RE: Climate Change

RE: Climate Change (Full Version)

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

Message

joether -> RE: Climate Change (3/18/2015 11:10:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I know you've got a lot going on in that big big college-man head of yours, but I just didn't want you to forget this: quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata >Since its been 'proved' that God exists, according to your view on Christianity. You're making shit up again, but let's see what you've got. Where's the link, bozo? Or was this just another lie too: quote: ORIGINAL: joether I'll give a source to show where the information is originating from. So you can look at it, and determine for yourself if things are true and correct. I'll be hearing from you soon, right? Oh look....ANOTHER...mindless attack by Kirata. Put off that someone attacked his viewpoints with reality, he has to slam back at the person with even further levels of insult and pettiness. I've asked you a number of fair questions in the past. Until you have balls between your legs to answer them equally fairly, I will conclude that I have won in this 'battle of wills' for all time. Your problem is you dont have a leg to stand on this subject matter. Based on observation, I dont think you have....EVER....had a decent argument on this subject matter. If I'm going to attack Christianity or any other religion, I would do it with respect towards those that have good minds and reasons (whom use the religion to become a better person). You attack everyone in science, irrelevant of whether they are doing good things for humanity or not. Just like with politics in America, you think of things as 'Zero Sum' between religion verse science. That if you can undermine this theory, it will some how, be a good thing for your religion. Reality is, the theory and your religious beliefs are two separate things. One is based on reality and the other on fantasy. There are plenty of Christians that will use the latest and greatest in medical science to help treat, cure, and heal others. Physically, mentally, and emotionally. There are Christians that use physics to explore the universe, to help build good solid bridges and buildings. They work to help treat those with horrible mental and emotional problems cause by any number of factors. None of these people are 'hung up' on science as it relates to their religious beliefs. They all have college degrees. They usually have "...a lot going on in that big big college-man[/woman] head..." of theirs too! So what you thought was a post attacking me for being college educated, you've ended up attacking the majority of other Christians as well. And people of other religious viewpoints. You make cheap and petty attacks on other people. I've dealt with you as an adult, which is plenty more respect towards you, than you have shown towards me and others. Maybe you could sit down with the Holy Bible and re-read the passages where it talks about 'how to deal with other people' in a good way. As it seems you have selectively forgotten those passages....

