every election ever
conducted in this nation's history. Your man Trump isn't really leading the
RNC balloting because secret ballots are all lies. Right.

And, again, anyone who holds that a solar or wind energy facility uses more
energy being built than it will produce during its lifetime has no business
criticizing anyone else's math skills.

I wish you'd step back and see what you look like demanding a list of nine
or ten thousand names. And I guarantee you Old Rocks is better at math than
anything you've demonstrated here. Your contention that building a solar or
wind power facility uses more energy than it will produce in its lifetime is
a failure on a grade school level. So what does it say when you call him a
liar without the slightest shred of an argument to support such a charge?
It makes you look so ignorant you fail to understand basic morality.

You made a statement you can not support, that is all, I know you can not,
will not, ever produce a list or even state exactly how many are for, or
against.

The numbers are fully accessible. The demographic qualifications of the
participants are available. Your continued demand for their names, though,
does nothing but inform us you have no experience with statistics, sampling,
polls, surveys or the like and seem a good deal lacking in general knowledge
as well.

You are repeating a lie, that is why I challenge you to prove yourself, I
am beyond confident that you can not produce the names. I will go as far to
say that I am certain you will never ever provide the names.

Of course I won't produce the names. You're a fool for asking. But what
lie do you believe I am repeating?

Old Crock is better at math than I? Did you miss the exchange, I think it
began with something you posted? Yes? That 1 amp does not produce 12 watts,
Old Crock laughed at that and gave the formula as W=IR. So Old Crock stated
it was impossible for 1 amp to produce 12 watts. Is Old Crock, right or
wrong, on both questions the formula and the answer?

I saw that you seem to think that W=IR and P=IE are not equivalent
expressions.

On the last point, link, link, link, search all my posts, search the titles
of all my threads, and link, link, link, or simply be a filthy liar.

I will admit that you do post links and that I overstated that charge.
However, it is exceedingly rare that the material at the links you post
actually support the contentions for which you make them.

Of course you thought you could deduct your mortgage from your gross income

Are you claiming that mortgage interest is NOT deductible? P'raps you ought
to talk to a tax accountant.

and then the banks would pay you money to buy your house

I have no idea what you're referring to here, but when someone buys my
house, they DO pay me money. I do hope that's not something you've actually
gotten wrong at any point.

so I can see how it must be really hard with an IQ of "dotcom" to figure out
what I am saying.

You seem to be saying that people take your property without paying for it. Is that what you intended to say?

 

[elektra]

Now Mrs. Elektra, none of that is necessary. Not when the totality of the
scientific community states that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and
present danger.

Then give us the names, if it is easier give us the names of the deniers, at
least tell us how many, easy ss pie, right?
But, we all know you are a liar and know nothing of basic math, so at best
all you can do is make a proclamation.

So, you reject the various studies, polls and surveys listed in the
well-worn Wikipedia articles Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and
Surveys of Scientists Views on Global Warming, because the names of the
scientists are not given. I take it then you reject every election ever
conducted in this nation's history. Your man Trump isn't really leading the
RNC balloting because secret ballots are all lies. Right.

And, again, anyone who holds that a solar or wind energy facility uses more
energy being built than it will produce during its lifetime has no business
criticizing anyone else's math skills.

I wish you'd step back and see what you look like demanding a list of nine
or ten thousand names. And I guarantee you Old Rocks is better at math than
anything you've demonstrated here. Your contention that building a solar or
wind power facility uses more energy than it will produce in its lifetime is
a failure on a grade school level. So what does it say when you call him a
liar without the slightest shred of an argument to support such a charge?
It makes you look so ignorant you fail to understand basic morality.

You made a statement you can not support, that is all, I know you can not,
will not, ever produce a list or even state exactly how many are for, or
against.

The numbers are fully accessible. The demographic qualifications of the
participants are available. Your continued demand for their names, though,
does nothing but inform us you have no experience with statistics, sampling,
polls, surveys or the like and seem a good deal lacking in general knowledge
as well.

You are repeating a lie, that is why I challenge you to prove yourself, I
am beyond confident that you can not produce the names. I will go as far to
say that I am certain you will never ever provide the names.

