New letter warning about global warming signed by over 15,000 scientists

[Father Heathen]

Haha if picking on a typo is the best retort you can come with I'll take that as a victory!

At least present an actual argument before declaring victory. Preferably something coherent. Bonus points if you attempt to substantiate it.

 

[Enoch07]

At least present an actual argument before declaring victory. Preferably something coherent. Bonus points if you attempt to substantiate it.

I already did. You chose to retort on a typo instead refuting the argument. That is a win fair and square. Copping out now is just bleh.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

...and the Flat Earth International Conference sold out. Your point?

And 99% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, even more than climastrologers that believe in climastrology

My point being that science is a method, not a consensus,

it's about NOT having to take people's word for it, particularly where politically affiliated

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda | HuffPost

And Huff Post is even more easily debunked propaganda

Point being as above, science, the method, means NOT taking other people's word for it- that's always hopelessly subjective

 

[Milton Platt]

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda | HuffPost

And Huff Post is even more easily debunked propaganda

Point being as above, science, the method, means NOT taking other people's word for it- that's always hopelessly subjective

I do not have the expertise or resources to do climate research, and neither do you. I believe it is necessary to let the papers done by the experts speak for themselves. I appears from your statement that you reject any and all scientific views that you have not done the work in yourself?

I added some more links for ya. Debunk away, and don't forget to include your sources.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I added some more links for ya. Debunk away, and don't forget to include your sources.

Another radical leftist media outlet and a government agency? that's the best you could come up with?


How about some actual science supporting anthropomorphic global warming, like to give that a shot?

 

[Milton Platt]

Another radical leftist media outlet and a government agency? that's the best you could come up with?


How about some actual science supporting anthropomorphic global warming, like to give that a shot?

So you reject any site that does not agree with your political agenda. you reject science, and you reject any governmental commentary. What is left, except the people who happen to agree with you? You are living in an echo chamber.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

you reject any governmental commentary. .

Not at all, the next head of NASA doesn't believe in it either!

Point being again, I trust science the method, not the opinion on either side

So what is your understanding of how global warming works, scientifically?- enlighten me

 

[Father Heathen]

I already did. You chose to retort on a typo instead refuting the argument. That is a win fair and square. Copping out now is just bleh.

Your "argument" seems to amount to little more than "trying to protect or preserve anything is pointless since it'll eventually come to an end, anyway." If you're a parent, I certainly hope that you don't apply this philosophy to your role as one.

 

[Father Heathen]

And 99% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, even more than climastrologers that believe in climastrology

Except for science, the data is what it is regardless of belief, and it can be tested and verified. It's not belief that makes medicine and technology work, but rather the application of scientific data.

My point being that science is a method, not a consensus,

Scientists use the former to reach the latter. If you doubt the method, then step away from whatever piece of tech you're using to access the net.

it's about NOT having to take people's word for it, particularly where politically affiliated

Science is objective, and in cases where people deny it, there is political motive behind it (for example lobbyists for industries attempting to skirt environmental accountability, who misinform ignorant voters to get them to vote for the candidates in their pocket, etc).

 

[Father Heathen]

Another radical leftist media outlet

It's adorable how what U.S. conservatives consider "radical left" is considered center or left-of-center by the rest of the world. Someone should make an illustration of the two axis political spectrum from a U.S. conservative's perspective. I bet it would look goofy as hell.

 

[Enoch07]

Your "argument" seems to amount to little more than "trying to protect or preserve anything is pointless since it'll eventually come to an end, anyway." If you're a parent, I certainly hope that you don't apply this philosophy to your role as one.

Close but not necessarily.

I was making a statement that it's not worth getting upset over every little thing in life that is a danger. Because living life this way is miserable, at least imo.

 

[Father Heathen]

Close but not necessarily.

I was making a statement that it's not worth getting upset over every little thing in life that is a danger. Because living life this way is miserable, at least imo.

I'm not "upset", but I think some of the consequences warrant concern.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

That, and a bunch random, witless yokels obviously don't quite have the same level of credibility that actual scientists do when it comes to science.

I got to love Piltdown man sensibilities. Everyone loves a good con game and AGW is the Piltdown man con game of the new era. These days nation destroyers like George Soros* think money buys everything, and it does buy most things. For example I think many if not most of those pro AGW 'yes man' PC scientists are bought and paid for. At the very least I would bet nearly everything they are influenced by the money. And its not just money that pays to corrupt pro AWG scientists and politicians. Scientists and those in the public (the misinformed public) eye fear losing jobs and votes if they reject the lie of AGW.

