I don't know what ack means
I know. I know. :lamo:lamo:lamo:2wave:
This is Joe's signature go to when he is flustered....He starts typing too fast, and doesn't proof read before hitting the 'submit' button. A trait that I doubt he would accept from his students. But it also shows that he doesn't really have the answers to your postings code...Instead, and as of late he is relying on just saying 'I've posted it before'...in a weak attempt to put declarative statements out there without back up material.
There have been literally hundreds of threads over the years about AGW, with thousands of postings. Are we to go back and read every post ever written by Joe on the topic? And what if those of us were to start using this tactic as well? What if we started saying that 'we have posted this information debunking AGW before' would that be accepted? I think not.
Joe, for that alone has miserably lost his argument in this already, and I think knows this, so to continue to do this is a violation of the forum rules, and will be reported, and I think should be by every poster trying to have a discussion on facts surrounding this topic.
The personal attacks, and baiting/flaming of the thread should not go unreported by any of those in here that are putting forth opposition to AGW.
I'm not flustered in the sense you're trying to pass off. I'm frustrated by how convoluted you guys get in ignoring the evidence and then in pretending that as novices you know better than experts. You ignore a wealth of information, hang on to very minor and unimportant points. It makes rational discussion difficult. So, once it's been laid out two or three times, and the person keeps asking for what he's already got, how long do you think it needs to be repeated?
But by all means, talking about the person, as is your habit, is easier than addressing the evidence or rebuttals.
When a claim is made, then your back up proof needs to be clearly laid out so that people that have not read your thoughts on the subject before can see them right there. The absurd notion that you, or anyone should be able to just throw out a claim, then say "I've posted proof of this claim before" and be taken seriously is laughable on its face.
We have rebutted with things that you refuse to read, or acknowledge in your argument. So, Me thinks there is just a little more than classic projection going on with your posting now Joe....:coffeepap:
It has been clearly laid out by those making the claim. When I claim there is a consensus, I clearly showed there was. When he asked about the science, links were given to the science. When he said no large science groups accepted it, those groups were linked showing they do in fact. All of it has been clearly shown, complete with links.
And no you haven't. You showed one guy. He was rebutted. You then start with the talking about the poster. That is the pattern.
We've laid out evidence, and proof repeatedly...That you can't or won't read it is not my problem.
I'm not flustered in the sense you're trying to pass off. I'm frustrated by how convoluted you guys get in ignoring the evidence and then in pretending that as novices you know better than experts. You ignore a wealth of information, hang on to very minor and unimportant points. It makes rational discussion difficult. So, once it's been laid out two or three times, and the person keeps asking for what he's already got, how long do you think it needs to be repeated?
But by all means, talking about the person, as is your habit, is easier than addressing the evidence or rebuttals. :coffeepap
You've laid out stuff we've rebutted by showing it was inaccurate. You've largely ignored the rebuttals, waited awhile, and made the claim again. It was still inaccurate. I've just decided to limit my factual rebuttals to a couple when you're merely repeating what has been shown to be inaccurate.
And if you go to one bright fellow saying something you agree with, you have to give reason why one bright fellow, who said he knew more about nuclear weapons than climate change, should be accepted over many, an overwhelming many, bright folks who are also experts in that field? I get you like hearing what you want to believe, but you need more in order to convince.
It has been clearly laid out by those making the claim. When I claim there is a consensus, I clearly showed there was. When he asked about the science, links were given to the science. When he said no large science groups accepted it, those groups were linked showing they do in fact. All of it has been clearly shown, complete with links.
And no you haven't. You showed one guy. He was rebutted. You then start with the talking about the poster. That is the pattern.
Nope, you are 1.) misrepresenting what Dr. Dyson was saying, and 2.) making the hubris filled mistake that only your interpretation of what is said is 'fact'... There is a reason why the world is not running head long into what you want to see concerning this...Because they see the fraud.
1) no. You'll notice you guys disappeared when I challenged you to show any misrepresentation. It is what he said.
2) no, that's not at all true. There's a reason you guys never respond to it.
Look, were all novice. That's why we have no choice but to look to experts. Stop pretending you know more than they do.
Is there a man made gas that cause warming without also insulating the planet thus causing cooler summers?
Tricky question, but warming is measured over time, not one year compared to the next. This throws many off when only look at a year or three.
