For the AGW Faithers

[Si modo]

Oh bull. Frankly, it's too many on the right who are attempting to muddy the waters. It's almost laughable that the political right accepts the fact that a series of e-mails seriously debunks scientific data accumulated over the decades, volumes of peer-reviewed publications on the topic, and the findings of thousands of scientists working independently within several different scientific bodies.

No Mags. What IS laughable is that so many on the left, including you and your ilk, try so foolishly and (of course) unpersuasively to deny the import of those e-mails. Again, since you would prefer to pretend otherwise, I'll just go ahead and restate the obvious:

They demonstrate that the SCIENCE got undermined by deliberate deception including but not limited to the concealment of data which would undercut the AGW "faith." And the ones doing that deliberate deception were the AGW Faithers to which you sheep on the left flock.

I'll put a Maurader trick here and ask you where I DENIED the import of the emails. I'm simply saying that they are insignificant in their own import up against the voluminous scientific information already available. Why hasn't there been any followup by these email exchangers? Have they been doing interviews anywhere?

And saying they are insignificant demonstrates how very little you know of science, dear.

 

[Si modo]

Oh that's funny.

"Keeping it honest" simply means presenting a different point of view. I do believe that's what a political forum is all about. Helloooooooooooooooooo????

If that supposedly different POV is based in intellectual dishonesty, which the bulk of yours are, there's nothing remotely anywhere near keeping anything honest.

Nice try, though....No, it's really not.

Try quoting something I posted that was "intellectually dishonest" and then you will have made your point. You hate me BECAUSE I challenge your own intellectual honesty. Nothing could be more obvious.

You haven't challenged a thing. You've just tossed a hissy fit.

 

[Oddball]

Oh that's funny.

"Keeping it honest" simply means presenting a different point of view. I do believe that's what a political forum is all about. Helloooooooooooooooooo????

If that supposedly different POV is based in intellectual dishonesty, which the bulk of yours are, there's nothing remotely anywhere near keeping anything honest.

Nice try, though....No, it's really not.

Try quoting something I posted that was "intellectually dishonest" and then you will have made your point. You hate me BECAUSE I challenge your own intellectual honesty. Nothing could be more obvious.

Your arguments rely chiefly upon appeals to emotion...One of the most intellectually dishonest ploys there are.

They don't challenge me, they bore me to ******* death.

Lots of the libs on my friends list are waaaay more intellectually challenging.

 

[Liability]

Oh heck, my experiment is much more simple than that. Its a variation of the one gradeschool kids can do using two "enclosed" atmospheres of different compositions and seeing which one ends up warmer.

Sorry to lead to any confusion. I wasn't trying to say oceans will release CO2, oceans will not, permafrost will release methane or not.

I'm just a stick in the mud who knows what increasing greenhouse gas rates does in small "testable" environments and I like to error on the side of caution. Who knows what it will do to the planet? My bet is greenhouse gasses will work the same.

A CO2 increase might just help my grass or crops grow. Then again it will make cows have to work harder to lug their big bottoms around.

Don't get too excited. My idea of environmental reform is just sticking you with a modern technology SUV that has as much power as a perfectly functional 1990 Caravan but runs cleaner, similar for industry. I don't recall it being particularly difficult to get on the highway in 1990. Even had some excitement about the fox body cars performance.

For industry I can't be so simple. But I promise I'm not about taking away the internet lol.

It is painfully silly to suppose that any experiment with a closed container, like an aquarium, validly parallels a planetery climate system.

My my my, such scientific experts we have here. Big experiments often begin with small ones. Ever own an erector set? OH NO...you probaby thought it would give you a hard on.

Just because erector sets gave you erections, Maggie, don't project so much. But enough about your ancient engorged clit.

One need not be a scientist, stupid, to recognize that the condition of a very small closed system like a glass aquarium with a top sealing in that "atmosphere" is not even marginally akin to the very open system (closed only in the sense of it all being contained in the gravity bound atmosphere) of our entire planet.

 

[Liability]

So much for "keeping it honest"

Mags cannot, by simple definiton, "keep it honest," for that requires that she have been honest in the first place.

And she hasn't been.

You would know honesty if it raised up and slapped up upside the head. I'm stating my opinions based on the facts I read. I presume that's what you also do. Dishonesty is not allowing me the same opportunity. If that's too difficult for the majority of you to *get* then you truly have my sympathies. You'll never amount to anything other than tunnel-visioned wild-eyed reactionaries whenever someone happens to disagree with you. Just like little children.

Ah. Did I get a rise outta you, precious? A comment about "honesty" offends you -- unless it is YOU making the comment about others.

Check.

Typical liberoidal hypocrisy at work.

