Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore

[closet.cult]

towlie:
legitimate science. yes, that is what i am requesting. but not from you; you have kids and a life. i read the sites you and others have offered. and i will continue to. be sure.

but, we are at an impass. here's how i see it: the science being deployed for global warming, which we both read, is good science...describing the planet around us. but that collective, descriptive science has not yet proven that 'global warming' is man-made or a crisis. science's role: taking the watch apart to see how it works, only describes its movement. we still have yet to fully understand global climate science, which is very young in practice and impoverished in accurate record keeping.

every surface on earth adds to the changing climate. and dont forget that the earth hurls thru the solar system at 1100 mph, spinning on its axis at 1000 mph in the frozen vacume of space but 90 million miles away from a nuclear explosion so massive its gravity holds it together. those outside influences must add something to our climate, ya think?

man has added about 60 parts per million (in a century!) of a minor but necessary gas to the atmousphere and you believe the earth will shrivle up and die? she is far bigger then you imagine.

yes, we must clean her up. but do not lie to the public that you know something you do not know. science may know much about the earth, but they have a poor record of understanding and making predictions of complex, non-linear dynamic systems. no need to respond. i read much more then i post on the internet. i will follow your links.

p.s. the 2nd law of thermal dynamics only applies to closed systems, actually a rare event. the earth with biology and atmousphere moving thru open space is not a closed system.

 

[ccodiane]

Excellent points.

 

[towlie]

towlie:
legitimate science. yes, that is what i am requesting. but not from you; you have kids and a life. i read the sites you and others have offered. and i will continue to. be sure.

It doesn’t matter. I’ve already provided it to you. It is you (the person who started this thread) that clearly lacks a single scientific shred of evidence to back his now clearly and utterly ridiculous argument.

every surface on earth adds to the changing climate. and dont forget that the earth hurls thru the solar system at 1100 mph, spinning on its axis at 1000 mph in the frozen vacume of space but 90 million miles away from a nuclear explosion so massive its gravity holds it together. those outside influences must add something to our climate, ya think?

I can site a plethora of meaningless cocktail party trivia too. The fact that you would site these without rational as to how any of these details might negate the increased emissivity due to CO2 emissions and the corresponding effect on GMT is another shining example of how silly your argument is. The fact that you would use this obtusely foolish argument to refute the 2007 NASA Goddard Space Institute Study needs no rebuttal. You have no science, and due to your inability to directly respond/admit this after my 20 requests now only proves this quite clearly.

man has added about 60 parts per million (in a century!) of a minor but necessary gas to the atmousphere and you believe the earth will shrivle up and die? she is far bigger then you imagine.


yes, we must clean her up. but do not lie to the public that you know something you do not know. science may know much about the earth, but they have a poor record of understanding and making predictions of complex, non-linear dynamic systems. no need to respond. i read much more then i post on the internet. i will follow your links.

Jesus Cum-Drinking Christ! How many times do I have to remind you that you are not a global climatologist? The fact that you would keep returning to same mantra without addressing any of my questions… questions that I have posed multiple times now… proves nothing more than the highly unreliable and embellished propaganda you have posted to date is geared toward sheeple. I hope you don’t take this as an ad homonym attack, because I’ve said in the past you are obviously very intelligent, but you have given me nothing of substance to review.

The fact that you dub the scientific consensus as “lies” after I gave you the courtesy to review your articles references and post easily verifiable factual responses proves that you checked out long ago. If you really do intend on reading these references I would also suggest Richard Dawkings ‘Meme Theory.’

p.s. the 2nd law of thermal dynamics only applies to closed systems, actually a rare event. the earth with biology and atmousphere moving thru open space is not a closed system.

Hum… Do I even respond??? First of all we’re talking about the first law… not the second. While I often mistake which is which. I quite clearly stated “the increase in the earth system internal energy is directly equal to the energy added by heating the system.” There is no fucking way anyone who knows even basic thermo-mechanics would mistake this as an entropic statement.

Furthermore, it is quite clear that, yesterday at work, I used more equations derived from the second law of thermodynamics than you have or will your entire life. I cannot think of a single engineering thermodynamic process that does not use the second law of thermodynamics as a baseline. Can you? Of course not… And yet your refrigerator still works. The compressed flow in a jet engine still generates thrust. Your air conditioner reduces the entropy in your house while increasing it more substantially outside. Don’t the engineers who used the entropic power analysis when designing you car engine know that the second law only applies to closed systems?

I have always admitted that I lack the education to debate Climatological Science… But if you think for one second that you are qualified to debate me in thermodynamics… As the saying goes… ‘you have no idea who you are fucking with.’

CC: I really apologize for my above ad homonym attack. And I hope you do not take it personally. But you have offered nothing more than your own expertise as a rebuttal of the peer reviewed science and even the peer reviews their self. You backed me into a corner on this one.

With that said will you just please answer one question for me? One of the many you have now ignored. I Have always responded to your posts directly, and you have never answered one of my questions directly… or even changed your argument according. Won’t you please answer this?

“What if you’re wrong? What if the scientist at NASA (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/) are wrong? What if the scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center, at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (http://www.ucar.edu), etc, etc. WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG!!!”

 

[towlie]

CC. I just found the time to log on and re-read my above post. I had previously worked a 14-hr day and was taking the day off to go back country skiing with a friend, so I lit up a fatty and banged out the above idiocy while waiting for my ride. I think it is quite clear that I was not of the proper state of mind to correctly interpret your comments. You said you would research the links and for that I called you a sheeple. I can admit it when I’m an ass… well I’m usually an ass, but in this case it was worse than usual. Please accept my apology.

Regards.

 

[medicineman]

Dear closet, I must reiterate the above comment. What if you are wrong? Just say it is a 50-50 chance, wouldn't it be better to try and stop the trend?

 

[closet.cult]

whoa. i appreciate the apology so i accept.

i mean, i thought i was clear. i am NOT a scientist. i know this. but i am a very science minded. i have honed a critical mind and do not jump to conclusions, especially over dooms day predictions. to me, the science presented which i promise i have read, and will continue to read, seems to lack the strength in its predictive powers. short term and long term.

lets agree to disagree and let time tell instead of debating over science that the professionals still disagree with. the last question you posted is one i will answer because it is important. "what if i'm wrong?"

i posted this myself on the last page, to med, of all people. i gues you didnt read it:

i'll make this clear, i believe government should play a role in cleaning up this earth and doing all the things that the global warming people want to do. i just think its shitty that they have to use a false or ill-proven theory to do it.

even if it gets us down the path of cleaner air and water, which i want, it is intellectually dishonest and worse; works people up into a frenzy. i grate at this global warming hysteria. we are in no danger. this is the same planet with the same unpredictable weather patterns it had a few years ago before you ever heard about global warming.

just find an honest way to work toward the new cleaner technologies. let the market decide. bring out the secret patents and move us into the Jetson's age.

i am 100% for cleaning up this wonderful earth and bringing humans into harmony with nature. i just think the politicions have hijacked this issue in an effort to stick the people with the bill, by taxation, of cleaning up INDUSTRIES dirty polution problem. what we are seeing is a big business lobby for tax money to clean up their act.

in the end, the global warming scare will clean things up and ignite green technology. but it is done with lies and manipulation instead of truly honest green companies convincing people to force dirty industry to clean up themselves. why should our tax money pay for multi-billion dollar industries mess, even if it is true? make...THEM...pay. we can only BUY what our industries produce. almost NONE of these changes falls into the hands of the consumers.

stop offering us dirty technology and we will stop buying it. and the same cleaning up of the earth is accomplished without the lies and deception. but i suppose washington does not know how to accomplish anything without deception.

this is my OPINION, based on my studies. feel free to disagree.

 

[mockingbird131313]

Most people believe that global warming is a debate about science, but it is really an argument of politics and economics. Lobbyists have convinced legislators that it is in our nations' best interest to live dirty. If you take the emotion out of the equation and look at the facts, nuclear, solar, and ocean wave energy could be economical and a lot more efficient that what we do now.

Coal companies, auto companies, railroads, and other industries like things just the way they are now. Living dirty makes a hell of a lot of money for these sectors.

 

[closet.cult]

Most people believe that global warming is a debate about science, but it is really an argument of politics and economics. Lobbyists have convinced legislators that it is in our nations' best interest to live dirty. If you take the emotion out of the equation and look at the facts, nuclear, solar, and ocean wave energy could be economical and a lot more efficient that what we do now.

Coal companies, auto companies, railroads, and other industries like things just the way they are now. Living dirty makes a hell of a lot of money for these sectors.

i agree with this. there are those who wish things to remain status quo. others; environmentalists and press-whore democrats, wish to create a change to green energy and a move toward a cleaner world with technology that is proven and ready. I totally agree with them.

but i see they are latching on to global warming because some kind of political solution must be reached to enact these changes. i understand their goal, but i disagree with using dishonest means to reach a positive end. why? because it will spark all types of unnecessary burdens on the public because they must play within the rules of the global warming hype they created, to solve a problem that has nothing to do with the public.

industry is the probelm. clean up industry and tax them. provide clean technologies to private home owners and don't tax us.

 

[medicineman]

industry is the probelm. clean up industry and tax them. provide clean technologies to private home owners and don't tax us.

Well, we finally agree on something. Look, I've never advocated tax payers cleaning up industry, that is the ultimate insult, But you must know that in the end, it will be us that pay anyway in higher prices. I've yet to see a corporation absorb any additional costs to clean up their acts. The consumer will pay. Unlike some here on this forum that think the consumer ultimately sets the prices, the facts are: with monopolies like power companies, in cahoots with the government regulation bodies (can you say bribes) they raise prices at will. Our own Nevada Power raises prices at will about twice a year. The Public utilities commission is a fucking joke. They have hearings, a thousand citizens show up and protest the rate hikes and Viola, the next raise is assured. Corporations like to assure their stockholders a constant increase in stock value and never like to see dividends go below the previous years level, so the consumer will pay.

 

[ccodiane]

i agree with this. there are those who wish things to remain status quo. others; environmentalists and press-whore democrats, wish to create a change to green energy and a move toward a cleaner world with technology that is proven and ready. I totally agree with them.

but i see they are latching on to global warming because some kind of political solution must be reached to enact these changes. i understand their goal, but i disagree with using dishonest means to reach a positive end. why? because it will spark all types of unnecessary burdens on the public because they must play within the rules of the global warming hype they created, to solve a problem that has nothing to do with the public.

industry is the probelm. clean up industry and tax them. provide clean technologies to private home owners and don't tax us.

And whats that?

clean up industry and tax them. ?????

but i disagree with using dishonest means to reach a positive end. !!!!!

tax them..................................using dishonest means.

 

[closet.cult]

industry is the probelm. clean up industry and tax them. provide clean technologies to private home owners and don't tax us.

Well, we finally agree on something. Look, I've never advocated tax payers cleaning up industry, that is the ultimate insult, But you must know that in the end, it will be us that pay anyway in higher prices. I've yet to see a corporation absorb any additional costs to clean up their acts. The consumer will pay. Unlike some here on this forum that think the consumer ultimately sets the prices, the facts are: with monopolies like power companies, in cahoots with the government regulation bodies (can you say bribes) they raise prices at will. Our own Nevada Power raises prices at will about twice a year. The Public utilities commission is a fucking joke. They have hearings, a thousand citizens show up and protest the rate hikes and Viola, the next raise is assured. Corporations like to assure their stockholders a constant increase in stock value and never like to see dividends go below the previous years level, so the consumer will pay.

right. THAT is the corruption. big industry lobbiest will find a way to make consumers pay for their dirty messes. in a plutocrasy, the government (a.k.a. corporations) will use their fake judicial and corrupt executive powers to rape the people for every fucking dime they can.

ccodiane: you're like a pimple; always popping up where you're not wanted with something annoying to add to the day. STFU.

 

[ccodiane]

Like a big zit on the tip of your nose. Annoying, painful, makes you a little embarrassed to show your face. Excellent analogy.

 

[medicineman]

Like a big zit on the tip of your nose. Annoying, painful, makes you a little embarrassed to show your face. Excellent analogy.

Seems like I'm not the only one that you annoy, Geeze, I wish you were a pimple I'd squeeze the shyte out of you and pop that ugly head. Idiota-Assholio.

 

[ccodiane]

Seems like I'm not the only one that you annoy, Geeze, I wish you were a pimple I'd squeeze the shyte out of you and pop that ugly head. Idiota-Assholio.

You've been trying for months now. Pesky little bugger, eh?

