+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 28 of 38 FirstFirst ... 18242526272829303132 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 376

Thread: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

  1. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_ View Post
    Sieg Heil!

    So what is difference between a neo Nazi and a person who calls himself ‘the overwhelming majority of the scientific community'?

    Like it is impossible to tell one neo-Nazi from another it is impossible to tell one overwhelming majority of the scientific community from another one.

    Fascism is a lie told by bullies, - E. Hemingway.
    AGW is a lie told by bullies, I hope any decent person can see that.
    Prime example of outright rejection of data

    BTW thanks for enacting Godwin's law -

    [QUOTE]"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
    /QUOTE]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

    So instead of addressing why so many scientists in so many countries throughout the world have stated they believe AGW is real you have retreated into Reductio ad Hitlerum as sure a sign of losing an argument as Ad Hominems
    "Capitalise your gains and socialise your losses might make sense to a few, especially the few who wish to exploit others without repercussions but it does not make for a good or healthy society
    “There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” ― Terry Pratchett

  2. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowerbird View Post
    Prime example of outright rejection of data

    I always give consideration to data. And so I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowerbird View Post
    BTW thanks for enacting Godwin's law -

    "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
    /QUOTE]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
    According to wiki and you, nobody and no group has, expresses, promotes and enacts Hitler’s and Nazi’s ideologies and views. You can bully other comrades of yours with your logic. I don’t do logic. I do facts. The fact is that according to wiki and you, nobody has, expresses, promotes and enacts Hitler’s and Nazi’s ideologies and views. Any honest person can make his own logical conclusion from the fact stated by me. I don’t bully anyone into my logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowerbird View Post
    So instead of addressing why so many scientists in so many countries throughout the world have stated they believe AGW is real you have retreated into Reductio ad Hitlerum as sure a sign of losing an argument as Ad Hominems



    I have listed 11 arguments of warmers. I’ve trying to see if I can bring the warmers ot the level of Ellochka the cannibal. I am still looking for one warmer who’d show to be equal in intelligence to a member of MumboJumbo tribe.

    " http://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/ilf_petrov_12_chairs_engl.txt

    CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
    ELLOCHKA THE CANNIBAL

    William Shakespeare's vocabulary has been estimated by the experts at twelve thousand words. The vocabulary of a Negro from the Mumbo Jumbo tribe amounts to three hundred words.
    Ellochka Shukin managed easily and fluently on thirty.
    Here are the words, phrases and interjections which she fastidiously picked from the great, rich and expressive Russian language:
    1. You're being vulgar.
    2. Ho-ho (expresses irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and satisfaction, according to the circumstances).
    3. Great!
    4. Dismal (applied to everything-for example: "dismal Pete has arrived", "dismal weather", or a "dismal cat").
    5. Gloom.
    6. Ghastly (for example: when meeting a close female acquaintance, "a ghastly meeting").
    7. Kid (applied to all male acquaintances, regardless of age or social position).
    8. Don't tell me how to live!
    9. Like a babe ("I whacked him like a babe" when playing cards, or "I brought him down like a babe," evidently when talking to a legal tenant).
    10.Ter-r-rific!
    11. Fat and good-looking (used to describe both animate and
    inanimate objects).
    12. Let's go by horse-cab (said to her husband).
    13. Let's go by taxi (said to male acquaintances).
    14. You're all white at the back! (joke).
    15. Just imagine!
    16. Ula (added to a name to denote affection-for example: Mishula, Zinula).
    17. Oho! (irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and
    satisfaction)." The extraordinary small number of words remaining were used as connecting links between Ellochka and department-store assistants.".



    When Ellochka the cannibal managed easily and fluently on thirty, all warmists' bullying arguments may be brought down to less then a dozen

    1. You don’t understand science (evolution) (climate)(Marxism), don’t you?
    2. You should get some education.
    3. 97% of scientists are wrong and you are right?
    4. 97% of scientists believe in global warming.
    5. read this:
    somethingImyslefcannotundersta ndbutitisfrommyside. com.NASA.gov
    6. You really think it is a conspiracy?
    7. scientists can be easily bough by oil companies money, scientists cannot be bought by government’s money extracted from taxpayers. Oil and government use different money.
    8. …. Not too many more are there
    …. [ I am working on it]
    13. You have submitted 12 equations; IF I prove (using arguments listed above) that one of them is wrong, will you accept that others are wrong?
    14. I did not say that
    15. You have not proven anything.




