Even my dog knows there's no such thing as AGW. However if you don't want to take his word for it...(you should he's really smart) then maybe you could just look at the evidence. Not just the 3 feet of snow I had to drive over with my big gas guzzling suv to get out of my driveway this morning either. There's been NO EVIDENCE of global warming since 1998!
20 comments:
No evidence of global warming since 1988? Becuase someone in an unsigned editorial said so?
1) Non-scientist? Check.
2) Non-scientific publication?check.
3) Untrue claims? Check.
By the way, your article said no global warming since 1998, not 1988. For another view:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/
Another link you won't read. (I read yours.)
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2009/03/10/no-global-warming-did-not-stop-in-1998/
You're right I won't read your links but thanks for the correction.
I tried to read it, but they lost me with "peer review" in the second paragraph. Thanks to the exposure of the climategate emails we now know that in regards to agw, the peer review process has zero scientific credibility.
Gary doesnt believe in agw, he believes in the end result of proposed agw legislaion; the destruction of industry, the punishment of the wealthy, and the redistribution of wealth, so he is willing to overlook the blantant falsehoods and scientific inaccuries.
Thankfully most people arent as stupid, and allow basic common sense to guide them to the conclusion that when everything someone says turns out to be wrong then the person saying it is wrong. The Himalayas will not melt in 5 years, the polar bears are not dying out, Manhattan is not buried in the ocean, the earth is not getting warmer every year. Sensible people can see through the pattern of lies.
Your dog wears a coat? Is it monogrammed? Does it match yours?
Yes my dog got a monogrammed coat for Christmas. He's pretty bad ass but he gets chilly sometimes in this extreme weather. It's got his name on it because he's also very fashion concious.
It doesn't match my coat, but i do have monogrammed dress shirts that I wear to work.
The first half of his life was pretty tough so I like to spoil him when I can.
I do not believe in "the destruction of industry, the punishment of the wealthy, and the redistribution of wealth." I do believe in common sense, although it is no substitute for the scientific method. Still common sense led me to dismiss "ClimateGate", as the emails quoted in the stories didn't support the conclusions the deniers drew from them.
You dismiss all the scientific bodies of the world as part of the plot, but jump on unsigned editorials, articles in LaRouche magazines, and Drudge links. Yes, there are a handful of scientists on your side, and even though they never seem to publish in the scientific literature it is remotely possible that they will be proven to be right, but clearly you accept their conclusions for political, not scientific, reasons. Science? Hell, Rhino doesn't even accept the theory of evolution.
Its not the sweaters that concern me, but rather the matching macrame jean shorts.
1. gary you do believe in redistribution of wealth. You are a big supporter of the progressive income tax that is the definition of redistribution.
2. they do not publish in peer reviewed journals because if you read the emails you would KNOW that they have been blocked out by the powers that be.
3. I do accept the theory of evolution...as a theory. I do not accept it as FACT because it has not been PROVEN.
1. By your definition I suppose but I do not accept your definition.
2. I did read the emails, well not all of them but the ones in the articles. I don't recall any skeptical articles even being submitted to peer-reviewed journals.
3. What does this mean? Everyone accepts that the theory of evolution is a theory. Do you accept that it is overwhelmingly probable? That there is strong evidence for it?
3. It means it's not FACT.
You want to accept it as fact just as Catholics accept creationism as fact.
Both sides have evidence but no proof.
I won't debate with you over which religion is right and wrong. I'm pretty sure they answered it in the South Park movie....MORMONS!
The theory of evolution is a well-supported scientific model that explains how the fact of evolution occurs, just as the theory of gravitation explains how the fact of gravity occurs.One definition of theory in science is "
a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
I have no interest in debating religion either. Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. There is a great deal of evidence for evolution, genetic, fossil, etc. There is NO evidence for creationism.
Like gravity eh? So you can drop algae from a tree and a shark hits the ground???
Extremely bad example that demonstrates you lack the mental capacity to understand actual science.
That has to be the most moronic comment you have ever made.
I figured youd respond that way. Haha see DOnkey is stoopid he think evolution is dropping algae from a tree haha.
Thing is, you dont realize just how stupid your comparison was so you dont understand I was mocking you. I can prove without question gravity right here and now, without question. I hit you, you hit the ground (stay down Rock)
We can see gravity in real time and for you to compare the theory of evolution to it shows just how moronic you are sir and just how much a religion it is to you as creationism is to the Catholics/Christians.
Good day sir. I said good day.
I was trying to explain to Rhino just what the word "theory" means in science, which he doesn't seem to grasp, as shown by his repeated demand for one "proof" of evolution. The "theory" of evolution is well-supported by several lines of evidence. It is science. Creationism is not supported by any evidence at all. It is religion. I understand the difference between the two; you apparently do not.
You were trying to compare something that everyone agrees as fact with something much debated in an attempt strengthen your case.
If you want to name drop Newton, why not his corpuscular theory of light. Widely believed to be fact at the time. Some reputable scientists names were discredited for disagreeing where with the almighty Newton, when in fact they were right and Newton was wrong.
I imagine if The Aurora were around back then the argument would have gone much like our arguments today.
Gary: The consenus is in, even TSINA (The Sir Isaac Newton Academy) agrees.
The Aurora. Well, Christiaan Huygens has some conflicting thoughts on the matter, and his wave theory seems to make some sense.
Gary: Christiaan Huygens???? LOL OMFG That dude is a science fiction writer and believes in extraterrestrials and probaly on Exxon's payroll.
End scene
If you dont want to run and google all my references, Ill give the short version. Huygens and The Aurora were right....you your ad hominem attacks and Newton were wrong.
Now that that's settled.
AGW is bullshit.
Post a Comment