Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 944 (750123)
02-11-2015 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by frako
02-11-2015 6:11 AM


From BEST/Muller (Yale Climate Connections is a nonpartisan, multimedia service providing daily broadcast radio programming and original web-based reporting, commentary, and analysis on our changing climate.)
From NASA Climate Denial Empire Strikes Back with Bogus Temperature Story | Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Which also debunks the "The old reliable fudging the data canard ... The latest incarnation is splashed all over the usual toxic vectors — in fact, it’s the Biggest Science Scandal Ever!" ... in detail.
More good reading is Why climate scientists are right about how hot the planet is going to get ... looking at CO2 data from foraminifera. Love those guys.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by frako, posted 02-11-2015 6:11 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 7:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 944 (750188)
02-11-2015 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by marc9000
02-10-2015 7:14 PM


Idiotic? Questioning corruption, and uneven application of rules?
Has somebody told you that you cannot fly somewhere? What rules are you talking about? And you have not described any corruption.
And all of that nonsense is just blowing smoke if AGW is actually a problem. And the fact or non fact is a matter of science and not what some billionaire does or did on a plane.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by marc9000, posted 02-10-2015 7:14 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 7:43 PM NoNukes has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(3)
Message 48 of 944 (750281)
02-12-2015 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
02-09-2015 8:43 PM


marc9000 writes:
... But here are a few questions that I've asked that haven't been addressed yet, very basic ones that any honest global warming advocate should be able to easily answer;
Message 9 I take it you don't drive a car or ride a bus much. What fuel is used to heat your home? Is there anything YOU can do personally to combat global warming?
a similar one;
Message 15 How guilty do you think YOU are about global warming?
These aren't questions for "honest global warming advocates". They're questions by dishonest global warming deniers. Like that Oregon Petition, you, and most deniers, they are political tools. Their purpose is to direct attention away from the facts and avoid discussion of the science that makes their denial untenable; and to move discussion into the area of politics, which is their sole interest. They deny global warming because their political ideologies and political talking heads tell them they should deny it, science be damned.
And these aren't "very basic" questions at all. The most basic questions are, of course:
Do you agree that Earth is warming more quickly that it naturally might?
and
Do you agree that man is contributing to this unnatural warming?
These are the basic questions that honest global warming skeptics ask themselves and then ask of science.
These are not questions that global warming deniers ask themselves. They've been told the correct answers and given tools, like the specious arguments you've given us, for maintaining their supposed correctness despite the science.
We've shown you science's answers: Yes and Yes. You've only shown us those denial devices: attempts to distort, misrepresent, ignore, or deny the body of science on the subject. Devices like this one ...
marc9000 writes:
But the following one is the most important one;
Message 25 What is the difference between climate change and global warming?
and
marc9000 writes:
Charlie Daniels writes:
Now the name of the problem has been changed from global warming to climate change, an innocuous title that can be stretched in either direction to accommodate a record snowfall or a record heat wave and any of the numerous natural geological anomalies can be incorporated into the catch all "climate change".
In their most general usage in science, climate change is change in one or more climatic regions of Earth; and global warming is an increase in the overall average surface temperature of Earth. Both refer to long-term multi-decadal trends.
In the context of any specific paper their meanings may be more specific. But nowadays each term can generally be appended with "... as a result of the activities of man."
Here's NASA's take on it: Whats in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change | Precipitation Education
In the media as in politics, each term can be appended with "... as a result of the activities of man", or redefined as "a hoax by liberals to destroy America and make Al Gore rich" or some other politically obsessed Limbaugh-esque collection of cliches.
It's clear both terms have been used in the science literature for at least 65 years. It's hard to pin down exactly which came first in the context of the CWP (current warming period). Would it really matter? First it was the atomic bomb, then the A bomb and H bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and then a weapon of mass destruction. Would any sane person point to these changes in terminology and infer that these things don't actually explode?
So far you've answered none of the serious (non-snarky) questions that myself or others have put to you regarding your stance on the science supporting global warming. The honest global warming "advocates" here have taken the time to show you evidence that refutes your arguments. Rather than defend your arguments against the evidence, you've simply replied with other easily refuted arguments or political chit-chat.
It's difficult for me to conceive of an "honest global warming denier". At best, it's someone who is unaware he has been duped by the propaganda machines that promote denial or has been fooled by trusted persons who themselves may have been fooled. But an "honest denier" would be capable of seeing that most or all the deniers' tools, tricks, and devices are designed to deceive people rather than inform them.
So my question to you is Do you recognize that any of the arguments you've made here are illogical, deceptive, or fallacious? An "honest denier" would have to concede: Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2015 8:43 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 8:47 PM glowby has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 49 of 944 (750283)
02-12-2015 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
02-11-2015 3:30 PM


