Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
to date, you just ignore what you don't like...you NEVER discuss the content of the links that contradict your contentions.
Do you understand how to debate?
APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
to date, you just ignore what you don't like...you NEVER discuss the content of the links that contradict your contentions.
Do you understand how to debate?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Translation: This apologist and defender of the industrial status quo doesn't have any logical or factual refute for the following, so he just lies. Delusional fool actually thinks that no one back checks on these threads.
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"
let's use my climate tool to make our own graphs of the data.
Save the page to a folder as an .html and open it with notepad. You can now change the data set and save it as a new .html with different datasets.
The spline is accurate and what you see is exactly the same thing a climate scientist would be using.
This graphs one of James Hansen's data set.
http://stirfrydesign.110mb.com/climatemetrics/climateHistogramandSpline.html
You see, once I begin learning about a subject, I don't stop until I fully understand.
Save the page to a folder as an .html and open it with notepad. You can now change the data set and save it as a new .html with different datasets.
The spline is accurate and what you see is exactly the same thing a climate scientist would be using.
This graphs one of James Hansen's data set.
http://stirfrydesign.110mb.com/climatemetrics/climateHistogramandSpline.html
You see, once I begin learning about a subject, I don't stop until I fully understand.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yeah... your moronic posts have nothing to do with why you are treated like a fool.
Read above... Good Luck says 'we need to work to clean up pollutants, but I will not fall in line with the hysteria of CO2 being a pollutant' then you pretend he doesn't care about cleaning up the ACTUAL pollutants. When you deliberately misrepresent a persons position, it means you are either a liar or so brainwashed from the kool-aid and bullshit consumption that you are incapable of doing anything but parrot the moronic 'defenses' of those who were harping on 'doomsday' scenarios due to 'global warming' (which has mysteriously turned into 'climate change')
There are plenty of great reasons to clean up our air, water and land pollution. However, the fear mongers are a detriment to the cause.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Apparently YOU do not. Good Luck has refuted your ignorance time and again and you continue to ignore his posts. Why is that?
Lowaicue
英語在香港
I would regard being treated like a fool by someone with your intellect as something of a compliment.
I have never taken a position on CO2 nor have I, here, taken a position on greenhouse gases. However the fact that what we label as greenhouse gases are having a detrimental effect on our environment is well documented. That doesn't mean to say that I am blaming the increase in the atmosphere of CO2 for the problems or possible problems that we appear to be facing.
What I do know, and what I do take a position on, is the irresponsible use of the planet purely for profit at the expense of the poor and the flora and fauna of the world.
We, the west, and particularly you, America, are guilty as charged of adding to the pollution of the planet with your obsessive use of hydrocarbons, your uniqely selfish attitude, your blind support of companies like Monsanto and GM foods. The amount of filth that your nation spews into the world is far greater, per capita, than any other nation in the world. For you, and people like you, to be trying to spin this major and significant problem by trying to take it apart and creating arguments about this particular chemical or this particular industry shows an ignorance and arrogance beyond the comprehension of the rest of the human population.
OK Moron?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
H2O is a greenhouse gas. I guess that means we're fucked.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
I think if you tried to breath H20 you might well be
Litmus
Verified User
Not really. Ain't you ever breathed in the london fog? Or smelt you're own wet one?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again, your ignorance compels you to create false scenarios and pretend that your opponents are taking positions that they are not indeed taking. This is called a strawman. You attempt to project your hatred of America (oh... I mean your 'admiration') into every single thread you participate in.
I did not attempt to diminish the need to clean up pollution. To the contrary, I stated quite clearly that there are many great reasons for cleaning up the pollution of our air, water and land. (this was clear to all except the greatest of morons)
In addition, I stated that the fear mongering of those who try to force the concept of CO2 being a pollutant and man 'causing' global warming is actually a detriment to those of us who are trying to clean things up.
People like you who want to point fingers and see who is 'most to blame' are also a part of the problem. Most people in the US are quite aware that there is a need for us to see significant improvements in reducing our pollutants. But again, people like you who cannot comprehend the impact of fear mongering and finger pointing are a part of the problem. Not a part of the solution.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Let's go back and look at the links I provided which demonstrated how natural climatic change can be affected by ARTIFICIAL levels of CO2 VIA INDUSTRIALIZATION and pollutants IN ADDITION TO DEFORESTATION AND URBANIZATION.
Pay attention, mastermind....no one is denying normal climate change...what industrial apologist like you are trying to say is that what I mentioned above has NO impact on the environment. Look at this discussion....learn beyond what you agree with
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...nhouse-effect/
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Evidently, you haven't read through the posts thoroughly....because if you did you would note that I go point for point with GL. TinFoil does NOTHING of the kind...he seems to think just spamming with articles that he feels supports his position is enough.
To date, GL has NOT logically or factuallydisproved my points and information...he just disagrees with it. Big difference.
But obviously, YOU are ignorant of the differences between proof and belief. So until you get up to speed on that, your little inserts like this are pretty much worthless.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I put in bold the main flaw in your mindset on this subject.
First off, exactly what do you think is the goal of the "fear mongering"? What evil purpose could lay beneath reduction in polluting the air, land and water? Who is getting "ripped off"?
To date, people like you have no straight answer. If you've got one, then please enlighten us all.
Secondly, you make the fatal flaw in stating that those who foster the notion of global warming are labeling CO2 as a "pollutant". Had you paid attention, you would have noted that the argument is that ARTIFICIALLY INCREASED CO2 levels in conjunction with the Earth's natural cycles PLUS deforestation, urbanization and pollution on various levels over the last century are causing problems.
Once you get beyond the hyperbole arguments on both sides, you'll see this.
Litmus
Verified User
The reason for the fear mongering is to convince people to accept totalitarian energy policy and extra taxes on energy usage. That's easy to see.
Something "considered bad" is generally also considered a "pollutant".
The villainization of carbon dioxide the is the biggest perversion of science in a long time.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
You seem to rather like the word 'totalitarianism'. Is that because you have personal experience of such a system or have you researched it?
Damn, man, you really don't read a word I write. I have accepted that there is a anthropogenic component to CO2 forcing. The problem I have is that every unknown forcing models or studies can not explain by things we think we know gets lumped into either CO2 forcing or specifically Anthropogenic CO2 forcing. There are so many dynamics of the climate we do not understand fully and it's poor science to treat models as if they are accurate enough to use to prove assumptions built into them.
You can't use a climate model that is based on CO2 theory to PROVE the same theory!!
Litmus
Verified User
Researched it. It's bad.
I've seen how leaders of free men have conspired with totalitarians to destroy the lives of free men with the use of slave labor. Human slavery is not a legitimate comparative advantage.
Litmus
Verified User
What do you expect? Taichi displays the intelligence of lint.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
totalitarianism does not automatically assume slave labour. India has child slave labour. It is not totalitarian. America had slave labour, it was not totalitarian. True they sometimes go together but they are not automatic partners.
Then again one cannot say that an unskilled labourer earning a couple of dollars a day is an example of slave labour. Under some systems he would get free accomodation (rudimentary to say the least) and either free or subsidised food. Also that one dollar might purchase sufficient for him to live and keep his family.
The only thing you can safely say about totalitarianism is that, as a form of government, it does not allow opposition parties. Yes it is bad. No argument.