The Solar Minimum

convienient, you can make the statement, and then dismiss me asking for clarification

what fields were they in?
I dismissed nothing.....I admitted that I don't have the info immediately on hand, and implied that I would have little trouble digging it up if push comes to shove.

As for the rather dubious credentials of many of the IPCC "scientists".....

William Schlesinger on IPCC: “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” « Watts Up With That?
 
so 20% were educated with weather and climate.

ok, engineers have a part to play as well, as do biologists and herpitologists. Zoologists wouldn't be suprising, neither would physicists. aeronautical engineers maybe, fast food workers, maybe not.

Most fast food workers I use to work with have better brains in their heads than you do.

Again, why do you support monopolies and giving the rich all of our money?

That's sad, when the debate turns against you, you use snide remarks in an attempt to put me down. I worked in food to support myself through university. Just because I don't agree with you, I'm dumb. Brilliant argument, professor.

I don't, when did I say that? are you assuming things again.
 
so 20% were educated with weather and climate.

ok, engineers have a part to play as well, as do biologists and herpitologists. Zoologists wouldn't be suprising, neither would physicists. aeronautical engineers maybe, fast food workers, maybe not.

Most fast food workers I use to work with have better brains in their heads than you do.

Again, why do you support monopolies and giving the rich all of our money?

That's sad, when the debate turns against you, you use snide remarks in an attempt to put me down. I worked in food to support myself through university. Just because I don't agree with you, I'm dumb. Brilliant argument, professor.

I don't, when did I say that? are you assuming things again.

No ... it's because you are unarmed and this debate is old ... no matter what is posted contradicting your hoax, you environuts ignore it, period. You never address it, you never counter it, you either completely ignore it or post the same report over and over again. One can only bang their head against brick walls for so long before they decide to just tear them down completely.
 
1. He stated the fields in that post.

2. Using information that even your own scientists have disregarded is really stupid.

what post?
in this thread?

which information was disregarded?
Where was it used?

You are new, so your lack of knowing what was discussed here already is just because you are too lazy to read through some of the threads, which also explains why you still only know the 5% of the story fed to you by the Gore machine.


I know what the Gore machine fed the people, and it's sad that you haven't even paid enough attention in this thread to read that I don't follow Gore. I worked in atmospheric science analysis for years after school, I was doing the data while Gore was still mopping the Oval Office floors, after the Clinton parties.

I've been reading through many of the environment threads here, just not posting on many, because they keep repeating the same babble (Gore's a douche, Gore uses his own plane, Blah, blah, blah)

Not all climate change believers worship Gore, just like not all Lefties worship Obama. It's the right wing talk machine that says these things, and the right believes them.

I don't care if you believe that the warming is caused by mankind and our actions, you're not going to change your mind right now. I'm just trying to point out the fact that compartmentalizing folks based on their political views is not really an effective strategy when dealing with people.
 
convienient, you can make the statement, and then dismiss me asking for clarification

what fields were they in?
I dismissed nothing.....I admitted that I don't have the info immediately on hand, and implied that I would have little trouble digging it up if push comes to shove.

As for the rather dubious credentials of many of the IPCC "scientists".....

William Schlesinger on IPCC: “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” « Watts Up With That?

Read that already, please see my response in post #17 above.

but thanks for finding the link for me.
 
Most fast food workers I use to work with have better brains in their heads than you do.

Again, why do you support monopolies and giving the rich all of our money?

That's sad, when the debate turns against you, you use snide remarks in an attempt to put me down. I worked in food to support myself through university. Just because I don't agree with you, I'm dumb. Brilliant argument, professor.

I don't, when did I say that? are you assuming things again.

No ... it's because you are unarmed and this debate is old ... no matter what is posted contradicting your hoax, you environuts ignore it, period. You never address it, you never counter it, you either completely ignore it or post the same report over and over again. One can only bang their head against brick walls for so long before they decide to just tear them down completely.

How am I unarmed, I have the science backing me up. You have conjecture and theory, labeled as science, but paid for by oil monopolies, you know, like the ones you accused me of loving earlier.

Don't try to lump me in with them, I'm not like them, I know of which I speak. there are nuts on all sides of an argument. I have not posted the same report over and over again, like you said, I'm new here. Try not to make rash decisions about people like that, it won't help you much in life if you do.
 
