Originally posted by sonhouseYou mean the people who receive funding based on global warming do a study to throw mud on those who oppose them?
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html
I meant to say global warming deniers. Sorry.
Say it isn't so.
You simply believe who agrees with your worldview on this matter. Since you are old and will die in the next 20 or so years you will never live to see if the gloom and doom is true or not.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by Eladar
You mean the people who receive funding based on global warming do a study to throw mud on those who oppose them?
Say it isn't so.
You simply believe who agrees with your worldview on this matter. Since you are old and will die in the next 20 or so years you will never live to see if the gloom and doom is true or not.
You mean the people who receive funding based on global warming
You mean the scientists such as climate scientists that analyses and observe to see if there is any global warming? What? Because, just like most scientists, the get “funding” i.e. they are paid a wage to do science research, it must mean it one big conspiracy that 99% of them report that they observe evidence for warming? That is a really stupid argument. Could it be, just maybe, just perhaps the reason why 99% of them report that they observe evidence for warming is because there is evidence for warming?
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSince you claim to be a God fearing sort, do you think God approves of men and women who defile the planet he/she/it created? Think about it because you seem to believe God is going to punish the wicked, which I think just might include you.
I like warm weather.
There's reason to debate. Recently, the LA Times and Reddit both decided to stop publishing or eliminate the opinions of "deniers".
Climate science is, therefore, the first science to have no further boundaries to explore. Climate science is the first science in the history of mankind where the science is "settled". Newtonian physics isn't settled, but climate "science" is? And for such a new field - what an achievement!
Climate "science" is a religion. "Deniers" are subjected to the same professional treatment as Galileo - who was right, by the way. Scientific achievement trumped religion then, it will do so in this case.
Climate science can be argued to be nothing more than a vast wealth transfer program from industrialized nations to developing nations, so that the middle class in industrialized nations may develop. We all know how that will turn out. Food from the UN will be distributed by the local warlord in power.
Originally posted by sasquatch672That s just pure nonsense: Newtonian physics is a very generally applied physics which was never supposed to be forever 'settled' in particular. In fact, Newton himself basically said as much.
There's reason to debate. Recently, the LA Times and Reddit both decided to stop publishing or eliminate the opinions of "deniers".
Climate science is, therefore, the first science to have no further boundaries to explore. Climate science is the first science in the history of mankind where the science is "settled". Newtonian physics isn't settl ...[text shortened]... now how that will turn out. Food from the UN will be distributed by the local warlord in power.
But very basic physics tells us that CO2 SHOULD cause global warming and, in addition, we have a vast mountain of empirical evidence that proves that it generally does.
And, as if that was not enough proof, global warming is just an observation. The global warming deniers have their claims scientifically debunked forever just as the round-Earth deniers have.
So saying that climate science is not a science but a 'religion' because it dismisses the absurd claims global warming deniers is as ridiculous as saying geology is not a science but a 'religion' because it dismisses the round-Earth deniers. In fact, if climate science didn't dismiss the absurd claims global warming deniers, it would instantly become a religion for no true science would deny such irrefutable empirical evidence; only a religion does that.
Just answer this one question;
is modern geology a religion and not a science because it doesn't ever even consider the possibility that the Earth is not round but flat?
This question exposes just how ridiculous your argument is.
Climate science can be argued to be nothing more than a vast wealth transfer program from industrialized nations to developing nations, so that the middle class in industrialized nations may develop. We all know how that will turn out. Food from the UN will be distributed by the local warlord in power.
What planet are you on? or I should better ask: What are you on? None of that makes any sense.
22 Dec 13
Originally posted by humyIt's the strangers to the science forum who tend to reckon themselves the masters of science.
That s just pure nonsense: Newtonian physics is a very generally applied physics which was never supposed to be forever 'settled' in particular. In fact, Newton himself basically said as much.
But very basic physics tells us that CO2 SHOULD cause global warming and, in addition, we have a vast mountain of empirical evidence that proves that it generally does. ...[text shortened]... n for no true science would deny such irrefutable empirical evidence; only a religion does that.
22 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarSo in other words, at some point, when a couple of billion people have died from starvation say, 200 years from now, your god will come in and fix all the boo boo's mankind has foisted on itself?
You mean the people who receive funding based on global warming do a study to throw mud on those who oppose them?
Say it isn't so.
You simply believe who agrees with your worldview on this matter. Since you are old and will die in the next 20 or so years you will never live to see if the gloom and doom is true or not.
BTW, don't just count on me kicking off in 20:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-aging-reversed.html#ajTabs
Originally posted by humyYou mean the people who receive [b]fundingbased on global warming
You mean the scientists such as climate scientists that analyses and observe to see if there is any global warming? What? Because, just like most scientists, the get “funding” i.e. they are paid a wage to do science research, it must mean it one big conspiracy that 99% ...[text shortened]... of them report that they observe evidence for warming is because there is evidence for warming?[/b]Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests here is blind.
Money makes people do strange things. There is big money in global warming and some of the biggest beneficiaries of that money are the people making the claim.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe odds are with me when I say you won't last 20 more years. Even if you do, your brain probably wont.
So in other words, at some point, when a couple of billion people have died from starvation say, 200 years from now, your god will come in and fix all the boo boo's mankind has foisted on itself?
BTW, don't just count on me kicking off in 20:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-aging-reversed.html#ajTabs
You are so caught up in your religous fervor that you can't even question the global warming experts who didn't see the last 19 years without global warming coming. I base my belief on how things are going on what I've actually exerpieced and seen first hand. You base yours on what you government and leftist activists have told you. Your gods have led you astray.
Here is something of interest that mentions just one of those false claims made in years past by people that you like to believe:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
22 Dec 13
3 edits
Originally posted by Eladar
Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests here is blind.
Money makes people do strange things. There is big money in global warming and some of the biggest beneficiaries of that money are the people making the claim.
Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests here is blind.
And how exactly does this “conflict of interests” mean that all the data collected, that CLEARLY PROVES CO2-driven global warming is real (which it CLEARLY does ) , is false?
Do you despite the data?
Would you claim all the millions of measurements made INDEPENDENTLY by all the scientists AND other people ( i.e. none scientists ) across the globe are all faked because scientist get paid a wage for collecting and analyzing this data? If so, exactly HOW does that work? I mean, do all the scientists tell the weather people that make most of the daily measurements to “measure higher temperatures or else” or what exactly?
You’re not making any logical sense here whatsoever.
Originally posted by humyDid you not read the link that I gave in my last post?Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests here is blind.
And how exactly does this “conflict of interests” mean that all the data collected, that CLEARLY PROVES CO2-driven global warming is real (which it CLEARLY does ) , is false?
Do you despite the data?
Would you claim all the millions of measurements made INDEPENDENTLY by ...[text shortened]... er temperatures or else” or what exactly?
You’re not making any logical sense here whatsoever.
Is the arctic ocean devoid of ice?
The world is not coming to an end. You can keep pumping money into the hands of those who hype if you wish. I simply see it as foolishness.