Of course I won't produce the names. You're a fool for asking. But what
lie do you believe I am repeating?

Old Crock is better at math than I? Did you miss the exchange, I think it
began with something you posted? Yes? That 1 amp does not produce 12 watts,
Old Crock laughed at that and gave the formula as W=IR. So Old Crock stated
it was impossible for 1 amp to produce 12 watts. Is Old Crock, right or
wrong, on both questions the formula and the answer?

I saw that you seem to think that W=IR and P=IE are not equivalent
expressions.

On the last point, link, link, link, search all my posts, search the titles
of all my threads, and link, link, link, or simply be a filthy liar.

I will admit that you do post links and that I overstated that charge.
However, it is exceedingly rare that the material at the links you post
actually support the contentions for which you make them.

Of course you thought you could deduct your mortgage from your gross income

Are you claiming that mortgage interest is NOT deductible? P'raps you ought
to talk to a tax accountant.

and then the banks would pay you money to buy your house

I have no idea what you're referring to here, but when someone buys my
house, they DO pay me money. I do hope that's not something you've actually
gotten wrong at any point.

so I can see how it must be really hard with an IQ of "dotcom" to figure out
what I am saying.

You seem to be saying that people take your property without paying for it. Is that what you intended to say?

Crick, take whatever you like from the sources listed from wikipedia, quote that source, and give your commentary on that quote and I will gladly discuss that particular topic with you. I think it can be fun and challenging. But when you do a copy/paste of a 100 sources and post them, it is as if you think you are in a game of war and that your 100 bombs just destroyed the enemy. In a discussion that is all dismissed as nothing more than heresy, at best.

You should also quote me, I stated, "building windmills increases the use of coal and hydrocarbons".

Your idea that they pay back the coal during the brief times they operate over their very limited lifetime is a very different idea or statement.

As far as the Mortgage goes, Crick, you stated more than once that you can deduct the mortgage from your gross income and the government would then pay you money. What you state here, now, is not what you stated before.

As far as the rest, A Peruvian Chicken joint is calling me to dinner, and then an Air Filter for my Tundra is needed. So, maybe I get back to the rest later, maybe not. Most likely over time. But think of what I said in this bit.

 

[elektra]

I saw that you seem to think that W=IR and P=IE are not equivalent
expressions.

The are not equivalent expressions. W is Watts, as is P for Power, same thing. I is Current. But R is Resistance and E is Voltage. Voltage is not the equivalent of Resistance.

 

[elektra]

LOL. Elektra, you pull nonsense out of your ass, and Crick posts from credible sites. Of course you resent that.

Hey, it my favorite guy when it comes to providing links, that help me, post a link old crock, any link, and I can show it helps me, not you.

We could start with the formula for power, Old Crock knows that one by heart by now, it is as EASY as PIE. P=IE. Too bad you did posted at the same time as my last post, otherwise you would of seen that I did not flame you for being the idiot that could not write the correct formula for power and that you were the idiot that could not see, that 12 watts could be produced with 1 amp. Easy as pie old crock, easy as pie. P=IE

 

[Crick]

Now Mrs. Elektra, none of that is necessary. Not when the totality of the
scientific community states that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and
present danger.

Then give us the names, if it is easier give us the names of the deniers, at
least tell us how many, easy ss pie, right?
But, we all know you are a liar and know nothing of basic math, so at best
all you can do is make a proclamation.

So, you reject the various studies, polls and surveys listed in the
well-worn Wikipedia articles Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and
Surveys of Scientists Views on Global Warming, because the names of the
scientists are not given. I take it then you reject every election ever
conducted in this nation's history. Your man Trump isn't really leading the
RNC balloting because secret ballots are all lies. Right.

And, again, anyone who holds that a solar or wind energy facility uses more
energy being built than it will produce during its lifetime has no business
criticizing anyone else's math skills.

