More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[PMZ]

I am not an American. But I am unable to accept that politically appointed group of lawyers is infallible. Or that a different bunch would not come to quite different conclusions.


So distrusting your Supreme Court - or mine, or anyone's - does not make a person a traitor, even if his distrust is misplaced. If his distrust IS justified it makes him a wise patriot.

PeterF SHOULD be an honorary American because he understands the process better than 80% of our voters.. A 5 to 4 decision may have the power of law in this country, but it is STILL opinion. And neither the 4 or the 5 have a lock on the truth.. It's a matter of what the political balance was a decade before the decision when the appointments were made.

The FACT that we get so many 5 to 4 decisions should tell you that the debate on that topic isn't really over.. In MANY CASES, All it takes to OVERTURN a Supreme Ct ruling ---- is for Congress to rewrite the law..

I do not deserve the honour which you propose but thanks anyway!

Americans revere their constitution which is fine and dandy. But imo they should not regard it as perfect; like all human artifacts it is imperfect and its flaws will be magnified over time, if only because those who wrote it could not imagine today's United States.

You make the point very well. The constitution often, very often, needs to be interpreted. And the act of interpretation is, of necessity, political.

Do you have a more reliable alternative than rule of law and a supreme Court to interpret it?

 

[westwall]

So you believe that fossil fuels will never run out?

Coal certainly will in around 500 years. Oil on the other hand is a question mark. According to current theory yes, it will. In around 100 years. However, if the abiotic theory of oil is found to be accurate then no, it won't.

With China and India becoming developed countries at the rate that they are, and demand going up by everyone's population rise, there is no chance that coal will be around for anywhere near 500 years.

There is zero evidence supporting abiotic oil.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting the very expensive consequences of AGW that will make it economical to leave much of that carbon sequestered.

Actually there is. Gold drilled a hole in the middle of a continental craton and discovered oil where current theory says you would never find it. As far as your other statement. That's where there is no evidence. Computer models are not data no matter how hard you want them to be.

 

[westwall]

Here is the definitive link that nails the whole issue of why the AGW contingent doesn't understand its losing..........

Liberal Denial on Climate Change and Energy | National Review Online



There is a total disconnect between the science and political reality!!!



LMAO......been saying it for years and years!!!



The thought processing on these people ( not the intelligence......there is a big difference ) is fucked.

There is a total disconnect between science (reality) and politics (what people wish was true).

That's true and you and the clones are the poster children for that disconnect.

 

[PMZ]

Coal certainly will in around 500 years. Oil on the other hand is a question mark. According to current theory yes, it will. In around 100 years. However, if the abiotic theory of oil is found to be accurate then no, it won't.

With China and India becoming developed countries at the rate that they are, and demand going up by everyone's population rise, there is no chance that coal will be around for anywhere near 500 years.

There is zero evidence supporting abiotic oil.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting the very expensive consequences of AGW that will make it economical to leave much of that carbon sequestered.

Actually there is. Gold drilled a hole in the middle of a continental craton and discovered oil where current theory says you would never find it. As far as your other statement. That's where there is no evidence. Computer models are not data no matter how hard you want them to be.

If you discard math models we know very little about anything. That's why all scientists are also mathematicians.

And probably why you are unable to understand science.

 

[Abraham3]

The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

This says: "I oppose the Constitution of the United States". That says "I hate this nation". That says "If I only had the balls, I'd be a traitor".

I am not an American. But I am unable to accept that politically appointed group of lawyers is infallible. Or that a different bunch would not come to quite different conclusions.


So distrusting your Supreme Court - or mine, or anyone's - does not make a person a traitor, even if his distrust is misplaced. If his distrust IS justified it makes him a wise patriot.

Bripat0000's statement goes well beyond an expression of distrust. He is contending a conspiracy between the justices of the Supreme Court and "their political masters", whoever it is he believes that to be. He harshly rejects their judgement as being false in fact.

While different justices can certainly arrive at different interpretations and different conclusions, they are all making those interpretations and drawing those conclusions from the same fixed source. No nine justices will ever conclude that women do not have the right to vote or that state laws supersede federal laws. Not even the barest majority will ever conclude that we have no need for elections or that the Bill of Rights are a purely symbolic gallimaufry. There are hard, unbending lines in the text of the Constitution and the country that bripat would like to see out his living room window cannot be drawn from it. Here and in other posts at other times, poster bripat has repeatedly expressed a strong disregard for the fundamental truths our Constitution has codified and that this nation has done its best to embody... for which it has sacrificed the very lives of its young in a never ending effort to bring that dream of those truths to a concrete physical realization.

I stand by my charges.

 

[PMZ]

Here is the definitive link that nails the whole issue of why the AGW contingent doesn't understand its losing..........

Liberal Denial on Climate Change and Energy | National Review Online



There is a total disconnect between the science and political reality!!!



LMAO......been saying it for years and years!!!



The thought processing on these people ( not the intelligence......there is a big difference ) is fucked.

There is a total disconnect between science (reality) and politics (what people wish was true).

That's true and you and the clones are the poster children for that disconnect.

But, we are on the side of science and you are supported only by politics. Lots of luck with that.

 

[PMZ]

Coal certainly will in around 500 years. Oil on the other hand is a question mark. According to current theory yes, it will. In around 100 years. However, if the abiotic theory of oil is found to be accurate then no, it won't.

With China and India becoming developed countries at the rate that they are, and demand going up by everyone's population rise, there is no chance that coal will be around for anywhere near 500 years.

There is zero evidence supporting abiotic oil.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting the very expensive consequences of AGW that will make it economical to leave much of that carbon sequestered.

Actually there is. Gold drilled a hole in the middle of a continental craton and discovered oil where current theory says you would never find it. As far as your other statement. That's where there is no evidence. Computer models are not data no matter how hard you want them to be.

From Wikipedia.

Abiogenic petroleum origin is a hypothesis that was proposed as an alternative mechanism of petroleum origin. It was popular in the past, but most geologists now consider it obsolete, and favor instead the biological origin of petroleum. According to the abiogenic hypothesis, petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum exists on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle. The presence of huge amounts of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited[1] as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biology.[2]

The hypothesis was first proposed by Georg Agricola in the 16th century and various abiogenic hypotheses were proposed in the 19th century, most notably by Prussian geographer Alexander von Humboldt, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot. Abiogenic hypotheses were revived in the last half of the 20th century by Soviet scientists who had little influence outside the Soviet Union because most of their research was published in Russian. The hypothesis was re-defined and made popular in the West by Thomas Gold who published all his research in English.[1]

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it fell out of favor at the end of the 20th century because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1] Geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported, and they agree that petroleum is formed from organic material.[1] However, the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively.[3]

It has been recently discovered that thermophilic bacteria, in the sea bottom and in cooling magma, produce methane and hydrocarbon gases,[4][5] but studies indicate they are not produced in commercially significant quantities (i.e. in extracted hydrocarbon gases, the median abiogenic hydrocarbon content is 0.02%, or 1 part in 5,000).[6]

 

[skookerasbil]

There is a total disconnect between science (reality) and politics (what people wish was true).

That's true and you and the clones are the poster children for that disconnect.

But, we are on the side of science and you are supported only by politics. Lots of luck with that.

Well.....you just keep taking bows there s0n!!!

 

[PMZ]

That's true and you and the clones are the poster children for that disconnect.

But, we are on the side of science and you are supported only by politics. Lots of luck with that.

Well.....you just keep taking bows there s0n!!!

It's actually not about winning to me. It's about science.

 

[westwall]

With China and India becoming developed countries at the rate that they are, and demand going up by everyone's population rise, there is no chance that coal will be around for anywhere near 500 years.

There is zero evidence supporting abiotic oil.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting the very expensive consequences of AGW that will make it economical to leave much of that carbon sequestered.

Actually there is. Gold drilled a hole in the middle of a continental craton and discovered oil where current theory says you would never find it. As far as your other statement. That's where there is no evidence. Computer models are not data no matter how hard you want them to be.

