The truth of Global Warming

[Cardinal]

No but I don't see them lying as I agree with them.

And that's the whole problem right there.

 

[danarhea]

I want my global warming dammit. It was freakin 12 degrees this morning. snowing like hell with an inch already on the ground. I haven't seen snow on the ground in 10 years and I haven't seen 12 degrees in 30 years.




Dear Mr. Gore,

I am freezing my ass off. Could you please send me some of that global warming I keep hearing so much about?

Sincerely,

The South

How many times must I repeat this? WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!!

 

[Deuce]

No but I don't see them lying as I agree with them. Just like you are blindly defending the lies of GW. Difference is many of what you call deniers came from the IPCC so they know the scam.

Speechless.

 

[marduc]

No but I don't see them lying as I agree with them.

psst.. I think your boat is sinking, it might have something to do with that huge hole in it from that torpedo you just shot into it.

 

[ptif219]

And that's the whole problem right there.

No the problem is people who hear lies by the GW propagandist and try to say it is a mistake. I guess the deniers do not lie they are mistaken. But of course I don't even know what Duece thinks they lied about.

 

[ptif219]

psst.. I think your boat is sinking, it might have something to do with that huge hole in it from that torpedo you just shot into it.

No the truth is Duece will not admit the lies and deceptions of the GW propagandist. According to Duece trick does not mean a trick.

 

[Cardinal]

No the problem is people who hear lies by the GW propagandist and try to say it is a mistake. I guess the deniers do not lie they are mistaken. But of course I don't even know what Duece thinks they lied about.

You said "No but I don't see them lying as I agree with them."

Re-read that sentence, then read it again. In fact, read it as many times as it takes for the significance of it to sink in.

 

[ptif219]

You said "No but I don't see them lying as I agree with them."

Re-read that sentence, then read it again. In fact, read it as many times as it takes for the significance of it to sink in.

That is because that is what Duece does with the GW propagandist lies and deceptions as I have pointed it. I was making fun of Duece

 

[Cardinal]

That is because that is what Duece does with the GW propagandist lies and deceptions as I have pointed it. I was making fun of Duece

The "They're aaaalllll liieees!!!" position is old and doesn't even qualify as an argument. If you're so convinced his position is propaganda and you're willing to take part in a debate forum then just link to the appropriate, up-to-date scientific articles by a climate researcher and be done with it. If you're not willing to do that then I personally don't understand why you're even here.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Are you saying that all those reports, investigations, surveys, etc... are all part of a leftist conspiracy? Then, as those same scientists concluded that Northern Europe was a desert, there were alligators in the Arctic, etc... (which you based your arguments on) are again part of a conspiracy. Then, the weatherman (or woman) is part of the leftist conspiracy. Then, the textbooks that children read in schools all over the world, and the various projects these children do are all part of the leftist conspiracy
PS: There's no new world order yet. The world is not unifed yet (it's impossible too)

 

[ptif219]

The "They're aaaalllll liieees!!!" position is old and doesn't even qualify as an argument. If you're so convinced his position is propaganda and you're willing to take part in a debate forum then just link to the appropriate, up-to-date scientific articles by a climate researcher and be done with it. If you're not willing to do that then I personally don't understand why you're even here.

The left doesn't even want reporters to question GW

Mark Tapscott: Oh the horror! Fox bureau chief told reporters to be 'skeptical' | Washington Examiner

 

[ptif219]

Are you saying that all those reports, investigations, surveys, etc... are all part of a leftist conspiracy? Then, as those same scientists concluded that Northern Europe was a desert, there were alligators in the Arctic, etc... (which you based your arguments on) are again part of a conspiracy. Then, the weatherman (or woman) is part of the leftist conspiracy. Then, the textbooks that children read in schools all over the world, and the various projects these children do are all part of the leftist conspiracy
PS: There's no new world order yet. The world is not unifed yet (it's impossible too)

They are paid by the governments to get a certain result.

No cotradiction or skeptisism is allowed at the IPCC.

The UN IPCC's Artful Bias

The IPCC under the Microscope

 

[Deuce]

They are paid by the governments to get a certain result.

No cotradiction or skeptisism is allowed at the IPCC.

The UN IPCC's Artful Bias

The IPCC under the Microscope

Ptif, you've already proven you only believe things your side states, and always disbelieve what my side states. Why should I bother responding? These are weak criticisms, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to even discuss them. John Daly criticizes the IPCC report for saying "surface temperture has risen by .6 degrees" instead of saying "surface temperatures may have risen by .6 degrees." .6 degrees is the best calculation we have for that period. Yes, all measurements come with some uncertainty, but to nitpick on this is just... childish.