I wish you'd step back and see what you look like demanding a list of nine
or ten thousand names. And I guarantee you Old Rocks is better at math than
anything you've demonstrated here. Your contention that building a solar or
wind power facility uses more energy than it will produce in its lifetime is
a failure on a grade school level. So what does it say when you call him a
liar without the slightest shred of an argument to support such a charge?
It makes you look so ignorant you fail to understand basic morality.

You made a statement you can not support, that is all, I know you can not,
will not, ever produce a list or even state exactly how many are for, or
against.

The numbers are fully accessible. The demographic qualifications of the
participants are available. Your continued demand for their names, though,
does nothing but inform us you have no experience with statistics, sampling,
polls, surveys or the like and seem a good deal lacking in general knowledge
as well.

You are repeating a lie, that is why I challenge you to prove yourself, I
am beyond confident that you can not produce the names. I will go as far to
say that I am certain you will never ever provide the names.

Of course I won't produce the names. You're a fool for asking. But what
lie do you believe I am repeating?

Old Crock is better at math than I? Did you miss the exchange, I think it
began with something you posted? Yes? That 1 amp does not produce 12 watts,
Old Crock laughed at that and gave the formula as W=IR. So Old Crock stated
it was impossible for 1 amp to produce 12 watts. Is Old Crock, right or
wrong, on both questions the formula and the answer?

I saw that you seem to think that W=IR and P=IE are not equivalent
expressions.

On the last point, link, link, link, search all my posts, search the titles
of all my threads, and link, link, link, or simply be a filthy liar.

I will admit that you do post links and that I overstated that charge.
However, it is exceedingly rare that the material at the links you post
actually support the contentions for which you make them.

Of course you thought you could deduct your mortgage from your gross income

Are you claiming that mortgage interest is NOT deductible? P'raps you ought
to talk to a tax accountant.

and then the banks would pay you money to buy your house

I have no idea what you're referring to here, but when someone buys my
house, they DO pay me money. I do hope that's not something you've actually
gotten wrong at any point.

so I can see how it must be really hard with an IQ of "dotcom" to figure out
what I am saying.

You seem to be saying that people take your property without paying for it. Is that what you intended to say?

Crick, take whatever you like from the sources listed from wikipedia, quote that source, and give your commentary on that quote and I will gladly discuss that particular topic with you. I think it can be fun and challenging. But when you do a copy/paste of a 100 sources and post them, it is as if you think you are in a game of war and that your 100 bombs just destroyed the enemy. In a discussion that is all dismissed as nothing more than heresy, at best.

I hate to have to tell you this, but 100 bombs do more damage to one's enemy than one. The common denier contention that the 97% acceptance of AGW among climate scientists is false or a lie is more fully refuted by the full list of polls, surveys and studies on the point than it would be by one of them. However, I can see how you could be overwhelmed by the mass of data you're claiming false. I am perfectly willing to discuss one of them. However, I will not pretend that the other do not exist. Let's take one of the more recent studies:

Powell, 2013
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32]This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[33]

And the footed links are, I believe, the one you dissed for being from Slate :

1. Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
2. Jump up^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved12 June 2014.

The first sentence of the Slate page at the first link contains a link to Powell's article on DeSmogBlog: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

The Slate article at the second link, given that it has to review the first article, puts us off till the second paragraph at which we are provided the link to Powell's second article at DeSmogBlog: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

So, let's discuss.

You should also quote me, I stated, "building windmills increases the use of coal and hydrocarbons".

I have quoted you on numerous occasions and I'm sorry, but we do not get to pick and choose what others quote of us. Making a life-ring for your boat or your local pool costs money and resources. Do you believe that makes it a bad idea to do so?

Your idea that they pay back the coal during the brief times they operate over their very limited lifetime is a very different idea or statement.

But one you've made.

As far as the Mortgage goes, Crick, you stated more than once that you can deduct the mortgage from your gross income and the government would then pay you money. What you state here, now, is not what you stated before.

Quote me.

A mortgage interest deduction is a credit given you by the government to encourage home ownership. That is the information I have posted and that is the information you attempted to reject as false.

 

[elektra]

As far as the Mortgage goes...............................................................................

Quote me.

