can i tell you something?

page: 10
48
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by mc_squared
 


The malevolent insinuations of intellectually-dishonest accusers like you, mc_squared, reflect badly only upon your own characters. Your persistent misrepresentation of skeptics in such ways as this is insulting to us. Beyond its obvious intent to demean us, it is also an aggressive and unwarranted attempt on your part to impose a false identity of your arbitrary invention and choosing upon us regardless of our true natures and characters. Your consistent, persistent and relentless misrepresentation of us as ‘denialists’ is a cruel and deeply cynical form of the denialism that you decry because it denies the truth of who and what we really are. It constitutes a wilful and vicious attack upon our very beings and as such it is the action of criminally-minded psychopaths who do not care what hurt and damage they may cause to their fellow human beings in getting what they want. You are mentally sick people, mc_squared. Your gratuitous insulting of us is just one symptom of your intractable and ultimately self-destructive mental disease. I won’t bother addressing your other allegations, as I’m sure I would just be banging my head against the wall of your party-script.


Yep. Exactly the sort of frantic, obtuse response I expected from you: completely failed to address any of the facts or challenges set forth in my last post, and just resorted to some pointless ad hominem rant.

It's amazing how smarmy climate deniers act when you're making all kinds of baseless claims about the political motivations behind the supposed global warming "cult", but how much you start kicking and screaming how unfair it is when the shoe ends up on the other foot.

You think it's scraping the bottom of the barrel to point out that Joanne Nova worked 5 years for Shell? (And that's exactly what I showed you - she claimed it was her first full-time job and that she even MANAGED the half-million dollar project). Then answer the challenge I put forth to you:


Why does this sort of suspicious connection pop up with every single so-called "skeptic" out there? EVERY goddam one. I didn't just provide you with allegations - I gave you links with all sorts of sourced info in them.


I mean wow - what an AMAZING coincidence Nathan!


They always, always either:

i) have some current or past financial connection to the dirty energy lobby
ii) proudly sport highly political values about free-market industry and anti-government regulation
iii) used to get paid by Big Tobacco to say the connection between smoking and cancer is just some bleeding heart Liberal scam, and that the science on it "isn't settled".
iv) all of the above



ALL of them. Every single well-known climate denier disinformer "skeptic" (lol) has this crap on their resume. Name them and I guarantee I can show you.



So explain it. Rationalize it. Justify it. Go ahead.


I can't wait to hear your next delusional denier cop-out about how it's just scraping the bottom of the barrel.


Because ironically you're actually spot on for once - only that barrel happens to be an oil drum, and these people are nothing but the nasty disgusting sludge that sits inside. I'm just pulling it out an showing it to you for what it is.

You obviously can't handle it. The desperate and agitated tone in your response says it all. I have facts - you have nothing but rhetoric and totally ignorant, deceitful blog science.

It is patently clear who the one in total denial here is.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by minor007

what you dont seem to understand is that while it correct we cant do much about the pollution, but by having a tax and making ppl pay for the pollutants they create it is hoped that the extra cost to their business would make them turn to other alternative sources where the cost of the co2 is much lower.......
edit on 28-6-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)


What you don't understand is that this is nothing but a scam, I have already explained how it works... Companies that emit too much CO2 buy carbon CREDITS from companies that haven't emmitted as much or any CO2, and this allows the company that bought the credits to emit MORE CO2, or simply just to pay Al Gore, or even the same company under another name... This is not going to make companies stop producing CO2 or the other toxic chemicals and gases, and AGAIN the problem is NOT CO2...

Why didn't the GREENS go after smog, and the other toxic chemicals?... Why didn't the UN/IPCC do the same thing?... BECAUSE IT IS ALL A BUSINESS...

AGW/Climate Change has become a multibillion dollar SCAM...


Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Meanwhile Al Gore, and many others continue to use their oversized house, limousine, and his protection in the SUV, plus his private jets and the AGW RELIGIOUS FANATICS call Al Gore as being "green"... Yeah he is "green" as in MONEY GREEN...

edit on 29-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Squared... If anyone is a "climate denier" it is you and your AGW circus/religious fanatics, who blame it all on mankind as if nature didn't exists, and as if the climate NEVER changes by itself...

Nathan, I and every other non-believer in your RELIGION know that the climate exists, and it CHANGES by itself frequently... YOU are the "climate deniers"...



