- This topic has 29 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 3 months ago by
basilfawlty.
-
CreatorTopic
-
February 15, 2019 at 20:07 #10616
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
February 15, 2019 at 20:08 #10617February 15, 2019 at 20:55 #10618
Desert_Fox
Participant::Too much CO2 is good for you like deep water is good for a man who is drowning.
God, you are such a fucking idiot to 1) either believe the shit you post or 2) dumb enough to think anyone with any sense will believe the shit you post.
". . . those who claim to know the Mind of God, who will tell you what God thinks and how He will judge and condemn others—those people are the greatest of all blasphemers." Aloysius Xingu Leng Pendergast
February 15, 2019 at 21:20 #10619Gale
Participant::Too much CO2 is good for you like deep water is good for a man who is drowning. God, you are such a fucking idiot to 1) either believe the shit you post or 2) dumb enough to think anyone with any sense will believe the shit you post.
Dunning-Kruger Effect strikes again.
“I take no responsibility at all.” Donald Trump
“Anyone who wants a test can get a test.” Donald TrumpFebruary 15, 2019 at 21:51 #10620Participant::I recently saw a rerun of Two And A Half Men where Alan has met a girl and has had sex for the first time in a long time and now wants to surprise the girl by taking her to Las Vegas for a quickie wedding. Alan and Evelyn, their mother, keep hitting Alan on the forehead to get his attention that what he is doing is stupid. It doesn’t work and the only thing that derails the plan is when the girl calls Alan to tell him that her husband came home unexpectedly.
Gruel reminds me of Alan needing to be hit in the head, but like Alan I doubt that it would work.
". . . those who claim to know the Mind of God, who will tell you what God thinks and how He will judge and condemn others—those people are the greatest of all blasphemers." Aloysius Xingu Leng Pendergast
February 15, 2019 at 22:19 #10621ParticipantFebruary 16, 2019 at 13:13 #10647Gur
Participant::I had thought the uber-sensitive crapricorn would have allowed this thread to remain in the ‘climate change’ section. No explanation as to why it was moved.
Gale correctly pointed out that CO2 is not an element. My bad – in haste i mislabeled it in the opening post.
Madam Renfro vomits his usual stench – doesn’t specifically counter any thing covered in the short video. He implies that either I or the video narrator state that ‘too much CO2 is good for you’. I didn’t say that, nor does the video narrator. Typical b.s. from the Madam.
I think the lefty wackos object to my characterization of the IPCC and affiliated politicians and SJWs as “grifters”. Their goal IS to take control of economy, business, energy, etc. Do the wackobirds deny that that is what will happen if the ‘climate change’ mob succeeds?
In the video (about the 3:30 mark) the advantage of increased CO2 levels is discussed. The statement is made that satellite imagery shows the increased greening of the planet, attributed to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is probably what the ‘science is settled’ grubership objects to – rising CO2 levels are bad, Bad, BAD!!!!! Und Ve Must Kontrol der Planet for your protection!!!!
Anyways, i thought that the video was short enough so that even the mentally deficient could watch it – and then make reasoned if contrary responses to what was shown. But things never change with the brainwashed – they know what they’ve been propagandized with. And so things continue as usual on the DEBATEZ forum….
Livin' in the Gulag...
February 16, 2019 at 14:53 #10652Participant::Why would I counter the video when hundreds if not thousands of learned persons, climatologists and other scientists debunk the deniers? You can always find some hack that will offer a denial of truth due to political or monetary reasons, sometimes both, but the denials are overwhelmed by those learned persons mentioned, both from this country and throughout the world.
If you were interested in the truth you wouldn’t be a trumpturd.
". . . those who claim to know the Mind of God, who will tell you what God thinks and how He will judge and condemn others—those people are the greatest of all blasphemers." Aloysius Xingu Leng Pendergast
February 16, 2019 at 22:07 #10672Participant::The hucksters pushing the ‘Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change’ hysteria are doing it for political and monetary reasons. That 0.01% stand to benefit immensely while the other 99.99% of us are screwed. Kind of gives them the motive to propagandize, lie, smear, bribe & corrupt & co-opt ‘learned persons’ to achieve their agenda.