* (1).......George Soros Paid Al Gore Millions To Lie About Global Warming

(2)........https://eaglerising.com/36047/bombs...id-al-gore-to-push-global-warming-propaganda/

(3)....Many more ; George Soros global warming - Bing

The George Soros groupies and employees of the world think if they pay off enough scientists everyone will be a So Pndejo for the AGW lie. I am sorry to be vulgar but the yes men proponents of the greatest hoax of the 20th century, ie AGW remind me of those head bobble 'chi chi' dolls that sit in the back window of our friends Rician' low riders, their little noggins' in a perpetual 'yes nod'. The piltdown man fraud** lasted over 40 years, it was in text books for longer than that, up to the seventies, my guess that AGW fraud will last well into the next ice age, which btw is past due.

**........ About one of the many frauds perpetuated by scientists*** or that fooled scientists. ;
Piltdown Man: The truth behind the fraud to be revealed 100 years after it fooled the world | Daily Mail Online

***

DISCLAIMER; I hold no ill will toward those that have been duped by the AGW lie. My comments were directed towards those that intentionally promote the fraud, not the members of this forum etc who have been taken in by the lie of man caused global warming. Also many pro AGW scientists are well meaning types blinded by cooked books and fraudulent evidence and experiment provided by Soros his followers clones and his ilk. I feel more sorry for those people than angry.

; {>

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except for science, the data is what it is regardless of belief, and it can be tested and verified. It's not belief that makes medicine and technology work, but rather the application of scientific data.



Scientists use the former to reach the latter. If you doubt the method, then step away from whatever piece of tech you're using to access the net.

Creating the net involved amazing technological breakthroughs like electricity, powered flight, software

The Wright brothers were high school dropouts, Edison was home schooled, Gates dropped out of college, they were not 'scientists' in the academic sense. 'Scientists' were too busy with things like phrenology, steady state, Piltdown man and global cooling.


i.e. science- the method is a practical pursuit, science the opinion, is an academic one. Which works better can be easily shown, through the method!

Science is objective, and in cases where people deny it, there is political motive behind it (for example lobbyists for industries attempting to skirt environmental accountability, who misinform ignorant voters to get them to vote for the candidates in their pocket, etc).

As above the method is, the academic opinion absolutely is not, it has a terrible track record.

accepting all the 'recommendations' of the interGOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change, constitutes an unprecedented transfer of wealth and power from the private to public sector. But politicians have no interest in wealth and power, they really care more about baby polar bears right?

the bias works both ways, that's why the method is especially important in such a politically tainted field-


There are many scientific phenomena that can be scientifically, empirically verified, not but not ghosts, astrology, global warming or ESP. Once again, how do YOU think it works? are you not even interested?

 

[metis]

My point being that science is a method, not a consensus,

It's a "method" that can lead to a "consensus", especially when it comes to trying to make decisions that can affect billions of people. Common sense suggests that we lean in the direction of safety, much like not doing a high-dive into a pool without first checking to see if there's any water in it.

 

[metis]

accepting all the 'recommendations' of the interGOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change, constitutes an unprecedented transfer of wealth and power from the private to public sector.

Absolutely false as the fact that there is much more growth in green-energy companies, which are not publicly owned, than with coal, for example.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

It's a "method" that can lead to a "consensus", especially when it comes to trying to make decisions that can affect billions of people. Common sense suggests that we lean in the direction of safety, much like not doing a high-dive into a pool without first checking to see if there's any water in it.

Or pouring billions of dollars into a hole* to fix a problem that does not exist or has its origins in the natural world, not because mans activities. So my friends the problem of climate change if indeed it is a problem at all, is that its caused by events beyond our current control. Instead of wasting billions on carbon guilt we should be using funds to prepare for the ill effects of natural climate change, and to reap the benefits if any of such changes.

*(an example of a hole are Al Gores pockets. And there are many similar holes, and a few bottomless pits. An example of a bottomless pit for a nations dollars are silly protocols and other money sucking devices dreamed up by people like Soro's types.

MrMr Devils required reading list...or FYI;

NAS PRESS RELEASE .......Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming | National Association of Scholars

The Shared Agendas of George Soros and Barack …
www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1276
... the New York Daily News reported that Soros would support Obama rather than Hillary ... global warming by ... of terrorism as “man-caused ...

; {>

 

[metis]

Or pouring billions of dollars into a hole* to fix a problem that does not exist or has its origins in the natural world, not because mans activities.

So, produce your evidence that "it does not exist".

Roughly 98% of the climate scientists, along with our own NOAA, NASA, the NAS, and even our own DoD say it's a real and serious threat, but you somehow know better then they?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Absolutely false as the fact that there is much more growth in green-energy companies, which are not publicly owned, than with coal, for example.

Sources? Many of the 'green-energy companies' Obama's administration subsidized lost millions if not billions* of my and your money!

Obama's green energy handouts costing billions
www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-green-energy-handouts-costing-billions

; {>