By the way, "trick" has more than one meaning. I love that you still don't understand this. "I figured out the trick to juggling" does not imply that I have deceived you.

 

[Cardinal]

The left doesn't even want reporters to question GW

Mark Tapscott: Oh the horror! Fox bureau chief told reporters to be 'skeptical' | Washington Examiner

Got any up to date, scientific literature by a climate researcher shedding doubt on AGW? Nobody's interested in links to blogs or accusations of bias or propaganda.

 

[Deuce]

Got any up to date, scientific literature by a climate researcher shedding doubt on AGW? Nobody's interested in links to blogs or accusations of bias or propaganda.

It's really, really hard to argue a scientific topic with someone who doesn't understand the difference between opinion and evidence.

re: "follow the money."

I'm a flight instructor. I teach people to fly airplanes, and I bill them on an hourly basis for doing so. I have a financial incentive to drag out training and bill as much as possible, because I get paid more that way.

But if you accuse me of doing so, you'd better have some compelling evidence to support that claim or else I'm going to smack you in the face. Why? I'm a professional and I'm an honest person. Every single person has financial incentives to do dishonest things, how many actually do? You have a financial incentive to cheat on your taxes. Have you? You have a financial incentive to steal from the cash register at work. Have you?

Accusations of this nature require actual evidence, not speculation.

 

[ricksfolly]

Accusations of this nature require actual evidence, not speculation.[/I]

So-called actual evidence is still perceptive, and only has limited credibility if enough people agree it is evidence. That's the way evidence is considered during a trial

It's like an umpire who calls balls and strikes. Most of the time the zone depiction (reality) shows he was right, other times he was way off, but his ruling was never questioned.

ricksfolly

 

[Deuce]

So-called actual evidence is still perceptive, and only has limited credibility if enough people agree it is evidence. That's the way evidence is considered during a trial

It's like an umpire who calls balls and strikes. Most of the time the zone depiction (reality) shows he was right, other times he was way off, but his ruling was never questioned.

ricksfolly

You're like a broken record, ricksfolly...
First off, no that's not how evidence works during a trial. It's not based on the number of people agreeing. "10 out of 10 people agree OJ killed his ex-wife" is not evidence in a court of law. And this is not at all like the umpire. Scientific evidence is questioned all the time. We're always revising and updating what we know about the universe. Measurements of outgoing longwave infrared radiation are not "perceptive."

 

[ptif219]

Ptif, you've already proven you only believe things your side states, and always disbelieve what my side states. Why should I bother responding? These are weak criticisms, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to even discuss them. John Daly criticizes the IPCC report for saying "surface temperture has risen by .6 degrees" instead of saying "surface temperatures may have risen by .6 degrees." .6 degrees is the best calculation we have for that period. Yes, all measurements come with some uncertainty, but to nitpick on this is just... childish.

By the way, "trick" has more than one meaning. I love that you still don't understand this. "I figured out the trick to juggling" does not imply that I have deceived you.

Pot calling kettle. As always only your side can be right.

 

[ptif219]

Got any up to date, scientific literature by a climate researcher shedding doubt on AGW? Nobody's interested in links to blogs or accusations of bias or propaganda.

Who would publish it? the IPCC will not allow it as I have shown

 

[ptif219]

You're like a broken record, ricksfolly...
First off, no that's not how evidence works during a trial. It's not based on the number of people agreeing. "10 out of 10 people agree OJ killed his ex-wife" is not evidence in a court of law. And this is not at all like the umpire. Scientific evidence is questioned all the time. We're always revising and updating what we know about the universe. Measurements of outgoing longwave infrared radiation are not "perceptive."

So why is the GW propagandist only look at one side. They are not scientist they are liberal environmentalists with an agenda,

 

[Deuce]

So why is the GW propagandist only look at one side. They are not scientist they are liberal environmentalists with an agenda,

They look at the other side all the time. You know how I posted papers that were responding to the things you posted? Or did you suppress that memory?

 

[ptif219]

They look at the other side all the time. You know how I posted papers that were responding to the things you posted? Or did you suppress that memory?

Thats not looking at it that is denying it

 

[Deuce]

Thats not looking at it that is denying it

:facepalm:

Yes, Ptif, running temperature calculations using data from stations that Watts lists as "good" and comparing it to the main dataset is "denying it."

You know what? Your broken record is getting annoying again. Back to the ignore list for you.

 

[ptif219]

:facepalm:

Yes, Ptif, running temperature calculations using data from stations that Watts lists as "good" and comparing it to the main dataset is "denying it."

You know what? Your broken record is getting annoying again. Back to the ignore list for you.

You can't handle the truth

 

[marduc]

You can't handel the truth

sure he can:



A fitting piece for this topic as well

edit: nice edit to fix your typo :mrgreen: