Climate change rhetoric?

[daveman]

You're are correct, I didn't write what Daveman asserts. Daveman is a liar. What he has done is changed my words in an effort to discredit me. He's really quite incompetent, and hasn't succeeded.

My initial post was this:


"Climate Change?

"I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine."

Notice how Daveman changed my words, the entire thread is can be reviewed here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/168555-climate-change.html

Notice I didn't blame anyone for the disaster, nor did I hint that their votes brought forth the trajedy. Of course Daveman isn't bright enough to have come up with this ruse by himself, others suggested I was "dancing on their graves". Daveman took the lie a bit further, he recalled how the right wing he represents blamed the people of New Orleans behavior for Katina and turned that on me.

That is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Oh, one more truth: Daveman is a liar and nothing he posts must ever be taken on face value.

I didn't lie. I don't HAVE to lie. Your own words convict you.

In addition to dancing on dead people, you're also an idiot. I didn't change your words. Moron. Look in the OP again: The parts from your post are in quotes.

Idiot. Remind me again why you think you're so intelligent? Because I gotta tell you, the facts don't seem to bear that out.

Now, keep stamping your feet! It's aerobic!

Only an illiterate fool would twist those words into "dancing on dead people."

Hardly. Only a partisan fool would refuse to see it for what it is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I didn't lie. I don't HAVE to lie. Your own words convict you.

In addition to dancing on dead people, you're also an idiot. I didn't change your words. Moron. Look in the OP again: The parts from your post are in quotes.

Idiot. Remind me again why you think you're so intelligent? Because I gotta tell you, the facts don't seem to bear that out.

Now, keep stamping your feet! It's aerobic!

Only an illiterate fool would twist those words into "dancing on dead people."

Hardly. Only a partisan fool would refuse to see it for what it is.

Daveman, consider the theory of holes. Even the echo chamber has deserted you. Of course they all may siimply be bored by the pissing contest. Why not admit you're a liar? It's easy, lots of people do. What you're doing is playing the role of Newt Gingrich. He wasn't able to runaway from his lies and neither can you. Be a man, Dave - at least try.

 

[daveman]

Only an illiterate fool would twist those words into "dancing on dead people."

Hardly. Only a partisan fool would refuse to see it for what it is.

Daveman, consider the theory of holes. Even the echo chamber has deserted you. Of course they all may siimply be bored by the pissing contest. Why not admit you're a liar? It's easy, lots of people do. What you're doing is playing the role of Newt Gingrich. He wasn't able to runaway from his lies and neither can you. Be a man, Dave - at least try.

You'd like that, wouldn't you? It would take the attention off of you and your dead-body dancing.

There's only one thing wrong with your cunning plan: I didn't lie.

 

[asterism]

Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh would be my first guesses. Odd-dude might be in the running on this forum along with PC and CG. Not you for sure Daveman, 20 years in the AF and out as and E-4 is pretty damn pitiful.













lol, tit 4 tat Daveman, though I suspect even one as dumb as you would make at least E-5 after 20. Of course I don't know, but it is so easy to lie (but you know that very well).

Wow! Lying and discrediting the service of a veteran just because you and he disagree on something? That's low. It's even more disgusting that the topic on which you and he disagree is something outside of your expertise. You are a babbling activist, a useful idiot.

Now now don't get your panties all tied up. E-6 after 20 years IS pitiful

No it's not. It's only pitiful for ass-kissers who put career over service.

and not every vet is an honorable sort.

True.

Anyone who served knows that. I did, did you?

Did I serve? Yes. 6 years active duty in the Marine Corps. Did I know that E-6 after 20 is pitiful? Never. Pitiful is a fuckstick like you who obviously doesn't have honor.

As for my lack of expertise that is true. Read my posts, if you can offer any proof I claimed expertise on the issue I will apologize.

You bloviate from a position of ignorance on the AGW debate.

Useful idiot? Makes no sense and it's not even a well thoughtout ad hominem.

You advocate for policy born of a process that you do not understand.

I am not a "babbling activist" when I suggest to dismiss climate change and a human behavior link is foolish - no evidence has been presented by those RW babblers who claim humanity hasn't had an impact on our environment. Is it conclusive that we have changed the climate? Nope. But only fools and the self serving argue that humanity hasn't had an effect.

Then maybe you should rethink your position. That is not what you stated in your OP.

Cause and effect require critical thought, something the RW spin machine works daily to prevent.

