RE: 0 + 0

RE: 0 + 0 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/17/2013 6:12:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Oh .. the latest bit of fraud... The EPA's top climate control scientist is charged with massive fraud. Seems he has been caught falsifying his credentials, work habits... But you do have to pity him. It is so hard to distinguish between falsifying climate records and bilking the tax payer - and merely falsifying work records and merely bilking the EPA. Pity he wasn't paid more. One guy may have been dishonest in his business practices. Are you really trying to say that discredits anyone or anything else?

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/17/2013 6:42:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Oh .. the latest bit of fraud... The EPA's top climate control scientist is charged with massive fraud. Seems he has been caught falsifying his credentials, work habits... But you do have to pity him. It is so hard to distinguish between falsifying climate records and bilking the tax payer - and merely falsifying work records and merely bilking the EPA. Pity he wasn't paid more. One guy may have been dishonest in his business practices. Are you really trying to say that discredits anyone or anything else? No, I'm saying since the entire operation is fraudulent, its understandable that one guy might push the boundaries. Lets pretend, for a moment DK, that you aren't an ultra-radical. What do you think it says about the culture of the EPA when a man can not show up to his job for 18 months. Where he can fly first class and stay in 5 star hotels and have the EPA pick up the costs. When he can retire - and still be getting a pay check for months. Would you say they are scrupulous with the tax payer dollars?

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/17/2013 8:06:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Lets pretend, for a moment DK, that you aren't an ultra-radical. What do you think it says about the culture of the EPA when a man can not show up to his job for 18 months. Where he can fly first class and stay in 5 star hotels and have the EPA pick up the costs. When he can retire - and still be getting a pay check for months. Would you say they are scrupulous with the tax payer dollars? Let's say for the purposes of speculation that you don't lie about everything, what does any of that have to do with climate change?

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/18/2013 12:09:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Lets pretend, for a moment DK, that you aren't an ultra-radical. What do you think it says about the culture of the EPA when a man can not show up to his job for 18 months. Where he can fly first class and stay in 5 star hotels and have the EPA pick up the costs. When he can retire - and still be getting a pay check for months. Would you say they are scrupulous with the tax payer dollars? Let's say for the purposes of speculation that you don't lie about everything, what does any of that have to do with climate change? Here's another old chestnut. Fish stink from the head.

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/19/2013 10:35:16 PM)
http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/18/ugly-climate-models But the IPCC is confident that warming will soon resume at a pretty fast clip. Back in 2007, other modelers were similarly confident about their forecasts for future warming. At the U.N.'s annual climate change conference in Bali, the U.K.'s Hadley Centre predicted that between 2004 and 2014 the global average temperature would rise by around 0.3 degree Celsius. Instead, the Nature Climate Change article reports, the trend during the last 15 years has amounted to an increase of just 0.05 degree Celsius per decade-one-sixth the Hadley Centre's predicted rise. .05 degree temperature rise over a decade. Thats the catastrophic climate change we've observed.

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/20/2013 10:46:18 AM)
Or you could be full of shit and temps have been rising steadily. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/20/2013 9:44:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Or you could be full of shit and temps have been rising steadily. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11 LOL.. You didn't notice how they changed the goalposts did you Ken. They are now comparing temperatures to the 20th century average. Not to the temperatures of 1976 when global warming "started". Did you know - that on the average year more than 10,000 record temperatures - high and low- happen? So - that whole page of visually impressive pablum - is exactly that. Pablum. Drivel. Nonsense. But ok. I'll use their data. I quote. "for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F)." Three quarters of a degree - over the average for 100 years. Averaging the increase over 100 years - .0075 degrees per year. See what I did there Ken? Now the IPCC 2007 predicted 2.4 degrees (or more) by 2020. Of course Al Gore (inventor of the internet) prophesied a 9 temperature degree rise. Others predicted .3 degrees in a decade. It doesn't matter what spin you give it. The science is shit. That rate - for the record - is less than the rate of global warming in the 1920s to early 1940's. But this time its different. Its catastrophic. .075 degrees. Yeah.. Real catastrophic. I don't go to the doctor for less than 3 degrees. What was it that the BBC said in 2007? Oh yes, British children might not know snow... Another global warming alarmist crap shot to hell...