I don't care if you believe that the warming is caused by mankind and our actions, you're not going to change your mind right now. I'm just trying to point out the fact that compartmentalizing folks based on their political views is not really an effective strategy when dealing with people.
True as that is, it's pretty much all that's left when people refuse to consider contravening evidence....Like 99% of the AGW cargo cultists (there I go again!).

I was all on board with this crap until the mid-90s, when I set about trying to debunk the debunkers, and found that they have more root in dispassionate reason and logic than do the AGW pimps.
 
what post?
in this thread?

which information was disregarded?
Where was it used?

You are new, so your lack of knowing what was discussed here already is just because you are too lazy to read through some of the threads, which also explains why you still only know the 5% of the story fed to you by the Gore machine.


I know what the Gore machine fed the people, and it's sad that you haven't even paid enough attention in this thread to read that I don't follow Gore. I worked in atmospheric science analysis for years after school, I was doing the data while Gore was still mopping the Oval Office floors, after the Clinton parties.

I've been reading through many of the environment threads here, just not posting on many, because they keep repeating the same babble (Gore's a douche, Gore uses his own plane, Blah, blah, blah)

Not all climate change believers worship Gore, just like not all Lefties worship Obama. It's the right wing talk machine that says these things, and the right believes them.

I don't care if you believe that the warming is caused by mankind and our actions, you're not going to change your mind right now. I'm just trying to point out the fact that compartmentalizing folks based on their political views is not really an effective strategy when dealing with people.

No, you are following Gore, you just don't want to see it. Gore owns the scientists that are "accepted", the peer pressured ones who's findings always support only a few major corporations ... which Gore owns. There is more to this than just the failed science based on circumstantial evidence, there is a lot of money. Gore's money precisely. Look into the past, further back than you are, you are following environut philosophy, not environmental responsibility. When we started this movement, before Gore got his venomous claws into it, it was about just cleaning up. That's all we have to do still, just clean up after ourselves. Here's the clue, heat increase was originally connected to the ozone, because of increased radiation. Since that prediction failed, they had to blame it on something else. Conveniently the CO2 levels started rising because an algae that was growing to handle the increased CO2 for whatever reason, was destroyed because it threatened some fish (the truly fucked up thing is that they are trying to destroy what little is left because it's a "threat" to another fish). But did they see that connection and admit they fucked up ... no, like you, they don't really care. It's all about looking like they care. The movement changed when Gore altered a report, so he could endorse his products out of fear, it worked and you are proof it worked. So he now keeps doing it. Until you stop and see the whole picture, you know nothing. No matter you degrees, studies, anything you may think has meaning, you know nothing.

Your kind fucked up the movement I originally got involved in because I don't like people, and I wanted a nice clean forest to escape to ... well guess what, now it costs $20 to go to those clean forests, thanks to you idiots. Now you are pushing for laws for products and services (which profit Gore of course) that are actually worse for the environment than those they replace, but instead of you learning everything about them, you swallow some propaganda about them and are willing to see everything lay in ruin just so you can pretend to care. But here's the kicker, I don't give a fuck what happens to humanity, I care only about getting my forests back and seeing nature balanced again. Now you all push for this "corn" fuel ... there goes more of the forest, and the price just to hike in a clean one will cost twice as much because of it. So fuck you.
 
When the environmental movement started, cleaning up was the main issue? Like air pollution, or water pollution?

The world has changed since then.

Saying that I am following Gore because I believe the science, is like saying I'm asian just because I like rice, or that you follow Rush Limbaugh just because you are a republican.

Nice way to end a decent debate because you are now scared. Fuck you too.
 
For the record, I do not support "corn" fuel, or ethanol, as normal people call it. I think ethanol was another of George W Bush's bad moves to support agro business.

It's not environmentally friendly, as it takes up too much water and land to grow corn, which the government has been subsidising for years.
 
When the environmental movement started, cleaning up was the main issue? Like air pollution, or water pollution?

The world has changed since then.

Saying that I am following Gore because I believe the science, is like saying I'm asian just because I like rice, or that you follow Rush Limbaugh just because you are a republican.

Nice way to end a decent debate because you are now scared. Fuck you too.

You don't believe in science, you believe in your "ideals" ... science doesn't support anything you have said, circumstantial evidence is not a conclusion.
 
You are new, so your lack of knowing what was discussed here already is just because you are too lazy to read through some of the threads, which also explains why you still only know the 5% of the story fed to you by the Gore machine.