 

[Si modo]

It is painfully silly to suppose that any experiment with a closed container, like an aquarium, validly parallels a planetery climate system.

I've pointed this out numerous times and he still refuses to cease using such a pedestrian example.

So how did Ben Franklin discover electricity?

Jane, you ignorant slut

 

[saveliberty]

Oh heck, my experiment is much more simple than that. Its a variation of the one gradeschool kids can do using two "enclosed" atmospheres of different compositions and seeing which one ends up warmer.

Sorry to lead to any confusion. I wasn't trying to say oceans will release CO2, oceans will not, permafrost will release methane or not.

I'm just a stick in the mud who knows what increasing greenhouse gas rates does in small "testable" environments and I like to error on the side of caution. Who knows what it will do to the planet? My bet is greenhouse gasses will work the same.

A CO2 increase might just help my grass or crops grow. Then again it will make cows have to work harder to lug their big bottoms around.

Don't get too excited. My idea of environmental reform is just sticking you with a modern technology SUV that has as much power as a perfectly functional 1990 Caravan but runs cleaner, similar for industry. I don't recall it being particularly difficult to get on the highway in 1990. Even had some excitement about the fox body cars performance.

For industry I can't be so simple. But I promise I'm not about taking away the internet lol.

It is painfully silly to suppose that any experiment with a closed container, like an aquarium, validly parallels a planetery climate system.

My my my, such scientific experts we have here. Big experiments often begin with small ones. Ever own an erector set? OH NO...you probaby thought it would give you a hard on.

What were carbon dioxide levels during the time of dinasaurs? Today they are at 400ppm.
Pre-industrial revolution it was 280ppm. Good luck seeing much difference in your aquarium experiment.

 

[Si modo]

Mags cannot, by simple definiton, "keep it honest," for that requires that she have been honest in the first place.

And she hasn't been.

You would know honesty if it raised up and slapped up upside the head. I'm stating my opinions based on the facts I read. I presume that's what you also do. Dishonesty is not allowing me the same opportunity. If that's too difficult for the majority of you to *get* then you truly have my sympathies. You'll never amount to anything other than tunnel-visioned wild-eyed reactionaries whenever someone happens to disagree with you. Just like little children.

Ah. Did I get a rise outta you, precious? A comment about "honesty" offends you -- unless it is YOU making the comment about others.

Check.

Typical liberoidal hypocrisy at work.

The problem is with Maggie's 'opinions' of the 'facts she reads' is that she doesn't even understand them, yet thinks she does. These are cringe moments for her and she doesn't even get how cringeworthy they are.

It takes a special kind of person to have that little insight.

 

[Navy1960]

If one needs any proof that the Climate Change policy that the current Administration is advocating is a failure, one only needs to look so far as to todays most recent announcement by the EPA. Rather than go the constitutional route i.e. congress to get legislation passed to impose these mandates on states and individuals, the EPA is using a Supreme Court decision and a vague one at that because they know this type of legislation would never pass congress. What does that say about this Administration listening to the will of the people. Forgive me, but when you have all that money invested in this "green business model" a little thing like what the American people care about means little. Make no mistake, man made global warming is nothing but a marketing scheme, enacted to create markets by mandate and to enrich individuals and companies, it has little or anything to do with actually trying to be good stewards of the envrironment. As the MMGW crowd are fond of saying, theres your settled science, the settled science of money to be made in forcing this technology set upon people. The so called science part of it, is nothing but the means to the end. In fact there is more evidence to support the conclusion that this is a marketing scheme than there is to support the theory that man is the primary cause of a global rise in temps.

 

[The T]

Who knew that NASA could keep up with the FBI and ATF in the destruction of evidence and obstruction games?

ALL of the Above rely on US Taxpayers for their jobs...

 

[The T]

Unfortunately, even THIS issue is becoming split solely along party lines, with Al Gore being the focal point for blame from the right (although he simply wrote the book, not the science). I still maintain that it would be better to get out front of the problem than to be proactive, even while scientists debate what the extent of global warming actually is. Why would at least containing the problem to its natural cyclical import ever be considered "foolish"??

Because the premise that man can do so is foolish on its face....That's what makes it so irresistible to libs to begin with.

Two words come to mind and may be tied to one another, Vanity and arrogance.

 

[The T]

Pay closer attention to current event and you save yourself further embarrassment.

The point is that there is no evidence of any recent warming, none! So the idea that we're supposed to control release of a trace element that has no effect on anything is beyond stupid.

In any event, are we never supposed to gain or lose so much as an ice cubes worth of ice anywhere? What could we possibly do about it in any event?

I'll take a SWAG at it...Nothing. The EARTH is subject to larger forces than MAN could ever be. We are but parasites on an elephant's back with ZERO control.

