You've explained jack shit. You and you other conservative idealogue fucktards ALWAYS use this same specTACularly stupid argument that "liberals" are out to destroy America without providing ANY motivation whatsoever. Liberals are just bad. They don't have any real aims or goals or motivation or ideas, they're just evil. Just because YOU think there is a left side and a right side to this issue does NOT explain what the motivation for supporting or creating the left side of the issue is. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and their ilk use "liberals" as some kind of fantasy bogeymen to scare their idiot fucktard audiences into going along with ANYTHING in spite of any rational argument that says they should not, because any rational argument that does not agree with presidential policy has been positioned as "liberal." "Liberal" to you people is a bad word so you automatically accept that the "liberal" position on every issue is the wrong one, whether or not this makes sense or not. The right-wing pundits understand this so whenever they want you to agree with something monumentally stupid, they MANUFACTURE a right/left controversy and then position the truth as "liberal." The scientists don't sit around thinking of how to make their theories more "liberal"... it's others who sit around thinking of how to make their theories *seem* liberal. GOD you're so fucking stupid. I'm not explaining this any further because I know I'm talking to a brick wall.
Global Warming alarmists' scam continues to come undone.
- Thread starter B_JQblonde
- Start date
You've explained jack shit. You and you other conservative idealogue fucktards ALWAYS use this same specTACularly stupid argument that "liberals" are out to destroy America without providing ANY motivation whatsoever. Liberals are just bad. They don't have any real aims or goals or motivation or ideas, they're just evil. Just because YOU think there is a left side and a right side to this issue does NOT explain what the motivation for supporting or creating the left side of the issue is. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and their ilk use "liberals" as some kind of fantasy bogeymen to scare their idiot fucktard audiences into going along with ANYTHING in spite of any rational argument that says they should not, because any rational argument that does not agree with presidential policy has been positioned as "liberal." "Liberal" to you people is a bad word so you automatically accept that the "liberal" position on every issue is the wrong one, whether or not this makes sense or not. The right-wing pundits understand this so whenever they want you to agree with something monumentally stupid, they MANUFACTURE a right/left controversy and then position the truth as "liberal." The scientists don't sit around thinking of how to make their theories more "liberal"... it's others who sit around thinking of how to make their theories *seem* liberal. GOD you're so fucking stupid. I'm not explaining this any further because I know I'm talking to a brick wall.
I'm quite sure they all agree that I am much smarter than you... but with anything this obvious I don't feel the need to be subtle about it. This is like saying I'm smarter than Beavis & Butthead. I don't think it counts as pretentious.
No, it doesn't. It all comes down to this idiot is a parrot that will repeat any stupid thing the pundits and bloggers tell him, and THEY will say absolutely anything they can to undermine the real science of the issue. This is just one of many different attacks they employ, and JQ has repeated.
For fucks sake, can you all stop slagging each other off and try to talk about the actual issue?
Why not play devils advocate? Go away (without swearing and insulting people) and try and find credible aguements that conflict with your own views?
That's what I try to do and it helps you get a more rounded idea of the details of the issues you're discussing
Why not play devils advocate? Go away (without swearing and insulting people) and try and find credible aguements that conflict with your own views?
That's what I try to do and it helps you get a more rounded idea of the details of the issues you're discussing
Dorset , here are some of my views.
-Sea levels have been rising at a nearly steady, linear rate of between 1-3mm/yr for
centuries.
-The noise that makes up weather variablility/storminess etc… is so great as to
detect an AGW signal from it is nearly impossible today.
-The measurement of a GMT is highly questionable, past and present but the effort
is not totally futile as some general trends/magnitudes can be statistically made.
-Changes in temperature and temperature rates of change have been greater in earth’s
past history without the potential effects of anthropogenic CO2 changes. But
there is no direct calculation that can be tested, measured, falsified that
absolutely describes the relationship between CO2 concentrations and a GMT and
certainly not a local temperature.
-Sea levels have been rising at a nearly steady, linear rate of between 1-3mm/yr for
centuries.
-The noise that makes up weather variablility/storminess etc… is so great as to
detect an AGW signal from it is nearly impossible today.
-The measurement of a GMT is highly questionable, past and present but the effort
is not totally futile as some general trends/magnitudes can be statistically made.
-Changes in temperature and temperature rates of change have been greater in earth’s
past history without the potential effects of anthropogenic CO2 changes. But
there is no direct calculation that can be tested, measured, falsified that
absolutely describes the relationship between CO2 concentrations and a GMT and
certainly not a local temperature.
Admittedly, the whole debate carbon credits and looking at electic production / carbon output as an economic commodity is hand-waving. The discussion around carbon credits and looking at carbon production as an economic commodity really comes out of the Kyoto Accords of 1997. Economists were quite divided over the rationalization of carbon credits, and the debate still cotinues... So, yes, you do have certain macro-level examples of policy that don't necessarily withdstand rigorous scrutiny.
Instead of worrying about policy so much, let's focus on matters of global warming that we can control: our own contributions. Have you, JQBlonde, substituted your incadescent lighting (as much as you can), for compact flourescent bulbs? On average, you can use 1/3 the energy of an incandescent bulb and have a life time that is 10x the duration of an incandescent bulb. ( See FAQs from General Electric ). Would you have problems changing your bulbs if you haven't done so already?
A California state senator is proposing banning incandescent bulbs that would amount to carbon savings of the output of ~ 10 coal-genereated power plants per year. The minor inconvenience of the substition would cause a spike in light sales in the short term and would save a lot of electricity in the longterm? Is that so terrible?
