Global Warming aka Atheism's Wrong Turn

[RetiredGySgt]

Considering you are unable to understand basic sentences, or make them half the time, I really advise you not to speak for "the left". It looks like someone else on "the left" already decided to tell you how stupid that was. Consider it repeated.



Blah blah blah...same old shit, different day. I've responded to this. If you care to maybe address my points when I respond to you I'll do it for real. Until then, you don't get real anwsers.



Umm no, I argue that I don't lie because you are too stupid to understand what I am saying, not some crap about intent is different. And I always state my point, its just not always directly relevant to the position. I don't need to have the anwser to something to know that someone elses anwser is asinine.



Didn't you already say this? I mean, in this post. You've said it throughout the board about 400 times by now. But at least keep it to once a post.

By the way RGS...you ever respond to your 6-3 idiocy or when Shogun ripped you a new one in that Iran thread? Nope? Didn't think so. Or how about when you started that thread, with beautiful almost clairvoyant timing, about how liberals say shit and leave threads




Right. You know me better than I know myself RGS. And over the internet no less. I wonder what prestigious institution YOU got your psych degree at?



Yes, I have. Congratulations on getting something right.



Thats because people I argue with routinely have the stupidity to mention my intellect.



Umm, no. Try finding the last ten threads where my intellect was brought up. I'd be willing to bet that in 10 of 10, someone else brought it up first. You and a few others are obsessed with what I think of my intellect. I know I'm interesting, but really, get over me.



I do now. I used to treat you and your ilk seriously until I realized that you are all just a bunch of dumbfucks. Now? No, I don't take you seriously. You follow me around on various threads saying retarded shit and trying to analyze me. Yes I'm going to fuck with you. Cry me a river.

Arrogant asshole is a good definition for you. Do us all a favor and quit claiming in one post you never said your smarter then everyone else then in the next saying you are smarter then everyone ( ohh wait you admitted maybe 2 people MIGHT be as smart as you). Semantics at work yet again.

You do not take people serious, not because they are stupid but because your an arrogant asshole that thinks your to smart to be bothered. You do not answer questions because you can not. Your afraid someone might use any actual stance you might fumble your ignorant arrogance into saying against you and your just not smart enough to keep things straight.

I don't run away from retards like you and Shogun, neither of you have any real position, your both automations of one type or another, spouting a party line while decrying anyone that might support something you disagree with as mindless drones.

Unlike your lying ass I have positions and I do not play word games rather then state those positions. I also haven't spent every day since republicans lost an election ( we lost, you morons did not win) crying about how somehow you cheated us. Nor have I ever claimed a marginal win was some sort of mandate of the people like your ilk tries to do every day.

Your so smart your an ignorant asshole.

 

[Larkinn]

Change that to right or republican or even Bush and I suggest you take your own advice, or wait I forgot, dems/libs don't take advice they are to smart for that.

Then I'll tell you to do the same thing, and then to shut up because I don't spew insults about the right.

 

[Larkinn]

Arrogant asshole is a good definition for you. Do us all a favor and quit claiming in one post you never said your smarter then everyone else then in the next saying you are smarter then everyone ( ohh wait you admitted maybe 2 people MIGHT be as smart as you). Semantics at work yet again.

Lmao semantics? I can see why you constantly get everything wrong if you can't figure out the difference between what...15 and 17 people or however many regulars there are here.

Accuracy is important. Try it sometime instead of just assuming But will Bern attack you for that? Naah.

You do not take people serious, not because they are stupid but because your an arrogant asshole that thinks your to smart to be bothered.

When I said I don't take YOU serious I meant I don't take YOU serious. You aren't people. You follow me around making asinine comments. Don't expect me to take you serious, you are a joke.

You do not answer questions because you can not.

Actually I respond to pretty much everything anyone says for better or for worse. People rarely ask me questions, they usually just accuse.

Your afraid someone might use any actual stance you might fumble your ignorant arrogance into saying against you and your just not smart enough to keep things straight.

Right. I'm terrified of looking stupid here. I'm terrified of people here disliking me. Thats why I'm so meak, not outspoken at all, and never say my opinion.

I don't run away from retards like you and Shogun, neither of you have any real position, your both automations of one type or another, spouting a party line while decrying anyone that might support something you disagree with as mindless drones.

So I can expect to see your reply in the thread where he ripped you a new one? How about the 6-3 thread? Going to admit you were wrong in either of those?

Unlike your lying ass I have positions and I do not play word games rather then state those positions.

Congratulations you have an opinion. Really, those are so terribly rare. Ever heard of the saying "opinions are like assholes, everyones got one"? Next you'll be bragging that you also have an asshole. Congratulations! Really, we are all so impressed with you.

