Niflmir, regarding your post #80, all I can do is laugh.
So you say, but then you probably wouldn't know the difference between a serious research question that does question global warming, and one that does but isn't very serious. You've certainly never given any hint otherwise. You spew out talking points like a politician.
Your rhetoric is what is truly "lacking clothes."
.Glen Beck is a Mormon
Those here that bash Glen Beck know nothing or little of him, except what they might have learned fom the fringe-media, aka. CNN, ABC, CBS, CBC, NBC, NPR, etc.
All that one needs in order to make that conclusion is to see just how widespread the rumor is that Glen Beck raped and murdered that girl back in 1990. End of story.
pot.. kettle.. black... 'Dr.' Tonnington. :roll:
What is the party line? They disagree on plenty. You can't comprehend that unless you hear lectures, presentations, and read comments to published articles.Scientists, particularly scientific bureacrats, which make up the bulwark of the University establishment, act like bureacrats everwhere. They tow the party line, and stay in line for their pensions.
Polygong, you NEVER SAW Glen Beck on FOXNews, because, like all your loudmouthed ilk, you are too cheap to subscribe to FOXNews on cable.
Please give an explanation, or links why you think (?) that Glen Beck is a "complete twat".
Those here that bash Glen Beck know nothing or little of him, except what they might have learned fom the fringe-media, aka. CNN, ABC, CBS, CBC, NBC, NPR, etc.
These know-it-all pretententious bastards NEVER once did watch Glen Beck on FOXNews, because they are too cheap to subscribe on the cable to FOXNews.
Please, the idiot who dismissed Beck as a Mormon, tell the world just what is wrong with being a Mormon?
Glenn Beck maybe a "complete twat", but your just showing how ignorant some people can be.
Hey, I never claimed to be an expert, but I have posted many threads on this forum on this particular science. You respond to threads with rhetoric. You've never gave any indication that you do understand the science, and you've given plenty of examples where you plainly don't.
What is the party line? They disagree on plenty. You can't comprehend that unless you hear lectures, presentations, and read comments to published articles.
Want a sample, go to this thread I wrote the other day:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/climate-change/86799-climate-change-101-sensitivity.html
Yep. People can come here to read other's opinions and this is cheaper than paying for tv to hear other's opinions. lolWhat's the difference? Same knob, different network.
The reason I don't subscribe to FOX is because I simply do not want it. It has nothing on it which interests me. Same reason I don't subscribe to many other cable stations. I do however subscribe to some stations that do interest me, such as GOLTV. Nothing to do with being cheap, just don't to pay for things that I don't want. Who does?
Same reason as why Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore are complete twats. Nothing but a bunch of pundits schlepping a schitck to tell a pile of masses of linear thinkers what they want to hear for the sake of high ratings and the resulting cash.
I don't think that any of them actually believe (fully) in what they peddle, unless they've completely lost it and become their character, like that guy from Seinfeld who played Kramer.
So because there are flaws in models, science has political ideology in it, and such red herrings, you and people like you automatically leap to the conclusion that AGW is balogna. Brilliant! lmao Wise people would wait to make a judgement until the issue becomes clearer. People who leap to conclusions before all the facts are in are simply being foolish. Discretion keeps wise people searching for the relevant and rational pieces of the puzzle. Emotional belligerence makes the foolish leap to conclusions in rebellion to the political ideologies and whatnot. Besides that, dismissing evidence just because one doesn't like it is just stupid.Show me a major scientific journal that has published anything refuting AGW in the last decade. There is lot's of evidence that not only the science is deeply flawed with political ideology, specifically radical environmentalism, but that the evidence keeps changing as the predictions of Warming have failed to materialize.
The whole language of what is at best a threadbare thesis has infected the popular media. We know longer hear of carbon emissions, which draws an immediate reference to the most fundamental energy producing resource of our age, but to 'Green House Gases'.
The last public forum i heard on this was by Larry King, who brought on AGW skeptics on one of his shows in a brave display of investigative journalism, that has all but disappeared from the rest of the media.
The 'Party Line' is clearly the human emissions of carbon are causing an enviromental catastrophe, looming within a few decades at most. That it is irreversably damaging our environment. It exists in theory as a solitude, without relationship, to the scant knowledge we have of climatological epoch in geophysical history and their causes.
It is propelled by fear mongering. Its supposed solutions, in cap and trade, hold huge consequences for economic dissolution, deindustrialization, depopulation. It is heavily invested now by trading interests who have cornered the market on 'carbon credits' and stand to make billions, irregardless of the vast populations that will be negatively effected by it.
My 'rhetoric' has consistently pointed to the tactics, and the lack of scientific integrity, and the motives of those who are pushing this fiasco. If it looks like a duck, and walks like and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And AGW is quacking like a gigantic fraud.
So because there are flaws in models, science has political ideology in it, and such red herrings, you and people like you automatically leap to the conclusion that AGW is balogna. Brilliant! lmao Wise people would wait to make a judgement until the issue becomes clearer. People who leap to conclusions before all the facts are in are simply being foolish. Discretion keeps wise people searching for the relevant and rational pieces of the puzzle. Emotional belligerence makes the foolish leap to conclusions in rebellion to the political ideologies and whatnot. Besides that, dismissing evidence just because one doesn't like it is just stupid.
Yeah, well, fools listen to the science of the media and the science of politics.This bogus 'science' has been labelled as LAW not theory by the political and media establishment. Its supposed solutions are catastrophically damaging to the world economy.
I think you just have your POV and simply won't change it in spite of any evidence. Kind of like deists, when they refute evidence in order to support their dogma (Creationism, IE).If there was an honest scientific inquiry i'd accept it as such, but that doesn't exist with AGW. There is no valid proof and no verifiable evidence for any of this. It is a political construct, not a scientific one.
Personally I don't care why things are driven very much. I want to see the results. Just because someone has an agenda, doesn't mean they are full of steer manure.It is driven by sociological events associated with rampant pessimism and occultism that has pervaded our culture, and speculators who are cashing in on it.
What massive negative consequences? Businesses going under? Other businesses will start up? Businesses that continue having to clean up their act? It makes for a better planet to be cleaner. People becoming more ecologically conscious? I can't see harm in that either.The trappings and motives of this makes AGW's true nature apparent. It is a fraud, one with massive negative consequences to the world community.
Kind of like deists, when they refute evidence in order to support their dogma
The theory of evolution wasn't hatched in one day. It still has holes in it. But as time moves on we get a little closer to a more complete description. Same applies to climate science. As time moves on, we learn a little more. As I said, only fools attach themselves to an idea and don't swerve as new evidence pops into the light.Well that might be true of Deists, but i don't think it applies to Theists, such as myself, who rely on revelation, and than imputing imperfect assumptions on imcomplete natural evidence.