APP - Mike's Nature trick explained

Damn Yankee said:
Because when you deny reality you look like a fool. Duh.
Click to expand...
Why bother, DY....
You were absollutely right....the pinhead Brit doesn't even know what the fuck the thread is all about....
In some convoluted way, he seems to agree with the issue, but at the same time, bitches, whines and rants against the posters....
go figure....Lowaicue, indeed.....? Lower IQ positively....:palm:
 
Lowaicue said:
You dumbos will never get it, will you.
You are so obsessed at trying to prove your extreme right wing stupidity that you cannot see the truth when it is thrust into your tongue-lolling maw.

It is not difficult to take any set of data and dissect it to show an alternative result. But, hey, this asshole is saying what you 'know' to be true, right?

It doesn't matter what some yank half wit professor says. He's probably got a book on the stocks or he's trying to up his appearance fees.

And this is exactly how you do it!

The climate is changing. OK? Its undeniable. Note, I did not say it is going up, nor did I say it was changing in america. Globally the climate is changing. Incontravertable.

Is it man made? Well, the right wants you to believe that intelligent people say that it is all man's fault. Now if we can accept that, then prove that it isnt ALL man's fault, we win, huh... and if we win we can undermine Obama!!!! WTF!!!!

Now, just for one moment, one tiny moment, let's look at the truth.

The climate of planet earth is changing. It has NEVER been static, but now we are actually witnessing change. Who gives? Well, many yanks cannot accept that they MIGHT be part of the problem. They are f***** yanks for chrissakes. They NEVER take responsibility for jack shit!!!

So it's changing. The Maldives, for example, might disappear withing a decade. Don't give a shit? OK.

What happens when food prices rocket? you ain't seen nutt'n yet! What happens when the fish you catch off your coast migrate to different seas? What happens when, to grow the foods you like, you have to heat or ventillate the greenhouses?

Are you going to blame your president? Are you going to blame some foreign scientists? OR WILL YOU BLAME YOURSELVES for being asleep and ignoring the warnings?
Sleep on, for that is what stupid people do. Sleep on and one day you will awake and it will be too late.
Click to expand...

Man made global warming is a lie. This is just a ruse to justify putting the economies of western societies in the shitter.
 
"I do believe in global warming. I do! I do! I do believe in global warming."

I have to keep repeating that as I look at the three feet of snow in my back yard. :cig:
 
lol

I believe in statistics and repeatable experiments.
I believe in graphical representations of data sets that conform to rules of math,science and statistics
 
The aspect of this I find most interesting is why the right gets so upset over global warming science? This is science, if they are wrong, it will eventually be shown, so far 98% of scientists agree it is real. When in the history of science have 98% been proven wrong? Never.

But having lived a bit, I (we) saw the pollution and contamination of our lakes, rivers, and even ocean areas. Does no one remember the dying fish, trees and high bacterial levels of our mother, earth?

And assume the 2% are right, where is the fault in alternative energy, better and cleaner air, better use of resources and technology that has long term benefits? One of which is healthier people, a saving all around.

The anti earth movement of the deniers is odd in other respects as well. Do they all work in carbon industries? Is the propaganda of the carbon industries this strong? Are they thinking end-time is near? Do they think cleanup is a miraculous task of some divine entity? What exactly motivates a negativity that helps no one, and even hurts our economy due to foreign dependence and a halt to the inventiveness that should be a welcome American characteristic? Confuses the heck outta me.


http://www.qwiki.com/q/#!/Global_warming

http://blog.ted.com/2008/04/08/new_thinking_on/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php
 
midcan5 said:
The aspect of this I find most interesting is why the right gets so upset over global warming science? This is science, if they are wrong, it will eventually be shown, so far 98% of scientists agree it is real. When in the history of science have 98% been proven wrong? Never.

But having lived a bit, I (we) saw the pollution and contamination of our lakes, rivers, and even ocean areas. Does no one remember the dying fish, trees and high bacterial levels of our mother, earth?

And assume the 2% are right, where is the fault in alternative energy, better and cleaner air, better use of resources and technology that has long term benefits? One of which is healthier people, a saving all around.