joether -> RE: Climate Change (3/18/2015 12:00:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 I totally agree that people need to be careful to not take things out of context. so wanting to be "fair", I set out to go through your list of responses to the quotes aylee posted. "Its a cut/paste job from some anti-climate change site.." what? did you expect them to be on al gore's fan page?? anyway... I got to the first one, read the fireman's blog, and absolutely could not make out how what aylee quoted is "out of context." I got to the second one, the journalist, and absolutely could not make out how his quote was taken "out of context" either. I got to the third one, and said, okay, it doesn't matter in this instance who the quote was attributed to, it doesn't change its essence. I got to the fourth one, the one you implied was missing information. the only missing information is a spokesperson saying "oh he didn't literally mean put them in jail, he's just kinda frustrated by them you know" despite the fact that the guy calls "ignoring climate science" an intergenerational crime and has stated "throw the politicians" in jail on more than one occasion. maybe you can please explain exactly how each of these things are "out of context" instead of just saying they are and having the reader take your word for it. or why we shouldn't take people at their word when they have repeatedly said something and have put their words into the context of a crime being committed. Ok, seems we need to give you a lesson in 'what it means to take something out of context'.... When something is taken in context, that means the whole of the document to which the line(s) is taken from gives it a fairly obvious meaning. If the whole of the document was to actually kill people and burn down their homes; then some of those lines Aylee posts, would be....IN CONTEXT. Yet, when reading those sources, when the lines do come up, its after paragraphs of sane text, followed after the quote, by more paragraphs of sane text. To which it could be pointed that the quote itself, could be an act of mental frustration or sarcasm. The first example, is pretty obvious. The writer is stating those that deny the evidence because their fantasy states to do so, should be charged more for damages than others. Its like those mothers that didn't vaccinate their kids from measles. Should we force the insurance company to pay the bill for the kid's hospital stay if he/she actually got measles? Forcing the parents to 'pay for their stupidity'? Could you imagine a medical doctor stating this in a journal on the subject matter? I could. Does that mean the medical doctor has destroyed his oath on becoming a doctor? No of course not! He treated the patient, bill the insurance company and move on. But for conservatives, they would look at that as proof-positive, that not just this medical doctor....BUT ALL MEDICAL DOCTORS.....behave like this. Or think like this. Medical doctors, unlike the average conservative in this nation, tend to write....LONG...documents on subject matters in their field of study. In the second link, the writer is stating his very first impression.....OF SOMEONE ELSE'S VIEWPOINT! But after thinking on it, decided that was not the correct thought process. That's found in the second paragraph. If you had read that whole article, you would have read the second paragraph. Comes after the first and before the third. Here is the very next line, from the one Aylee's source was quoting: "Reading on, I realised that this is not exactly what he had in mind." That clues most people in that the previous quote is not the true thoughts of the author on the subject matter. That you missed this is stunning. The only way you could NOT see how this was taken out of context, is if you didnt bother to...READ...the whole document. The third and fourth links, I can understand both sides of the arguments. One side stating the individual is violent and possibly extreme, and the other stating they are peaceful, but, very frustrated at the legal/political process to understanding the material known to mankind. Which side is the true side, depends upon your view of the individual. How well do you know this individual? Their history, other works, and publications about them from journalists (not to be confused with FOX 'news' journalist 'standards'). quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 so given your 0 for 4 run, im not sure why I should continue. I only expect more of the same. In order to continue a journey, one has to first start. Sounds like a Chinese fortune cookie, doesn't it? You didn't start anything yet. You 'read' the links and still didn't understand the concept of context. You showed me four examples of you not understanding how something is taken out of context. Before you even started, you assumed a huge amount of bullshit and then searched to find something that supports it. I on the other hand, have known Aylee to have a bad habit of posting bad material and bad evidence. And I pointed it out ot her to be fair. That in one or two instances, it did take me some time to find the original sources the quotes are taken from (to read them in context). In the others, took me all of 30 seconds to find the original document. The second point I made to Aylee is the whole thing looked 'cut/paste' from some anti-climate change website. That whomever created that webpage never bothered to check the information against the original document to which it came from. But rather used the quote, because it has shock value by itself. Either that author of the page didnt know to look it up (which is stupid) or knew of the proper context and left it all out for a political purpose (in which they are intellectually dishonest). So Aylee is taking material from a page authored by someone that is either stupid or intellectually dishonest with their webpage. Does that sound like a good way to start making an argument towards dcnovice's original question?

Kirata -> RE: Climate Change (3/18/2015 12:51:17 PM)
I wasn't attacking you for being "college educated," despite an obvious lack of any evidence thereof. I was commenting on your vexatious (legal definition) propensity for flaunting it, and attacking you for being a serial liar. Got that now? Good. So, let's get back to the issue: >Since its been 'proved' that God exists, according to your view on Christianity. Where are the links, bozo? K.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/18/2015 3:57:43 PM)
Kirata In the Military we get those guys out of one of the service academies or OCS that think they know it all. They learned it all in school. (there are exceptions) Then they meet the crusty old NCO that has been there and done that. And until the young officer learns he just stays in trouble. lol Just sayin

Kirata -> RE: Climate Change (3/18/2015 10:42:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Kirata In the Military we get those guys out of one of the service academies or OCS that think they know it all. They learned it all in school. (there are exceptions) Then they meet the crusty old NCO that has been there and done that. And until the young officer learns he just stays in trouble. lol Just sayin Well in the present case, given the amount of flagrant crap in his post, a certain "graduate" is in considerably less trouble than he deserves. K.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 1:55:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Kirata In the Military we get those guys out of one of the service academies or OCS that think they know it all. They learned it all in school. (there are exceptions) Then they meet the crusty old NCO that has been there and done that. And until the young officer learns he just stays in trouble. lol Just sayin Well in the present case, given the amount of flagrant crap in his post, a certain "graduate" is in considerably less trouble than he deserves. K. Could be lol