What do those who oppose the Climate Change thugs gain? Ridicule, ostracization, blacklisting, defunding, etc.
So which group would be more inclined to lie and promote a scam?
Tonite i ran across the following on the internet. Found out more details about CO2 that i will post later.
2019: The IPCC Anthropogenic Global Warming Fraud and Those Who Profit From It?
2018: Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas…..The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first….. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?
The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda….
2015: ‘Global warming the greatest scam in history’ claims founder of Weather Channel
2009: Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
2009: IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud
2011: Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming
Livin' in the Gulag...
February 16, 2019 at 22:58 #10673Participant::What fucking bullshit. Where do you get your figures from? Oh wait, let me guess; a Koch Brothers bought and paid for scientist of disreputable reputation.
What great wealth do you think the thousands of scientists around the world will reap? Who is going to pay them? What political agenda do they have other than to have a habitable planet?
Yes, you can find a paltry amount of those who will deny climate change but not nearly as many climatologists who say they are full of shit. Oh wait, all of those thousands are being paid for by. . . whom?
If you were any more full of shit I’d have to call you Harpo. As it is you are certainly a fucking fool.
". . . those who claim to know the Mind of God, who will tell you what God thinks and how He will judge and condemn others—those people are the greatest of all blasphemers." Aloysius Xingu Leng Pendergast
February 16, 2019 at 23:07 #10674Participant::https://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/our-programs/climate-science
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (You remember NASA, the people that put a man on the moon and brought him back home?)
https://www.arrcc.org.au/talking_about_climate_change
https://www.ted.com/playlists/78/climate_change_oh_it_s_real
https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/
Would you like more Gruel? There are dozens.
". . . those who claim to know the Mind of God, who will tell you what God thinks and how He will judge and condemn others—those people are the greatest of all blasphemers." Aloysius Xingu Leng Pendergast
February 18, 2019 at 11:12 #10731Participant::Ben Strauss, PHD is CEO & Chief Scientist of the ‘Climate Science Team’ at ‘Climate Central’ (from the first link Desert Fox posted ). He’s a big pusher of ‘dangerous sea-level is rising’ – at least that is the impression i got by searching on DuckDuckGo for his name – 3 pages most of which mentioned his ‘science-is-settled’ claim of ‘sea-level rising’….and advocating for pre-emptive measures to mitigate that oncoming crisis, i.e., more taxpayer money to be funneled to the ‘climate change’ mob who can deal with it, Solyndra like.
So a quick search for ‘sea level rise hoax’ provides the info to debunk Ben, via showing that NASA’s claims about the same thing are fraudulent (and which also discredits NASA as an authoritative ‘science’ venue ).
Dec 6, 2015: NASA Sea Level Fraud
Forbes interviewd Dr. Fred Singer about this stuff. The IPCC and other climate hustlers hate the guy – no doubt as to why.
Sep 24, 2013: Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims….
So then, how does IPCC arrive at its alarmist conclusions?
When in doubt, and they always are, they just make them up based upon hypothetical models that have yet to comply with observed conditions. And as for those models, it’s important to realize that no overall sea level change theory encompassing thermal expansion of oceans, melting of mountain glaciers, and changes, both positive and negative, of Greenland and Antarctic sheets even exists.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have no doubt whatsoever that there are dozens of websites/reports/etc. doing their bit to propagandize the ‘climate change’ scenario. Trillions of dollars for the taking if they can pull it off. They’re pretty adaptable in their phrasing of ‘threats’: global cooling, global warming, climate change, whatever…. And at least 97% of their ‘climate models’ are rigged via tweaking the data relied on or the assumptions used. All fail ‘hindcasting’.
If we checked out the other links DF posted, imo those would also be shown the same: a veneer of ‘scientific authority’ based on fraud, manipulated data/models, and driven by a political agenda to gain control over businesses, economies, nations, governments, the world.
Ya gotta be as dumb as a desert fox to fall for that bilge….unless you’ve colluded with Russia or just knew Hillary would win by 345 electoral votes or….or….or….
Livin' in the Gulag...
February 18, 2019 at 14:37 #10738Participant::The science deniers are outnumbered by what; 100 to 1?