If we were to disappear from the Face of the Earth tomorrow? The Earth would never know that we left.

-That, is the IMPACT- of man. Too many confuse pollution with Weather. And YES we have the propensity to destroy ourselves, but in grand fashion? The Earth would recover none the less, as she has LONG before we ever were here, and I think REAL Science has shown that too?

Too many confuse pollution with Weather.

Too many on the left.

They use this ploy by choice.

They like to muddy the waters.

If a conservative expressses doubt about AGW, they pretend that conservatives favor pollution. Two utterly different matters, but not when they engage in deliberately false rhetoric.

I now speak for ALL Conservatives: I favor drinking clean water and breathing clean air and I like eating foods which are not contaminated by poisons. I thus FAVOR appropriate legislation to control, reduce and eradicate pollution to the extent reasonably possible consistent with our needs and actual scientific knowledge.

I do NOT, on that basis, favor pretending that we have any measurable impact on climate: and I oppose taking "measures" based on falsified science to "do" something pointless about climate at the expense of economic growth and our actual human needs. I absolutely oppose the misuse of science to obtain an ECONOMIC result -- especially one I deem purely socialist in nature.

Well written. Exactly.

 

[MaggieMae]

Some and some brilliant philosophers such as Karl Popper.

Not at all. The logic of scientific discovery is crystal clear, rigorous, and robust.

No, they don't just make up shit and sit back. They first must have a falsifiable theory (or hypothesis) and demonstrate its falsifiability. Then they must support that with good science.

THAT, my friend, is where these 'scientists' have (allegedly) betrayed their integrity. No, you cannot make up data. You cannot manipulate data in a biased manner. You cannot eliminate data unless there is a statistical or other valid reason, to do so. And, you cannot manipulate the peer-review process that determines the scientific integrity of the work.
Technically, they are correct. It does not disprove their theory. What it DOES do, though, is show that their theory was never supported with good science. Thus, the conclusion is that the theory is not valid. The principles of scientific discovery are quite thorough.

I hope I just did, but do ask. This is an important topic.

A plus is that more folks will become aware of the principles of scientific discovery, and that's one good thing that may come of this mess.

My word, I don't know why you waste time on a stupid political message board. You could be out there teaching the philosophy of scientific discovery and making big bucks. You would have all those 6-degree'd guys who actually do lab work running around like the scared mice they use for testing. No one would ever believe in science again because all it takes is for the politically conservative movement to punch holes in a valid debate, and voila! It becomes GOSPEL!!

Being an idiot is one thing, being a dishonest idiot is a another thing. Then, flailing like a witch who has lost any chance whatsoever to convince a soul that her tantrum has foundation, is a new peak for you.

I didn't notice a whole lot of clapping over your lengthy dissertation on the theory of the principles of scientific discovery. I prefer to keep it simple. You, on the other hand, like to present yourself as a professional expert with credentials, when all you've really done is studiously researched some vague point of interest with which to intelligently(?) articulate your belief that those e-mails somehow trump years and volumes of solid research on this subject. Science is science, no matter how you spin it to score political points.

Science definition - What is science?

 

[MaggieMae]

No Mags. What IS laughable is that so many on the left, including you and your ilk, try so foolishly and (of course) unpersuasively to deny the import of those e-mails. Again, since you would prefer to pretend otherwise, I'll just go ahead and restate the obvious:

They demonstrate that the SCIENCE got undermined by deliberate deception including but not limited to the concealment of data which would undercut the AGW "faith." And the ones doing that deliberate deception were the AGW Faithers to which you sheep on the left flock.

I'll put a Maurader trick here and ask you where I DENIED the import of the emails. I'm simply saying that they are insignificant in their own import up against the voluminous scientific information already available. Why hasn't there been any followup by these email exchangers? Have they been doing interviews anywhere?

And saying they are insignificant demonstrates how very little you know of science, dear.

I would neg rep you right back, sweetie pie, but I don't go off neg repping anyone who disagrees with me like a spoiled brat.

 

[Si modo]

I'll put a Maurader trick here and ask you where I DENIED the import of the emails. I'm simply saying that they are insignificant in their own import up against the voluminous scientific information already available. Why hasn't there been any followup by these email exchangers? Have they been doing interviews anywhere?

And saying they are insignificant demonstrates how very little you know of science, dear.

I would neg rep you right back, sweetie pie, but I don't go off neg repping anyone who disagrees with me like a spoiled brat.

I should pos rep you now for you having the balls to use the term "spoiled brat".

Perhaps you really should have put me on ignore like you said you did. Looks like there really is no reason to believe a thing you say.