    I tried to make it easy for you and other evolutionists.

    Instead of typing all the lines you could just type, - 3.


    You are not interested to know why “so many scientists in so many countries throughout the world have stated they believe AGW”. Not at all. The truth is - not so many scientists in not so many countries throughout the world have stated they believe AGW, but a very few did. Only the overwhelming majority of the scientific community did. But you are not interested in any truth.
    Last edited by _Inquisitor_; Feb 16 2012 at 07:41 PM.
    Hypotheses non fingo

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_ View Post
    Upon your confirmation that I understand your post correctly, I may choose to stay and continue exposing the overwhelming majority of the scientific community....
    LOLOLOLOLOL....so...you may choose to continue to grace us with your illuminating presence, eh....here's a hint....nobody cares.....your ignorant clueless posts are content free, off-topic and totally meaningless to the debate....feel free to get lost - (if I'm understanding your threat correctly)....'cause, honestly, flat out, nobody cares about your silly drivel or whether you stay or go....since you add nothing of any substance, it can't possibly make any difference....
    "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
    that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

    -- John Kenneth Galbraith

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_ View Post
    question # 1.

    Did climate experts of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change inform governments of Europe about the effects of AGW expected by them?

    Re: http://www.politicalforum.com/enviro...-hundreds.html

    Compare:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

    It has proven to be loaded by nailing the overwhelming majority of the scientific community again and again.

    I have no further questions. I don't think any honest and decent person does. Undecent and dishonest will go in circles endlessly and never answer a simple question.

    I rest my case.
    Ironically, you didn't answer any of the questions I asked you...And yes, your posts are the perfect example of a loaded question.

  6. #275

    Default

    Why should we really care if Man is causing any global climate change, if climate change is normal and natural for our Earth?

    In my opinion, we should be better off striving for more perfect knowledge of those arts and sciences which can enable us to create habitable environments, any where on Earth.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    Why should we really care if Man is causing any global climate change, if climate change is normal and natural for our Earth?

    In my opinion, we should be better off striving for more perfect knowledge of those arts and sciences which can enable us to create habitable environments, any where on Earth.
    Simple minded ignorance doesn't help. Your question there doesn't make any sense. You ask: "if Man is causing any global climate change" and then you turn around and claim that "climate change is normal and natural". If mankind is causing it, then it isn't "normal and natural". If we're causing climate changes, then we definitely should care and we should definitely try to stop doing whatever we're doing that is causing the climate changes. The Earth has undergone many changes in climate due to natural forces but that doesn't mean that all climate changes have to caused by natural forces. In the case of the abrupt warming trend the Earth is now experiencing, the world scientific community is telling us that the causes are not natural, rather they are a result of mankind's activities - primarily deforestation and the burning off into the atmosphere of millions of years of fossil carbon deposits in only a century or so.

    It's like you're trying to claim that because, for hundreds of millions of years, all forest fires were started by natural forces, like lightning strikes, then all current forest fires that happen can't possibly be caused by mankind. That's obviously absurd. We know better. Similarly, climate scientists know that the current abrupt warming trend has mankind's 'fingerprints' on it and is not being produced by natural forces.
    "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
    that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

    -- John Kenneth Galbraith

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by livefree View Post
    Simple minded ignorance doesn't help. Your question there doesn't make any sense. You ask: "if Man is causing any global climate change" and then you turn around and claim that "climate change is normal and natural". If mankind is causing it, then it isn't "normal and natural". If we're causing climate changes, then we definitely should care and we should definitely try to stop doing whatever we're doing that is causing the climate changes. The Earth has undergone many changes in climate due to natural forces but that doesn't mean that all climate changes have to caused by natural forces. In the case of the abrupt warming trend the Earth is now experiencing, the world scientific community is telling us that the causes are not natural, rather they are a result of mankind's activities - primarily deforestation and the burning off into the atmosphere of millions of years of fossil carbon deposits in only a century or so.

