A quick word on blocking ads
It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
Interesting that you're now responding with proper punctuation and grammar. What provoked that I wonder, Max?
Um...was that question serious? I said "bra" once, you repeated it nearly a half-dozen times. As with the userID attack you aped with hamhanded non-eloquence. C'mon dude, are you for real?
You throw ad hominem attack like a teenage momma's boy. Please point out where you've made a logical refutation of anything I've said. Or offered counter evidence. Or research. Or anything beyond personal attack (e.g., "armchair scientists", "retards.")
Spend a little time understanding elementary school logic instead of elementary school namecalling.
To have an intelligent discussion one must possess both intellectual honesty and the ability to exercise linear logic. You have neither. This is the reason why a) you rant and b) no one takes you seriously. And comically, the two feed upon each other like a tantrum of infantilism where you bang your rattle because no one's listening so you bang your rattle which causes no one to listen so you bang your rattle…Sad and funny at the same time.
I thought Canadian schools had higher standards. But please hit me with a friend request. I'd like to keep track of wherever you end up building bridges so I may adjust my route accordingly.
LOL! Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back yet sport. You never TRIED to open an "avenue for discussion." If you can bend your massive brain to examine your initial post, it was simply a school-yard attack bereft of any "avenues of discussion." Perhaps the weed you're not smoking is frying the fragile remains of your "far more complex" intellect.
The only one here "ignoring the question" is you, chief Here's the tally:
# of Mr. 666's challenges to presented evidence: 0
# of Mr. 666's challenges to expert opions: 0
# of Mr. 666's challenges to exposed fallacies in GW: 0
# of fattys smoked when Mr. 666's should've been studying: 147
I do love "I understand logic on a far more complex scale than you will likely encounter in[sic] the rest of your life." Can you autograph that on a bong for me?
The work of science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics, science requires only one investigator to be right, to have verifiable and repeatable results. In science consensus is irrelevant. What IS relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Do a little bit of research you lazy fuck. The names and dates are there. Just ask mommy how to use the search bar when she comes down to your basement command center during a WoW break.
(BTW, I provided a few links too. Just take your wank hand out of your panties and click on them.)
Ugh. Now I have to school you on what a Conspiracy Theory is? Max, Global Warming IS the conspiracy theory. Conspiracy Theory deals with large and/or hidden threats. um...THAT'S Global Warming. It's nonsense to say that someone debunking a made-up threat is a "conspiracy theorist." That's like you being called a conspiracy theorist for attacking the nonsense government/mafia JFK murder plots.
BTW, you started the ad hominem attack. Now all of a sudden you're pussing out after you're getting your ass handed to you?!? lol
LOL! Are you related to Maxy boy? You both start out with a personal attack and then go all Mary on us when it's thrown back in your face (remember the "fuck off" comment, chief?)
And boy do you have things backwards. It's the GW alarmists who refuse to allow peer-review and shut out contrary points. Ever hear of a little something called Climate Gate my man? One of the faux scientists who started this whole GW hoax LOST HIS JOB because of it. I'll post it again here for the lazy:
Climategate e-mails made public in November ’10 that showed how top-level climate scientists distorted research, plotted to destroy data and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting views. "The University of East Anglia breached Britain's Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. Disgraced professor Phil Jones lost his job when it was discovered he pressured others to delete the data."
-The Times of London, 1/28/2010
Got it? That was YOUR boys who destroyed research.
YOUR boys who prevented peer review.
YOUR boys who distorted temperature data.
Finally, GW isn't new. And of course you don't know this because you get all your news from Eminem or a ranting coffee-house radical. It was brought up before the "Global Cooling" scare of the 70s. Remember that?
There really is no hope trying to convince you of the truth ("I suspect I will not find anything relevant in there.") I know I can't confuse you with facts, as your mind is already made up. But I AM convincing tons of silent readers of this thread who otherwise would believe in this hoax. And that is immensely satisfying.
lol More people are denying it because Global Warming is a fake. I guess that means it's not even a "consensus" anymore. Actually it's you who cannot read, or understand, or respond to a single article I posted. Still waiting on that Maxy boy...
Are you buying or selling?
Let me guess, buying. You sassy boy...
Wikipedia! LOL!! You obviously are a man who loves bullshit. Let me enlighten you on something:
The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its Website's reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their 10 things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is: "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this."
Thus "wikipedia" admits it can't be trusted. Nice job.
But thank you for admitting you're an anti-freedom free-speech hating anarchist/communist/whatever. Why don't you man up and emigrate to N. Korea, and stop being a hypocritical coward?
(Here's more evidence for you to ignore: One of Australia's foremost Earth scientists, Ian Plimer, exposes GW as fraud. The book is FIVE-HUNDRED pages. It has over TWO-THOUSAND footnotes: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-climate-of-conformity-20090412-a3ya.html?page=-1)
Well you showed a pic of your mom and I thought tranny. Sorry, bra.
LOL! That implicates yourself, since a bomb-throwing anarchist/communist/whatever like yourself endorses the GW hoax. Are we to now disbelieve in GW? lol
Your critique is quoted from a "computer scientist" at an unknown university in the backwater of Oz. He's as much a climatologist as you are, my fascist friend. And once again, where's the critique of all my other evidence? <crickets chirp>
You think you make a point by putting up an opinion piece by a non-climatologist and then bask in self-congratulatory piety as if you've just won a pissing contest. I think you scored more points with "fuck you."