 

[ccodiane]

It sounds like you two are proponents of nuclear energy? I completely agree. American entrepreneurialism, based in the private sector, can lick our energy needs domestically in a few decades. This, coupled with a new domestic oil exploration initiative, allowing the private sector to invest in new drilling technologies on American soil, would allow Americans to thrive like never before. Great suggestions guys! Stay on point.

 

[towlie]

i mean, i thought i was clear. i am NOT a scientist.

You were quite clear when you said it last. Which leaves me befuddled when in the next breath you try to pretend to understand it.

every surface on earth adds to the changing climate. and dont forget that the earth hurls thru the solar system at 1100 mph, spinning on its axis at 1000 mph in the frozen vacume of space but 90 million miles away from a nuclear explosion so massive its gravity holds it together. those outside influences must add something to our climate, ya think?

The above is a quote. What do you think I mean by you’re not a scientist? How many times do I have to remind you that you’re not a scientist? You’re not qualified? Yet you still offer the above mantra for what purpose? You offer no rationale as to how any of these useless facts tie together, nor offer any kind of scientific reference… Yet I’ve repeatedly, at least 20 times now, asked you for a single god damn scientific reference. Why should I not conclude you’re totally fucking delusional? I’m serious bro’. What’s goin’ on inside your head??? Are you by any chance Born Again Christian, because I encounter the same kind of response when trying to convince them that the earth is not 6,000 years old.

i know this. but i am a very science minded. i have honed a critical mind and do not jump to conclusions, especially over dooms day predictions.

Ahum… You’re “very science minded” so you subscribe to a periodic journal or two and you’ve read a few studies on global warming but would rather site laughably deceitful propaganda published by known political operatives… Buddy… My office is lined with them… I’m required to read them… Yet I still subscribe to one for personal reading… Since we’re at an impasse on Global Warming, let’s also agree we’re on one when agreeing as to what a “scientifically minded person is.” I know this must sound very condescending, but put yourself in my shoes man… You don’t even have reference?

to me, the science presented which i promise i have read, and will continue to read, seems to lack the strength in its predictive powers. short term and long term.

I have made the analogy to religious delusion before. This is a shining analogy. When you offered your reference I read it completely. I read the references. I showed you how Morano’s entire thesis “That a new study has changed the scientific consensus” was based on the discredited S07 study (What I mean by that is it didn’t have a single positive peer response.) I bet you don’t live in a building with a structural peer review like that… but it’s only because your local government won’t let you live in one… because you make those kind of decisions based on faith… That’s why you have no problem basing the entire existence of humanity on a long shot…. Good job dude… Jesus REEAAALLLY IS COMING…

lets agree to disagree and let time tell instead of debating over science that the professionals still disagree with.

[copy & past. I’m tired of writing it] You keep saying this as though I haven’t already addressed it. Many brilliant scientist believe the 911 conspiracy theories, believe in UFO abductions, believe the earth is 6,000 years old, believe in some bat-shit-insane, Cool-Aid drinkin’, spoon bending maharishi is the profit of god, etc, etc. Are you actually insinuating that scientific consensus is no more reliable than the clearly delusional yet somehow brilliant minority? (I’m going to respond exactly the same way every time you re-state the above without addressing my rejoin.)

the last question you posted is one i will answer because it is important. "what if i'm wrong?"
i'll make this clear, i believe government should play a role in cleaning up this earth and doing all the things that the global warming people want to do. i just think its shitty that they have to use a false or ill-proven theory to do it.

even if it gets us down the path of cleaner air and water, which i want, it is intellectually dishonest and worse; works people up into a frenzy. i grate at this global warming hysteria. we are in no danger. this is the same planet with the same unpredictable weather patterns it had a few years ago before you ever heard about global warming.

just find an honest way to work toward the new cleaner technologies. let the market decide. bring out the secret patents and move us into the Jetson's age.

Holy shit. There is not one instance in the above rambling where you address the potential consequences of you being wrong. "I believe government should play a role in cleaning up the environment." That's your response to "What if you're wrong." Would you like to try again or is it time to admit you might have not thought this thing through.

I offered you 4 published and renowned climatological research centers. I said pick one, or pick any one you can find… you’re a scientifically minded person right??? And let’s perform a search and choose the first 3, 5, 7, returns and see what they say. And your response is that you’ve read them and don’t find them convincing yet cant offer a single reason or peer review as to why. Every time I remind you that you ain’t qualified, you offer up something like that… That’s called faith my friend. We’re talking about science here.

