More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[freedombecki]

Nor a loss. Kyoto is not sustainable energy. Just one proposal to alot responsibility to different economic systems, the impact of their culpability, and their responsibility to mitigate future impacts and establish a path forward that will lower the total economic impact of past actions on future results. Lots of options.

We will evolve to sustainable energy in time. We will do the responsible thing. We will do our share.

First, we will rid the government of dysfunctional pretenders.

First, we will rid the government of dysfunctional pretenders.

So now it's just a matter of ousting Obama, Holder, Sebelius, Pelosi, Reid, Hillary Clinton, and others listed here: 10 most corrupt politicians in America.

Obama only apologized for "misspeaking," which is a euphemism for lying about knowing ahead of time that tens of millions of Americans would lose their present insurance coverage, so he could swoop in, be a hero, and "save" the system in order to institute his failed unaffordable care act named as "affordable," only to fool his constituents and heist other Americans to double their coverage to make up the slack he knew the government could not afford.

It's kind of like telling Israel he would support them while at the same time he secretly lifted the Iran sanctions. Now, where we had an ally, we have a very angry Netanyahu Obama snubs every time he gets a chance.

Obama is dysfunctional, because he lets his personal loyalty to foreign interests get in the way of American interests and treaties we have to honor on account of the liabilities his friends inflicted on the world in WWII.

He needs to be replaced immediately by someone who is friend to America and America's friends.

If his behavior hasn't extended his mentor's thesis of "God damn America," I don't know what else could more have effectively done that that how he misconducts America's interests to its detriment.

He's actually spit on his oath of office on a nearly daily basis like a criminal spits on any law that gets in his way of attaining other people's possessions.

He's now dispossessed 52,000,000 Americans from their health insurance providers in order to have the Federal Government take over 1/6th of the Nation's economy. Obama's rule has been America's worst horror flick.

Let's see. We have the actual indisputable results of conservatism under Bush, vs your recital of 100% pure Republican propaganda designed with only one objective in mind. To sell that America has degenerated to the point that it deserves nothing better than Republicanism, and Democrats, believe it or not, are even less competent than Republicans.

The lyrics of losers.

Keep it up. You are campaigning for the cleanest sweep of congressional detrius ever. The final flushing of conservatism.

Is detrius the janitor? Because he takes out everyone's trash, silly, not just conservatives.

 

[westwall]

This is a typical statement of political position. No relation to the science. The science is unequivocal. The politics is what prejudiced people wish was true.

You make a retarded statement like that and expect us to take you seriously!

#1 - You're the retard here, walleyed.

#2 - His statement was correct. The science is unequivocal. You're just too brainwashed and retarded to comprehend that fact.

#3 - Nobody with a functioning brain takes you or the ignorant drivel you post seriously.

Only a halfwit claims that science is settled. NOTHING IN SCIENCE is settled mr. halfwit.

 

[PMZ]

First, we will rid the government of dysfunctional pretenders.

So now it's just a matter of ousting Obama, Holder, Sebelius, Pelosi, Reid, Hillary Clinton, and others listed here: 10 most corrupt politicians in America.

Obama only apologized for "misspeaking," which is a euphemism for lying about knowing ahead of time that tens of millions of Americans would lose their present insurance coverage, so he could swoop in, be a hero, and "save" the system in order to institute his failed unaffordable care act named as "affordable," only to fool his constituents and heist other Americans to double their coverage to make up the slack he knew the government could not afford.

It's kind of like telling Israel he would support them while at the same time he secretly lifted the Iran sanctions. Now, where we had an ally, we have a very angry Netanyahu Obama snubs every time he gets a chance.

Obama is dysfunctional, because he lets his personal loyalty to foreign interests get in the way of American interests and treaties we have to honor on account of the liabilities his friends inflicted on the world in WWII.

He needs to be replaced immediately by someone who is friend to America and America's friends.

If his behavior hasn't extended his mentor's thesis of "God damn America," I don't know what else could more have effectively done that that how he misconducts America's interests to its detriment.

He's actually spit on his oath of office on a nearly daily basis like a criminal spits on any law that gets in his way of attaining other people's possessions.

He's now dispossessed 52,000,000 Americans from their health insurance providers in order to have the Federal Government take over 1/6th of the Nation's economy. Obama's rule has been America's worst horror flick.

Let's see. We have the actual indisputable results of conservatism under Bush, vs your recital of 100% pure Republican propaganda designed with only one objective in mind. To sell that America has degenerated to the point that it deserves nothing better than Republicanism, and Democrats, believe it or not, are even less competent than Republicans.

The lyrics of losers.

Keep it up. You are campaigning for the cleanest sweep of congressional detrius ever. The final flushing of conservatism.

