Global Warming is political "science" and politicians need a question put to them

[westwall]

This isn't about me (even though you desperately want to make it about me). It isn't even about YOU. It's about how people function in regards to information they actually understand.

As I said: I'm 100% certain that whatever job you do, I can do better. <<do you know why I said that? HINT: NOT BECAUSE I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT. I don't know what you do (I assume it's simple), but the point is just because someone has an opinion on a technical topic it doesn't have any value if that person is NOT SUFFICIENTLY KNOWLEDGEABLE on the topic.

To be quite honest, the fact that you are debating me on this simple, obvious point shows you are only interested in trolling. You aren't even reading what is said.

Either you are extremely stupid (I actually kind of doubt that) or you are being wholly disingenuous.

Which is it? Are you dumb as a box of hammers or just a troll?

Not really. You are the moron making the claim, so clearly you DO want to make it about you.

Frauds, like you, always do.

 

[westwall]

LOLOL. Wagner didn't know anything other than the coasts lines lined up and fossils matched. That's it.



Plate tectonics is what SUPPLANTED continental drift.

Continental drift said the CONTINENTS moved around, when in fact it was the PLATES (both oceanic and continental) in motion.




Probably Vine and Matthews, but I don't know for certain the actual names for sure, but I do know that it wasn't until the 1960's when the navy started doing sonar on the sea floor. I believe Burrell in 1914 originally proposed or suggested the "aesthenosphere" but it would have required more detailed understanding of the seismic attenuation of the aesthenosphere.

I'm getting really tired of your fake-ass "quizzes". I've never seen you post ONE SINGLE THING that indicates you have even a SMIDGE of knowledge in this area.

You are a troll straight up.

Why DON'T YOU wow us with your knowledge of geology, troll? (You won't. You'll say "Oh I looked at the Davis Formation! What do you know about that formation? IF you dont' know the exact formation I worked on you aren't a real geologist!"

What a douche.

Proving that you are both a sock puppet, and not a geologist, nor any other type of scientist.

DURRRRRRR

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No, I can't do anything, but one thing I can do is spot bad arguments. Arguments that rely on logical fallacies are automatically invalid. Your inability to commit logic is why you don't understand that.


No, Wagner was not wrong. He was certainly more right than the so-called experts who laughed at him. All you're whining about is the fact that didn't have all the details worked out. However the basic premise of his theory was correct, and still is correct: Continents move. They are not fixed in place.



The bottom line is that contrary to what all the experts insisted, continents move.


Your position is a logical fallacy. You repeat it stupidly because you lack the capacity to commit logic



Oh really? So you believe that someone who is incapable of recognizing a logical fallacy, and who doesn't understand the problem with using them, has more expertise at interpreting the evidence?

You are too stupid to comprehend how pathetic your "argument" is.

Wow, all that typing and ZERO factual claims, ZERO support for anything, ONE misspelling of the key name and nothing of value!

Color me surprised you could pull it off, but you don't seem to be all that bright so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow, all that typing and ZERO factual claims, ZERO support for anything, ONE misspelling of the key name and nothing of value!

Color me surprised you could pull it off, but you don't seem to be all that bright so I shouldn't be surprised.

Everything I posted is fact.

You are a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Coyote]

Time to get back on topic folks. Started to clean thread but way too much off topic stuff. Cardinal is threadbanned for derailing thread, please don’t respond to his posts..

 

[skookerasbil]

Don't make me search through the steaming pile of bullshit this thread contains. Who, where and how do you believe these data were manipulated so as to make you feel they are untrustworthy?

Dude....you know what psychologists call that?
Cognitive dissonance. You have a particularly pronounced case of it.
Btw...it is a cornerstone of progressive thinking so don't feel bad. You and Rocks happen to have it in spades. No way out without pharmalogical aid btw...my field for 36 years....so that a certainty. Maybe you've noticed...less than a handful of regulars in this forum for many, many years towing the hard line alarmist approach. 25,000 USMB members. Very very few in so deep with the cognitive dissonance thing on climate change. Drrrrrr

At the end of the day, climate science is ALL about $$ and thus, politics. Only the nutters don't grasp this fact.

The AGW folks obviously never watched Godfather 2

 

[Crick]

This is just pathetic.

Science went out with journalism here in America, it was "canceled." Global Warming is 100% politics and 0% science. That is why this topic is here.

There is a question the warmers cannot answer, the media will not ask, and the politicians pushing algore's fraud want censored. Fox will not ask it. Ted Cruz will not ask it. Why, because it flat out destroys the argument that Co2 causes climate change... and hence the credibility of the entire "news" media and the liars behind the fraud.

The warmers want you to believe Co2 is the driving variable behind Earth climate change. IT is not. The data never supported that conclusion. What causes Earth climate change is precisely what the past million years of Northern Hemisphere history tells us....


What did North America (NA) look like 1 million years ago?

All of Canada down through Indiana was covered in mile plus think ice 1 million years ago, the "North American Ice Age" (notice it is continent specific).

Now, in the first image, Greenland is frozen a million years ago ..... but was it?????????





"Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.


The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.


IN PLAIN ENGLISH


During the Past 1 million years, Greenland FROZE while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of Co2 in the atmosphere


WHY?

WHAT CAUSED THAT?


Not one of the people here or in DC pushing algore's fraud can answer that. Clearly, the atmosphere did not cause it. Hence, Co2 had nothing to do with it....


So I ask, everyone here, before we bilk the taxpayer out of trillions more for algore's fraud, why do not we insist these thieving fudge baking liars answer that question before one more dime is spent on their phony theory and their anti-american fascist agenda....

Getting back on topic.