You’re argument is reduced to saying that the scientists disagree, but when I point out the similarly weighted consensus on UFO’s, 6,000 y/o earth, 911 conspiracy, etc. You completely ignore it. Could you please respond this time? Pretty please with Jenna Jameson on it?

I have repeatedly asked you questions that you have continually ignored. Could you please respond? And by that I mean could you read the question and answer it?

1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)

2) If you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates could you please explain why you’re citing references that deceitfully misquote the facts pertaining to them? If you’re going deny this will you please address the example I previously gave?

3) Furthermore if you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough… would you please cite a scientific reference supporting this? (You’re scientifically minded right?)

4) Drum roll… May I see your best scientific study please?

 

[closet.cult]

2 things: I have checked out both of those sites and didn't find any science which PROVES your global warming. I see data that can be used to support it and none of the data which counts against it. But I will keep looking...

Believing that the earth is warming due to its own natural variations is the default position, Towlie. Accepting that man is responsible for adding warmth to the planet is the hypothesis that, must be proven. Until it is, YOU are the one accepting it on faith. To date, there is data but no proof. Or, so it seems to me... global warming is your religion.

How about instead of me posting the studies I've seen, you watch this very imformative lecture by Professor Bob Carter.

Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist of more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. Bob has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways).

This is 4 part video with true, undisputed science being presented which unequivocally disproves any theory claiming that the earth is NOW being affected by global warming. Maybe it will in the future, but no data suggest the earth is warming NOW due to man's activity. Watch this video to see why that hypothesis fails.

So, why not just watch his lecture a tell me what you think? But keep it civil. I’m not looking to argue, I’m just on the road to knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related

 

[closet.cult]

jesus christ. i just flipped thru NASAs website. i never seen such rubbish. now i know where you get your dribble from. i dont usually go here but...

shut the fuck up asking me to post scientific studies. do your own goddamn research. i have read what you're reading and its bullshit. even if every temperature recording of their's is correct (they contradict other findings, including satalite data) their leap of faith that it 'means' gloabal warming is complete fiction. they think we're all stupid! well, some people are.

if the world were truly and positively warming right now, you still have to prove that CO2 is causing it. every website you send makes that giant leap of faith, without a single study proving dick.

why don't YOU try doing YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH, towlie. NASA is full of shit. the IPCC is full of shit. these politically motivated people post their data and then draw unfounded conclusions to it and think that the rest of us laymen are going to believe their bullshit?

how about YOU do some reading on your own of the global warming skeptics. leave your tried and true websites with doomsday scenerios meant to keep you in fear, and listen to what other more MODERATE scientists have to say about CO2 and global temperature variations. global warming is like a fucking religion where everyone screams at anyone who doesn't BELIEVE their doomsday STORY.

everytime i think i'll go ahead and hunt down the records and the correct interpretation i feel like i'm fucking doing someone elses homework. do you own goddamn research on boths sides of the issue and you'll reach the correct conclusion. i've done my research. i'll post an interesting article when i see one, but i'm not gonna spoon feed someone already indoctrinated by the church of environmentalism.

 

[towlie]

jesus christ. i just flipped thru NASAs website. i never seen such rubbish. now i know where you get your dribble from. i dont usually go here but...

Sweet!!! I post one set of non-scientific references and look how the mindset shows itself… Do I need to remind you that I did not post these as my scientific reference? The only study I have referenced here to date is a published study that has peer reviews… scientific reviews that you may use as your argument… Have you read them? Of course not, but they’re glowing. I read yours. Not so good…

Incidentally I’m glad that you finally now chose to look them up after you claimed to have been reading them for days…

shut the fuck up asking me to post scientific studies. do your own goddamn research.

LOL. Don’t you get it? If you were actually as educated in this debate as you claim to be, you’d already have done the research. I’m not asking you to do anything more than name it. “Do your own goddamn research.” Is simply an admission that you have no scientific study as a reference… Wow! Thank you. That’s the first question that you’ve answered. I’m going to keep a running poll of them now. If you need my representation of your answer to be changed please tell me to do so… This would however force you to respond to it.

i have read what you're reading and its bullshit. even if every temperature recording of their's is correct (they contradict other findings, including satalite data) their leap of faith that it 'means' gloabal warming is complete fiction. they think we're all stupid! well, some people are.

