Our cooling world
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
No, it only required the same level of thought put into your posts. Which is apparently very little. I could have embellished on your amnesia, reading incomprehension, or ad hominem agenda, but any casual reader would already know you suffer from those.
Last edited:
Good. Now if you replaced all of your 'thoughtful' posts with that one word, we would save a lot of time and cyberspace. In the meantime, you can work on reading comprehension and get back to digesting that report again. 
Well, it would sure save me a lot of time in responding to your contributions... That one word accurately captures the spirit and content of your submissions.
Yes, since I actually have a history of posting pro bono information, while you don't, lol. Now the amnesia is kicking in.
Well of course it wouldn't if all you post is cartoons to fuel an ad hominem attack. As for the countless teachers and professionals who use it daily for educational purposes - why don't you preach that to them and see if you make any headway.
So, what was that point you were trying to make again? Because sidekick didn't need any help to man-handle you. I suggest you refrain from further ad hominems and misleading posts. They just come back to blow up in your face.
Last edited:
Please spare me...
This issue has proven to be far more complex and involved than any ridiculous youtube video that you elect to post. Maybe you can source some youtube videos that outline a do-it-yourself home liver transplant... That's kinda in the same range as your oversimplification of the global climatic systems.
Attempting to simplify this issue is one thing, but leaning on some yahoo that makes a youtube video in their garage is naive and borders on the absurd. The only thing that makes your youtube submissions more remarkable is that you feel that this superficial kitchen-counter-science trumps the real work that has been done in the area.
Grow up already and for the record, we can go on forever providing negative ratings on unrelated posts for each other. If that makes you feel more solid in the youtube science, then fill your boots.
This issue has proven to be far more complex and involved than any ridiculous youtube video that you elect to post. Maybe you can source some youtube videos that outline a do-it-yourself home liver transplant... That's kinda in the same range as your oversimplification of the global climatic systems.
Attempting to simplify this issue is one thing, but leaning on some yahoo that makes a youtube video in their garage is naive and borders on the absurd. The only thing that makes your youtube submissions more remarkable is that you feel that this superficial kitchen-counter-science trumps the real work that has been done in the area.
Grow up already and for the record, we can go on forever providing negative ratings on unrelated posts for each other. If that makes you feel more solid in the youtube science, then fill your boots.
Begging to be spared as usual.
I didn't negative rate any of your posts for this so I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one going on a negative rating rampage. I personally couldn't care less about my rating. My posts can stand on their own merits, unlike your worthless diatribe.
Aside from your rhetoric, I've been trying to curb this back to the topic of the report. You know, the same report that doesn't fly in the face of the IPCC. The same report that acknowledges multiple sources for global warming, but actually admits anthropogenic factors as the most influential. The same report that neither you nor the Calgary Herald can comprehend?
Yea, that report. I've been waiting for you to actually justify your position on this, but all you've provided is rhetoric. Would you like to actually say something substantial now or do you want to post another youtube video about a cartoon sidekick to make a point?
I didn't negative rate any of your posts for this so I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one going on a negative rating rampage. I personally couldn't care less about my rating. My posts can stand on their own merits, unlike your worthless diatribe.
Aside from your rhetoric, I've been trying to curb this back to the topic of the report. You know, the same report that doesn't fly in the face of the IPCC. The same report that acknowledges multiple sources for global warming, but actually admits anthropogenic factors as the most influential. The same report that neither you nor the Calgary Herald can comprehend?
Yea, that report. I've been waiting for you to actually justify your position on this, but all you've provided is rhetoric. Would you like to actually say something substantial now or do you want to post another youtube video about a cartoon sidekick to make a point?
Last edited:
If you go back a page, you'll see that you haven't been negative rated for any of your posts so I have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to whine any further about this then send a PM instead of diverting.
As it stands you still haven't validated your phony interpretation of the Royal Society Report.
Good luck with that.
As it stands you still haven't validated your phony interpretation of the Royal Society Report.
Good luck with that.
Whatever... I too could really care less, but rather than trolling through dead threads, at least man-up and make your statement head-on on the post that offends your sensibilities.
Normally that would be a 2 sentence response, however, for the fanatic, it requires a bit more.
Whether you like it or not, the condemnation was delivered in the form of the Royal Society providing a semi, pseudo luke-warm position of support. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, this Milquetoast toast form of "support" is, in and of itself, a slap in the face considering that the IPCC and the associated greenie groups expected the Society to march lock-step in their blind faith in AGW.
I don't expect you to understand, but this report represents the writing on the wall that AGW is slowly being removed from the priority lists
No science is without caveats. It's implicitly understood by anyone who works in scientific fields. Scientists make recommendations based on the balance of evidence, and the balance of evidence, as the Royal Society report concludes, suggests anthropogenic climate change. Anyone who reads the report comes away with that impression, except you. You, the person who has on multiple occasions said that without a complete knowledge of a dynamic system, that we cannot say anything useful about the system.
Complete rubbish.
You would need an idea first to make that claim, and you plainly don't. You said it was impossible. It's clearly not.
False. Plenty is impossible in theory.
Your view of science is not reality based. I manipulate these principles derived from scientific laws at work for our advantage all the time.
... But the science was settled not so long ago, it was definitive.
Now all the sudden, it is riddled with caveats and disclaimers. The thrust of the damage from teh Society's paper lies in the strong presence of these disclaimers; that presence was not there before.
But this discussion is neither here nor there. If you interpret this report as being complete and solid support of AGW, that's your business.
Of course it is... You need to believe that otherwise you entire basis of "science" is undermined. As I mentioned before, you have too much personal capital invested in this, to reverse now would result in your academic bankruptcy.
Suit yourself.. If you say that the oceans are warming and increasing in acidification, that's your business...
Yes.. AGW in the form that you purpose is an excellent example
That's rich... Especially the part about cherry-picking.
You see morgan, this is what people normally call rhetoric. In this thread you will find actual material from that report that we've posted that doesn't imply any pseudo-psychic luke-warm bath position of support. Your problem is apparently forgetting any snippets, not acknowledging them and then making baseless statements like this latest post. If you don't want the stigma of being an incomprehensible amnesiac, you'll have to do better than that.
Why don't you go ahead and man up by posting those disclaimers.
No it wasn't. That's a strawman. If the science was settled, there would be nobody publishing new investigations. Some of the science is very strong though, such as the radiative properties of carbon dioxide. The only folks who deny this are cranks and those with an inclination towards conspiracy theories.
Or those whose bottom line depends on trying (unsuccessfully) to debunk global warming because they are heavily invested in carbon polluting industries like big oil.
This argument is futile because deniers will never agree to the obvious because they don't care about future generations, just their own profit margins.
Your position is without merit Cliffy, especially as you support oil each and every day. Why is it that the eco-fringe spend all of their time pissing and moaning about what others should do yet have zero solutions to offer?.. If you're upset with oil companies Cliffy, stop making them wealthier by purchasing their products.
It couldn't be any easier... All it takes is some will power and a drive to live up to the expectations that you would like society to be held.
You can read, can't you?
Read the paper and you find them. They are glaringly obvious, enough so that an article was written and syndicated throughout numerous newspapers.
Can you understand that?... i mean, really understand?
Delude yourself all you like. You Truthers are a dying breed
I was being sarcastic.. But conveniently, you made my point for me.