1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    21 Dec '13 16:221 edit
    http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

    I meant to say global warming deniers. Sorry.
  2. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    21 Dec '13 17:09
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

    I meant to say global warming deniers. Sorry.
    You mean the people who receive funding based on global warming do a study to throw mud on those who oppose them?

    Say it isn't so.

    You simply believe who agrees with your worldview on this matter. Since you are old and will die in the next 20 or so years you will never live to see if the gloom and doom is true or not.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    21 Dec '13 19:04
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You mean the people who receive funding based on global warming do a study to throw mud on those who oppose them?

    Say it isn't so.

    You simply believe who agrees with your worldview on this matter. Since you are old and will die in the next 20 or so years you will never live to see if the gloom and doom is true or not.
    You mean the people who receive funding based on global warming

    You mean the scientists such as climate scientists that analyses and observe to see if there is any global warming? What? Because, just like most scientists, the get “funding” i.e. they are paid a wage to do science research, it must mean it one big conspiracy that 99% of them report that they observe evidence for warming? That is a really stupid argument. Could it be, just maybe, just perhaps the reason why 99% of them report that they observe evidence for warming is because there is evidence for warming?
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    21 Dec '13 19:25
    I like warm weather.
  5. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    21035
    21 Dec '13 19:58
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I like warm weather.
    Since you claim to be a God fearing sort, do you think God approves of men and women who defile the planet he/she/it created? Think about it because you seem to believe God is going to punish the wicked, which I think just might include you.
  6. Standard membersasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    Walking the earth.
    Joined
    13 Oct '04
    Moves
    50664
    22 Dec '13 00:024 edits
    There's reason to debate. Recently, the LA Times and Reddit both decided to stop publishing or eliminate the opinions of "deniers".

    Climate science is, therefore, the first science to have no further boundaries to explore. Climate science is the first science in the history of mankind where the science is "settled". Newtonian physics isn't settled, but climate "science" is? And for such a new field - what an achievement!

    Climate "science" is a religion. "Deniers" are subjected to the same professional treatment as Galileo - who was right, by the way. Scientific achievement trumped religion then, it will do so in this case.

    Climate science can be argued to be nothing more than a vast wealth transfer program from industrialized nations to developing nations, so that the middle class in industrialized nations may develop. We all know how that will turn out. Food from the UN will be distributed by the local warlord in power.
  7. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    22 Dec '13 09:154 edits
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    There's reason to debate. Recently, the LA Times and Reddit both decided to stop publishing or eliminate the opinions of "deniers".

    Climate science is, therefore, the first science to have no further boundaries to explore. Climate science is the first science in the history of mankind where the science is "settled". Newtonian physics isn't settl ...[text shortened]... now how that will turn out. Food from the UN will be distributed by the local warlord in power.
    That s just pure nonsense: Newtonian physics is a very generally applied physics which was never supposed to be forever 'settled' in particular. In fact, Newton himself basically said as much.
    But very basic physics tells us that CO2 SHOULD cause global warming and, in addition, we have a vast mountain of empirical evidence that proves that it generally does.
    And, as if that was not enough proof, global warming is just an observation. The global warming deniers have their claims scientifically debunked forever just as the round-Earth deniers have.
    So saying that climate science is not a science but a 'religion' because it dismisses the absurd claims global warming deniers is as ridiculous as saying geology is not a science but a 'religion' because it dismisses the round-Earth deniers. In fact, if climate science didn't dismiss the absurd claims global warming deniers, it would instantly become a religion for no true science would deny such irrefutable empirical evidence; only a religion does that.

    Just answer this one question;

    is modern geology a religion and not a science because it doesn't ever even consider the possibility that the Earth is not round but flat?

    This question exposes just how ridiculous your argument is.


    Climate science can be argued to be nothing more than a vast wealth transfer program from industrialized nations to developing nations, so that the middle class in industrialized nations may develop. We all know how that will turn out. Food from the UN will be distributed by the local warlord in power.