Is detrius the janitor? Because he takes out everyone's trash, silly, not just conservatives.

The electorate will take care of the Congressional conservative cancer.

 

[PMZ]

You make a retarded statement like that and expect us to take you seriously!

#1 - You're the retard here, walleyed.

#2 - His statement was correct. The science is unequivocal. You're just too brainwashed and retarded to comprehend that fact.

#3 - Nobody with a functioning brain takes you or the ignorant drivel you post seriously.

Only a halfwit claims that science is settled. NOTHING IN SCIENCE is settled mr. halfwit.

The epitome of science ignorance.

If nothing is settled than how can we make airplanes fly, or treat cancer or travel to the moon?

 

[skookerasbil]

This whole troll generated thread amounts to more (and more and more) "proof" that the so-called "skeptics" are actually just 'very ignorant, totally clueless and extremely bamboozled denier cult retards'. Fools like that who reject the scientific evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community in favor of their rightwingnut political beliefs wind up as pathetic stooges for the fossil fuel industry and their posts show that they are too brainwashed and ignorant about science to be able to comprehend the actual issues or what is at stake.

Wassamatteryou? Righties on a diet of truth while so-called scientists are bumping hundreds of years' of weather measurement to show the world is about to catch on fire from man's alleged abuse of the environment?

[ame=http://youtu.be/BPtuekvJdhs]Insane Baby Laughter - YouTube[/ame]​

Science defines truth. Not righties or lefties. It has.

The difference between lefties and righties is acceptance (lefties) 0r denial (righties) of the truth that there is no doubt about.

In 2013, "truth" in science is akin to the New York Times defining truth.......to believe in what you want to believe.

Reasonable people know that the standard for science was always about "proof". Of course, the climate science community cannot support their assertions with proof.........shit is based upon computer models and there is "proof" that the models are wrong.


The name of this thread is 'MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING" and is now well over 1,000 posts old. If the climate crusaders were so confident, they'd have buzzed out of this thread weeks ago, yet they are falling all over themselves trying to refute what cannot be refutted.


In other words............losing.

 

[PMZ]

The Skook finds reality inconvenient so chooses myth.

Mythology is OK. It's sort of pre-science. What mankind thought prior to having the tools of science.

The problem is in choosing a convenient mythology when reality is available from science.

Why would one choose convenience over reality?

 

[PhoenixOneUK]

Not a good start for you, parroting denialist urban legends. Back in the real world, most scientists in the 1970s were already predicting warming.

So give me a cracker mamooth, but I stand by my post.

 

[westwall]

#1 - You're the retard here, walleyed.

#2 - His statement was correct. The science is unequivocal. You're just too brainwashed and retarded to comprehend that fact.

#3 - Nobody with a functioning brain takes you or the ignorant drivel you post seriously.

Only a halfwit claims that science is settled. NOTHING IN SCIENCE is settled mr. halfwit.

The epitome of science ignorance.

If nothing is settled than how can we make airplanes fly, or treat cancer or travel to the moon?

If science were settled we would still be flying in Wright Flyers you idiot. Science is constantly being updated as we are able to better measure objects and the material world. Thus instead of putting along at 45 mph in a biplane science deniers like you get to speed along at 600 mph in a state of the art jet.

If "science were settled" we would still be dying within months of cancer being discovered instead of living for years afterwards. Really .....you truly are a moron.

 

[PMZ]

Only a halfwit claims that science is settled. NOTHING IN SCIENCE is settled mr. halfwit.

The epitome of science ignorance.

If nothing is settled than how can we make airplanes fly, or treat cancer or travel to the moon?

If science were settled we would still be flying in Wright Flyers you idiot. Science is constantly being updated as we are able to better measure objects and the material world. Thus instead of putting along at 45 mph in a biplane science deniers like you get to speed along at 600 mph in a state of the art jet.

If "science were settled" we would still be dying within months of cancer being discovered instead of living for years afterwards. Really .....you truly are a moron.

Wings still fly by Bernoulli's principle like always. Nothings changed there. Of course progress has occurred in many other engineering disciplines. Like I said, the whole spectrum.

 

[Abraham3]

Science advances by increases in human knowledge. While such increases may be enabled or facilitated by improvements in instrumentation, improvements in instrumentation are not advances in science.

 

[skookerasbil]

Science advances by increases in human knowledge. While such increases may be enabled or facilitated by improvements in instrumentation, improvements in instrumentation are not advances in science.

But according to Team Obama's EIA, the science isn't mattering!!!


yuk.......yuk.......yuk.........

 

[skookerasbil]

The Skook finds reality inconvenient so chooses myth.

Mythology is OK. It's sort of pre-science. What mankind thought prior to having the tools of science.

The problem is in choosing a convenient mythology when reality is available from science.

Why would one choose convenience over reality?