You can post your silly little sources but they have the same credibility that you do. You agree with them because it suits your political biased agenda and has nothing to do with reality.
". . . those who claim to know the Mind of God, who will tell you what God thinks and how He will judge and condemn others—those people are the greatest of all blasphemers." Aloysius Xingu Leng Pendergast
February 18, 2019 at 20:34 #10753Participant::Madam Renfro, a wanna-be Alinski-ite, throws in ‘science denier’ to prop up his strawman statistic of ‘100 to 1’. And then wants to minimize the concerns of genuine scientists that have concluded that the AGW/climate change movement is based on pure krapola ( that’s probably why the Madam is infatuated with it ).
And what is the Madam’s biased political agenda? Does the dimwit have any conception as to the immense chaos & damage resulting from the climate hustle punks taking control of things? Not at all – he just has the smug belief that a global nanny state run to benefit the scam perpetrators is a wonderful paradigm. And the overwhelming immense debt that would be levied on current & future generations is copacetic….
The swill-chugger has long-term issues caused by his encounter with the justice system, and wants to -somehow- get payback. Anything good for the U.S. in the long term, he opposes. Just like every other socialistic snot who thinks he’s better than those he deigns to rule over.
Anyway, might not be ‘100 to 1’…..
31,487 Scientists sign petition against ‘climate change’ scam
CLIMATE REALIST DECLARATION TOPS 1,100 ENDORSERS – ridicules ‘climate change’ scam
300 Professional petition President Trump to Withdraw from the UN Convention on Climate Change
Livin' in the Gulag...
February 18, 2019 at 21:30 #10754Participant::Your hilariously inaccurate and ad homonym written posturing aside, once again you use incredibly false facts and incredible (read that as non credible) sources.
Just one example from your last link:
An April 30, 2012 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.” Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen’s views “Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
A 1996 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Jerry D. Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen’s assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had “sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound.” Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a “formidable opponent”. William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as “courageous”. He said, “A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing”. He added that while he regarded some of Lindzen’s views as flawed, he said that, “across the board he’s generally very good”. John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are “relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is”.
The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is “willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now”. However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that “Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds”.
The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.
Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues. Lindzen’s graduate students describe him as “fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak.”
The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. However, when asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Company documentary, Lindzen said that while “the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good … the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[85]), on the other hand “With first-hand smoke it’s a more interesting issue … The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people’s susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to.” Again, when asked to clarify his position by a climate skeptic blogger, Lindzen wrote, “there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order … the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma.”
Your ability to out yourself as a fucking fool is matched only by Harpo but I think you may actually be gaining on him.
As a side note; your miss-characterizations of me really have only one effect on me; they make me laugh at how stupid you are. Keep them coming, they are as good as Harpo’s bets.
". . . those who claim to know the Mind of God, who will tell you what God thinks and how He will judge and condemn others—those people are the greatest of all blasphemers." Aloysius Xingu Leng Pendergast
February 19, 2019 at 08:30 #10760Participant::No, miss, there have been no ‘miss-characterizations’ of your self-aggrandizement and imbecility. You reference other opinions that align with your delusions but continuously fail to use validated facts – as there are none – that support your views.
I intended for this thread to be about CO2, particularly as it is present in the atmosphere – the amount/sources for it in comparison to all other gases, its effect on any ‘warming’, what the costs would be to reduce the levels, the benefits/adverse consequences of it, and so forth.
There are some basic climate science terms re CO2 that i want to understand ( and most likely have never been considered by the Madam ) that are relevant. And that was another area i still plan to investigate and detail.
But that part of the discussion has been put on hold while the mental midget Renfro runs rampant, squalling and pouting about his own misanthropy.
The pusillanimous Madam Renfro has brought his traveling hate-fest to this thread, proving once again that his only contribution to a discussion is bloviating nonsense. As an aside, his misuse of the English language provides some laughs ( ad homonym vs. ad hominem ). And his use of profanity is as vile and vulgar as is he – a testament to a life wasted in the pursuit of the lowest of life styles, and with which he cannot express himself. He should just stick with re-re-reading the stacks of fiction books he enjoys, and leave the real world to the realists.