I know what the Gore machine fed the people, and it's sad that you haven't even paid enough attention in this thread to read that I don't follow Gore. I worked in atmospheric science analysis for years after school, I was doing the data while Gore was still mopping the Oval Office floors, after the Clinton parties.

I've been reading through many of the environment threads here, just not posting on many, because they keep repeating the same babble (Gore's a douche, Gore uses his own plane, Blah, blah, blah)

Not all climate change believers worship Gore, just like not all Lefties worship Obama. It's the right wing talk machine that says these things, and the right believes them.

I don't care if you believe that the warming is caused by mankind and our actions, you're not going to change your mind right now. I'm just trying to point out the fact that compartmentalizing folks based on their political views is not really an effective strategy when dealing with people.

No, you are following Gore, you just don't want to see it. Gore owns the scientists that are "accepted", the peer pressured ones who's findings always support only a few major corporations ... which Gore owns. There is more to this than just the failed science based on circumstantial evidence, there is a lot of money. Gore's money precisely. Look into the past, further back than you are, you are following environut philosophy, not environmental responsibility. When we started this movement, before Gore got his venomous claws into it, it was about just cleaning up. That's all we have to do still, just clean up after ourselves. Here's the clue, heat increase was originally connected to the ozone, because of increased radiation. Since that prediction failed, they had to blame it on something else. Conveniently the CO2 levels started rising because an algae that was growing to handle the increased CO2 for whatever reason, was destroyed because it threatened some fish (the truly fucked up thing is that they are trying to destroy what little is left because it's a "threat" to another fish). But did they see that connection and admit they fucked up ... no, like you, they don't really care. It's all about looking like they care. The movement changed when Gore altered a report, so he could endorse his products out of fear, it worked and you are proof it worked. So he now keeps doing it. Until you stop and see the whole picture, you know nothing. No matter you degrees, studies, anything you may think has meaning, you know nothing.

Your kind fucked up the movement I originally got involved in because I don't like people, and I wanted a nice clean forest to escape to ... well guess what, now it costs $20 to go to those clean forests, thanks to you idiots. Now you are pushing for laws for products and services (which profit Gore of course) that are actually worse for the environment than those they replace, but instead of you learning everything about them, you swallow some propaganda about them and are willing to see everything lay in ruin just so you can pretend to care. But here's the kicker, I don't give a fuck what happens to humanity, I care only about getting my forests back and seeing nature balanced again. Now you all push for this "corn" fuel ... there goes more of the forest, and the price just to hike in a clean one will cost twice as much because of it. So fuck you.

what an angry fucker you are. blaming me for the world's problems. quite telling.
 
When the environmental movement started, cleaning up was the main issue? Like air pollution, or water pollution?

The world has changed since then.

Saying that I am following Gore because I believe the science, is like saying I'm asian just because I like rice, or that you follow Rush Limbaugh just because you are a republican.

Nice way to end a decent debate because you are now scared. Fuck you too.

You don't believe in science, you believe in your "ideals" ... science doesn't support anything you have said, circumstantial evidence is not a conclusion.

I believe in science, actual science.

Science not supported by Gore nor Exxon.

Science does support what I have said, unlike your positions, which are based on your personal greed and anger.
 
I know what the Gore machine fed the people, and it's sad that you haven't even paid enough attention in this thread to read that I don't follow Gore. I worked in atmospheric science analysis for years after school, I was doing the data while Gore was still mopping the Oval Office floors, after the Clinton parties.

I've been reading through many of the environment threads here, just not posting on many, because they keep repeating the same babble (Gore's a douche, Gore uses his own plane, Blah, blah, blah)

Not all climate change believers worship Gore, just like not all Lefties worship Obama. It's the right wing talk machine that says these things, and the right believes them.

I don't care if you believe that the warming is caused by mankind and our actions, you're not going to change your mind right now. I'm just trying to point out the fact that compartmentalizing folks based on their political views is not really an effective strategy when dealing with people.