Which also debunks the "The old reliable fudging the data canard ...
How does data (possibly fudged) "debunk" any claims about data being fudged?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2015 3:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2015 8:56 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2015 9:18 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 50 of 944 (750284)
02-12-2015 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
02-11-2015 7:22 PM


Has somebody told you that you cannot fly somewhere? What rules are you talking about?
I'm talking about uneven application of "solutions" to global warming. If one person uses jet transportation, which pollutes hundreds of times more than one automobile, why should one using an automobile be penalized, or have to answer in any way, for his car's pollution while the person using a jet doesn't have to answer?
And you have not described any corruption.
If you can't imagine any corruption being involved in ANY government action to combat global warming, I can't help you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 02-11-2015 7:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 02-12-2015 8:16 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 59 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2015 9:00 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 51 of 944 (750285)
02-12-2015 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
02-12-2015 7:43 PM


I'm talking about uneven application of "solutions" to global warming. If one person uses jet transportation, which pollutes hundreds of times more than one automobile, why should one using an automobile be penalized
There aren't any rules about using automobiles or flying. When were you penalized for using an automobile.
If you can't imagine any corruption being involved in ANY government action to combat global warming, I can't help you.
I'm not concerned about your imagination. You claimed that billionaires flying on an airplane constituted some kind of corruption. I'm asking you to tell me about that.
But as I thought, you are doing nothing except imagining.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 7:43 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 9:15 PM NoNukes has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 52 of 944 (750286)
02-12-2015 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by marc9000
02-10-2015 8:40 PM


marc9000 writes:
What Daniels wrote was not science, and not intended to be taken as science. Let's run through it all;
Why run through any of it? Charlie asserts that he knows better than science, using only the Bible and similar lame-o arguments as you have here. He could have denied that the Earth goes around the Sun using similar methods.
marc9000 writes:
Now type the words "Wedge Document" into a search. It was STOLEN in exactly the same way as those [climategate] emails ...
The Wedge Document was leaked. Try a web search on "wedge document leaked". Someone shared it with someone who ratted-out the Discovery Institute. No one voluntarily shared those emails. If I am trusted with a top-secret document and hand it over to you, you didn't steal it.
marc9000 writes:
... It's not science, when people notice the double standards, the hypocrisy
No. It's not science. Anyone who thinks the difference between stolen and shared is a double standard has some serious moral issues.
marc9000 writes:
It's not science to realize that the temperature in the midwest U.S., where I live, varies by about 110 degrees F. in any one year. (extremes of about 10 below, to 100 above.)
That is science, whether you used reports from meteorological services (scientific organizations) or your backyard thermometer (a scientific instrument). You even used science (mathematics) to calculate the span of temperatures too. You're so deep in denial of science that you even deny that science is science!
marc9000 writes:
the scientific community has falsified some data, as has been proven.
Show us proof that it has been proved. All you have are denier gossip mills, same as the ones that tried (and failed) to find any real dirt in those emails.
"Falsified" is just denier-speak for adjusted.
Suppose a weather station between points A, B, C and D begins consistently delivering readings 7F higher than the average of those other four, yet had never previously been so out of sync. It's certain that the stations' instruments are malfunctioning. You can either throw out the readings or apply some statistics to reconstruct its probable reading, based on its historic comparisons of its temps with those of neighboring stations.
A ship's log records a series of noontime temps as 66.2, 66.0, 67.7, 669, 67.5, and 65.9. Changing the 669 to 66.9 is faking the data, according to deniers.
There is a continuing effort to improve the accuracy of weather station data, past and present. Sometime stations are upgraded, and in the process it's discovered that they had been slightly over- or under-stating temps for some time. So, an estimate of the previous errors is calculated and historical records are updated to reflect reality more accurately.
A summary of NOAA's methods is here: Page or Resource Not Found (404 Error) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
All if this is data quality assurance. Deniers call it fraud and falsifying the data.
If these adjustments aren't made, the denier meme machine screams, "Why don't you adjust historical data when there's reason to believe there are inaccuracies?!"
That's the way it goes with all conspiracy theorists. They force all facts to fit their delusions. It's no different with this hoax about there being a global warming hoax.
marc9000 writes:
quote:
They don't tell you that the Global Historical Climate Network, a U.S. Government entity, has been adjusting the temperature findings to reflect a warming trend. Proven by Paul Homewood, who recorded the actual temperatures in several locations and found them to reflect different numbers than the ones reported by the GHCN.
Homewood didn't record any temperatures. It's just another sensationalist blogger generating hits by turning on conspiracy theorists. Some of the facts can be found here: Climate Denial Food Chain: Conservative Media Run With Baseless Climate Science Conspiracy Theory | Media Matters for America