MercTech -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 3:02:44 AM)
Sheesh... The potential for global warming was well enough thought out that calculating the temperature change due to atmospheric CO2 increase from burning fossil fuels was a Physics mid term problem in 1976. The numbers calculated for mean ocean temperature were just about spot on for the year 2000. The atmosphere becomes more insulating with more CO2 in the atmosphere and it warms everything up slowly. When you warm a planet like Earth; you get more moisture in the air and it comes down as precipitation. In winter that is sometimes called Snow. Due to changing the chemical balance of the atmosphere things will cycle like a pendulum until it settles out at a new balance point. Continuing to stress the chemical balance gets that pendulum swinging farther. The nay-sayers that try to claim there is no effect are full of it just as much as the disaster crying chicken littles. The change is provable and measurable but where it will end up is still hypothesis waiting for experimental evidence to become theory. _____________________________________________________________ BTW, if one is talking about measuring air for personnel entry into an underground confined space; you don't measure for CO2 you measure for CO. http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/table_1.html >Oxygen percentage (as long as it is 19.5% - 23.5% you are golden. (This is where the CO2 would show up as low Oxygen numbers. There isn't a direct field test for CO2) (Below 19.5% you start with breathing problems. Above 23.5% or so things become flammable that usually are not.. like human hair going up like a torch with one spark. Seeing one fellow become a human torch was enough. Don't light a cigarette just after coming out of an Oxygen enriched environment.) >Flammable gas percentage (which measures for CO, H2, and CH4) <10% of lower explosive limit >plus specific toxins such as SO2 for sanitary systems, VOCs if you are going to be painting in the enclosed space, etc. Check the OSHA requirements for permit required confined space entry. This is what would apply to below ground valve galleries or metering stations. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9797&p_table=STANDARDS

Kirata -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 3:12:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether You attack everyone in science, irrelevant of whether they are doing good things for humanity or not. Just like with politics in America, you think of things as 'Zero Sum' between religion verse science. That if you can undermine this theory, it will some how, be a good thing for your religion. You're lying again. So after you get back with those other links, you can work on these. Start with backing up your claim that I "attack everyone in science." Then get to my religion. What is my religion? And how does it conflict with science? Have I ever even professed a religion? Where? Links, please. Thanks in advance. K.

Kirata -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 3:28:01 AM)
World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun's activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study. The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument. That was 2009, a major study, top-notch stuff, set for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and not the first of its kind either. But here we are in 2015 with no appreciable increase in average global temperature for 18+ years. How many predictions have to fail before it is allowable to have doubts about a theory's validity without being ridiculed, slandered, and subject to investigation by a Congressional committee? Not that I'm defending those smelly evil skeptics! After all, I "attack everyone in science" according to he-who-cannot-be-contradicted. And besides, everyone knows that you can't trust anybody who accepts funds from big oil. Obama biggest recipient of BP cash While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years. BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. K.

thishereboi -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 4:53:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether You attack everyone in science, irrelevant of whether they are doing good things for humanity or not. Just like with politics in America, you think of things as 'Zero Sum' between religion verse science. That if you can undermine this theory, it will some how, be a good thing for your religion. You're lying again. So after you get back with those other links, you can work on these. Start with backing up your claim that I "attack everyone in science." Then get to my religion. What is my religion? And how does it conflict with science? Have I ever even professed a religion? Where? Links, please. Thanks in advance. K. That's a joke right? After all this time you don't really think he is going to back up one of his lies do you? Nope he will be back with a wall of text that won't say anything and then claim he has proven it. SSDD

