Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Global Warming Scam
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 46 of 177 (585789)
10-09-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by BarackZero
10-09-2010 7:21 PM


BarackZero writes:
"Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him."
I will take your advice and not bother addressing any of the nonsense you posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 7:21 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 47 of 177 (585790)
10-09-2010 7:29 PM


The environmental extremism that is epidemic in America is grotesquely similar to Darwinism in several interesting respects.
AlGorianism is like Darwinism in that both groups make gross exaggerations and assumptions, and call them *science*.
Both groups engage in the most childish kind of name-calling.
If you do not agree with either, then they label you "stupid" and "ignorant" and claim you "just don't understand."
For example, one of the most childish rants I have seen here consisted of an individual claiming I am a high-schooler who is not fit to "wipe Al Gore's ass".
Lovely. I'll bet he talks like that at work all the time.
Did ONE of you have the courage to condemn his actions?
Not a chance.
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Who remains silent seems to give consent.
If Darwinists or Global Warmers would concede that there IS room for discussion, it would certainly go a long way towards having discussions.
But that never seems to happen, ever, anywhere.
It's pathological narcissism, so apparent in Barack Obama, in Richard Dawkins, in Al Gore, and in many here, if not most.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 10-09-2010 7:31 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-09-2010 7:39 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 52 by nwr, posted 10-09-2010 7:57 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 53 by Omnivorous, posted 10-09-2010 8:16 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 4:25 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 48 of 177 (585791)
10-09-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
10-09-2010 7:09 PM


Re: topic?
i think what he ment by scam is that a lot fo the envioramentalists are hypocrites they want you to stop poluting while they polute as they want.
cause there is no dening that climate change is happening and rather fast, when i was borne 23.07.1986 it was the hottest day ever mesured in ljubljana 35 C, now the record is 38 C and the temperature passes 35 every year.
the question is it natural or man made well if it where caused by the sun as some say then we should see temperatures dropping they are still going up every year.
i dont belive though that co2 is the only cause, there are a lot of other factors like amonia...., and a lot of man made stuff like paved roads black absorbes sunlight better and they get the white reppeling snow plowed off during winter. as cities grow the surface aerea of what the sun can heat up increases and during the cooling down in the night the buildings still give off exsess heat.the polar ice melting meens less white stuff that repels light and more blue stuff that cathes it that melts more ice....
some say well co2 gets absorbed by plants well the problem is that there are fewer and fewer forrests every day.
though i do belive that co2 is a mayor player in the global worming game i doubt it is the sole cause, and i doubt that anything can be done to efect global warming on a large scale we will have to reap what we have sowed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 10-09-2010 7:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 10-09-2010 7:34 PM frako has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 177 (585792)
10-09-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by BarackZero
10-09-2010 7:29 PM


Do you plan on providing any support for the assertion that there is some "Global Warming Scam "?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 7:29 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 177 (585793)
10-09-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by frako
10-09-2010 7:31 PM


Re: topic?
But his claims is that there is some "Global Warming Scam".
If he has a complaint about how certain people behave, then he is free to contact them.
AbE:
The issue is really pretty simple.
If Global Warming is happening then it would be wise for us to try to mitigate any adverse effects.
The only part of the contributory side we have much control over are those we create. The man made components are within our control.
The smaller the percentage of man made contributions to the overall the MORE we need to reduce those we can control.
If reducing the man made contributions is still insufficient, then we also need to try to find ways to remove those natural contributions to be stored in some carbon sink.
In addition, we need to be making plans for dealing with those adverse effects we cannot mitigate.
Much of the world's economy is based on there being relatively stable weather patters, snowfall, rainfall and on the infrastructure we have built based on that. Building new infrastructure is a slow, long term project.
If water resources change and get relocated, it can well take many decades to modify our infrastructure system to meet the new conditions.
We need to be thinking and planning on a world-wide basis to meet the challenges.
Edited by jar, : add reasoning chain

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by frako, posted 10-09-2010 7:31 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by frako, posted 10-09-2010 8:47 PM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 51 of 177 (585794)
10-09-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by BarackZero
10-09-2010 7:29 PM