Tricky question, but warming is measured over time, not one year compared to the next. This throws many off when only look at a year or three.
Al Gore and his traveling medicine show is back in town with his new, improved snake oil, guaranteed to grow hair, improve digestion, promote regularity and kill roaches, rats and bedbugs. Al and his wagon rumbled into town on the eve of “a major forthcoming report” from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a panel of scientists affiliated with the United Nations. Their report is expected to buck up the spirits of the tycoons of the snake-oil industry.
A snake-oil salesman’s lot, like a policeman’s, is not a happy one. There’s always a skeptic or two (or three) standing at the back of the wagon, eager to scoff and jeer. The global-warming scam would have been right up Gilbert and Sullivan’s street. Would Al and the U.N. deceive us? No! Never! What! Never? Weeeell, hardly ever.
The New York Times, a faithful shill for Al’s snake-oil elixir, following the wagon from town to town, got an advance copy of the U.N. report and gives out with the “good” news: It’s a “near certainty” that humans are responsible for the rising temperatures of recent decades, and warns that by the end of the century all the little people — small children, midgets and others whose growth was stunted by drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes at an early age — will be up to their belly buttons in salt water. The seas will rise by more than three feet.
The inconvenient truth Al and the junk scientists have to deal with is that temperatures aren’t rising, but falling. In fact, since the early 1990s we’ve had global cooling. It got so embarrassing Al and the junk scientists started calling it “climate change.” Some days it rains, some days it doesn’t and some days it’s a little of both. That’s real change. The U.N. panel concedes that global warming has in fact given way to global cooling, but attributes this to “short-term factors.” The minions of the compliant media, ever eager to blow hard about the coming end of the world, when women and minorities will suffer most, will rattle and twitter about the U.N. climate report with their usual tingle and flutter.
President Obama tried the other day to elbow Al aside to lead with his assertion that hurricanes are getting worse and that only he has the power to put them in their place. Hurricanes are actually getting not worse, but fewer. Only three major hurricanes have made landfall so far in Mr. Obama’s presidency. Grover Cleveland, who was president between 1885 and 1889, entertained 26 major hurricanes during his presidency, and that was before global warning was invented.
We were scheduled to see an enormous melting of polar ice by now, but even the ice won’t co-operate. The U.S. Navy forecasts twice as much mid-September ice this year as it measured in 2012.
The only way to deal with the inconvenient truth is to bellow and bawl the convenient whopper louder than ever. In an interview this week with a blogger for The Washington Post, Ezra Klein greeted Al with a shower of sanitized softballs, and Al knocked some of them halfway back to the pitcher’s mound. Al is exhausted dealing with the skeptics, whom he calls “denialists,” as in denying the Holocaust. The denialists, he says, are “like a family with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage every time a subject is mentioned and so everybody avoids the elephant in the room to keep the peace.”
Al, who is a decent sort who tried to be a good ol’ boy when he went back home to visit the family tobacco farm, says the denialists remind him of racists, warmongers, homophobes and other congenital undesirables, but he thinks it won’t be long until they’re permanently silenced. “We’re winning the conversation,” he says.
On the contrary, what frustrates Al and the snake-oil industry is that the skeptics can no longer be shut out of the conversation. “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority,” Kenneth P. Green, a former member of the U.N. panel, predicted three years ago. Another former panelist, Dr. Kimimori Itoh, a Japanese physical chemist, calls the phenomenon “the worst scientific scandal in history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
Read more: PRUDEN: Up to our ears in Al Gore's 'climate change' snake oil - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Another Faux report uncritically seized on by deniers? Say it isn't so!
Or 15?
I'm not sure we can extrapolate enough evidence about the effects of short time changes in climate to determine, if there are any, that would be caused by man...
Do you think man can have that much of an effect?
Of course man can have that much of an effect. He kills lakes and environments rather quickly.
Look, they lay out clear evidence, back by nearly very one in the field. Being novice, you have to largely be a contrarian to ignore such a large consensus.
A while. It's never a straight line. It sigs and sags.
Isn't that convenient for your argument. What is the scientific measure for "A while" :lol:
Tricky question, but warming is measured over time, not one year compared to the next. This throws many off when only look at a year or three.
Facts are facts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?