As does the LW spin machine. Do I need to drag out the chart again? We were promised 7% unemployment if the "experts" got their stimulus. Anyone with any actual honesty and education on the economy knows those predictions could not be made.

They can fool some of the people all of the time and many of those fooled post on this MB. The cause and effect issue is not settled and Daveman and BF demonstrate only the expertise to parrot the words of others, thinking is not part of their resume.

I think we've had this conversation before. You size people up based on the political views they hold instead of the merits of their arguments. Pity.

Apparently you too make judgments without taking the time to review the full thread; there is no evidence to sustain your judgment, but your bias is clear.

You're the one who talked shit about a vet's service, not me. Shame on you.

 

[asterism]

Now now don't get your panties all tied up. E-6 after 20 years IS pitiful

Not as pitiful as being an arrogant prick on the internet, Narcy, and expecting everyone to kiss your ass because you think you deserve it.

Yes, he did. In the Marine Corps. You just keep digging your hole deeper, don't you?

Would you like to see my DD-214? It has the word "Honorable" on it, in Block 24, Character of Service.

On second thought, why bother? If I posted it, you'd throw another hissy fit and claim it was faked. You know why? Because you think that if you say it, it must be true. That's part of the NPD thing you've got going on.

As for my lack of expertise that is true. Read my posts, if you can offer any proof I claimed expertise on the issue I will apologize.

Useful idiot? Makes no sense and it's not even a well thoughtout ad hominem.

I am not a "babbling activist" when I suggest to dismiss climate change and a human behavior link is foolish - no evidence has been presented by those RW babblers who claim humanity hasn't had an impact on our environment. Is it conclusive that we have changed the climate? Nope. But only fools and the self serving argue that humanity hasn't had an effect.

Cause and effect require critical thought, something the RW spin machine works daily to prevent. They can fool some of the people all of the time and many of those fooled post on this MB. The cause and effect issue is not settled and Daveman and BF demonstrate only the expertise to parrot the words of others, thinking is not part of their resume. Apparently you too make judgments without taking the time to review the full thread; there is no evidence to sustain your judgment, but your bias is clear.

There you go again, insisting things are true simply because you say them.

Man, it pisses you off when people don't kiss your ass.

Throw another little tantrum now, Narcy. Continue to prove me right.

No Dave...I offered an opinion based on a perceivable fact.

The fact that you're a liar is posted for all to see, and by continuing to lie you demonstrate a complete lack of integrity and a high degree of foolishness.
BTW, I served with a First Class Boatswain who had enlisted in the Navy at age 17 in 1942. He had made Chief several times in his career when I met him (1967) and busted seveal times. He was a fascinating character who would hit the beach and drink until the shore partrol brought him back aboard, yet be up and at 'em for muster as if he had slept all night. That explains why he was an E-6 after two and half decades of service. What's your excuse?

Who needs an excuse to enjoy serving our country, making somewhat okay money, and doing it well? Not everyone shares your motivations. Do you know any really good beat cops who cannot stand to ride a desk? I do. He quit as a detective and gave up a supervisor job to be the D.A.R.E. coordinator. Less pay and less prestige, but he loves his job and he makes a difference.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of "service." So if you weren't serving in your years in law enforcement what were you doing?

 

[asterism]

I take it you don't think there's any merit to the Gaia theory. I do.

Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...

Nope. No gaia there. Never has been. Never will be.

It's far more provable than The Bible's version of the genesis of earth. Are you kidding? If you believe that, you also believe in magic (Presto! I shall call it Earth!).

Prove this:

spontaneous generation (biological theory) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


So it wasn't God, it was just um, er, something else that we can't explain!

 

[code1211]

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Massachusetts might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

Oh, wait...



In case you're wondering, this is in response to a thread by Wry Catcher, where he blames "the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries" for the disasters that befell them because they didn't vote Democrat.

Please note I'm not blaming anyone's voting patterns for weather phenomena. I'm not stupid enough to believe that if only we'd all voted Democrat, bad weather would not have happened -- unlike some people.

Still creating strawmen and lying about what other people have said. That is the Daveboy way.

Given the weather related disasters worldwide, at some point we are going to have to say that something significant has changed. I believe that we are near that point now, for the extremes in weather are now affecting our food supply. And fools like you will still be denying that there are any changes taking place.

Obviously there is currently more food being produced right now than ever before.

With the expansion of the population throught the spread of good medical care and limitations of the Biblical type catastrophes, we have billions of people living where nobody should live: On coast lines and on flood plains.