The environmental extremism that is epidemic in America is grotesquely similar to Darwinism in several interesting respects.
Indeed, one way in which they're similar is that both evolution by natural selection and anthropogenic climate change are supported by an enormous weight of verified scientific evidence.
If you do not agree with either, then they label you "stupid" and "ignorant" and claim you "just don't understand."
Well, but you don't understand. Your frequent errors of fact make that abundantly clear. Are we supposed to pretend otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore that your arguments are wrong because you have no understanding of the underlying science and patronize you?
I mean, make your choice, I guess. Do you want to be patronized or not?
If Darwinists or Global Warmers would concede that there IS room for discussion, it would certainly go a long way towards having discussions.
There is room for discussion. For instance, what is the best method to curb human greenhouse gas emissions? Should we structure the marketplace to make releasing carbon dioxide gas a more expensive proposition, and thus stimulate demand for alternative technologies? Or should we put top-down limits on emissions and allow businesses to trade emissions credits?
Should we engage in geoengineering, or is that a risky proposition that may do more harm than good to the environment?
As you can see, there's plenty of room for discussion about global warming. The policies are nowhere near as certain as the science. But you can't be a part of that discussion until you're on the same page as the rest of us. Until you're talking about reality instead of the made-up fantasy world of climate change denialists.
But that never seems to happen, ever, anywhere.
The discussions about climate change are happening at the conferences you so recently lampooned. The discussions about evolution are happening in the offices and labs of biological sciences. If you want to be a part of those discussions, nobody is stopping you but you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 7:29 PM BarackZero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 7:37 AM crashfrog has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 52 of 177 (585796)
10-09-2010 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by BarackZero
10-09-2010 7:29 PM


BarackZero writes:
AlGorianism is like Darwinism in that both groups make gross exaggerations and assumptions, and call them *science*.
I have avoided posting, to reduce the "piling on" problem. However, up to now I don't think anybody has bothered to point out that there is no such thing as "AlGorianism", or that modern evolutionary theory has moved beyond what Darwin proposed and should not be referred to as "Darwinism".
But, hey, if you want to continue your rants, don't let me stop you. At least I can get some good entertainment as I laugh at your public display of gross ignorance. Incidentally, there's good news for you. Ignorance can actually be cured. All you have to do is take the time to actually study the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 7:29 PM BarackZero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 AM nwr has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 53 of 177 (585803)
10-09-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by BarackZero
10-09-2010 7:29 PM


And thank you.
BO writes:
For example, one of the most childish rants I have seen here consisted of an individual claiming I am a high-schooler who is not fit to "wipe Al Gore's ass".
Lovely. I'll bet he talks like that at work all the time.
Did ONE of you have the courage to condemn his actions?
Not a chance.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I offer in exhibit BarackZero's posts on this forum, readily available to you all.
I will concede that my remarks on his high school status are speculative, though defensible as measured in their character.
But there can be no doubt that he does, indeed, lack the stature to wipe Al Gore's ass.
Thank you, friends, and thank you, BarackZero, for this opportunity.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 7:29 PM BarackZero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Huntard, posted 10-10-2010 3:49 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 54 of 177 (585809)
10-09-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
10-09-2010 7:34 PM


Re: topic?
If Global Warming is happening then it would be wise for us to try to mitigate any adverse effects
The only part of the contributory side we have much control over are those we create. The man made components are within our control.
true but there is a problem carbon emissions and economic growth are likned so it is very hard to pass laws that limit the emissions and new techonologies tend to get baught by the ones that earn the moste from polution and it takes time for the patent to loose validity.
If reducing the man made contributions is still insufficient, then we also need to try to find ways to remove those natural contributions to be stored in some carbon sink.
i totaly agree the problem is profit and no self loving company will develope this kind of technology if there is no profit involved, and since it would probably be a large scale project like the moon landing no country would want to do it on its own since there is no profit, or prestige involved. it is sad but true our greed is killing us
In addition, we need to be making plans for dealing with those adverse effects we cannot mitigate.
Much of the world's economy is based on there being relatively stable weather patters, snowfall, rainfall and on the infrastructure we have built based on that. Building new infrastructure is a slow, long term project
all true but witch polititian would get realected for spending money on something that will happen in the future they like to make thir goals short term 4-8 years so they get realected. and if the world goes down the drain it will be a nother polititians problem and they will be able to point the finger on him saying he should be doing more and score some brownie points whit the public.
If water resources change and get relocated, it can well take many decades to modify our infrastructure system to meet the new conditions.
We need to be thinking and planning on a world-wide basis to meet the challenges.
all true though it has the same problems as all of the above, though dont worry about water it is alredy profitable to sell water bottled or otherwise 3 of my friends are making a killing out of it. they made a company called costela they are botteling water and seling it mostly to other countries and also at home they estimated that the investment would be returned in 5-10 years they got their money back in 2 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 10-09-2010 7:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 10-09-2010 8:49 PM frako has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 55 of 177 (585810)
10-09-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by frako
10-09-2010 8:47 PM


