Jump to content

  

34 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted

Distortion is one thing: Al Gore's film took out a time lag from a graph in order to show correlation, for example. That's misleading, but not anywhere near as cynical as what Beck is doing. And he should have a higher standard to meet than bloggers do - after all he's paid to talk on a "news" network. Here we are talking about the science - whether 20th century proxy data can be mixed with confirmed temperatures, in an open debate, while people are instead listening to charlatans like Beck. They're not listening to Gore anymore.

You wouldn't have a problem if Al Gore said, candidly, "you know, I don't really think there's anything in this Global Warming thing. The numbers don't add up." ?

I sure would, but maybe that's me.

I'm done talking about beck in this thread if you want to continue this I would be happy too in a thread about beck and other commentators spin on this subject.

"What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

President Ronald Reagan

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Seems to be time to bring this forward again

:lol: whaaaaa! Are you, like... 12 years old? Buddy, you need to man-up... if you take a bitch-slap, wipe yourself off and come back harder next time. Would you like it if I took it a little easier on you?

but thanks for the segway... it seems the loyal denier posse has lost it's leader - Riverwind has gone MIA! I'm sure it had nothing to do with continually highlighting that his posts and positions invariably fronted on conspiracy angles... I'm sure it had nothing to do with his last MLW post where the rug was completely pulled out from under his presumption of E&E being a sound, reputable "scientific" journal - here... the last Riverwind MLW post (let's see if this pulls him back into the fray :lol:)

c'mon Altaboy... you and Shady need to pick up the slack for the MIA Riverwind.

Posted

:lol: whaaaaa! Are you, like... 12 years old? Buddy, you need to man-up... if you take a bitch-slap, wipe yourself off and come back harder next time.

I don't know what it is about you but you always seem to write posts about yourself.

"What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

President Ronald Reagan

Posted

I don't know what it is about you but you always seem to write posts about yourself.

classic - you take a thumpin, a rubbin, a slammin... and your recourse is to run to this lil thread for cover :lol:

Posted

Neither. Waldo and Wyly seem to think the world is going to end and Riverwind comes off as a conspiracy theorist.

I think that AGW has become more like a religion than a science. Waldo and Wyly, unfortunately, fall into this trap. Every "it is possible" morphs into a certainty.
  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted

HOLY CRAP BILL!!!!!!! Which sitting Prime Minister did you just describe to a T????

Australia's Labour PM. :P

  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted

I think that AGW has become more like a religion than a science. Waldo and Wyly, unfortunately, fall into this trap. Every "it is possible" morphs into a certainty.

certainty? We've had several past discussions around certainty... usually fronted around those that presumed to challenge the science based on less than 100% certainty 'likelihood categorizations' used within IPCC reports. If you're presuming to bring forward another wrinkle to the 'science is settled' meme, why not just be upfront about it!

Posted

classic - you take a thumpin, a rubbin, a slammin... and your recourse is to run to this lil thread for cover :lol:

Not looking for cover.

Just reminding you how convincing you are. Even those that side with you don't think you are convincing.

Nor will I ever bother to waste my time debating with you or Wyly on the merits of you arguement because you are a fanatic. Althought I am more then happy to debate these matters with other less fanatical posters like Micheal, smallc, ect.

"What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

President Ronald Reagan

Posted

The problem with the AGW debate is illustrated by this. It shouldn't be about personalities but it always seems to be.

Not for me.

Back in 1988 when I first heard about Hansen's "global warming" testimony, I remember saying to someone "what kind of cr@p is this". This is before the subject became heavily politicized.

  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted
Not for me.

Back in 1988 when I first heard about Hansen's "global warming" testimony, I remember saying to someone "what kind of cr@p is this". This is before the subject became heavily politicized.

care to take a walk down the history path and look at exactly how well his early projections fit to (now decades old) observations... clearly, you feel you have something to say/suggest about Hansen - perhaps you could expand upon your, as you say, "crap" assessment.

Posted

Not looking for cover.

Just reminding you how convincing you are. Even those that side with you don't think you are convincing.

Nor will I ever bother to waste my time debating with you or Wyly on the merits of you arguement because you are a fanatic. Althought I am more then happy to debate these matters with other less fanatical posters like Micheal, smallc, ect.

then don't be such a wimp ice-hole and run for thread cover :lol: Who are you trying to kid... your presumed convincing self has never been on display throughout climate related threads. C'mon, don't be shy - I've danced with you in other non-climate related threads - you're a light-weight non-entity... a machination in your own mind. Invariably, your right-wing fanaticism has risen to the forefront, very quickly... either that, or you devolve into rants around the inequitable treatment you presume Alberta receives, which, invariably leads to you pulling the separatist card. Yes, you're most certainly a convincing benchmark reference - indeed! :lol:

Posted

then don't be such a wimp ice-hole and run for thread cover :lol: Who are you trying to kid... your presumed convincing self has never been on display throughout climate related threads. C'mon, don't be shy - I've danced with you in other non-climate related threads - you're a light-weight non-entity... a machination in your own mind. Invariably, your right-wing fanaticism has risen to the forefront, very quickly... either that, or you devolve into rants around the inequitable treatment you presume Alberta receives, which, invariably leads to you pulling the separatist card. Yes, you're most certainly a convincing benchmark reference - indeed! :lol:

So says the non entity with delusions of grandeur.