This is not season of unusual weather disasters. It's only proof of stupidity and poor planning. Like we needed more.

 

[code1211]

We all know that the climate is changing.
It's the argument of, is it man's doing or if it's natural, Old Rocks

OK, Peaches, let's have that discussion. Here is what physicists state concerning that;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now there is only one way that the earth gets heat on the surface, and that is the sun. Since the Earth reflects or reradiates about 30% of the energy it recieves from the sun, anything that would retain more of that heat would warm the surface, land and sea. The reason that we do not have oceans frozen nearly to the equator, is that the GHGs in the atmosphere only, at present, allow 30% of the heat recieved to escape. But when we add more GHGs, we trap more heat. We have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4, as well as introducing many industrial gases that are as much as 10,000 to 20,000 times as effective of a greenhouse gas as CO2.

We have been monitoring the total solar irradiance from satellites for nearly 40 years. In that time, we have seen a slight decrease in the energy from the sun. Yet the temperature continues to go up.

UAH Temperature Update for April, 2011: +0.12 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

40 years is nothing geologically. However, the irradience from the Sun and the ability of that irradience to warm the Earth are the result of both the irradience and the shape of the orbit of Earth. The shape of the orbit of the Earth is at the most favorable right now and has been for centuries and will remain so for centuries.

The closer you put the pot of water to the burner, the hotter the water will become.

During an Ice Age, the sensitivity to this effect is shown as the "pot", that is, the Earth, is moved closer to the "burner", that is, the Sun, and farther away from it alternately on each orbit allowing a cooling period twice each year.

With the near circular orbit that we now enjoy, the cooling periods twice per year are not occurring and the gradual heating has become constant.

Does this make sense? Hard to tell. Let's check the extent of the glaciers in Northern Indiana which incidentally have not been there for thousands of years. Thousands of years before today and before the Industrial Revolution and the actuallity of the Anthropogenic portion of Global Warming.

 

[daveman]

It doesn't take a mental giant to understand that WC simply meant that the conservative movement attempting to prove that man's contribution to climate change is a hoax are worlds apart from the conventional wisdom of scientists. But then you knew what he meant.

You're really not getting it. The only question is whether it's deliberate or not.

Carry his thought to the logical conclusion: What if the people of the midwest hadn't listened to the conservative movement discrediting climate science? What would they have done? And what would be the consequences of those actions?

Answer these questions honestly, and you'll come to a different conclusion.

You just can't stand it when your opinions are contradicted so attempting to make a fool of someone is the only weapon left. Guess what. It backfired.

Hardly. I'm used to people disagreeing with me. I don't get all butthurt and whiny. I'm not a leftist.

 

[Big Fitz]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...

Nope. No gaia there. Never has been. Never will be.

It's far more provable than The Bible's version of the genesis of earth. Are you kidding? If you believe that, you also believe in magic (Presto! I shall call it Earth!).

Prove this:

spontaneous generation (biological theory) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


So it wasn't God, it was just um, er, something else that we can't explain!

Although I cringe some with creation scientists, it is interesting to look at some of their information. Here's one interesting ministry. Take it for what it's worth. I don't know what to make of all their conclusions, but makes you go 'hmmmmm'.

Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink

For those who are interested.

 

[MaggieMae]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...

Nope. No gaia there. Never has been. Never will be.

It's far more provable than The Bible's version of the genesis of earth. Are you kidding? If you believe that, you also believe in magic (Presto! I shall call it Earth!).

Prove this:

spontaneous generation (biological theory) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


So it wasn't God, it was just um, er, something else that we can't explain!

The comments in that entry were obviously biased. Rags spontaneously turning into mice? Whoever said that? Kind of a stretch, just to make a point, in my opinion.

And yes, how life began certainly DOES remain a mystery. It's why we have astronomers and anthropologists who study the mystery. Hello? Life as we know it needs water. When the earth was formed, it contained more water than surface (in fact it still does). The robot still tooling around Mars has sent back photographs that confirm some of the surface of Mars was at one time at least partially liquid. Do you think those scientists are only interested in how Mars was formed or they are looking for clues how Earth was formed?

 

[MaggieMae]

It doesn't take a mental giant to understand that WC simply meant that the conservative movement attempting to prove that man's contribution to climate change is a hoax are worlds apart from the conventional wisdom of scientists. But then you knew what he meant.

You're really not getting it. The only question is whether it's deliberate or not.