I also haven't spent every day since republicans lost an election ( we lost, you morons did not win)

Umm, yeah actually sounds like crying to me. "waah you didn't win...its we who lost". Sorry, but your party doesn't decide everything there other individuals out there besides yourself and those you identify with.

crying about how somehow you cheated us. Nor have I ever claimed a marginal win was some sort of mandate of the people like your ilk tries to do every day.

Please quote where I said the Republicans cheated the Dems in 2000. Or retract it. Or pull your usual routine and just don't post here anymore. I wonder how many threads I can run your sorry ass out of.

Your so smart your an ignorant asshole.

Try learning English then coming back to me.

 

[Gunny]

They are both "if" statements. But Iran having a nuke won't doom the world, its only if it decides to use that. And that is predictable, imo. Is it dangerous? Yes. Will it lead to worlds end? I think not.



There is lots of evidence that it is. Is it conclusive? No. Will it ever be conclusive? No. But 5 years ago this exact same discussion was going on except it wasnt "is man the cause of global warming" it was "is the earth warming at all?". Oh, and glory be, its indisputable that now it is.

I'm reminded of the debate between evolution and creationists. Evolution gets connection after connection right, prediction after prediction is right and still people say "well its not proven yet". No, its not. It won't ever be. There are limits to human knowledge. You want to think that its massive coincidence that evolution just happens to match up with vast empirical data? Fine. Rot in your own ignorance, thats cool. But you want to think that its just a coincidence that man-made global warming matches up with empirical data? That suddenly matters a hell of a lot.



Because a very large number of very qualified people believe they know for sure what is causing it. They don't have the political solutions to stop it, but they think they know whats causing it.

That very large number of very qualified people who "believe" they know for sure what is causing it haven't shown one shred of convincing evidence that points to anything other than "man-made."

There are an equal number of qualified people who "believe" it's a cyclical change in the Earth's climate. There is scientific evidence that has in fact happened in the past.

Again, I see no point in enacting solutions without identifying the problem except to appease the "feel good" in the alarmists. I have no problem with finding a solution to an actual problem.

 

[Annie]

...



Because a very large number of very qualified people believe they know for sure what is causing it. They don't have the political solutions to stop it, but they think they know whats causing it.

The bolded just 'jumped out' at me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Originally Posted by Larkinn View Post
...



Because a very large number of very qualified peoplebelieve they know for sure what is causing it. They don't have the political solutions to stop it, but they think they know whats causing it.

this from Mr semantics? Come now you can do better. In 2 connected sentences you just said they know and then said they think they know.... which is it?

More importantly if they KNOW why can they NOT PROVE IT ? If they THINK they know why can they NOT provide us with a theory that has more than the few people they have believing it? A theory so full of holes that laymen can grasp it and throw rocks at it?

And next question Mr. faithful ( last I checked 58 is higher than 42 by the way) why is that at least for 5 years now and possible 9 there has been NO real rise in temperature? If we are in this runaway greenhouse effect why did it stop? If we are causing it what did we do to stop it and if we did stop it, why do we need to do more?

This is shaping up to be JUST like the "we are all gonna FREEZE" scare in the 70's. The difference this time is the whackos have gotten politicians involved. And Big Brother the UN sees a means to scare Countries into being subservient to them.

 

[Bern80]

The bolded just 'jumped out' at me.

Rarely, rarely, rarely will I stick up for Larkinn. This could be the first time in fact. But the fact that neither of you see any significance (or just plain deliberately ignored it) in the word 'beleive' says a lot. Is there really a significant difference between 'beleive they know' and 'think they know'?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Rarely, rarely, rarely will I stick up for Larkinn. This could be the first time in fact. But the fact that neither of you see any significance (or just plain deliberately ignored it) in the word 'beleive' says a lot. Is there really a significant difference between 'beleive they know' and 'think they know'?

With Larkinn? YES. He plays little games like this all the time. Anyone else wrote those two sentences and he would be on about how they didn't mean the same thing for pages.

 

[Bern80]

That very large number of very qualified people who "believe" they know for sure what is causing it haven't shown one shred of convincing evidence that points to anything other than "man-made."

okay back to the 'pile on'.

And again I ask even though the 'large number' (that have provided little hard evidence, btw) comprises less than half of the scientific community you are still fairly certain that group is right?

 

[Bern80]

alternative evidence as to why Greenland's ice sheet is melting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071213/sc_livescience/magmamaybemeltinggreenlandice

 

[Larkinn]

That very large number of very qualified people who "believe" they know for sure what is causing it haven't shown one shred of convincing evidence that points to anything other than "man-made."

Actually they believe there is convincing evidence. Do you believe you are more qualified then them to determine what counts as convincing evidence?