bounty44 -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 6:14:52 AM)
a part of the larger conversation: quote: Starting with the rise of the Watermelon Men: green on the outside, red on the inside — phony “climate change” concern trolls whose ostensible “enivronmentalism” masks the socialist, civilization-destroying agenda within: President Barack Obama is quietly but steadily working behind the scenes on what could become one of his signature achievements: A global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What he’s seeking out of the December U.N. climate talks in Paris would create the broadest, farthest-reaching deal in history, reworking environmental regulations for governments and corporations around the world and creating a framework for global green policy for decades.Republicans in Congress, sensing what he’s up to, are already saying no. And Obama’s already preparing to sign on without them. Well, of course he is — that’s how Obama rolls. No Congress, no problem! Which is why, even though reaching a climate change pact has become a top priority for the West Wing and part of nearly every conversation Obama has recently had with a foreign leader, Obama and his aides aren’t advertising it. No kidding! This is the “transparent” White House that just informed the country that its machinations would no longer be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Barry wants to pull off another unilateral policy coup without those pesky Republicans in Congress, whatever that is. But hey — we knew this was coming. Most presidents feel chastened after leading their party to two catastrophic off-year losses in Congress and in the statehouses. But not Barry Hussein; he made it clear right after the results were announced in November that he had no intention of hondling with Senate or the House about anything. All the same, a global climate accord is what last November’s greenhouse gas agreement with China was leading up to. That’s what a big focus of his talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in New Delhi in January. And that’s why aides have been traveling to Lima, Bonn and Geneva, setting the terms for a deal that’s far bigger than the one Obama unenthusiastically committed to in 2009 in Copenhagen. Since the Paris agreement would be voluntary and not a formal treaty, it’s seen as much more likely to get support around the world. And it can happen without the Senate taking any kind of vote on it. Isn’t Caesarism wonderful? Good thing we have GOP majorities in both houses to check it. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/18/the-last-two-years-of-the-obama-administration-will-be-a-nightmare-heres-one-reason-why/#ixzz3UpwwBDx1

Aylee -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 7:53:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Does that sound like a good way to start making an argument towards dcnovice's original question? Huh. I did not think that DC and I were having an argument. I thought that he asked a question and I answered it.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 8:11:11 AM)
Love the deflection here, create an uproar about something not actually about the science and suddenly you think you have a valid position. I dont remember this thread being nearly as active when I was discussing the science, I wonder why...[8\|]

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 8:19:57 AM)
TK This is the way the real world works. Mommy and Daddy fight, they get off topic and eventually wander back. Welcome to life.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 9:19:53 AM)
My point is that as soon as the topic shifts to something they know they won't entirely loose at, they swarm like a pack of hungry sharks. It's just an interesting observation is all, makes one think that they know they don't have a winning argument in the science department but they just won't admit it.

Kirata -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 3:27:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi That's a joke right? After all this time you don't really think he is going to back up one of his lies do you? Nope he will be back with a wall of text that won't say anything and then claim he has proven it. SSDD Yeah, I know. Thanks. K.

bounty44 -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 3:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 My point is that as soon as the topic shifts to something they know they won't entirely loose at, they swarm like a pack of hungry sharks. It's just an interesting observation is all, makes one think that they know they don't have a winning argument in the science department but they just won't admit it. your argument concerning "the science" has been answered over, and over, and over and over, and over again. that is why I made the comparison to the terminator---it (referring to your absolutely mind-boggling inability to either see, or accept that) just wont die. as to the other material that you see as "shifting" the topic---nothing exists in isolation. its all a part, and a very meaningful part at that, of the conversation. and consider an alternative reading to your present position of the reason for the "shifting"---people can only beat their head against the wall so often before they want to stop.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 7:36:39 PM)
Maybe he thinks that if 2 scientists say something that is must be true? If 5 view it and 3 agree and 2 disagree then the 3 must be true. I don't know. Just my impression.

Aylee -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 7:41:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Maybe he thinks that if 2 scientists say something that is must be true? If 5 view it and 3 agree and 2 disagree then the 3 must be true. I don't know. Just my impression. Noooooooo. If a scientist says something and it agrees with his worldview than it must be true.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/19/2015 7:42:59 PM)
ahhhhhhhhhhhh LOL

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875