Carry his thought to the logical conclusion: What if the people of the midwest hadn't listened to the conservative movement discrediting climate science? What would they have done? And what would be the consequences of those actions?

Answer these questions honestly, and you'll come to a different conclusion.

You just can't stand it when your opinions are contradicted so attempting to make a fool of someone is the only weapon left. Guess what. It backfired.

Hardly. I'm used to people disagreeing with me. I don't get all butthurt and whiny. I'm not a leftist.

I don't get what you're saying. What advice from the conservative movement would have prevented tornadoes or floods? Or their escape therefrom?

 

[MaggieMae]

It's far more provable than The Bible's version of the genesis of earth. Are you kidding? If you believe that, you also believe in magic (Presto! I shall call it Earth!).

Prove this:

spontaneous generation (biological theory) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


So it wasn't God, it was just um, er, something else that we can't explain!

Although I cringe some with creation scientists, it is interesting to look at some of their information. Here's one interesting ministry. Take it for what it's worth. I don't know what to make of all their conclusions, but makes you go 'hmmmmm'.

Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink

For those who are interested.

There's a Mother Ship. The religious zealots hate that theory even more than the Big Bang theory.

 

[daveman]

It doesn't take a mental giant to understand that WC simply meant that the conservative movement attempting to prove that man's contribution to climate change is a hoax are worlds apart from the conventional wisdom of scientists. But then you knew what he meant.

You're really not getting it. The only question is whether it's deliberate or not.

Carry his thought to the logical conclusion: What if the people of the midwest hadn't listened to the conservative movement discrediting climate science? What would they have done? And what would be the consequences of those actions?

Answer these questions honestly, and you'll come to a different conclusion.

You just can't stand it when your opinions are contradicted so attempting to make a fool of someone is the only weapon left. Guess what. It backfired.

Hardly. I'm used to people disagreeing with me. I don't get all butthurt and whiny. I'm not a leftist.

I don't get what you're saying. What advice from the conservative movement would have prevented tornadoes or floods? Or their escape therefrom?

Ask, WC, since he made the claim.

 

[Big Fitz]

Prove this:

spontaneous generation (biological theory) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


So it wasn't God, it was just um, er, something else that we can't explain!

Although I cringe some with creation scientists, it is interesting to look at some of their information. Here's one interesting ministry. Take it for what it's worth. I don't know what to make of all their conclusions, but makes you go 'hmmmmm'.

Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink

For those who are interested.

There's a Mother Ship. The religious zealots hate that theory even more than the Big Bang theory.

Believe what you will. I put it out there for the edification of everyone. Take it as such or reject it as such. It's no skin off my red rosy.

 

[Old Rocks]

He was serious enough to start a thread with it.

But, by all means, let's have another fun round of "The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said". It never gets old. Never.

You're are correct, I didn't write what Daveman asserts. Daveman is a liar. What he has done is changed my words in an effort to discredit me. He's really quite incompetent, and hasn't succeeded.

My initial post was this:


"Climate Change?

"I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine."

Notice how Daveman changed my words, the entire thread is can be reviewed here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/168555-climate-change.html

Notice I didn't blame anyone for the disaster, nor did I hint that their votes brought forth the trajedy. Of course Daveman isn't bright enough to have come up with this ruse by himself, others suggested I was "dancing on their graves". Daveman took the lie a bit further, he recalled how the right wing he represents blamed the people of New Orleans behavior for Katina and turned that on me.

That is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Oh, one more truth: Daveman is a liar and nothing he posts must ever be taken on face value.

I didn't lie. I don't HAVE to lie. Your own words convict you.

In addition to dancing on dead people, you're also an idiot. I didn't change your words. Moron. Look in the OP again: The parts from your post are in quotes.

Idiot. Remind me again why you think you're so intelligent? Because I gotta tell you, the facts don't seem to bear that out.

Now, keep stamping your feet! It's aerobic!

Yep. Ol' Daveboy is a liar and builds strawmen every chance he gets.

But the point that Wry made is well taken. 'Conservatives' have made it a point of their political philosophy to claim that AGW is not happening, and there are no major changes happening in the climate, either. Made it a political point to the extent of cutting funding for replacing aging satellites that are used specifically for Hurricane observation. Now a good many people that study this sort of thing are stateing that we are in for a very busy hurricane season. If that does happen, after the tornado season we have already had, that is going to be a political point that will be brought up during the 2012 elections.

Yes, that will be used to show the anti-science bias of the GOP and the Teabaggers. To good effect, I might add, if we get a few more weather related disasters.