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/20/2013 9:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Or you could be full of shit and temps have been rising steadily. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11 LOL.. You didn't notice how they changed the goalposts did you Ken. They are now comparing temperatures to the 20th century average. They've always used the 20th century average and no reputable scientist claimed climate change started in 1976. Try 1750. As to the rest, if your first line is wrong why should I even bother with more?

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/20/2013 10:25:22 PM)
Funny. First mention of global warming Aug 8, 1975. And he used 1975 as his baseline -ie., used the co2 emissions from 1975 and assumed growth of 3%. Good enough for the guy that invented the term I suspect its good enough for you.

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/20/2013 11:17:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Funny. First mention of global warming Aug 8, 1975. And he used 1975 as his baseline -ie., used the co2 emissions from 1975 and assumed growth of 3%. Good enough for the guy that invented the term I suspect its good enough for you. Actually the firs scientist to predict global warming from human released CO2 is Arrhenius in 1896. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/64/10/10.1063/PT.3.1295 Surprising how wrong the deniers are all the time.

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 5:03:28 PM)
Locked for review.

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 5:28:48 PM)
I have pulled several violations and the string of replies to them. Gold mail has been sent and a couple of Final warnings issued. Refrain from making personal attacks and the back and forth sniping that creates hijacks. Thanks for being a part of CollarMe, Gamma

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 6:27:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Funny. First mention of global warming Aug 8, 1975. And he used 1975 as his baseline -ie., used the co2 emissions from 1975 and assumed growth of 3%. Good enough for the guy that invented the term I suspect its good enough for you. Actually the firs scientist to predict global warming from human released CO2 is Arrhenius in 1896. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/64/10/10.1063/PT.3.1295 Surprising how wrong the deniers are all the time. Well someone got their feelings hurt. And so now I must repost absent characterizations about comprehension. Did I say the person that coined the term "global warming" was the first person to propose it? No. Nor did I mean it. For the record, arrhenious wasn't the first to propose it, either. His work, although brilliant, was derivative of Tyndall. And for the record - arrhenious thought global warming was a good thing as he (correctly) noted that food production increased and he thought it would make it easier to feed the teeming masses. No, I said the man that coined the phrase - global warming. What I said is what I meant.

deathtothepixies -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 6:44:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux What I said is what I meant. that is really scary, you actually believe everything you post is true. Good luck future generations, sorry we fucked it all up for you, sorry we used up all the fossil fuels, sorry about all the toxins, sorry about the atmosphere, sorry about the weather but we really didn't give a fuck because we were selfish greedy cunts

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 6:52:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Funny. First mention of global warming Aug 8, 1975. And he used 1975 as his baseline -ie., used the co2 emissions from 1975 and assumed growth of 3%. Good enough for the guy that invented the term I suspect its good enough for you. Actually the firs scientist to predict global warming from human released CO2 is Arrhenius in 1896. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/64/10/10.1063/PT.3.1295 Surprising how wrong the deniers are all the time. Well someone got their feelings hurt. And so now I must repost absent characterizations about comprehension. Did I say the person that coined the term "global warming" was the first person to propose it? No. Nor did I mean it. For the record, arrhenious wasn't the first to propose it, either. His work, although brilliant, was derivative of Tyndall. And for the record - arrhenious thought global warming was a good thing as he (correctly) noted that food production increased and he thought it would make it easier to feed the teeming masses. No, I said the man that coined the phrase - global warming. What I said is what I meant. You claim is as usual full of shit. The first use of the term is irrelevant. The fact is that people have been theorizing on what effects the burning of fossil carbon would have for more than a century. And Arrenhius thought the temperature would rise gradually over thousands of years not several degrees C in a century which has already happened. Although this does show the troubling obsession of right wing science deniers with the founders or pioneers in a field. Is it simply the RW authoritarian streak or some other personality quirk that makes right wingers focus on some individual in a field and act like that person defined the entire field forever?

