waldo Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 I came to the conclusion because there is no hard evidence! Only prophecies! you don't know what you're talking about.... and like I said: you're spewing this atheism of yours in your own dedicated thread... there's even some indulging you there! Are you feeling you're not getting enough mileage out of your blasphemous thread - is that why you're distracting/deflecting this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 you're spewing this atheism of yours in your own dedicated thread... there's even some indulging you there! Are you feeling you're not getting enough mileage out of your blasphemous thread - is that why you're distracting/deflecting this one? That a boy Waldo, attack the poster! You wanted to debate the issue with me, but now that I have properly labelled global warming for what it is, a theory with more faith then tangible evidence, you stay away. Have any tangible evidence yet Waldo, or just more numbers, colored pictures and predictions? Thought so buddy. Keep the faith man. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 That a boy Waldo, attack the poster! You wanted to debate the issue with me, but now that I have properly labelled global warming for what it is, a theory with more faith then tangible evidence, you stay away. Have any tangible evidence yet Waldo, or just more numbers, colored pictures and predictions? Thought so buddy. Keep the faith man. WWWTT debate? With you? So... was your "science is religion" thread your version of debate? But again, you have a/your dedicated nonsense thread to ply your idiocy... why distract/deflect this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Have any tangible evidence yet Waldo, or just more numbers, colored pictures and predictions?Among those who understand what they mean, those numbers and coloured pictures are called "data." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Love Neil Youngs music. I don't think he was aware that when he plugged in his electric powered Lincoln to recharge in Alberta the electricity came from either natural gas or coal. I don't think it matters. Electric cars are far more efficient in the power they use. From my understanding they use 1/33 less in energy. If it costs you say 100$ in gas for an average sized NA car to travel x number of KM, it would cost an electric car 3.33$ to travel the same distance. Electric motor is way more efficient in using energy than an internal combustion. I would buy an electric vehicle! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 debate? With you? So... was your "science is religion" thread your version of debate? But again, you have a/your dedicated nonsense thread to ply your idiocy... why distract/deflect this one? So in other words, still no tangible evidence. Keep your faith puritan. Oh and by the way, the world is not going to end because of CO2. Your faith is the only thing keeping the prophecy alive! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Among those who understand what they mean, those numbers and coloured pictures are called "data." Ya unlike real data, global warming data's only use is to convince people the world is going to end. Here's some more data for you, every time you exhale, you are emitting CO2. Want to help your religion, stop exhaling! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Ya unlike real data, global warming data's only use is to convince people the world is going to end. Here's some more data for you, every time you exhale, you are emitting CO2. Do you have contradictory data or are you just relying on faith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Want to help your religion, stop exhaling! It seems that you really just don't understand the issues, after all. There are plenty of smart skeptics, I recommend you research them and educate yourself a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Do you have contradictory data or are you just relying on faith? There is actually a trollish 2nd thread on this topic that we should go to rather than knock this very relevant thread off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Here it is: WT's thread, in which he asserts that his memory of childhood temperatures trumps scientific data readings and therefore anybody who believes the data is following the GW 'religion':http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23286-the-new-religious-order-of-climate-changebelieve-or-deny/ Let's continue discussion of the religion on that thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Here it is: WT's thread, in which he asserts that his memory of childhood temperatures trumps scientific data readings and therefore anybody who believes the data is following the GW 'religion': http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23286-the-new-religious-order-of-climate-changebelieve-or-deny/ Let's continue discussion of the religion on that thread. Are you saying that scientific data will trump your own memory??? LOL! Good luck with your religion Michael Hardner, like all other trolls, you now go on my ignore list! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 So in other words, still no tangible evidence. Keep your faith puritan. Oh and by the way, the world is not going to end because of CO2. Your faith is the only thing keeping the prophecy alive! please sir, board admin Greg and now board facilitator Michael have requested you (indirectly and directly, respectively) reply with relevant information... not your continued 'off-topic' chatter. Please sir, please... do not continue distracting/deflecting this thread away from its intent. Thanks in advance! First off, I removed all of the off-topic chatter. The support forum should only contain replies that are relevant to the specific question asked. Also, Charles and I are going to be cracking down on the off-topic chatter in the other areas of the forum. However, I will be addressing this issue in another support thread shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 please sir, board admin Greg and now board facilitator Michael have requested you (indirectly and directly, respectively) reply with relevant information... not your continued 'off-topic' chatter. Please sir, please... do not continue distracting/deflecting this thread away from its intent. Thanks in advance! Sorry that you don't like my approach to global warming data. But that's what it is, part of the discussion on global warming. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 you don't know what you're talking about... run along to your nonsense "science is religion" thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Give'em hell WWWTT!!! Don't let'em bully you. Anyways, why is this stupid Neil Young thing even an issue? What's next, economic policy from Ted Nugent? Come'on man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Give'em hell WWWTT!!! Don't let'em bully you. Anyways, why is this stupid Neil Young thing even an issue? What's next, economic policy from Ted Nugent? Come'on man! Thanks for pointing out the bias! Ted Nugent is a politically active musician, but not what the left wants to hear. ( I remember something about bear hunting in Northern Ontario among other issues) So he gets dismissed ASAP! But Neil knows how to play an audience well so he just successfully restarted his musical career! Don't be surprised if you see a new album out 2014 with a supporting tour. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 As I said - we have another thread for the topic of Global Warming's religiousness - let's use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Poltics aside, Young is one of very very few musicians who: 1) has never overtly bowed to commercial pressure: his tours aren't sponsored by beer or condom or clothing sponsors. 2) he has always recorded what he wanted when he wanted to- which has pissed off many fans and confounded many music critics. He does what he feels like doing on record and on stage. if people don't like it. oh well..... Meh...nothing special about Neil Young in that regard. Crazy Horse album title/band peeved off some Native Americans as exploitive and disrespectful. He hurriedly penned a me-too "protest song" after the Kent State shootings in 1970 to score a hit (commercial) record. Like other Canadians, he did take full advantage of what America offers in the way of opportunity. He's had a great music career and is recognized as such, but his politics are his own. Anybody who suffers through a live performance today deserves a medal. Edited January 14, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) But Neil knows how to play an audience well so he just successfully restarted his musical career!Neil never went anywhere. I think he's been mentioned at least once in every single Rolling Stone ever. But how come you never use religion and capitalism as arguments against religion and capitalism? They're only arguments against climate science. Edited January 15, 2014 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Neil never went anywhere. I think he's been mentioned at least once in every single Rolling Stone ever.But how come you never use religion and capitalism as arguments against religion and capitalism? They're only arguments against climate science. What are you taking about? He just did a show in New York at Carnagie Hall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Do you have contradictory data or are you just relying on faith? Ah yes, contradictory data. It has been attempted: Global Warming Models Obsolete The two most important things that CERN has found are: Cosmic rays can make clouds form up to ten times faster, strictly by acting on sulfuric acid and ammonia vapor. This works most strongly at altitudes of five miles and higher, where the air is cool. Within a mile of the ground, something more must be happening. Sulfuric acid and water alone cannot account for all the cloud formation at this level. On the second basis alone, the lead investigator, Jasper Kirkby, said that climate scientists would have to revise their models. At issue: these models assume that water, sulfuric acid, and ammonia vapors are the only vapors that form clouds. This is not correct. Other vapors take part—and whether they come from the wild or from human activity, even CERN does not know yet. However, it appears the threat was quickly contained: Scientists Gagged From Interpreting Study Linking Climate Change To Cosmic Rays The real issue here is why are scientist being ordered not to give interpretations of data that would suggest a theory that is contradicts the politically popular view? Is science not allowed to suggest an alternate hypothesis to the man-made Global warming theory even when the data shows otherwise? Science needs to be factually unbiased and provide information that is independent of politics. Lorne Gunter seems to have hit the nail on the head: It’s hard to imagine, though, the CERN scientists being similarly gagged if their experiment had supported the politically correct belief that human activity is the main cause of climate change. Scientists whose work backs the alleged scientific consensus feel free to interpret their results all the time. They frequently claim their findings prove the need for urgent, expensive and intrusive government regulation of private decisions and actions. So why the muzzle on the CERN crew? http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/01/lorne-gunter-the-sun-shines-some-light-on-global-warming-orthodoxy/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Please stick to the topic, thanks. There are other threads about GW and the religiosity of GW - please use those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 the economics involved in energy production, distribution or consumption??? I suggest you start a thread... and bring your 'A' game, hey? How about you start by explaining to me why we're better off paying 43-80c per kwh for solar power as opposed to 6c per kwh for natural gas power? Then you can make the case for why we're getting rid of our coal power stations while other countries, including Germany, are building more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Please stick to the topic, thanks. There are other threads about GW and the religiosity of GW - please use those. Are you referring to my post above? Is this thread not about an over the hill hippie rocker talking out of his ass about shit he knows nothing about, other than we have another Hiroshima on our hands? Do we not have an obligation to the op to discuss the variances between evidence and data available about GW versus the "emotional" aspect of the subject? Or are we to just give our opinion on whether or not Neil's cheese has slipped off his cracker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.