In Mamooth's perfect analogy, the historical record shows that huge forest fires took place long before humans with matches or campfiles were around to start them. This must mean - PER YOUR LOGIC - that they cannot be responsible for them today. Get it? I doubt it but it would be nice if you'd try.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Getting back on topic.


In Mamooth's perfect analogy, the historical record shows that huge forest fires took place long before humans with matches or campfiles were around to start them. This must mean - PER YOUR LOGIC - that they cannot be responsible for them today. Get it? I doubt it but it would be nice if you'd try.

Using AGW logic, we suppress wildfires and restrict logging for decades, big wildfires must be due to global warming.

 

[Crick]

Using AGW logic, we suppress wildfires and restrict logging for decades, big wildfires must be due to global warming.

You must have missed it. I was responding to one of the multitude of your brethren who think that because we had warming (and cooling) before there were humans, humans could not be causing the problem now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You must have missed it. I was responding to one of the multitude of your brethren who think that because we had warming (and cooling) before there were humans, humans could not be causing the problem now.

No, I didn't miss the AGW forest fire logic.

 

[bripat9643]

You must have missed it. I was responding to one of the multitude of your brethren who think that because we had warming (and cooling) before there were humans, humans could not be causing the problem now.

Nobody thinks that, turd.

 

[skookerasbil]

We ARE all laymen. That is why it is VITAL to listen to the experts. The Denialist and "Skeptics" you see for the most part are NOT the experts. There are vanishingly few experts who are denialists or significant skeptics.

There is no "control scam", that's absurd. It's just fear talking points from people who are NOT experts on the topic.

It only matters who's not winning

Nobody is listening to the "experts"....for 25 years now.

One would think the climate bozos would come up with a Plan B after 25 years....yuk...yuk....
Still have yet to make their case.

 

[LaDairis]

Getting back on topic.


In Mamooth's perfect analogy, the historical record shows that huge forest fires took place long before humans with matches or campfiles were around to start them. This must mean - PER YOUR LOGIC - that they cannot be responsible for them today. Get it? I doubt it but it would be nice if you'd try.

Fires in nature are caused by LACK OF WATER.

Rainforests are hot but do not have fires.

You have the IQ of a mushroom.

 

[skookerasbil]

This isn't about me (even though you desperately want to make it about me). It isn't even about YOU. It's about how people function in regards to information they actually understand.

As I said: I'm 100% certain that whatever job you do, I can do better. <<do you know why I said that? HINT: NOT BECAUSE I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT. I don't know what you do (I assume it's simple), but the point is just because someone has an opinion on a technical topic it doesn't have any value if that person is NOT SUFFICIENTLY KNOWLEDGEABLE on the topic.

To be quite honest, the fact that you are debating me on this simple, obvious point shows you are only interested in trolling. You aren't even reading what is said.

Either you are extremely stupid (I actually kind of doubt that) or you are being wholly disingenuous.

Which is it? Are you dumb as a box of hammers or just a troll?

Lol...dick measuring contests on the "science" are gay.

The AGW crowd, after 25 years btw, has still yet to make it's case. Fact.

The world could not possibly be any less interested in the 97% of climate scientists. How do we know? Because in 25 years, Congress hasn't passed dick with legislation. Voters don't give a fuck!!

It's all about the winning s0n.
You might as well join the Group Navel Gazing Society.... such is your exercise in futility lecturing on shit the real world not really caring about!!

---

 

[Crick]

Fires in nature are caused by LACK OF WATER.

Rainforests are hot but do not have fires.

You have the IQ of a mushroom.

A lack of water by itself does not cause fires and I said nothing about rainforests. The point is attempting to argue that humans couldn't possibly cause a certain type of event because such events took place before humans were around is simply a complete failure of basic logic. That is the argument you and a thousand other AGW denier idiots have attempted to make over the years because you don't seem to have anything better.'

 

[ding]

A lack of water by itself does not cause fires and I said nothing about rainforests. The point is attempting to argue that humans couldn't possibly cause a certain type of event because such events took place before humans were around is simply a complete failure of basic logic. That is the argument you and a thousand other AGW denier idiots have attempted to make over the years because you don't seem to have anything better.'

Actually the argument is an argumentative 1C increase in the earth's average temperature - measured from a cold spell - is inconsequential when temperature swings of 50C are common on earth.

This is nothing more than idiots trying to manufacture a crisis when there is none.

 

[Sunsettommy]

A lack of water by itself does not cause fires and I said nothing about rainforests. The point is attempting to argue that humans couldn't possibly cause a certain type of event because such events took place before humans were around is simply a complete failure of basic logic. That is the argument you and a thousand other AGW denier idiots have attempted to make over the years because you don't seem to have anything better.'

Worldwide fires are in decline since 2000 as per the Satellite data which you have repeatedly ignored when I posted the NASA satellite data because you are a warmist/alarmist KOOK.

66 Million years there was a literal worldwide fire when that Meteor crashed in the Gulf of Mexico hope you are aren't going to accuse Humans of a precrime?

 

[Crick]

Worldwide fires are in decline since 2000 as per the Satellite data which you have repeatedly ignored when I posted the NASA satellite data because you are a warmist/alarmist KOOK.

66 Million years there was a literal worldwide fire when that Meteor crashed in the Gulf of Mexico hope you are aren't going to accuse Humans of a precrime?

I am only accusing you of being stupid and I never expected you, personally, to understand

 

[ding]

I am only accusing you of being stupid and I never expected you, personally, to understand

Now THAT is a textbook example of the dunning effect.

 

[LaDairis]

A lack of water by itself does not cause fires

I mean, this is third grade silly...

What do firefighters spray on fires to put them out.....