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 6:55:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux What I said is what I meant. that is really scary, you actually believe everything you post is true. Good luck future generations, sorry we fucked it all up for you, sorry we used up all the fossil fuels, sorry about all the toxins, sorry about the atmosphere, sorry about the weather but we really didn't give a fuck because we were selfish greedy cunts Do you have any clue of just how much hydrocarbons are out there? we have a 20 year supply of shale based oil. a 70 year supply of shale based natural gas - more than 70 year supply of coal - more than a 200 year supply of methyl clathyrates. And this is without touching on energy reserves in the rest of the world - or huge methane reserves in siberia. People have been proclaiming the exhaustion of hydrocarbons for my entire life.

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 7:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Funny. First mention of global warming Aug 8, 1975. And he used 1975 as his baseline -ie., used the co2 emissions from 1975 and assumed growth of 3%. Good enough for the guy that invented the term I suspect its good enough for you. Actually the firs scientist to predict global warming from human released CO2 is Arrhenius in 1896. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/64/10/10.1063/PT.3.1295 Surprising how wrong the deniers are all the time. Well someone got their feelings hurt. And so now I must repost absent characterizations about comprehension. Did I say the person that coined the term "global warming" was the first person to propose it? No. Nor did I mean it. For the record, arrhenious wasn't the first to propose it, either. His work, although brilliant, was derivative of Tyndall. And for the record - arrhenious thought global warming was a good thing as he (correctly) noted that food production increased and he thought it would make it easier to feed the teeming masses. No, I said the man that coined the phrase - global warming. What I said is what I meant. You claim is as usual full of shit. The first use of the term is irrelevant. The fact is that people have been theorizing on what effects the burning of fossil carbon would have for more than a century. And Arrenhius thought the temperature would rise gradually over thousands of years not several degrees C in a century which has already happened. Although this does show the troubling obsession of right wing science deniers with the founders or pioneers in a field. Is it simply the RW authoritarian streak or some other personality quirk that makes right wingers focus on some individual in a field and act like that person defined the entire field forever? Lets recapitulate the argument: DomKen said - (paraphrased) no real scientists based global warming on 1975. I said (paraphased) the man who coined the term, and who has authored more than 400 papers used 1975 as the basis. I think he qualifies as real. DomKen then said (sputter sputter): Well he wasn't the first guy to propose global warming. Along with the usual nonsense about attacking deniers in a cult of personality or some such idiocy. To which my reply is: So?

deathtothepixies -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 7:09:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux What I said is what I meant. that is really scary, you actually believe everything you post is true. Good luck future generations, sorry we fucked it all up for you, sorry we used up all the fossil fuels, sorry about all the toxins, sorry about the atmosphere, sorry about the weather but we really didn't give a fuck because we were selfish greedy cunts Do you have any clue of just how much hydrocarbons are out there? we have a 20 year supply of shale based oil. a 70 year supply of shale based natural gas - more than 70 year supply of coal - more than a 200 year supply of methyl clathyrates. And this is without touching on energy reserves in the rest of the world - or huge methane reserves in siberia. People have been proclaiming the exhaustion of hydrocarbons for my entire life. Assuming those numbers are right, and they could all be collected and used efficiently without fucking the planet up which is a pretty fucking big assumption, what part of future generations didn't you understand? To be clear I wasn't meaning just your sons or daughters, or your grandsons/ daughters, the future actually goes a bit further than that. But what would you care? Make hay while the sun shines

deathtothepixies -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 7:18:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux authored I had to stop quilting at this point, but it's a big ask to accept "authored" as a word that any sane person would use. Grammar is dying almost as fast as common sense

dcnovice -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 7:27:31 PM)
quote: You progressives have put junk science up on a pedestal, A heliocentric universe, the efficacy of vaccines, and natural selection were "junk science" once too.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875