There are an equal number of qualified people who "believe" it's a cyclical change in the Earth's climate. There is scientific evidence that has in fact happened in the past.

Really? Link to the "equal number of qualified people who "believe" it's a cyclical change"

Again, I see no point in enacting solutions without identifying the problem except to appease the "feel good" in the alarmists. I have no problem with finding a solution to an actual problem.

Large numbers of extremely qualified people believe they have identified the problem. That they can't convince American Conservatives of that fact, a group not known for their love of cutting edge science (except Star Wars...now that as a winner!), does not mean they haven't identified the problem.

 

[Larkinn]

The bolded just 'jumped out' at me.

Perhaps you should have paid attention to the non-bolded part as well. The "believe" they know and "think" they know are roughly the same thing.

 

[jillian]

alternative evidence as to why Greenland's ice sheet is melting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071213/sc_livescience/magmamaybemeltinggreenlandice

Von Friese also said the "Man in the Moon" was caused by meteorites and that there's another meteorite under the antarctic which caused the triassic extinction.... Of course, there's no evidence of it, but well, he thinks that's what happned.

Not exactly a lot of scientific consensus on his guesses. So, while he may at some point be found to be correct, I'm not sure I'd place a lot of faith in a single person who comes up with novel theories.

 

[Annie]

Rarely, rarely, rarely will I stick up for Larkinn. This could be the first time in fact. But the fact that neither of you see any significance (or just plain deliberately ignored it) in the word 'beleive' says a lot. Is there really a significant difference between 'beleive they know' and 'think they know'?

Point taken, They don't know. Neither do you. In the same vein, I do not know that man isn't causing the problem, which is one reason, beyond better air and water quality that I believe that individuals and businesses should do what is reasonable and affordable to clean up what they can.

 

[Bern80]

Perhaps you should have paid attention to the non-bolded part as well. The "believe" they know and "think" they know are roughly the same thing.

Is that like no evidence and almost no evidence are the same thing?

 

[Larkinn]

this from Mr semantics? Come now you can do better. In 2 connected sentences you just said they know and then said they think they know.... which is it?

Actually I said believe they know and think they know. Try reading comprehension, son.

More importantly if they KNOW why can they NOT PROVE IT ? If they THINK they know why can they NOT provide us with a theory that has more than the few people they have believing it? A theory so full of holes that laymen can grasp it and throw rocks at it?

The few people they have believing it? The few people? There is a climate change conference going on at Bali right now. It represents over 180 countries with a massive focus on the issue. A "few people" who believe it? Congratulations on being a dishonest shitbag again, but what else is new. And really, because you think you can grasp it and throw rocks at it doesn't mean you can.

And next question Mr. faithful ( last I checked 58 is higher than 42 by the way)

Yes 58 is higher than 42. Your point is what? 42% subscribe to the theory, think that its truth. That doesn't mean 58% thinks its false. There is a middle ground. Although you are so proud of having an opinion (good job little RGS!), some people have the guts to say they don't know when they don't know. Something you should try doing once in a while.

why is that at least for 5 years now and possible 9 there has been NO real rise in temperature? If we are in this runaway greenhouse effect why did it stop? If we are causing it what did we do to stop it and if we did stop it, why do we need to do more?

The five warmest years over last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

This is shaping up to be JUST like the "we are all gonna FREEZE" scare in the 70's. The difference this time is the whackos have gotten politicians involved. And Big Brother the UN sees a means to scare Countries into being subservient to them.

So tell me the massive number of scientists and international meetings that went into focusing on that scare?

 

[Larkinn]

Rarely, rarely, rarely will I stick up for Larkinn. This could be the first time in fact. But the fact that neither of you see any significance (or just plain deliberately ignored it) in the word 'beleive' says a lot. Is there really a significant difference between 'beleive they know' and 'think they know'?

Kudos.

 

[Larkinn]

With Larkinn? YES. He plays little games like this all the time. Anyone else wrote those two sentences and he would be on about how they didn't mean the same thing for pages.

Umm, no. Although if you are so good are predicting what I'd say, please come up with a theory for how the two are appreciably different and how that matters in this context. Do come up with something that I would say, i.e. not completely incoherent, and retarded.

 

[Larkinn]

okay back to the 'pile on'.

And again I ask even though the 'large number' (that have provided little hard evidence, btw) comprises less than half of the scientific community you are still fairly certain that group is right?

I believe them, yes. I don't see very many reasons not to believe them, and generally the folks I see disbelieving them I suspect of ulterior political motives. Its not convenient to believe it. Its not nice. But I'm not interested in the aesthetic values of my beliefs, I'm interested in the truth of them.

 

[Larkinn]

Is that like no evidence and almost no evidence are the same thing?

Not at all.