If you discard math models we know very little about anything. That's why all scientists are also mathematicians.

And probably why you are unable to understand science.

That's simply ridiculous. Please give us 5 links where are sole knowledge on the subject are mathematical models. Hell give us ONE, other than AGW of course, because as we all now know they are the only support for that now failed theory.

 

[westwall]

There is a total disconnect between science (reality) and politics (what people wish was true).

That's true and you and the clones are the poster children for that disconnect.

But, we are on the side of science and you are supported only by politics. Lots of luck with that.

I see you were looking in the mirror when you made that statement.

 

[westwall]

With China and India becoming developed countries at the rate that they are, and demand going up by everyone's population rise, there is no chance that coal will be around for anywhere near 500 years.

There is zero evidence supporting abiotic oil.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting the very expensive consequences of AGW that will make it economical to leave much of that carbon sequestered.

Actually there is. Gold drilled a hole in the middle of a continental craton and discovered oil where current theory says you would never find it. As far as your other statement. That's where there is no evidence. Computer models are not data no matter how hard you want them to be.

From Wikipedia.

Abiogenic petroleum origin is a hypothesis that was proposed as an alternative mechanism of petroleum origin. It was popular in the past, but most geologists now consider it obsolete, and favor instead the biological origin of petroleum. According to the abiogenic hypothesis, petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum exists on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle. The presence of huge amounts of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited[1] as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biology.[2]

The hypothesis was first proposed by Georg Agricola in the 16th century and various abiogenic hypotheses were proposed in the 19th century, most notably by Prussian geographer Alexander von Humboldt, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot. Abiogenic hypotheses were revived in the last half of the 20th century by Soviet scientists who had little influence outside the Soviet Union because most of their research was published in Russian. The hypothesis was re-defined and made popular in the West by Thomas Gold who published all his research in English.[1]

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it fell out of favor at the end of the 20th century because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1] Geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported, and they agree that petroleum is formed from organic material.[1] However, the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively.[3]

It has been recently discovered that thermophilic bacteria, in the sea bottom and in cooling magma, produce methane and hydrocarbon gases,[4][5] but studies indicate they are not produced in commercially significant quantities (i.e. in extracted hydrocarbon gases, the median abiogenic hydrocarbon content is 0.02%, or 1 part in 5,000).[6]

Where does the methane on Jupiter and Saturn and all the other planets and moons come from?

 

[Abraham3]

If you discard math models we know very little about anything. That's why all scientists are also mathematicians.

That's simply ridiculous. Please give us 5 links where are sole knowledge on the subject are mathematical models. Hell give us ONE, other than AGW of course, because as we all now know they are the only support for that now failed theory.

When and where did he EVER say models were our sole source of information about any topic?

And, guess what?

This isn't model data.

 

[skookerasbil]

If you discard math models we know very little about anything. That's why all scientists are also mathematicians.

That's simply ridiculous. Please give us 5 links where are sole knowledge on the subject are mathematical models. Hell give us ONE, other than AGW of course, because as we all now know they are the only support for that now failed theory.

When and where did he EVER say models were our sole source of information about any topic?

And, guess what?

This isn't model data.

Philosophy is gay s0n. Didn't you ever hear the old phrase, "opinions are like assholes........"? But if being an internet scientist wannabe is your thing, knock yourself out s0n!!


The whole AGW industry DOES use models.......which is why they are losing.


Once again I am reminded........ "Conservatives need to see it to believe it.........the left believes it to be able to see it."

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO.....more classic AGW nutter losing >>>>


Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change



Canadian models off BY A ******* MILE

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[PMZ]

That's true and you and the clones are the poster children for that disconnect.

But, we are on the side of science and you are supported only by politics. Lots of luck with that.

I see you were looking in the mirror when you made that statement.

I think that your inability to distinguish between science and politics is fundamental to your dysfunction.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[PMZ]

Keep on winning. And whining. You're one of the best assets that liberals have.

 

[itfitzme]

I'm still waiting for this "proof".