If you want to talk about being non-objective, however, we need look no further than the IPCC, the UN leaders of the GW movement - a body utterly biased from inception. The IPCC was formed in 1988 with the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” -- i.e. its main goal is based on the assumption of “human-induced climate change” – there was never an attempt to evaluate the scientific evidence of the cause. Although the IPCC always makes statements regarding the definite human causation and upcoming disaster, it has never provided substantial scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause. The only evidence provided is a correlation with CO2 since 1950, but mainly the output of computer models. Solar irradiance is not incorporated. Precipitation is not incorporated.
I've exposed as frauds both your sources (Wikipedia, and "Tim Lambert the CompSci Guy"), and then provided even more evidence. You however have not addressed the vast bulk of mine. But the real point is most people have figured out this hoax for what it is, and eco-conspiracy nuts like you are left holding the smoking shards of another failure. In time global warming will take its place in the museum of hysteria alongside overpopulation, nuclear winter, and Y2k.
When you're old and on to another quack theory someone will ask "Didn't you believe in that global warming crap?" And you'll say "Concerned people like me solved it!" The same thing you said when killer bees, Y2k, and global cooling were exposed as frauds and forgotten. Of course it won't be fun ignoring the laughter, but with increasing practice I'm sure you're getting used to it.
No, you just didn't understand simple analogy.
Just like deduction, induction, climatology, and free speech.
Mr. "666", I once thought you were a dishonest idiot, but now I know you're just an idiot. You can neither follow nor understand a simple train of thought. Along with the fool from Oz, you can't comprehend the simple analogy used to show that his indictment of those praising a scientist's book as "non-scientists" can also be used to indict his own praise of his own sources. Got it? No? Didn't think so.
You're other idiocy is our grade-school foolishness of making an out-of-context quote of the article I just provided. Yes the article mentioned your selective quote, but it was talking about temperature measurements in Austria, NOT Professor Don Easterbrook's work , and NOT the point of the article. If you would've taken a bong break and read just the next paragraph you'd read the following:
"But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics. According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth’s hottest recorded year was 1998. If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.
Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man’s abuse of the environment. Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon – global cooling."
Mr. "666", you are an example of the willful eco-nuts that still cling to the Global Warming hoax. Meanwhile the rest of us have moved on. Want proof?
A U.K. poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June 2007 - found most people believed scientists were still questioning climate change and thought the problem was exaggerated to make money. The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog messes were all of greater concern than the global warming hoax.
And another: "Only 37% would support a cap-and-trade bill that raises their utility bill by just $10 per month, even if it meant a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions." (Associated Press-Stanford University Poll, November 29,2009.)
See? You've already lost. You're like the nutty japanese holdouts found on isolated islands 30 years after WWII was over still "fighting" in the jungle.
I'm glad you're still posting so we can all enjoy your antics and see you for what you are: a clown prancing at the edge of a society that ignores you utterly.
P.S. I'm still waiting for you to address the mountain of other sources I've provided. <crickets chirp>
Um....you're not arguing anything, sport. You're just spewing schoolyard names like the child you are, returning again and again because you've never gotten over the thrashing I've given you. I'm calling shenanigans on your claim of being an "engineering student. I don't think you're even in college. But I am glad that you're in Canada so my tax dollars won't be supporting your welfare ride. (Does your mommy know you're impersonating a productive member of society?)
I'm still waiting for you to contest any of my references on the globaloney warning hoax. <crickets chirp>
You're other idiocy is your grade-school foolishness of making an out-of-context quote of the article I just provided. Yes the article mentioned your selective quote, but it was talking about temperature measurements in Austria, NOT Professor Don Easterbrook's work , and NOT the point of the article. If you would've taken a bong break and read just the next paragraph you'd read the following:
"But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics. According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth’s hottest recorded year was 1998. If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.
Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man’s abuse of the environment. Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon – global cooling."
Mr. "666", you are an example of the willful eco-nuts that still cling to the Global Warming hoax. Meanwhile the rest of us have moved on. Want proof?
A U.K. poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June 2007 - found most people believed scientists were still questioning climate change and thought the problem was exaggerated to make money. The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog messes were all of greater concern than the global warming hoax.
And another: "Only 37% would support a cap-and-trade bill that raises their utility bill by just $10 per month, even if it meant a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions." (Associated Press-Stanford University Poll, November 29,2009.)
See? You've already lost. You're like the nutty japanese holdouts found on isolated islands 30 years after WWII was over still "fighting" in the jungle.
I'm glad you're still posting so we can all enjoy your antics and see you for what you are: a clown prancing at the edge of a society that ignores you utterly.
P.S. I'm still waiting for you to address the mountain of other sources I've provided. <crickets chirp>
lol
WUT?
As there is no hope of you graduating college with this sort of laughable idiocy I think your time would be better spent knitting a bong cozy out of all the term papers you failed. You can even start an eBay biz with it as the supply will be nigh inexhaustable.