No, you are following Gore, you just don't want to see it. Gore owns the scientists that are "accepted", the peer pressured ones who's findings always support only a few major corporations ... which Gore owns. There is more to this than just the failed science based on circumstantial evidence, there is a lot of money. Gore's money precisely. Look into the past, further back than you are, you are following environut philosophy, not environmental responsibility. When we started this movement, before Gore got his venomous claws into it, it was about just cleaning up. That's all we have to do still, just clean up after ourselves. Here's the clue, heat increase was originally connected to the ozone, because of increased radiation. Since that prediction failed, they had to blame it on something else. Conveniently the CO2 levels started rising because an algae that was growing to handle the increased CO2 for whatever reason, was destroyed because it threatened some fish (the truly fucked up thing is that they are trying to destroy what little is left because it's a "threat" to another fish). But did they see that connection and admit they fucked up ... no, like you, they don't really care. It's all about looking like they care. The movement changed when Gore altered a report, so he could endorse his products out of fear, it worked and you are proof it worked. So he now keeps doing it. Until you stop and see the whole picture, you know nothing. No matter you degrees, studies, anything you may think has meaning, you know nothing.

Your kind fucked up the movement I originally got involved in because I don't like people, and I wanted a nice clean forest to escape to ... well guess what, now it costs $20 to go to those clean forests, thanks to you idiots. Now you are pushing for laws for products and services (which profit Gore of course) that are actually worse for the environment than those they replace, but instead of you learning everything about them, you swallow some propaganda about them and are willing to see everything lay in ruin just so you can pretend to care. But here's the kicker, I don't give a fuck what happens to humanity, I care only about getting my forests back and seeing nature balanced again. Now you all push for this "corn" fuel ... there goes more of the forest, and the price just to hike in a clean one will cost twice as much because of it. So fuck you.

what an angry fucker you are. blaming me for the world's problems. quite telling.

Coming from someone who doesn't even know anything about New Orleans ... that's a compliment. ... also it's bitch to you, yes I am angry, idiots crying to "cleaner" fuel then completely ignoring the two actual ways to fix the problems (nuclear and population control) just because you would rather give all the power and money to one person ... yeah ... I have a lot of reasons to be angry.
 
I believe in science, actual science.

Science not supported by Gore nor Exxon.

Science does support what I have said, unlike your positions, which are based on your personal greed and anger.
No it doesn't.

AGW junk science has no physical static control....Just computer models limited by the information programmed into them by imperfect people.
No control, no science.

Nor is AGW junk science reproducible, on demand and in the context of a dynamic system with millions -if not billions- of variables.
No reproducible results, no science.
 
Last edited:
I believe in science, actual science.

Science not supported by Gore nor Exxon.

Science does support what I have said, unlike your positions, which are based on your personal greed and anger.
No it doesn't.

AGW junk science has no physical static control....Just computer models limited by the information programmed into it by imperfect people
No control, no science.

Nor is AGW junk science reproducible, on demand and in the context of a dynamic system with millions -if not billions- of variables.
No reproducible results, no science.

Great, thanks for reminding me of how they completely stole our software to, I keep trying to forget that one. They give all the damned credit to Harvard morons while us old school techies wrote the original programs in high school. Assholes.
 
Coming from someone who doesn't even know anything about New Orleans ... that's a compliment. ... also it's bitch to you, yes I am angry, idiots crying to "cleaner" fuel then completely ignoring the two actual ways to fix the problems (nuclear and population control) just because you would rather give all the power and money to one person ... yeah ... I have a lot of reasons to be angry.

Ok, I dig it. Let's try to put the anger aside for a moment and talk about one thing at a time.

Look above and actually read my post about ethanol. I don't like it, and I think it's part sham, part conspiracy from the government to make ore money for agro-business

I agree with you on Nuclear power and population control. Hell, I want more wars on the planet to get rid of some of these extra shits.

I don't want to give money and power to anyone, unless it's me.

Alright, Professor, why is New Orleans sinking?
 
I believe in science, actual science.

Science not supported by Gore nor Exxon.

Science does support what I have said, unlike your positions, which are based on your personal greed and anger.
No it doesn't.

AGW junk science has no physical static control....Just computer models limited by the information programmed into them by imperfect people.
No control, no science.

Nor is AGW junk science reproducible, on demand and in the context of a dynamic system with millions -if not billions- of variables.
No reproducible results, no science.


computer models are what we have, they work for economics, don't they.

lots of variables, sure, but most fo the computer models about warming are reaching the same results. The short term models are much more accurate than the long term ones, of course, that's how the variables come into play.
 
Non sequitur.

Economics is an inexact "science" because of the capricious and chaotic nature of subjective people.

I don't need any computer model or "consensus" to prove that rising warm moist air forms cumulus clouds...That's science.

AGW hokum is plain old junk.
 

Forum List

Back
Top