A mortgage interest deduction is a credit given you by the government to encourage home ownership. That is the information I have posted and that is the information you attempted to reject as false.

How about a quote and a link to your comment, now do the same for your accusations crick.
How Much For One Peanut?

You pay a mortgage which may be deducted from your gross income for the calculation of taxes. Improvements to your home will increase the basis used to calculate capital gains. Uncovered losses from natural disasters can be deducted from your gross income. The government subsidizes home ownership via tax breaks.

.

 

[Crick]

You pay a mortgage which may be deducted from your gross income for the calculation of taxes. Improvements to your home will increase the basis used to calculate capital gains. Uncovered losses from natural disasters can be deducted from your gross income. The government subsidizes home ownership via tax breaks.

.

So, because I failed to say "interest", you believe the government does not provide tax deductions to ease the burden of homeownership?

Do you have any plans on discussing Powell 2013, as you offered, or would you like to move this thread to the real estate forum?

 

[elektra]

You pay a mortgage which may be deducted from your gross income for the calculation of taxes. Improvements to your home will increase the basis used to calculate capital gains. Uncovered losses from natural disasters can be deducted from your gross income. The government subsidizes home ownership via tax breaks.

.

So, because I failed to say "interest", you believe the government does not provide tax deductions to ease the burden of homeownership?

Do you have any plans on discussing Powell 2013, as you offered, or would you like to move this thread to the real estate forum?

You made an error, yes, I can see that. You did not know that it was the interest deducted and not the mortgage. Do I want to move my thread making fun of all the temperature predictions and the global warming "scientists" to the real estate forum?

Crick, you may not of noticed, but I do not play your game, and the other games, whereas you go to google, like it is a stack of cards, where you pull off the "stacked" deck, and play the results like you are in a game of go fish. I perfectly understand that google is stacked with paid results, from activists, and at that the activists spend day and night making thousands of websites which do nothing but spread the propaganda.

Crick, you linked and quoted Powell? Crick you offer no commentary on how Powell is relevant to my thread (which powell is irrelevant in that regard). Crick you offer no commentary on how Powell is relevant to your assertion that there is certain number of "Scientists" that support Global Warming hypothesis.

Crick, the reason I stated, post the list of these scientists as well as state the total number of scientists, to verify the 97%, is because there is no such list of scientists that support AGW, it is all a fraud that you can not prove. It is just a lie propagated on the internet.

So, if you wish to forget supporting that statement, I have no problem, cause there is no sense discussing something that does not exist. If you wish to discuss Powell, at the least you should offer your own comments. We could round and round all day offering the different hypothesis of different "scientists".

But it all seriousness, the last minute of temperature data is missing from all studies, all equations, all computer models. I think theories should include the temperature, taken every micro second, at elevations of 1" up to 45,000 ft., on every single square inch of land, and increasing as the points spread into space, to be relevant. There is just so much data they ignore.

Today, here in Pittsburgh, the temperature has dropped more than 20 deg F. since yesterday. How will the scientists recalculate or will they take a simple average?

 

[elektra]

Powell, what Powell finds is irrelevant, what is printed in "science" journals is irrelevant, the amount of results one finds on google is irrelevant.

Crick, who is Powell, did you bother to look that up?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now Mrs. Elektra, none of that is necessary. Not when the totality of the
scientific community states that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and
present danger.

Then give us the names, if it is easier give us the names of the deniers, at
least tell us how many, easy ss pie, right?
But, we all know you are a liar and know nothing of basic math, so at best
all you can do is make a proclamation.

So, you reject the various studies, polls and surveys listed in the
well-worn Wikipedia articles Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and
Surveys of Scientists Views on Global Warming, because the names of the
scientists are not given. I take it then you reject every election ever
conducted in this nation's history. Your man Trump isn't really leading the
RNC balloting because secret ballots are all lies. Right.

And, again, anyone who holds that a solar or wind energy facility uses more
energy being built than it will produce during its lifetime has no business
criticizing anyone else's math skills.

I wish you'd step back and see what you look like demanding a list of nine
or ten thousand names. And I guarantee you Old Rocks is better at math than
anything you've demonstrated here. Your contention that building a solar or
wind power facility uses more energy than it will produce in its lifetime is
a failure on a grade school level. So what does it say when you call him a
liar without the slightest shred of an argument to support such a charge?
It makes you look so ignorant you fail to understand basic morality.

You made a statement you can not support, that is all, I know you can not,
will not, ever produce a list or even state exactly how many are for, or
against.

The numbers are fully accessible. The demographic qualifications of the
participants are available. Your continued demand for their names, though,
does nothing but inform us you have no experience with statistics, sampling,
polls, surveys or the like and seem a good deal lacking in general knowledge
as well.

You are repeating a lie, that is why I challenge you to prove yourself, I
am beyond confident that you can not produce the names. I will go as far to
say that I am certain you will never ever provide the names.

Of course I won't produce the names. You're a fool for asking. But what
lie do you believe I am repeating?

Old Crock is better at math than I? Did you miss the exchange, I think it
began with something you posted? Yes? That 1 amp does not produce 12 watts,
Old Crock laughed at that and gave the formula as W=IR. So Old Crock stated
it was impossible for 1 amp to produce 12 watts. Is Old Crock, right or
wrong, on both questions the formula and the answer?

I saw that you seem to think that W=IR and P=IE are not equivalent
expressions.

On the last point, link, link, link, search all my posts, search the titles
of all my threads, and link, link, link, or simply be a filthy liar.

I will admit that you do post links and that I overstated that charge.
However, it is exceedingly rare that the material at the links you post
actually support the contentions for which you make them.

Of course you thought you could deduct your mortgage from your gross income

Are you claiming that mortgage interest is NOT deductible? P'raps you ought
to talk to a tax accountant.

and then the banks would pay you money to buy your house

I have no idea what you're referring to here, but when someone buys my
house, they DO pay me money. I do hope that's not something you've actually
gotten wrong at any point.

so I can see how it must be really hard with an IQ of "dotcom" to figure out
what I am saying.

You seem to be saying that people take your property without paying for it. Is that what you intended to say?

Crick, take whatever you like from the sources listed from wikipedia, quote that source, and give your commentary on that quote and I will gladly discuss that particular topic with you. I think it can be fun and challenging. But when you do a copy/paste of a 100 sources and post them, it is as if you think you are in a game of war and that your 100 bombs just destroyed the enemy. In a discussion that is all dismissed as nothing more than heresy, at best.

I hate to have to tell you this, but 100 bombs do more damage to one's enemy than one. The common denier contention that the 97% acceptance of AGW among climate scientists is false or a lie is more fully refuted by the full list of polls, surveys and studies on the point than it would be by one of them. However, I can see how you could be overwhelmed by the mass of data you're claiming false. I am perfectly willing to discuss one of them. However, I will not pretend that the other do not exist. Let's take one of the more recent studies:

Powell, 2013
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32]This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[33]

And the footed links are, I believe, the one you dissed for being from Slate :

1. Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
2. Jump up^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved12 June 2014.

The first sentence of the Slate page at the first link contains a link to Powell's article on DeSmogBlog: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

The Slate article at the second link, given that it has to review the first article, puts us off till the second paragraph at which we are provided the link to Powell's second article at DeSmogBlog: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

So, let's discuss.

You should also quote me, I stated, "building windmills increases the use of coal and hydrocarbons".

I have quoted you on numerous occasions and I'm sorry, but we do not get to pick and choose what others quote of us. Making a life-ring for your boat or your local pool costs money and resources. Do you believe that makes it a bad idea to do so?

Your idea that they pay back the coal during the brief times they operate over their very limited lifetime is a very different idea or statement.

But one you've made.

As far as the Mortgage goes, Crick, you stated more than once that you can deduct the mortgage from your gross income and the government would then pay you money. What you state here, now, is not what you stated before.

Quote me.

A mortgage interest deduction is a credit given you by the government to encourage home ownership. That is the information I have posted and that is the information you attempted to reject as false.

WE wouldn't want to let real facts get in the way of your propaganda.. But then again, I cant let this LIE get by..