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by marc9000, posted 02-10-2015 8:40 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 9:02 PM glowby has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 53 of 944 (750287)
02-12-2015 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by glowby
02-12-2015 5:46 PM


marc9000 writes:
I take it you don't drive a car or ride a bus much. What fuel is used to heat your home? Is there anything YOU can do personally to combat global warming?
a similar one;
How guilty do you think YOU are about global warming?
These aren't questions for "honest global warming advocates". They're questions by dishonest global warming deniers. Like that Oregon Petition, you, and most deniers, they are political tools.
What's dishonest about those questions? My suspicion is, (that I"ve mentioned earlier in this thread) is that global warming advocates never feel that they themselves are part of the problem, only part of the solution by pointing accusing fingers at others, like successful businesses that they are jealous of. Or another country that's more successful then their country. It's not a "political tool" to wonder about, or have a fear of, government mandated solutions to global warming. Which, as I have pointed out and never yet been refuted, are not clearly measurable. It's not too much to ask that if any action is taken to improve the global warming problem, that each country's contribution to man made greenhouse gases be shown for all to see, so that there's no unfair/uneven application of government mandates.
Their purpose is to direct attention away from the facts and avoid discussion of the science that makes their denial untenable; and to move discussion into the area of politics, which is their sole interest. They deny global warming because their political ideologies and political talking heads tell them they should deny it, science be damned.
Global warming was not presented to the general public before the 1990's. It was introduced by Al Gore's 1992 book, Earth In The Balance". Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it;
quote:
It [the book] received the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights 1993 Book award given annually to a novelist who "most faithfully and forcefully reflects Robert Kennedy's purposes - his concern for the poor and the powerless, his struggle for honest and even-handed justice, his conviction that a decent society must assure all young people a fair chance, and his faith that a free democracy can act to remedy disparities of power and opportunity."
So you see, global warming got, and continues to get, ALL of it's attention because of politics, since implied remedies for it consist mainly of punishing the successful, to "remedy disparities of power and opportunity.
And these aren't "very basic" questions at all. The most basic questions are, of course:
Do you agree that Earth is warming more quickly that it naturally might?
and
Do you agree that man is contributing to this unnatural warming?
I do not, as it was refuted in the year 2000, to a very comparable degree that Piltdown man was refuted in 1953.
Page not found - The National Center
Fred Singer is probably to global warming what Michael Behe is (was) to biology. He created the US Weather Satellite Service, was a Chief Scientist for the DOT and a climate expert. He's 90 years old now, still alive, and has undoubtedly forgot far more about the science of global warming than Al Gore ever knew. But if we google his name, we find about as many put-downs of him as we do if we google Michael Behe. Politics IS involved, isn't it?
These are not questions that global warming deniers ask themselves. They've been told the correct answers and given tools, like the specious arguments you've given us, for maintaining their supposed correctness despite the science.
I've been shown evidence of "climategate", the lack of news coverage, the demonization of those who uncovered it, and asked you, your twin Razd, and anyone else on this thread why uncoverers of "The Wedge Document" didn't receive ANY grief as accusation of thievery as were climategate informers. Nothing but crickets chirping so far on that one.
We've shown you science's answers: Yes and Yes. You've only shown us those denial devices: attempts to distort, misrepresent, ignore, or deny the body of science on the subject.
Here are a few paragraphs from the above link;
quote:
Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.
and
quote:
In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results.
and
quote:
One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.
The U.S Department of Commerce? Could it be..........POLITICS?
In their most general usage in science, climate change is change in one or more climatic regions of Earth; and global warming is an increase in the overall average surface temperature of Earth. Both refer to long-term multi-decadal trends.
In the context of any specific paper their meanings may be more specific. But nowadays each term can generally be appended with "... as a result of the activities of man."
Here's NASA's take on it: http://pmm.nasa.gov/...name-global-warming-vs-climate-change
In the media as in politics, each term can be appended with "... as a result of the activities of man", or redefined as "a hoax by liberals to destroy America and make Al Gore rich" or some other politically obsessed Limbaugh-esque collection of cliches.
And in reality, each term can be appended with, licence, regulate, restrict, prohibit.
It's clear both terms have been used in the science literature for at least 65 years.
But in the 90's, in the news, it was only global warming
"Climate change" is only recent, when it was discovered that it was needed. Can't scare people nearly as easily with clashing two conflicting terms, global warming and global cooling, can we?
It's hard to pin down exactly which came first in the context of the CWP (current warming period). Would it really matter?
It would if it was political! I can pin it down just fine, I've been watching news for many decades.
First it was the atomic bomb, then the A bomb and H bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and then a weapon of mass destruction. Would any sane person point to these changes in terminology and infer that these things don't actually explode?
There are no explosions going on with global warming, or climate change. There's NOTHING going on with global warming or climate change that people can actually see. It's only what they're being told, by a special interest group.
So far you've answered none of the serious (non-snarky) questions that myself or others have put to you regarding your stance on the science supporting global warming.
And few of my questions have been answered as well. Whether they were political, or whether they were basic questions about numbers, such as measurable records broken down by country, or any accountability the scientific community, Democrats will have concerning action against global warming.
The honest global warming "advocates" here have taken the time to show you evidence that refutes your arguments.
They haven't taken much time, it's all out there to copy/paste. Posting charts and graphs and numbers that I have no way of knowing how accurate they are. The political army of global warming is huge, second only to the political army of evolution.
It's difficult for me to conceive of an "honest global warming denier".
As it's difficult for me to conceive of an honest global warming advocate. The calls for action to correct it, with practically no accountability for those who make political decisions, reeks of big government advocacy of nothing more than the current Democrat party.
At best, it's someone who is unaware he has been duped by the propaganda machines that promote denial or has been fooled by trusted persons who themselves may have been fooled. But an "honest denier" would be capable of seeing that most or all the deniers' tools, tricks, and devices are designed to deceive people rather than inform them. So my question to you is Do you recognize that any of the arguments you've made here are illogical, deceptive, or fallacious? An "honest denier" would have to concede: Yes.
That's only an opinion. I think the same about you, and so does much of mainstream America, the ones who won't demonize Charlie Daniels for what he said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by glowby, posted 02-12-2015 5:46 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by glowby, posted 02-16-2015 2:28 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 54 of 944 (750288)
02-12-2015 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by glowby
02-12-2015 8:46 PM