Re: topic?
If what you say is true, then we will get the world we want.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by frako, posted 10-09-2010 8:47 PM frako has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 56 of 177 (585855)
10-10-2010 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Omnivorous
10-09-2010 8:16 PM


Re: And thank you.
Omnivorous writes:
But there can be no doubt that he does, indeed, lack the stature to wipe Al Gore's ass.
Quite, nobody is "low" enough to wipe the ass of the inventor of ManBearPig.
Now returning you to your regular programming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Omnivorous, posted 10-09-2010 8:16 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Omnivorous, posted 10-12-2010 12:02 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 177 (585857)
10-10-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by BarackZero
10-09-2010 7:29 PM


Panda writes:
I appreciate the irony of posting a reply to this comment, but I think it needs to be said.
Forum discussions are NOT a race.
If there are lots of replies to your posts, then no-one will be surprised if it takes you a while to reply.
BarackZero:
I appreciate the necessity of explaining my point of MANY of you versus ONE of me, but you missed this.
No matter how foul your pals are, for example the *gentle* soul who says I can't wipe Al Gore's ass, not one of you ever condemns hateful intolerance from your own side of the aisle.
Not one of you.
No matter HOW trivial your side's objections or spins or red herrings are, not matter how badly your side tries to refute me rather than thinking about what I have to say, NOBODY on your side ever gives any credit. No, all they do is give the usual leftist Heave Ho.
Shut up and get out is the bottom line from the left.
You're with the left, or you're OUTTA HERE!
Debate is impossible.
Panda:
If you rush your answers, then you are likely to be unclear and fail to communicate your points successfully.
BarackZero:
What "point" has ever been "successfully communicated" to AlGorians such as surround me? Name one. Just one.
It is most unscientific and anti-intellectual to deride someone and harass them. That is about all the left is capable of.
Panda:
So, my well-meant advice is: STOP...and breathe.
Take your time and focus on quality and not speed.
Barack:
My well-meant advice to you is to look impartially, if you can, at the vile messages of your pals.
I shall not bother to respond to such maliciousness in the future.
Let me quote from the Holy Bible:
"Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him."
You might ask your pal if HE has a premium account with Fidelity Investments.
You might ask him if HE has been atop the Great Wall of China, and the Berlin Wall, and hiked the Cinque Terre, and the Samarian Gorge, to name but a few.
You might ask him if HE is happily married, to the wife of his youth, or if HE has skied down a black diamond, or completed a marathon in the top 7% of finishers, or has caught a 230 pound ahi, or has dived below 125 feet, or has taken his less successful siblings to Paris and London for ten days, all on his own dime, or if HE has taken his parents and his in-laws to Hawaii, and to London, and to Paris, and to Switzerland, and to Mexico to name but a few trips.
On second thought, don't bother. I couldn't care less.
The environmental extremism that is epidemic in America is grotesquely similar to Darwinism in several interesting respects.
AlGorianism is like Darwinism in that both groups make gross exaggerations and assumptions, and call them *science*.
Both groups engage in the most childish kind of name-calling.
If you do not agree with either, then they label you "stupid" and "ignorant" and claim you "just don't understand."
For example, one of the most childish rants I have seen here consisted of an individual claiming I am a high-schooler who is not fit to "wipe Al Gore's ass".
Lovely. I'll bet he talks like that at work all the time.
Did ONE of you have the courage to condemn his actions?
Not a chance.
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Who remains silent seems to give consent.
If Darwinists or Global Warmers would concede that there IS room for discussion, it would certainly go a long way towards having discussions.
But that never seems to happen, ever, anywhere.
It's pathological narcissism, so apparent in Barack Obama, in Richard Dawkins, in Al Gore, and in many here, if not most.
I have searched in vain through your self-pitying whining, halfbaked attempts to give offense, and vacuous rhetoric for any facts relevant to the reality or otherwise of AGW.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 7:29 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 58 of 177 (585864)
10-10-2010 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
10-09-2010 7:39 PM


crashfrog:
The discussions about climate change are happening at the conferences you so recently lampooned. The discussions about evolution are happening in the offices and labs of biological sciences. If you want to be a part of those discussions, nobody is stopping you but you.
BarackZero:
You said the foregoing in response to this comment I made:
"But that never seems to happen, ever, anywhere."
By "that" I clearly meant the challenges that Global Warming is NOT anthropogenic, the challenge that evolution CANNOT AND DOES NOT explain what it purports to explain.
"THAT" is what I meant, and you know it. That is why you and your friends are so eager to pounce on my every word.
1. The "discussions about evolution" always take place with the firm conviction that nothing else can ever displace descent with modification, top down and bottom up, all the way.
Such discussions never consider, for a second, the countless shortfalls of Darwinism. On the contrary, they are all blinked away, dismissively, derisively. This is anti-scientific as my alleged inability to "wipe Al Gore's ass" in the lovely lexicon of your pal.
2. Likewise "discussions about Climate Change" formerly and recently "Global Warming" are never permitted unless they assume full anthropogenic cause and effect.
Otherwise the dissenter can simply go TRY to "wipe Al Gore's (oversize) ass" and fail miserably at the attempt.
*Science*, Darwin-style.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-09-2010 7:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by frako, posted 10-10-2010 7:52 AM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2010 5:28 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 59 of 177 (585866)
10-10-2010 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by nwr
10-09-2010 7:57 PM


nwr:
I have avoided posting, to reduce the "piling on" problem. However, up to now I don't think anybody has bothered to point out that there is no such thing as "AlGorianism", or that modern evolutionary theory has moved beyond what Darwin proposed and should not be referred to as "Darwinism".
But, hey, if you want to continue your rants, don't let me stop you. At least I can get some good entertainment as I laugh at your public display of gross ignorance. Incidentally, there's good news for you. Ignorance can actually be cured. All you have to do is take the time to actually study the science.
++++++++++++++++++
BarackZero replies to yet another ad hominem attack:
Why don't you tell eminent Darwinist, Michael Ruse, that "Darwinism" is not the appropriate word. His book, published in 1982, by Addison Wesley, was titled "Darwinism Defended."
His remarks are replete with "Darwinism."
Argue with one of your own, please.
Now as to "AlGorianism," it is a fervent belief, and you are one of the apostles. Your ignorance of the creation of new words relevant to discovery and enlightenment is lamentable.
Name one promoter of anthropogenic global warming/climate change who is better known throughout America than Al Gore, and I will change the moniker to that hypocritical individual.
I have studied the science, and with greater scientific and economic acumen than you possess.
The fact is that so many *environmentalists* blather so very much, while personally doing so little of what they insist everyone ELSE do.
Sickening, stunning hypocrisy, a la Al Gore, the master of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nwr, posted 10-09-2010 7:57 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nwr, posted 10-10-2010 10:40 AM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 2:52 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 60 of 177 (585868)
10-10-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 7:37 AM


By "that" I clearly meant the challenges that Global Warming is NOT anthropogenic, the challenge that evolution CANNOT AND DOES NOT explain what it purports to explain.
and yet it is the only explenation that is supported by tones uppon tones of evidence, and any scientist who would disprove evolution and prove something else would get filthy ritch kinda makes you wonder why it hasent been done.
1. The "discussions about evolution" always take place with the firm conviction that nothing else can ever displace descent with modification, top down and bottom up, all the way.
Such discussions never consider, for a second, the countless shortfalls of Darwinism. On the contrary, they are all blinked away, dismissively, derisively. This is anti-scientific as my alleged inability to "wipe Al Gore's ass" in the lovely lexicon of your pal.
all fo the points creation has to offer have been disproven countless of times i am terebly sorry if you creation lexicon does not tell you that, and that scientist have better things to do then point out to every creationist where they are wrong and why.
2. Likewise "discussions about Climate Change" formerly and recently "Global Warming" are never permitted unless they assume full anthropogenic cause and effect.
Otherwise the dissenter can simply go TRY to "wipe Al Gore's (oversize) ass" and fail miserably at the attempt.
*Science*, Darwin-style.
shure they are moste of the ones that try to disprove global warming are using 30 years old data so they are usualy dissmised as loons fakes and money grabbers.
and if you truly do not belive in climate change then either you are to young to notice the change, not out going enough, or not preceptive enough. or you fell in to the dogma that global warming is a scam and you dismiss all the evidence and replace it whit the ones they have from 1980.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 7:37 AM BarackZero 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