 

[Si modo]

My word, I don't know why you waste time on a stupid political message board. You could be out there teaching the philosophy of scientific discovery and making big bucks. You would have all those 6-degree'd guys who actually do lab work running around like the scared mice they use for testing. No one would ever believe in science again because all it takes is for the politically conservative movement to punch holes in a valid debate, and voila! It becomes GOSPEL!!

Being an idiot is one thing, being a dishonest idiot is a another thing. Then, flailing like a witch who has lost any chance whatsoever to convince a soul that her tantrum has foundation, is a new peak for you.

I didn't notice a whole lot of clapping over your lengthy dissertation on the theory of the principles of scientific discovery. I prefer to keep it simple. You, on the other hand, like to present yourself as a professional expert with credentials, when all you've really done is studiously researched some vague point of interest with which to intelligently(?) articulate your belief that those e-mails somehow trump years and volumes of solid research on this subject. Science is science, no matter how you spin it to score political points.

Science definition - What is science?

I really have no idea why I even bother providing links. The idiots prefer not to read them to look even more idiotic. I suppose to some, willful ignorance is a desire.

You are way out of your league and you don't even realize it.

 

[Liability]

Oh bull. Frankly, it's too many on the right who are attempting to muddy the waters. It's almost laughable that the political right accepts the fact that a series of e-mails seriously debunks scientific data accumulated over the decades, volumes of peer-reviewed publications on the topic, and the findings of thousands of scientists working independently within several different scientific bodies.

No Mags. What IS laughable is that so many on the left, including you and your ilk, try so foolishly and (of course) unpersuasively to deny the import of those e-mails. Again, since you would prefer to pretend otherwise, I'll just go ahead and restate the obvious:

They demonstrate that the SCIENCE got undermined by deliberate deception including but not limited to the concealment of data which would undercut the AGW "faith." And the ones doing that deliberate deception were the AGW Faithers to which you sheep on the left flock.

I'll put a Maurader trick here and ask you where I DENIED the import of the emails. I'm simply saying that they are insignificant in their own import up against the voluminous scientific information already available. Why hasn't there been any followup by these email exchangers? Have they been doing interviews anywhere?

Except, of course, unlike you, when Marauder asks the question, it isn't a "trick" nor is it intended as one.

By contrast, you painfully obvious fraud, when YOU said, "It's almost laughable that the political right accepts the fact that a series of e-mails seriously debunks scientific data accumulated . . . ." you WERE denying the import of the e-mails.

If the ******* data had been so ******* conclusive, Maggot, there would be no need for the efforts by these scumbag fraudulent scientists to conceal/suppress contrary data and to attack those who dare to disagree with their damn "conclusions."

The fact that the e-mails reveal that a MASSIVE effort was undertaken to conceal and suppress contrary data and to manipulate prior data and fudge all manner of things along the way as well as to "go after" those objective scientists who dared to ask the REAL scientific questions challenging the silly AGW theory is evidence enough.

You are a poseur, Maggot.

 

[MaggieMae]

Being an idiot is one thing, being a dishonest idiot is a another thing. Then, flailing like a witch who has lost any chance whatsoever to convince a soul that her tantrum has foundation, is a new peak for you.

I didn't notice a whole lot of clapping over your lengthy dissertation on the theory of the principles of scientific discovery. I prefer to keep it simple. You, on the other hand, like to present yourself as a professional expert with credentials, when all you've really done is studiously researched some vague point of interest with which to intelligently(?) articulate your belief that those e-mails somehow trump years and volumes of solid research on this subject. Science is science, no matter how you spin it to score political points.

Science definition - What is science?

I really have no idea why I even bother providing links. The idiots prefer not to read them to look even more idiotic. I suppose to some, willful ignorance is a desire.

You are way out of your league and you don't even realize it.

Oh shit, SM is better'n me. Now I'm gonna go cry.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ah. Did I get a rise outta you, precious? A comment about "honesty" offends you -- unless it is YOU making the comment about others.

Check.

Typical liberoidal hypocrisy at work.

Go chase someone else around the board, idiot. I can't be bothered with you.
This message is hidden because Liability is on your ignore list.

 

[MaggieMae]

And saying they are insignificant demonstrates how very little you know of science, dear.

I would neg rep you right back, sweetie pie, but I don't go off neg repping anyone who disagrees with me like a spoiled brat.

I should pos rep you now for you having the balls to use the term "spoiled brat".

Perhaps you really should have put me on ignore like you said you did. Looks like there really is no reason to believe a thing you say.

I did have you on ignore for quite some time. Then I kept noticing, again, that you appear here an inordinate amount of time within a 24-hour period, so I couldn't resist checking out who your newest victims were who have to be subjected to your egotistic posted sense of superiority.