Livin' in the Gulag...
February 19, 2019 at 09:02 #10761basilfawlty
ParticipantFebruary 19, 2019 at 13:12 #10764Participant::About 33% of the U.S. is forest – Sweden is about 70%
More desert areas. More susceptible to insect damage. Using forest land for other purposes. Pollution. Fires. Mismanagement. Drought conditions.
Not enough CO2…..
Livin' in the Gulag...
February 19, 2019 at 14:55 #10765ParticipantFebruary 19, 2019 at 15:05 #10768Participant::No, miss, there have been no ‘miss-characterizations’ of your self-aggrandizement and imbecility. You reference other opinions that align with your delusions but continuously fail to use validated facts – as there are none – that support your views. I intended for this thread to be about CO2, particularly as it is present in the atmosphere – the amount/sources for it in comparison to all other gases, its effect on any ‘warming’, what the costs would be to reduce the levels, the benefits/adverse consequences of it, and so forth. There are some basic climate science terms re CO2 that i want to understand ( and most likely have never been considered by the Madam ) that are relevant. And that was another area i still plan to investigate and detail. But that part of the discussion has been put on hold while the mental midget Renfro runs rampant, squalling and pouting about his own misanthropy. The pusillanimous Madam Renfro has brought his traveling hate-fest to this thread, proving once again that his only contribution to a discussion is bloviating nonsense. As an aside, his misuse of the English language provides some laughs ( ad homonym vs. ad hominem ). And his use of profanity is as vile and vulgar as is he – a testament to a life wasted in the pursuit of the lowest of life styles, and with which he cannot express himself. He should just stick with re-re-reading the stacks of fiction books he enjoys, and leave the real world to the realists.
Because you don’t recognize them as facts doesn’t mean they aren’t facts.
If you don’t like my fucking replies then don’t read my fucking responses. See how easy that would be you fucking fool?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ad+hominem
Look that up and tell me how wrong I am again.
Calling me madam makes me laugh at you, it doesn’t bother me at all especially considering the source, but seeing as you use madam to denigrate me it shows your attitude toward females to be less than generous or based in reality, like so many of your thoughts and attitudes are.
". . . those who claim to know the Mind of God, who will tell you what God thinks and how He will judge and condemn others—those people are the greatest of all blasphemers." Aloysius Xingu Leng Pendergast
February 19, 2019 at 16:11 #10771Participant::No, miss, there have been no ‘miss-characterizations’ of your self-aggrandizement and imbecility. You reference other opinions that align with your delusions but continuously fail to use validated facts – as there are none – that support your views. I intended for this thread to be about CO2, particularly as it is present in the atmosphere – the amount/sources for it in comparison to all other gases, its effect on any ‘warming’, what the costs would be to reduce the levels, the benefits/adverse consequences of it, and so forth. There are some basic climate science terms re CO2 that i want to understand ( and most likely have never been considered by the Madam ) that are relevant. And that was another area i still plan to investigate and detail. But that part of the discussion has been put on hold while the mental midget Renfro runs rampant, squalling and pouting about his own misanthropy. The pusillanimous Madam Renfro has brought his traveling hate-fest to this thread, proving once again that his only contribution to a discussion is bloviating nonsense. As an aside, his misuse of the English language provides some laughs ( ad homonym vs. ad hominem ). And his use of profanity is as vile and vulgar as is he – a testament to a life wasted in the pursuit of the lowest of life styles, and with which he cannot express himself. He should just stick with re-re-reading the stacks of fiction books he enjoys, and leave the real world to the realists.
Because you don’t recognize them as facts doesn’t mean they aren’t facts. If you don’t like my fucking replies then don’t read my fucking responses. See how easy that would be you fucking fool? https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ad+hominem Look that up and tell me how wrong I am again. Calling me madam makes me laugh at you, it doesn’t bother me at all especially considering the source, but seeing as you use madam to denigrate me it shows your attitude toward females to be less than generous or based in reality, like so many of your thoughts and attitudes are.
Good call.
“I take no responsibility at all.” Donald Trump
“Anyone who wants a test can get a test.” Donald Trump -
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.