    What planet are you on? or I should better ask: What are you on? None of that makes any sense.
  8. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2441
    22 Dec '13 09:17
    Originally posted by humy
    That s just pure nonsense: Newtonian physics is a very generally applied physics which was never supposed to be forever 'settled' in particular. In fact, Newton himself basically said as much.
    But very basic physics tells us that CO2 SHOULD cause global warming and, in addition, we have a vast mountain of empirical evidence that proves that it generally does. ...[text shortened]... n for no true science would deny such irrefutable empirical evidence; only a religion does that.
    It's the strangers to the science forum who tend to reckon themselves the masters of science.
  9. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2441
    22 Dec '13 09:18
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I like warm weather.
    I should hope so, considering all the hot air you produce on a daily basis.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    22 Dec '13 14:291 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You mean the people who receive funding based on global warming do a study to throw mud on those who oppose them?

    Say it isn't so.

    You simply believe who agrees with your worldview on this matter. Since you are old and will die in the next 20 or so years you will never live to see if the gloom and doom is true or not.
    So in other words, at some point, when a couple of billion people have died from starvation say, 200 years from now, your god will come in and fix all the boo boo's mankind has foisted on itself?

    BTW, don't just count on me kicking off in 20:

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-aging-reversed.html#ajTabs
  11. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    22 Dec '13 18:48
    http://phys.org/news/2013-12-solar-key-climate.html
  12. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    22 Dec '13 19:16
    Originally posted by humy
    You mean the people who receive [b]funding based on global warming

    You mean the scientists such as climate scientists that analyses and observe to see if there is any global warming? What? Because, just like most scientists, the get “funding” i.e. they are paid a wage to do science research, it must mean it one big conspiracy that 99% ...[text shortened]... of them report that they observe evidence for warming is because there is evidence for warming?[/b]
    Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests here is blind.

    Money makes people do strange things. There is big money in global warming and some of the biggest beneficiaries of that money are the people making the claim.
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    22 Dec '13 19:191 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So in other words, at some point, when a couple of billion people have died from starvation say, 200 years from now, your god will come in and fix all the boo boo's mankind has foisted on itself?

    BTW, don't just count on me kicking off in 20:

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-aging-reversed.html#ajTabs
    The odds are with me when I say you won't last 20 more years. Even if you do, your brain probably wont.

    You are so caught up in your religous fervor that you can't even question the global warming experts who didn't see the last 19 years without global warming coming. I base my belief on how things are going on what I've actually exerpieced and seen first hand. You base yours on what you government and leftist activists have told you. Your gods have led you astray.

    Here is something of interest that mentions just one of those false claims made in years past by people that you like to believe:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    22 Dec '13 19:513 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests here is blind.

    Money makes people do strange things. There is big money in global warming and some of the biggest beneficiaries of that money are the people making the claim.
    Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests here is blind.

    And how exactly does this “conflict of interests” mean that all the data collected, that CLEARLY PROVES CO2-driven global warming is real (which it CLEARLY does ) , is false?
    Do you despite the data?
    Would you claim all the millions of measurements made INDEPENDENTLY by all the scientists AND other people ( i.e. none scientists ) across the globe are all faked because scientist get paid a wage for collecting and analyzing this data? If so, exactly HOW does that work? I mean, do all the scientists tell the weather people that make most of the daily measurements to “measure higher temperatures or else” or what exactly?
    You’re not making any logical sense here whatsoever.
  15. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    22 Dec '13 19:58
    Originally posted by humy
    Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests here is blind.

    And how exactly does this “conflict of interests” mean that all the data collected, that CLEARLY PROVES CO2-driven global warming is real (which it CLEARLY does ) , is false?
    Do you despite the data?
    Would you claim all the millions of measurements made INDEPENDENTLY by ...[text shortened]... er temperatures or else” or what exactly?
    You’re not making any logical sense here whatsoever.
    Did you not read the link that I gave in my last post?

    Is the arctic ocean devoid of ice?

    The world is not coming to an end. You can keep pumping money into the hands of those who hype if you wish. I simply see it as foolishness.
Back to Top