    It's like you're trying to claim that because, for hundreds of millions of years, all forest fires were started by natural forces, like lightning strikes, then all current forest fires that happen can't possibly be caused by mankind. That's obviously absurd. We know better. Similarly, climate scientists know that the current abrupt warming trend has mankind's 'fingerprints' on it and is not being produced by natural forces.
    You wouldn't need to use the word If 'if' this.."the world scientific community is telling us" were actually true.
    “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

    “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

  9. #278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RPA1 View Post
    You wouldn't need to use the word If 'if' this.."the world scientific community is telling us" were actually true.
    It is and anyone who can read and understand science knows this
    "Capitalise your gains and socialise your losses might make sense to a few, especially the few who wish to exploit others without repercussions but it does not make for a good or healthy society
    “There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” ― Terry Pratchett

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_ View Post
    I asked 3 simple questions a while ago. The questions were about particular happenings in All of Europe, Russia, Turkey, parts of China and Japan. I referred to Nobel Prize winner Ernest Hemingway in order to clarify the nature of the questions and my position, which were in line with the position of the old fighter with fascism.

    Warmers replied to me with 6 posts. None of the posts did attempt to answer the simplest questions, but Warmers went into all kinds of insinuations, personal attacks, deflections and attempts to pervert my view and defend the Nazi’s view on the death toll. They have been trying to bully me. As Hemingway noticed fascism is a lie told by bullies.

    I think that any decent man can see that direct and honest answer to the questions would live no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community represent more danger than skinheads and neo Nazis. The fierce attempt of Neo Nazis to escape from these questions is an extra proof that the answer exposes their true nature, true intentions and motivations. I think they themselves realized that. As Hemingway noticed “There are many who do not know they are fascists but will find it out when the time comes.”

    Now, when I said that I had enough you come up with… what ? an answer?

    Please confirm that I understand you correctly, that your answer is, -

    1.Yes, they did,
    2.here are links proving that they did,
    3.and here is my additional explanations/clarifications.

    Upon your confirmation that I understand your post correctly, I may choose to stay and continue exposing the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and you to yourself and to the general public, to any carpenter or electrician or a rocket designer in a simple and clear way, so that everyone can see that AGW is a lie told by bullies, old trivial fascism. When I was 16 Hemingway was one of my favorite authors. I feel like paying tribute to him.
    No, you did not actually ask three questions. You made three statements that were followed by question marks. And then you asked one loaded question, that contained a false assumption.

    So when you were 16 Hemingway was one of your favorite authors, and now that you're past 50 you're reading Glenn Beck. How the mighty have fallen.

    The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
    1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
    Diethelm & Mckee 2009

    Honesty is not on the list.



  11. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by livefree View Post
    Simple minded ignorance doesn't help. Your question there doesn't make any sense. You ask: "if Man is causing any global climate change" and then you turn around and claim that "climate change is normal and natural". If mankind is causing it, then it isn't "normal and natural". If we're causing climate changes, then we definitely should care and we should definitely try to stop doing whatever we're doing that is causing the climate changes. The Earth has undergone many changes in climate due to natural forces but that doesn't mean that all climate changes have to caused by natural forces. In the case of the abrupt warming trend the Earth is now experiencing, the world scientific community is telling us that the causes are not natural, rather they are a result of mankind's activities - primarily deforestation and the burning off into the atmosphere of millions of years of fossil carbon deposits in only a century or so.

    It's like you're trying to claim that because, for hundreds of millions of years, all forest fires were started by natural forces, like lightning strikes, then all current forest fires that happen can't possibly be caused by mankind. That's obviously absurd. We know better. Similarly, climate scientists know that the current abrupt warming trend has mankind's 'fingerprints' on it and is not being produced by natural forces.
    You may have missed the point, does it really matter if it is natural or not, if climate changes regardless? We already know climate changes even without Man's input. Shouldn't it be considered more rational to discover more perfect knowledge of structures which can ameliorate the effects of climate change, rather than simply play shell games with Statism?

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 28 of 38 FirstFirst ... 18242526272829303132 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I agree with Global Warming SCIENCE, but not Global Warmign POLICY, they are not same
    By SiliconMagician in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Aug 03 2014, 05:18 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct 23 2011, 08:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks