I am slowly learning it is pointless to argue with a fencepost. And arguing with some posters is even more of a waste of time.
I know because when they are not indulging in fantastic conspiracy theories that would be enough to make Ian Fleming blush (author of James Bond) They are setting up straw men. No matter how many times you point out it is a straw man they will stick to it like glue - - - Updated - - - I not only refuted your post but showed how erroneous it was
And when you refute an argument they change the peramiter of the argument or try to discredit the very results of the science. The whole scientific community is wrong and they are right. What's up with that?
I like the ones who think that their failed home experiments are more valid than NASA Twits With Opinions but No Knowledge Twonks -says it all really
Well, Gore perhaps. But this old theory is dimming by the day. [video=youtube;nLuBgZ1bgoY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLuBgZ1bgoY[/video]
Monckton!!!!! Oooooh! Dat ees zo.funneeeee!!!! Monckton has zero credibility - which is naturally what comes from being caught out lying through you teeth on everything from climate science to whether or not you are in fact a member of the House of Lords https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/ Oh! And don't waste your money on Moncltons "cures" despite what he claims there is no proof he has the cure for multiple diseases including AIDS
You did no such thing. The difference between indoctrination and education is that with the latter you can argue the science so every discussion does not come down to a battle of wills where the claims of others are parroted about and dedication is measured in terms of how doggedly one sticks to talking points that cannot be defended against real world analysis. Doubt everyone and be skeptical of everything. Facts are tested against the real world it is there that we determine what is true or false. Credentials do not equal qualification. What are their testable predictions? Do they seek out falsification or avoid it. Einstein is a great example. He pushed for testing of his theories. He explained their falsification criteria, he urged testing of them. These charlatans of the carbon-phobic doomsday cult hide data, sue critics and smear and attempt to silence opponents. They've learned to make sure all testable statements are couched in wiesel language or dated to the extent that they cannot be tested in our lifetimes even while our dedication and allegiance is demanded and even commanded to extent they can get away with it. Falling under the sway of a doomsday cult is always tragic. Determine to set yourself free of them. Regain control of your mind and will. Good luck!
You aren't really arguing, you are more parroting talking points you don't understand and then covering your ignorance with condescension. This is very common in the carbon-phobic doomsday cult. The cult leaders practice this, their adherents are impressed by it, so they do their best to ape it. You need to free yourself from these folks. Read some of Karl Popper's books and then go fall in love with the natural world. It's a wonderful place, well worth a lifetime of study and appreciation. And it's quite durable, not the fragile hothouse flowers these false priests of the carbon-phobic doomsday cult claim. You can set yourself free. Do it!
What "science"??? Some invented fantasy straw man created out of a patchwork of cut out pieces of rubbish? Show me some actual science - eg give me an alternative explanation as to what is causing global temperature change and climate instability
Hmmm yes - you can watch Alpine environments shrink and die, Coral reefs bleach and die, forests become infected with fungi which would normally be killed by lower temperatures, bees become infected and die to name but a few Got an explanation for all of those?
I have a small hobby farm and I mimic nature in every endeavor. I take special pleasure in watching the hummingbirds come back every spring and keeping the honeybees alive by not using insectides on my plants. Everything is no till and I also mimic nature by having my soil covered at all times. I use no synthetic fertilizers , fungicides, or pesticides. The land I use to graze my animals was cleared by animals. People always compliment my gardens and flowers. I don't destroy natural systems by trying to force my will on nature. The payoff is the fact that nature rewards me with abundance.
If you have time look at the evidence that is surfacing about how our Aboriginal people "farmed" here in Australia. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...igenous-australia's-agricultural-past/5452454 It is fascinating stuff with a message of how to live in harmony with a land for over 60,000 years
I have no doubt that the native inhabitants of Australia managed the land. It is the same here with our native Americans. In fact the natives here gave us corn (maize). The English that settled in Massachusetts would not have survived without the help of the natives. They even used controlled burning to renew Buffalo grass and burnt undergrowth in woodlands to keep down forest fires. Our Thanksgiving holiday celebrates this.
I know - difference being your natives were recognised for doing this whereas ours....... We have an embarrassingly awful record when it comes to indigenous interaction
Worse Arsenic in the flour Watch a movie called "Rabbit Proof Fence" but you might want to restrain yourself for wanting to smack Kenneth Branagh across the face because his character is such a ............. But because of "Terra Nullis" they were not considered human and until the 1967 referendum were not counted in the census because they were classified and counted under the Fauna and Flora act. A friend who is indigenous was married to a non-indigenous man. He had to apply to the government for permission to go out with her and he had to apply under the fauna and flora act of QLD Bloody shameful
The same thing that always causes global temperature change. We are in an inter-glacial, within an ice-age. The inter-glacial alternates between warming and cooling but modest enough that the ice age that has been in place for 2.58 million years continues with no signs of ending. Frankly, if I could decide such things, I'd like to see the ice age end, but, given the current continental configuration I have little hope for that. The last little ice-age ended in about 1850 and it's warmed a bit since then, which sensible folks are thankful for.
And the science backing this assertion? Where are your references? Where is your research? What are you basing this on?
You were not clear on what you were disputing: i) We are in an inter-glacial, within an ice-age. ii) The inter-glacial alternates between warming and cooling but modest enough that the ice age that has been in place for 2.58 million years continues with no signs of ending. iii)The last little ice-age ended in about 1850 and it's warmed a bit since then, which sensible folks are thankful for. You have a google search bar, you can easily verify any of those statements, quickly and from as many sources as you wish. These three statements are not in dispute.
reference required reference required reference required Why should I do your work for you? Did the teacher of your science class fill in the references for you in your assignments? If you insist on scientific debat then follow the rules of academia - for every claim you make have a source and a reference - or be proven wrong before you start
Sure. https://www.google.com/search?q=We+...e.&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=The...llion+years+continues+with+no+signs+of+ending. https://www.google.com/search?q=he+...50&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Academic level referencing required to meet the standards of science It is obvious you are unaware of what that entails - strange for someone claiming to have a science degree. See I learnt long ago that when denialists accuse people of not looking at the science usually that meant that they had no idea what science means. Science is researching answers not waving your hands in the air and saying "the answer is out there somewhere"!!!! But to do this correctly one must formulate the question correctly. Are we currently in an interglacial period? You might think that the answer is obvious because we are not experiencing what has been called "snowball earth" but to answer that fully one has to ask "What caused previous glacial phenomena and are they present at the moment". Then one has to ask "what was the average global temperatures during those periods?" Does it correlate with what we are seeing today - both in absolutes and in time periods of change? And even then we are not finished with this first section of the claim because we have not addressed GLOBAL change. Academic approach otherwise do not accuse members of not understanding the science