Why don’t you reference what you’ve found to be bullshit and why?

P.S. You're not a scientist.

if the world were truly and positively warming right now, you still have to prove that CO2 is causing it. every website you send makes that giant leap of faith, without a single study proving dick.

[cut & paste] What do you think I mean by you’re not a scientist? How many times do I have to remind you that you’re not a scientist? You’re not qualified? Yet you still offer the above mantra for what purpose?

why don't YOU try doing YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH, towlie. NASA is full of shit. the IPCC is full of shit. these politically motivated people post their data and then draw unfounded conclusions to it and think that the rest of us laymen are going to believe their bullshit?

What… You’re a laymen? But just above you seemed to think you were an expert. I already addressed the NASA site above. It would make your argument seem slightly less silly… slightly… if you responded in context.

The first time (I referenced the site): As a means for you to look up peer reviewed studies after you responded “do your own goddamn research.”

The second time: You claimed there is no scientific consensus on GW. So I asked you to choose a climate center of your liking so long as it was actively publishing. I posted the others as a means of avoiding your anticipated response, “do your own goddamn research.” So since this is a question of you choosing a research center of your liking, I would truly hope that NASA isn’t the one… but if not why are you wasting our time with it?


This is why I post your words prior to my response. It is to remind you, me, anyone what specifically I am responding to. It is quite clear why you do not. This is what you’re responding to:

[my words] “I offered you 4 published and renowned climatological research centers. I said pick one, or pick any one you can find… you’re a scientifically minded person right??? And let’s perform a search and choose the first 3, 5, 7, returns and see what they say. And your response is that you’ve read them and don’t find them convincing yet cant offer a single reason or peer review as to why. Every time I remind you that you ain’t qualified, you offer up something like that… That’s called faith my friend. We’re talking about science here.”

And your response is to attack NASA? Dude you checked out long ago.

how about YOU do some reading on your own of the global warming skeptics. leave your tried and true websites with doomsday scenerios meant to keep you in fear, and listen to what other more MODERATE scientists have to say about CO2 and global temperature variations.

Your argument has become absolutely laughable. This is not a political debate. What is a "MODERATE scientist?" When you find the time to look up ‘Consensus” flip over a couple of pages to ‘Science.’ The definition will astound you.

global warming is like a fucking religion where everyone screams at anyone who doesn't BELIEVE their doomsday STORY.

Holy shit… Do I even go here??? You’re beginning to sound like a creationists insisting that agnosticism and atheism are religions too.

everytime i think i'll go ahead and hunt down the records and the correct interpretation i feel like i'm fucking doing someone elses homework. do you own goddamn research on boths sides of the issue and you'll reach the correct conclusion.

Lol. Yep. Naming one of the studies you’re pretending to have read is much harder than explaining why you cannot. The fact that you would pretend that I did not read your reference in it’s entirety (even though it isn’t scientific) as well as it’s references, & the fact that you refuse to discuss it only proves your dishonesty in this debate.

i've done my research. i'll post an interesting article when i see one, but i'm not gonna spoon feed someone already indoctrinated by the church of environmentalism.

Lol. An article isn’t science.

Questions you are refusing to answer:

1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)

2) If you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates could you please explain why you’re citing references that deceitfully misquote the facts pertaining to them? If you’re going deny this will you please address the example I previously gave?

3) Furthermore if you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates… would you please cite a scientific reference supporting this? (You’re scientifically minded right?)

4) May I see your best scientific study please?

Answer: Do your own goddamn research

5) You’re argument is reduced to saying that the scientists disagree, but when I point out the similarly weighted consensus on UFO’s, 6,000 y/o earth, 911 conspiracy, etc. You completely ignore it. Could you please respond?

 

[towlie]

How about instead of me posting the studies I've seen, you watch this very imformative lecture by Professor Bob Carter.

Lol. When I ask for a scientific reference I should "do my own goddamn research." But apparently you've done plenty of partisan research.

Why don't you address the 'Moran Article' that I already responded to before posting further links in which you clearly aren't going to discuss.