"What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

President Ronald Reagan

Posted

care to take a walk down the history path and look at exactly how well his early projections fit to (now decades old) observations... clearly, you feel you have something to say/suggest about Hansen - perhaps you could expand upon your, as you say, "crap" assessment.

Show me.

  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted

So says the non entity with delusions of grandeur.

such a... non-entity... that you felt the need to pull back the covers on this thread :lol:

I certainly look forward to your first actual contribution to... any... climate related thread - don't be shy now

Posted
Show me.

interesting... usually... the onus is on the initiator - that's you. You offered an unsubstantiated denigration of Hansen, characterizing Hansen's U.S. Congressional testimony as, as you say, "crap". Since that testimony reflected upon the science... his science... you should be prepared to backup your assertion, if challenged. To throw it back with a curt, 'show me', hardly supports your initial statement - ya think?

Posted

22 votes to 4. That says it all.....but assuming Waldo and Wyly (mini-me) voted for themselves, I can't understand where they managed to get two supporters. :lol:

Simple... are you the new denier posse leader? Is Riverwind MIA... or AWOL :lol:

Posted

interesting... usually... the onus is on the initiator - that's you. You offered an unsubstantiated denigration of Hansen, characterizing Hansen's U.S. Congressional testimony as, as you say, "crap". Since that testimony reflected upon the science... his science... you should be prepared to backup your assertion, if challenged. To throw it back with a curt, 'show me', hardly supports your initial statement - ya think?

You said "walk down the history path and look at exactly how well his early projections fit". I asked you to take me down that walk.

  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted

You said "walk down the history path and look at exactly how well his early projections fit". I asked you to take me down that walk.

as I said, the onus is on you... as the initiator... to substantiate your claim. The onus is most certainly not on me to invalidate your claim. Of course, you could also simply state your denigration of Hansen reflects simply on your unsubstantiated opinion. It's either that... or you "show me", right? My suggestion for you to look at how well Hansen's earliest projections have stood the test of time is certainly one avenue available to you - perhaps you have your own basis for your "crap" assessment. Either way, your own basis or my suggestion to look at his earliest projections... your choice... to substantiate your denigration of Hansen. Your choice to validate your assertion, to substantiate your claim - your choice... to "show me".

Posted
Your choice to validate your assertion, to substantiate your claim - your choice... to "show me".
Not when you said his earlier Nostradamian predictions have verified. That's an assertion for you to back up.
  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted
Back in 1988 when I first heard about Hansen's "global warming" testimony, I remember saying to someone "what kind of cr@p is this".
care to take a walk down the history path and look at exactly how well his early projections fit to (now decades old) observations... clearly, you feel you have something to say/suggest about Hansen - perhaps you could expand upon your, as you say, "crap" assessment.
Show me.
interesting... usually... the onus is on the initiator - that's you. You offered an unsubstantiated denigration of Hansen, characterizing Hansen's U.S. Congressional testimony as, as you say, "crap". Since that testimony reflected upon the science... his science... you should be prepared to backup your assertion, if challenged. To throw it back with a curt, 'show me', hardly supports your initial statement - ya think?
You said "walk down the history path and look at exactly how well his early projections fit". I asked you to take me down that walk.
as I said, the onus is on you... as the initiator... to substantiate your claim. The onus is most certainly not on me to invalidate your claim. Of course, you could also simply state your denigration of Hansen reflects simply on your unsubstantiated opinion. It's either that... or you "show me", right? My suggestion for you to look at how well Hansen's earliest projections have stood the test of time is certainly one avenue available to you - perhaps you have your own basis for your "crap" assessment. Either way, your own basis or my suggestion to look at his earliest projections... your choice... to substantiate your denigration of Hansen. Your choice to validate your assertion, to substantiate your claim - your choice... to "show me".
Not when you said his earlier Nostradamian predictions have verified. That's an assertion for you to back up.

excellent! Clearly, your Nostradamus declarative presents a clarification of your stated "crap" assessment. But why are you back-peddling - as I said, clearly you have something to say/suggest about Hansen. In support of your back-peddling, I've highlighted exactly what's been said. Why are you so reluctant to qualify your grandiose statements? C'mon buddy, step up... it was your initial claim. As you will note, I didn't offer any assessment on those earliest Hansen projections... I simply asked, "care to take a walk down the history path and look at exactly how well his early projections fit to (now decades old) observations". C'mon buddy, do you care to... as you stated, "show me" how well his projections fit to observations. Or will you just continue to express your reluctance in substantiating your claims... just continue your back-peddling.

Posted
I simply asked, "care to take a walk down the history path and look at exactly how well his early projections fit to (now decades old) observations". C'mon buddy, do you care to... as you stated, "show me" how well his projections fit to observations. Or will you just continue to express your reluctance in substantiating your claims... just continue your back-peddling.
And I asked what early projections proved out.
  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,015
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    agackibal
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...