The anti earth movement of the deniers is odd in other respects as well. Do they all work in carbon industries? Is the propaganda of the carbon industries this strong? Are they thinking end-time is near? Do they think cleanup is a miraculous task of some divine entity? What exactly motivates a negativity that helps no one, and even hurts our economy due to foreign dependence and a halt to the inventiveness that should be a welcome American characteristic? Confuses the heck outta me.


http://www.qwiki.com/q/#!/Global_warming

http://blog.ted.com/2008/04/08/new_thinking_on/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php
Click to expand...

For a start that 98% figure is a total fabrication and also there have been many occasions in history when scientific consensus has been totally wrong. Only someone without a scientific background would say something like that.
 
midcan5 said:
The aspect of this I find most interesting is why the right gets so upset over global warming science? This is science, if they are wrong, it will eventually be shown, so far 98% of scientists agree it is real. When in the history of science have 98% been proven wrong? Never.
DISINFORMATION ALERTS:1
STRAWMAN ALERTS:1
(the tired talking point was shown to be a product of statistical fraud. you warmers are not only uninformed of current developments, you proudly spout your dated rhetoric as if it's proven)
But having lived a bit, I (we) saw the pollution and contamination of our lakes, rivers, and even ocean areas. Does no one remember the dying fish, trees and high bacterial levels of our mother, earth?

And assume the 2% are right, where is the fault in alternative energy, better and cleaner air, better use of resources and technology that has long term benefits? One of which is healthier people, a saving all around.

The anti earth movement of the deniers is odd in other respects as well. Do they all work in carbon industries? Is the propaganda of the carbon industries this strong? Are they thinking end-time is near? Do they think cleanup is a miraculous task of some divine entity? What exactly motivates a negativity that helps no one, and even hurts our economy due to foreign dependence and a halt to the inventiveness that should be a welcome American characteristic? Confuses the heck outta me.


http://www.qwiki.com/q/#!/Global_warming

http://blog.ted.com/2008/04/08/new_thinking_on/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php
Click to expand...


I didn't read the rest of your BS.
 
Craig Loehle: Posted Mar 15, 2011 at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

Sorry, should read before posting…Briffa bodge…
The transcript above from Jones and Nurse is priceless, where they don’t seem to grasp how deceptive it is to do what they did to the data. To alter graph because you “know” what the data should look like is post-normal science at its best, like making up numbers in the millions for homeless people or for those dying from climate change.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Loehle
 
Mid is just another psuedo-intellectual who parrots the CAGW propaganda.

here's the skinny on polar bears
Mitchell Taylor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w.svg" class="image"><img alt="Wiki letter w.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg/40px-Wiki_letter_w.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg/40px-Wiki_letter_w.svg.png

Mitchell Taylor, PhD, is a Canadian biologist specializing in polar bears. Canada has the world's largest polar bear population.[1]

Taylor was involved in research and management of polar bears for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Territory since 1987. Dr. Taylor was a member of the Canada’s Federal Provincial Polar Bear Technical Committee until 2008. Dr. Taylor has published over 50 scientific papers on polar bear related topics, has worked in the field on most of the world's polar bear populations. Most recently he and colleagues completed the Davis Strait population inventory (one of the most southern of all polar bear populations) and is a co-author on Canada’s Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) polar bear draft status report. From 2004 to 2008, he was also manager of the decentralized and relocated Wildlife Research Section.[2]
Controversy about polar bears and climate change

One of the most publicized negative effects of climate change is the decline of polar bear population. Taylor believes that "Polar bears, as a species, do not appear to be threatened or in decline based on the data that I’ve seen at the present time, although some populations do seem to be experiencing deleterious effects from climate change."[2] Taylor was not invited to an international meeting of polar biologists held 29 Jun–3 Jul 2009 in Copenhagen. The chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), Dr Andy Derocher explained that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition". Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".[3]

Taylor was a participants in all the previous PBSG meetings between 1981 and 2005.[4]

In their press release after the meeting, "The PBSG renewed the conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest challenge to conservation of polar bears is ecological change in the Arctic resulting from climatic warming."[5]

citations at wiki
 
tom prendergast said:
For a start that 98% figure is a total fabrication and also there have been many occasions in history when scientific consensus has been totally wrong. Only someone without a scientific background would say something like that.
Click to expand...

When science is permanently correct it ceases to be science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top