Loving the myths s0n......loving the myths!!!








As Ive displayed countless times on this thread, the climate crusader nutters keep screaming about the science, but the science is having zero impact on the real world, thus, all we have here is an internet hobby!!



= not winning.

 

[PMZ]

The Skook is confused about the difference between winning and losing.

Winning is the least cost path from here to the future.

Losing is anything else.

 

[flacaltenn]

Science advances by increases in human knowledge. While such increases may be enabled or facilitated by improvements in instrumentation, improvements in instrumentation are not advances in science.

That should be inscribed on the doorway to JPLabs in Pasadena.. Just to remind those folk what their place in the science pecking order really is..

 

[westwall]

The epitome of science ignorance.

If nothing is settled than how can we make airplanes fly, or treat cancer or travel to the moon?

If science were settled we would still be flying in Wright Flyers you idiot. Science is constantly being updated as we are able to better measure objects and the material world. Thus instead of putting along at 45 mph in a biplane science deniers like you get to speed along at 600 mph in a state of the art jet.

If "science were settled" we would still be dying within months of cancer being discovered instead of living for years afterwards. Really .....you truly are a moron.

Wings still fly by Bernoulli's principle like always. Nothings changed there. Of course progress has occurred in many other engineering disciplines. Like I said, the whole spectrum.

Yeah, Bernoulli is only the beginning. Modern aerodynamics have moved waaaaaay beyond the Bernoulli basics.

 

[PMZ]

If science were settled we would still be flying in Wright Flyers you idiot. Science is constantly being updated as we are able to better measure objects and the material world. Thus instead of putting along at 45 mph in a biplane science deniers like you get to speed along at 600 mph in a state of the art jet.

If "science were settled" we would still be dying within months of cancer being discovered instead of living for years afterwards. Really .....you truly are a moron.

Wings still fly by Bernoulli's principle like always. Nothings changed there. Of course progress has occurred in many other engineering disciplines. Like I said, the whole spectrum.

Yeah, Bernoulli is only the beginning. Modern aerodynamics have moved waaaaaay beyond the Bernoulli basics.

You're catching on now. Some things are known and stable, somethings are pretty certain, somethings we're currently wondering about, many things unknown.

One size does not fit all.

 

[westwall]

Wings still fly by Bernoulli's principle like always. Nothings changed there. Of course progress has occurred in many other engineering disciplines. Like I said, the whole spectrum.

Yeah, Bernoulli is only the beginning. Modern aerodynamics have moved waaaaaay beyond the Bernoulli basics.

You're catching on now. Some things are known and stable, somethings are pretty certain, somethings we're currently wondering about, many things unknown.

One size does not fit all.

"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED" Sounds like you are pretty frozen in time.

 

[RollingThunder]

Wassamatteryou? Righties on a diet of truth while so-called scientists are bumping hundreds of years' of weather measurement to show the world is about to catch on fire from man's alleged abuse of the environment?

Science defines truth. Not righties or lefties. It has.

The difference between lefties and righties is acceptance (lefties) 0r denial (righties) of the truth that there is no doubt about.

Reasonable people know that the standard for science was always about "proof". Of course, the climate science community cannot support their assertions with proof....

Actually, "reasonable", intelligent, educated, scientifically literate people know that the standard for science has always been about a preponderance of evidence supporting a good theory that accounts for the data and is consistent with the rest of our scientific knowledge. There are no "proofs" in science. Only scientifically ignorant retards like you, kookles, talk about "proof". There are no other viable theories that can explain what is happening to our planet except for the theory of anthropogenic global warming due to the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Psychology Today
by Satoshi Kanazawa
November 16, 2008
(excerpts)
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more credible and better evidence for some theories than others. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives. The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

.....shit is based upon computer models and there is "proof" that the models are wrong.

Endlessly repeating your moronic denier cult myths doesn't change the facts, kookles. The scientific understanding of AGW is not "based on computer models", it is based on multiple lines of hard physical evidence and the laws of physics. The computer models are useful in correlating all the data and physics and for testing various aspects of the current scientific understanding of this subject but they are not the basis for the worldwide scientific acceptance of the theory of AGW.

source: NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years - NOAA - July 28, 2010

Nor are the computer models "wrong", as you so stupidly and falsely assert. That is just another of your retarded denier cult myths that has no basis in reality.