Why run through any of it? Charlie asserts that he knows better than science, using only the Bible and similar lame-o arguments as you have here.
He does NOT assert that he knows better than science - science isn't the only source of knowledge. See why I have trouble with scientific claims? They're often put forward by those with questionable reading skills.
The Wedge Document was leaked. Try a web search on "wedge document leaked". Someone shared it with someone who ratted-out the Discovery Institute. No one voluntarily shared those emails. If I am trusted with a top-secret document and hand it over to you, you didn't steal it.
quote:
Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes,[22] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."[23]
Wedge strategy - Wikipedia
POSTED TO THE WWW BY TIM RHODES, MARKED "TOP SECRET" AND "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION". Stolen.
No. It's not science. Anyone who thinks the difference between stolen and shared is a double standard has some serious moral issues.
And you're coming up short on reading comprehension.
Homewood didn't record any temperatures. It's just another sensationalist blogger generating hits by turning on conspiracy theorists. Some of the facts can be found here: http://mediamatters.org/...hain-conservative-media-ru/202469
Of course Homewood is now under attack! The political machine is still well funded.
Still no estimates on which countries cause the most global warming? Which countries will pay the heaviest price?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by glowby, posted 02-12-2015 8:46 PM glowby has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 55 of 944 (750289)
02-12-2015 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by NoNukes
02-12-2015 8:16 PM


There aren't any rules about using automobiles or flying. When were you penalized for using an automobile.
You've never heard of auto emissions testing?
In the late 1990's, it was in the news as being just around the corner in my area, the greater Cincinnati area. The local, liberal newspaper was all for it, their editorials and slanted news stories couldn't wait for it to start. They were explaining it all to us, sometimes interviewing "experts" in the subject. "Should all cars, even new ones, be tested?" the newspaper asks. "Oh yes, all cars must be tested for the program to work" says the expert. Then, after one year, SURPRISE, most all newer cars aren't failing the tests! The newspaper then writes editorials demanding that all cars 5 years old and newer be exempted from the tests! The pudgy fingered, no-nothings-about-cars newspaper editors obviously drive newer ones since they have no clue how to effeciently keep an older car runniing. So now they want to exempt themselves from the program, never mind that it would cost older car owners much more to get their cars tested, since the test company has to make their money. The newspaper editors found out how much fun it was to sit in line and hand over $20 for a useless test, and they didn't like it! They didn't get their wish, the program went on for everybody for 4 more years, until it ended. No explanations, no air measurements, nothing. Just millions of dollars and peoples time wasted.
So many liberals are going to demand to know who is responsible for all the new hoops they will soon have to jump through to help the government combat global warming. All they have to do is look in the mirror.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 02-12-2015 8:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by frako, posted 02-13-2015 8:50 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 02-13-2015 9:00 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 61 by frako, posted 02-13-2015 9:15 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2015 9:55 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 56 of 944 (750294)
02-13-2015 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
02-12-2015 9:15 PM


You've never heard of auto emissions testing?
In my country in order to drive your car it has to be registered to register a car it has to meet or surpass some standards. So newer cars have to go trough a techical examination every 2 years, older cars every one year and old timers if they are driven for more then 4000 kilometers per year have to be tested every half year. They test your brakes, suspension, lights, .... and of course your emissions. If your car fails any test you cannot register your car, and if your car is not registered you cant legally drive it on public roads. (apart from passing your technical tests you have to pay the road usage tax and have your car insured to register your car.)
The Germans have some sticker system, you get a green yellow or red sticker depending on your cars emmision's, i think it works something like this, a green sticker can go anywhere a yellow one can go in to red zones and yellow zones, while red ones can only go in red zones. So city centers are not so filled up with smog.
Now i know your silly American mind must be screaming they are infringing on your freedomssssssssssssss, no people like you are infringing on my freedom to breathe fresh air

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 9:15 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2015 9:02 AM frako has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 57 of 944 (750295)
02-13-2015 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
02-12-2015 7:37 PM


You have no evidence of data being "fudged". Just assertions that it was, that have been debunked.
Repeating assertions over and over does not change them from false to true. All it does is prove delusion.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 7:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 944 (750296)
02-13-2015 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
02-12-2015 9:15 PM


nonukes writes:
There aren't any rules about using automobiles or flying. When were you penalized for using an automobile.
marc9000 writes:
You've never heard of auto emissions testing?
Wow. Yes, I've heard of auto emissions testing. They are not relevant to anything we've been talking about.
You were supposed to be telling us how billionaires flying in a jet airplane was unfair compared to you being penalized for riding in a car. We were looking for something relevant to global climate change. The answer surely has nothing to do with automobile emission testing.
First of all, aircraft are subject to emission controls.
Secondly, auto emissions testing is about prevention of smog. I'm not aware of any link between emissions testing and global warming. Are you? We have emission testing in most counties of NC. The test is for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
Is it possible to apply emission control of automobiles for carbon dioxide? No. That is inane. An ideal combustion of hydrocarbon fuel produces only carbon dioxide and water. It is impossible to prevent the production of carbon dioxide when you burn gas efficiently.
Once again, you are way off of the science. Your example is total paranoid crap.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 9:15 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by marc9000, posted 02-14-2015 8:33 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 59 of 944 (750297)
02-13-2015 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
02-12-2015 7:43 PM


If you can't imagine any corruption being involved in ANY government action to combat global warming, I can't help you.
If you can't imagine energy companies corrupting politicians not to do anything to combat global climate change, I can't help you.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 7:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 60 of 944 (750298)
02-13-2015 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by frako
02-13-2015 8:50 AM


Testing
For about 20 or so years we had emissions testing here too. It helped get the worst of the old oil burners off the road and forced others to clean up by getting cars tuned etc. We have phased it out now that there are very few older cars left on the road and the new ones are so very much cleaner and stay that way with much less maintenance.
It was not worth the cost of running the testing centers under the new circumstances.
However, I just had a thought. Are we getting by without screening for polluting cars because of rules and testing done in so many other places that keep the on road fleet cleaner for us. Are we sort of being anti-vaxers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by frako, posted 02-13-2015 8:50 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 02-13-2015 12:06 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024