What about advocating the use of more solar panel arrays so that we are possibly putting energy back on the power grid w/o pollution? Are solar panels so controversial that we can't implement them where it makes financial sense (i.e. the return on your investment in savings can compensate for the cost within a few years).
Let's take it up a level: cars. I believe/speculate (but cannot factually support) that Detriot can produce cars with gas efficiency at the same level as the Toyota ~ 50 mpg instead of the ~25 coming out of Detroit's big 3 automakers. Would it be unreasonable for the US government to mandate that cars manufactured after 2012 (??) have a minimum fuel efficiency of 35 or 40 mpg. One would think that Detroit would have worked towards higher fuel efficiency standars 5 to 10 years ago as they were manufacturing SUVs, but they just didn't get it. Financial greed prevailed over good engineering. Now that Detroit's sales have been hurt over sales favored with more fuel efficient foreign cars, Detroit is finally getting the picture. If Detroit had viewed both good engineering with fuel efficiency and profits as being aligned instead of in opposition, American cars would be far more in demand than they are currently. Good environmental decisions and profit can be in alignment...
So, here are a few examples, JQBlonde, to get you started about what you personally and we collectively can do to mitigate globabl warming. We can bring our actions, corporate profit, and individual action in alignment with science. .... Just to get you started....
Do you have a source for that? It seems unlikely that we would have been unable to accurately measure rising sea levels over such a long period
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
You were a janitor at a community college?
"Higher education industry"?
Please. This very locution brings into question whether you completed high school.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
Wellllll, he might be 20, with a two-digit IQ, and one might even concede it could be in the high two digits.
Or maybe he's 12, with an IQ of 103.
MZ, let's watch this.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Oh, I'm watching, laughing, and even throwing water balloons.
You bring up an interesting point though, MOST people have an iq of 103. Without googling for statistics, I seem to recall the median IQ in the US as being 106, which is 6 points above "average". It's a point worth bearing in mind when considering just how clever your arguments need to be in order to convince "most people". It also underscores why any argument that requires much reasoning ability is not likely to move the majority.
When was the thread readable? It's been retarded from post one. And now that you're calling us retarded, does that mean you've conceded the point that certain threads don't allow for intelligent discussion?
Genesis Chapter 7 Verses 10~20
10 And after seven days the waters of the flood appeared on the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, and on the seventeenth day of that month, that very day all the springs of the great deep broke through, and the floodgates of the heavens opened.
12 And the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 That very day Noah and Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons boarded the ark,
14 and with every animal of its kind, all cattle of its kind, every creature that crawls on the ground, and every kind of bird of its kind, every bird, and everything with wings.
15 One pair of every creature that had the breath of life in them came to Noah into the ark;
16 and the ones going in were male and a female of every creature, just as God had commanded him. Then Yahweh closed the door behind him.
17 And the flood came for forty days on the earth, and the waters increased, and the ark rose from the earth.
18 And the waters rose and the waters increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the waters.
19 And the waters rose very greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heaven were covered.
20 The waters rose fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
There you go, accurate measurements right there. From the only infallible source outside of everything the Pope says. I'm not sure how to convert cubits into mm but I bet there's a calculator on the internet somewhere.
Yeah , here's the master debators in action..
ME: "Hey did you see the research which indicates that urbanization may have had a much more dramatic impact on on mean temperatures in China than was previously thought?"
160IQ: " .b...b...b..ut every scientist agrees about everything..oh and I'm real smart"
ME" : Not these guys , they are questioning some of the data upon which the IPCC consensus was based."
160IQ: " Hey you're the dumbest poster ever...oh, and I'm real smart"
ME: " ..but what about the research which indicates that "China has experienced rapid urbanization and dramatic economic growth since its reform process started in late 1978. In this article, we present evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate based on analysis of impacts of land-use changes on surface temperature in southeast China, where rapid urbanization has occurred. Our estimated warming of mean surface temperature of 0.05°C per decade attributable to urbanization is much larger than previous estimates for other periods and locations
160IQ : " You're the dumbest poster ever ...Oh,and I'm real smart"
LEX: ' why is anybody paying attention to this retart".
MADAME ZORA:" "yeah what a fucktard. "
Please, you people don't want to go there.
I drive very gas efficient cars. I car pool.
I use flourescent bulbs.
All the normal stuff a good conscientous citizen should do. < except Al Gore
>
None of it has anything to do with global warming ,tho.
I drive very gas efficient cars. I car pool.
I use flourescent bulbs.
All the normal stuff a good conscientous citizen should do. < except Al Gore
> None of it has anything to do with global warming ,tho.
Excuse me? higher demand for electrical energy --> (non-nuclear) power plants -> carbon emissions --> global warming. Oh wait, you don't want to acknowledge the causal link between carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, and global warming.
As for "going there", I responded to your question about what we can do about global warming. I listed some, hopefully, non-controversial measures that one can take immediately to lessen one's personal impact on contributing to carbon emissions and (hence) global warming.
As for "going there", I responded to your question about what we can do about global warming. I listed some, hopefully, non-controversial measures that one can take immediately to lessen one's personal impact on contributing to carbon emissions and (hence) global warming.
Please, you people don't want to go there.
I drive very gas efficient cars. I car pool.
I use flourescent bulbs.
All the normal stuff a good conscientous citizen should do. < except Al Gore
None of it has anything to do with global warming ,tho.