 

[daveman]

Yep. Ol' Daveboy is a liar and builds strawmen every chance he gets.

What is it with you idiots and your habit of redefining words? "Liar" and "strawmen" do NOT mean "something a leftist doesn't like". Sheesh. For such allegedly intelligent people, you're pretty damn stupid.

But the point that Wry made is well taken. 'Conservatives' have made it a point of their political philosophy to claim that AGW is not happening, and there are no major changes happening in the climate, either. Made it a political point to the extent of cutting funding for replacing aging satellites that are used specifically for Hurricane observation. Now a good many people that study this sort of thing are stateing that we are in for a very busy hurricane season.

As I recall, they've been saying that since the year after Katrina. Their predictions have repeatedly failed.

You cultists can't predict shit. If you predicted the sun will come up in the east tomorrow, I'd get up early with a compass.

If that does happen, after the tornado season we have already had, that is going to be a political point that will be brought up during the 2012 elections.

Yes, more Democrat scare-mongering. "Conservatives want you to die in tornadoes! Vote Democrat!" -- with the implication being, of course, that if you vote Democrat, they'll be safe. Just what I accused Wry of doing. Good job, asshat.

Yes, that will be used to show the anti-science bias of the GOP and the Teabaggers. To good effect, I might add, if we get a few more weather related disasters.

Wow. It's not often you see someone hoping people die so they can score political points. What a lowlife scumbag you are. Did you two rehearse your grave-dancing together?

Again, you just did what I accused Wry of doing. Too bad both of you are dishonest pieces of shit who deny what you've done.

But then, there's no such thing as an honest leftist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're are correct, I didn't write what Daveman asserts. Daveman is a liar. What he has done is changed my words in an effort to discredit me. He's really quite incompetent, and hasn't succeeded.

My initial post was this:


"Climate Change?

"I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine."

Notice how Daveman changed my words, the entire thread is can be reviewed here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/168555-climate-change.html

Notice I didn't blame anyone for the disaster, nor did I hint that their votes brought forth the trajedy. Of course Daveman isn't bright enough to have come up with this ruse by himself, others suggested I was "dancing on their graves". Daveman took the lie a bit further, he recalled how the right wing he represents blamed the people of New Orleans behavior for Katina and turned that on me.

That is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Oh, one more truth: Daveman is a liar and nothing he posts must ever be taken on face value.

I didn't lie. I don't HAVE to lie. Your own words convict you.

In addition to dancing on dead people, you're also an idiot. I didn't change your words. Moron. Look in the OP again: The parts from your post are in quotes.

Idiot. Remind me again why you think you're so intelligent? Because I gotta tell you, the facts don't seem to bear that out.

Now, keep stamping your feet! It's aerobic!

Yep. Ol' Daveboy is a liar and builds strawmen every chance he gets.

But the point that Wry made is well taken. 'Conservatives' have made it a point of their political philosophy to claim that AGW is not happening, and there are no major changes happening in the climate, either. Made it a political point to the extent of cutting funding for replacing aging satellites that are used specifically for Hurricane observation. Now a good many people that study this sort of thing are stateing that we are in for a very busy hurricane season. If that does happen, after the tornado season we have already had, that is going to be a political point that will be brought up during the 2012 elections.

Yes, that will be used to show the anti-science bias of the GOP and the Teabaggers. To good effect, I might add, if we get a few more weather related disasters.

No one has yet proven that "man-centered" global warming is happening. The scientific consensus does not even say that man is the primary driver of global warming. all it says is that global warming is occurring, and that our industry is a contributing factor. There is serious debate about how much that we actually contribute to global warming, and some of the more excitable people (Al Gore) have made predictions that have been accepted as definitive, even though they are demonstrably incorrect.

The basic problem lies in the fact that we still do not understand the mechanisms that trigger global warming. CO2 is supposed to cause an increase in water vapor, which will drive global temperatures up at a rate over and above that caused by the natural cycles of warming. That has not been observed.

Why do you continue to insist that you understand the science and that the "deniers" are all wrong when you clearly do not understand anything?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"No one has yet proven that "man-centered" global warming is happening" True. Yet the converse is true; no one has disproved that "man-centered" global warming is happening.

Why would one side not want to know for certain?

 

[RWatt]

CO2 is supposed to cause an increase in water vapor, which will drive global temperatures up at a rate over and above that caused by the natural cycles of warming. That has not been observed.

It has been observed:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Trenberth2005FasulloSmith.pdf