Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

a reply to: Gargoyle91

It's hilarious how if someone says look how cold it is, so much for global warming, the left is quick to point out global warming isn't local weather. However let it be hot for a couple of days and it's proof of global warming. Lol

😂 😂

Jaden

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?


Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?

If so, who did them and what controls were used?

It is like asking an evangelical apologist why their are 578 different versions of the Bible and the crickets that ensue...

Faith is all that is required for them that the texts the leadership send them are correct, it does not matter how many times they changed them or altered the equipment or terminologies...it must ALWAYS be followed to find the promised land.

After all, science does not lie.

No, it's like claiming there is a hotdog in orbit between the Earth and the Moon.

You can't prove it's not there.

DBCowboy is not interested in answers, but in creating doubt. I gave up a long time ago with that member.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?


Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?

If so, who did them and what controls were used?

It is like asking an evangelical apologist why their are 578 different versions of the Bible and the crickets that ensue...

Faith is all that is required for them that the texts the leadership send them are correct, it does not matter how many times they changed them or altered the equipment or terminologies...it must ALWAYS be followed to find the promised land.

After all, science does not lie.

No, it's like claiming there is a hotdog in orbit between the Earth and the Moon.

You can't prove it's not there.

That is exactly what the AGW racket is. Good analogy. They've gotten enough folks onto the power, control, and more taxes bandwagon and since they can't prove a damn thing, they've turned to shaming and shouting down anyone who questions the narrative with "Denier! Denier!!!" Why that works on anyone, I don't know... but sadly it quiets down some folks.

originally posted by: Greven


DBCowboy is not interested in answers, but in creating doubt. I gave up a long time ago with that member.

Because I asked questions.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?


Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?

If so, who did them and what controls were used?

It is like asking an evangelical apologist why their are 578 different versions of the Bible and the crickets that ensue...

Faith is all that is required for them that the texts the leadership send them are correct, it does not matter how many times they changed them or altered the equipment or terminologies...it must ALWAYS be followed to find the promised land.

After all, science does not lie.

No, it's like claiming there is a hotdog in orbit between the Earth and the Moon.

You can't prove it's not there.

That is exactly what the AGW racket is. Good analogy.

They've gotten enough folks onto the power, control, and more taxes bandwagon and since they can't prove a damn thing, they've turned to shaming and shouting down anyone who questions the narrative with "Denier! Denier!!!" Why that works on anyone, I don't know... but sadly it quiets down some folks.

Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

I have read.

Show me, post me, answer my questions.

Google is your friend.

Little hint, you won't be able to answer my questions.

This member is trolling, insulting, and demeaning in this thread. Go look.

On the other hand, proving human-induced climate change is pretty simple:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change

originally posted by: Greven
Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:

You and I both know how shaky it is to base your argument on DBCowboy's confirmation or refutement of points. My previous statement stands, tall, proud, slightly rightward curving.

originally posted by: neo96

So global warming isn't a thing ?

Nope it's not.

It's doom porn to get you to vote for the church of climatology and create taxes, and credits so they can have more money to blow.

Not exactly breaking news it gets hot during summer.

Anyone who has not seen Ann Bressington, I believe is the one, in her initial discussion back four or five years ago on climate change as it relates to agenda 21 should listen to her.its likely onyoutube with a whole bunch of views. But the argument she makes regarding climate change, green energy, technology bans, and other issues which lead to a structured society which is ideal for easy surveilling is so complex and works out so perfectly in the end that she is either telling the truth or she is an intelligent politician who woke up one day completely insane and sent the next few years mapping out a fictitious 1984 like plan with all loose ends tied up sensibly and is spewing that nonsensical coo coo to the world as fact. I, for one, simply feel that the former is a much more likely to happen occurance than is the latter.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven
Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:

You and I both know how shaky it is to base your argument on DBCowboy's confirmation or refutement of points. My previous statement stands, tall, proud, slightly rightward curving.

And yet your previous statement doesn't refute the very simple argument I've put forth outlining human-induced climate change.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven
Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:

You and I both know how shaky it is to base your argument on DBCowboy's confirmation or refutement of points. My previous statement stands, tall, proud, slightly rightward curving.

And yet your previous statement doesn't refute the very simple argument I've put forth outlining human-induced climate change.

Your position is wrong. Is that refutation enough for you? I'm not going to reinvent the wheel when the simple fact is that both sides have talked until they're blue in the face and nothing has changed. The simplest answer is usually the correct one and, frankly, when I see one side making huge amounts of money off of Global Warming fear mongering and politicians claiming vastly greater amounts of control over the population also in the name of Global Warming, while the other side is not sitting there making any money or claiming any additional power with basic refutations of "the planet's climate has never been static, the planet has been much hotter and much colder in multiple periods through history, etc) well, the simplest answer is to look at who stands to gain the most and then question their position. "Holding firm" isn't gaining anything, it's simply holding firm... that's what the *ahem* "denier" side has looking at them as a best case scenario, meanwhile the alarmist side stands to waltz out with mad amounts of money and power.

So please, enjoy being scammed... I'm not that gulible.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven
Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:

You and I both know how shaky it is to base your argument on DBCowboy's confirmation or refutement of points. My previous statement stands, tall, proud, slightly rightward curving.

And yet your previous statement doesn't refute the very simple argument I've put forth outlining human-induced climate change.

Your position is wrong. Is that refutation enough for you? I'm not going to reinvent the wheel when the simple fact is that both sides have talked until they're blue in the face and nothing has changed. The simplest answer is usually the correct one and, frankly, when I see one side making huge amounts of money off of Global Warming fear mongering and politicians claiming vastly greater amounts of control over the population also in the name of Global Warming, while the other side is not sitting there making any money or claiming any additional power with basic refutations of "the planet's climate has never been static, the planet has been much hotter and much colder in multiple periods through history, etc) well, the simplest answer is to look at who stands to gain the most and then question their position. "Holding firm" isn't gaining anything, it's simply holding firm... that's what the *ahem* "denier" side has looking at them as a best case scenario, meanwhile the alarmist side stands to waltz out with mad amounts of money and power.

So please, enjoy being scammed... I'm not that gulible.

You have no counter argument, so you just say "you're wrong." If I'm wrong, it should be easy to disprove one of the 4 points I elucidated.

There isn't 'one side making huge amounts of money off of Global warming fear mongering.'

You know who's making money? Fossil fuel companies. You know what's a threat to them? Declining use of fossil fuels.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?


Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?

If so, who did them and what controls were used?

It is like asking an evangelical apologist why their are 578 different versions of the Bible and the crickets that ensue...

Faith is all that is required for them that the texts the leadership send them are correct, it does not matter how many times they changed them or altered the equipment or terminologies...it must ALWAYS be followed to find the promised land.

After all, science does not lie.

No, it's like claiming there is a hotdog in orbit between the Earth and the Moon.

You can't prove it's not there.

That is exactly what the AGW racket is. Good analogy.

They've gotten enough folks onto the power, control, and more taxes bandwagon and since they can't prove a damn thing, they've turned to shaming and shouting down anyone who questions the narrative with "Denier! Denier!!!" Why that works on anyone, I don't know... but sadly it quiets down some folks.

Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

I have read.

Show me, post me, answer my questions.

Google is your friend.

Little hint, you won't be able to answer my questions.

This member is trolling, insulting, and demeaning in this thread. Go look.

On the other hand, proving human-induced climate change is pretty simple:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change

I ask legitimate science based questions on the validity of the numbers and you have a fit.


I think I know which one of us is actually "trolling".


It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?


Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?

If so, who did them and what controls were used?

It is like asking an evangelical apologist why their are 578 different versions of the Bible and the crickets that ensue...

Faith is all that is required for them that the texts the leadership send them are correct, it does not matter how many times they changed them or altered the equipment or terminologies...it must ALWAYS be followed to find the promised land.

After all, science does not lie.

No, it's like claiming there is a hotdog in orbit between the Earth and the Moon.

You can't prove it's not there.

That is exactly what the AGW racket is. Good analogy.

They've gotten enough folks onto the power, control, and more taxes bandwagon and since they can't prove a damn thing, they've turned to shaming and shouting down anyone who questions the narrative with "Denier! Denier!!!" Why that works on anyone, I don't know... but sadly it quiets down some folks.

Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

I have read.

Show me, post me, answer my questions.

Google is your friend.

Little hint, you won't be able to answer my questions.

This member is trolling, insulting, and demeaning in this thread. Go look.

On the other hand, proving human-induced climate change is pretty simple:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change

I ask legitimate science based questions on the validity of the numbers and you have a fit.


I think I know which one of us is actually "trolling".


It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.

Nope.

Disprove one of the 4 points there. Go on, try.

They're fundamental to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. You can be a hero to those who believe it isn't real.

Why does nobody ever rise to the challenge?

a reply to: Greven

Ah, the "evil fossil fuel" company argument. *yawn* how many reruns have we seen of that worn out old chestnut?

As I said, enjoy being scammed, I'll pass.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

Ah, the "evil fossil fuel" company argument. *yawn* how many reruns have we seen of that worn out old chestnut?

As I said, enjoy being scammed, I'll pass.

You claim one side is making money from it, and the other side is not.

You have it completely backwards. You are being scammed by fossil fuel propaganda.

It's very simple:
Either all 4 of those points are irrefutable and human-induced climate change is happening...
...or any 1 of those points is refutable and human-induced climate change is actually in question.

Money, power, control, and everything else is irrelevant to that premise.

a reply to: Greven

Your basing your assertions on data that hasn't been vetted.


I feel sorry for you.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.

Of course it is, the AGW cult is a modern day religion. Question any of it and you're a heretic and will be blasted as such. It functions the same way as any other mega church does, complete with their own televangelists (such as Al Gore), offering plate passed around (carbon credits), and clandestine political arm intended to punish those who don't give deeply enough, make enough of a pious spectacle of themselves in services, and reject the "good word" which, if it was ever based on any truth has long since been twisted into the steaming pile of Scam we see before us today.

Hell, you'd probably be in less danger walking into a Christian church and questioning the parishoners on the existence of God... when was the last time we saw anyone call for atheists to be imprisoned?
www.washingtontimes.com...

“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

These poor brainwashed masses don't even realize how badly they're being manipulated.

a reply to: Greven

Money, power, and control is relevant to everything, friend.
C.R.E.A.M.

As I said, enjoy being fleeced... I'll go a different path.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.

You did.

Surprised the church of climatology didn't burn you at the stake.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.

You did.

Surprised the church of climatology didn't burn you at the stake.

They couldn't find one stout enough.