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures
The Guardian
Duncan Clark
27 March 2013
(excerpts)
Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows. The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change. The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

The forecast, published in 1999 by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, was one of the first to combine complex computer simulations of the climate system with adjustments based on historical observations to produce both a most likely global mean warming and a range of uncertainty. It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct. The study is the first of its kind because reviewing a climate forecast meaningfully requires at least 15 years of observations to compare against. Assessments based on shorter periods are prone to being misleading due to natural short-term variability in the climate. The new research also found that, compared to the forecast, the early years of the new millennium were somewhat warmer than expected. More recently the temperature has matched the level forecasted very closely, but the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s has caused many commentators to assume that warming is now less severe than predicted. The paper shows this is not true. Allen said: "I think it's interesting because so many people think that recent years have been unexpectedly cool. In fact, what we found was that a few years around the turn of the millennium were slightly warmer than forecast, and that temperatures have now reverted to what we were predicting back in the 1990s." He added: "Of course, we should expect fluctuations around the overall warming trend in global mean temperatures but the success of these early forecasts suggests the basic understanding of human-induced climate change on which they were based is supported by subsequent observations."

The name of this thread is 'MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING"

And of course that is totally delusional, as are all of the threads you start, you poor bamboozled retard. As I said a little earlier:

This whole troll generated thread amounts to more (and more and more) "proof" that the so-called "skeptics" are actually just 'very ignorant, totally clueless and extremely bamboozled denier cult retards'. Fools like that who reject the scientific evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community in favor of their rightwingnut political beliefs wind up as pathetic stooges for the fossil fuel industry and their posts show that they are too brainwashed and ignorant about science to be able to comprehend the actual issues or what is at stake.​

You, kookles, are a prime example of a rightwingnut reality denier who is far too brainwashed and ignorant about science to be able to comprehend the actual issues or what is at stake. Your every post demonstrates this.

and is now well over 1,000 posts old. If the climate crusaders were so confident, they'd have buzzed out of this thread weeks ago, yet they are falling all over themselves trying to refute what cannot be refutted.

Knowing that your threads are always clueless and moronic, I ignored your nonsense until just a few posts ago when I was a little bored and decided to see how such an idiotic thread could keep going so long. I saw that it was just more rightwingnut denier cult handwaving and ignorant Dunning-Kruger Effect induced false certainty getting thoroughly refuted by the scientific evidence and facts. As usual, you're getting your ass kicked to the curb but you're way too retarded to be able to comprehend that, Kookles, ergo, you hallucinate that you're "winning"....something...who knows what. In reality, you're a pathetic loser who is mentally incapable of understanding what is happening.

In other words............

......you're a clueless retard.

 

[flacaltenn]

If only warmers could read and understand their own LARGE FONT posts...

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more credible and better evidence for some theories than others. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

What part of "the science is settled" is validated by that definition?
Arent you embarrassed at being so ignorant about the process? Nancy pelosi is expected
to get that wrong. But all you USMB WARMER zealots should have known better --- right?

And the one thing thats missing from that piece is that amongst competing theories, those that give wrong answers and predictions, are never "the best competing theory". DEMONSTRATING THAT a particular theory has poor performance never obligates you to produce an immediate better choice of theory.


Are u serious Tinkerbelle? ONE PREDICTION FROM 1996 PROVES HOW ACCURATE AGW theory is? Yeah.. THAT excuses all the 10000000 studies that didnt produce verifiable results... Do you have any sense of shame left?

 

[RollingThunder]

If only warmers could read and understand their own LARGE FONT posts...

If only denier cult dingbats like you could understand how badly you've been duped by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry, you might begin to grasp that your little cult of reality denial is on a par with the Flat Earth Society.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more credible and better evidence for some theories than others. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

What part of "the science is settled" is validated by that definition?

Pretty much all of modern science; all of the modern scientific theories that are now virtually universally accepted by the world scientific community. Examples of such accepted, "settled" theories include:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Theory of General Relativity
Evolution and Natural Selection
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
Big Bang Theory

"The currently accepted theory of" AGW "is simply the best explanation for" the observed warming and climate changes, the melting ice, etc. "among all available alternatives."

"Its" (AGW theory)"status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available" (there are no other theories that can explain the observed phenomena) "and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory" (no other viable theories have appeared) "or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory" (no new evidence has successfully challenged AGW theory).

"Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others" = AGW theory - worldwide scientific consensus on its validity.

Scientific opinion on climate change

And the one thing thats missing from that piece is that amongst competing theories, those that give wrong answers and predictions, are never "the best competing theory". DEMONSTRATING THAT a particular theory has poor performance never obligates you to produce an immediate better choice of theory.

I think you've got something missing from your brain, fecalhead. AGW theory delivers good results and accurate predictions. This almost universally acknowledged in the worldwide scientific community. It is pretty much only in your bamboozled cult of reality deniers and fossil fuel industry stooges that this is denied. In spite of all your absurd posturing and handwaving and all of your hallucinatory myths, you have never "DEMONSTRATED" any significant flaws in AGW theory. Real scientists laugh at your delusional, scientifically ignorant, politically motivated denier nonsense.