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I am not educated in the ways of how carbon credits work only the basic principal which i posted above. If the carbon credits is a scam to make money as you claim it is then I will be on your side with no doubt but as far as I am aware its a tax which goes to the government not individuals. However to say AGW is a scam is a nothing more than being blind to the obvious. AGW is real with real consequences if we dont do something about it.
edit on 29-6-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



Now I am confused You posted a link which clearly says Gore had invested in a company called Silver Spring Networks that produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient and by doing so create Jobs and strengthens the american infrastructure in which something has been lacking in the last several decades....And isnt he doing what any good capitalist should be doing?
edit on 29-6-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by mc_squared
 



It's amazing how smarmy climate deniers act when you're making all kinds of baseless claims about the political motivations behind the supposed global warming "cult", but how much you start kicking and screaming how unfair it is when the shoe ends up on the other foot.

Why do you call us 'climate deniers'? That's absurd! I've been reading posts on this forum for many months now and I have never seen anyone deny the 'climate'. Never. Ha, ha, ha. Come to that, I have never seen anyone deny that the climate is changing! This tired old straw-man that you are trying to pin on us is very silly, you know. None of us are sceptical about the climate changing. I think you must have been reminded of this fact over a thousand times on these forums by now and yet you still refuse to accept it and insist on painting people here as characters that they are not. When are you going to demonstrate the merit and validity of the so-called 'climate science' with which you keep bashing us over the head and for which you insultingly call us 'deniers' for not accepting? Or do you intend to remain a climate-hypocrite for ever?



You think it's scraping the bottom of the barrel to point out that Joanne Nova worked 5 years for Shell?

Has Joanne Nova 'worked' for Shell? The quote you gave us said that she accompanied a group of CAGW-skeptics that were affiliated with Shell. I'm sorry, but I don't see how that makes her under the employment of Shell. You seem to have made that bit up all by yourself as far as I can see. However, I accept that oil-corporations may have an interest in protecting their profits by fighting CAGW, and perhaps some scientists are funded by oil-corporations, but that is meaningless to me. The reason it is meaningless is because it tells us nothing about the science. I have not denied that some scientists may be funded by oil-corporations. In fact, some have openly admitted it. What I am denying is that human society's emissions of greenhouse gases are scientifically tenable as causes of climate change. My denial of this is not based on anyone else's research, but is the conclusion to which I have come as a result of having done my own research on the matter as an independent citizen-scientist. The question of who is funding other people's research is thus irrelevant to my own.



You obviously can't handle it. The desperate and agitated tone in your response says it all. I have facts - you have nothing but rhetoric and totally ignorant, deceitful blog science.

That's a distorted picture of the true situation, I'm afraid. I have stuck to discussing the science in this thread the best I can, and no-one has yet presented any counterarguments to any of my objections here, not even you. You have just ignored them. How about adressing them? You can start with Henry's law. The links to my blog and arguments can be found on the previous pages.



It is patently clear who the one in total denial here is.

Indeed. Enough talk, it's time to get back to pwning noobs on MW3 with my MK14. Good times!
edit on 29-6-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


FYI Joanne Nova is not a climatetologist. How can she claim that AGW is false when she has no expertise in any of the fields that contribute to our understanding on climate? Her major was microbiology, molecular biology hardly the background for someone to claim AGW is false. She has a right to an opinion but she hasnt studied climate.....

BTW you claimed that the scientists hadnt included Henrys law into their models. Well I checked and you are wrong its a major factor of the climate models. In fact Henrys law is in fact supporting the AGW.




One of the less publicized issues of concern about ‘global warming’ is the impact of higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the oceans. When it dissolves in water, carbon dioxide forms weak carbonic acid. Some of the extra atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in the sea. The scientific community has been modeling and monitoring this possibility for some time and it is now clear, the oceans are becoming more acidic. This has a direct effect on the marine ecosystems, and is especially significant in the Southern Ocean. The main impact is on the tiny plants and animals at the bottom of the food chain. Disrupting the food chain affects the whole Antarctic ecosystem up to, and including, whales. Gases in our atmosphere exist in equilibrium with the oceans, following a physical rule known as ‘Henry’s Law’. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the amount of carbon dioxide that is dissolved in the sea. In pre-industrial times ocean life generated excess carbon dioxide which was then released into the atmosphere to reach a balance. Today, this is not the case. With the increasing levels of carbon dioxide emitted by our fossil fuel burning society, more carbon dioxide is entering the ocean than is leaving it. The ocean absorbs about one million tons of carbon dioxide every hour, which is about ten times the natural pre-industrial rate. The oceans are a carbon dioxide ‘sink’ and this is believed to have acted as a ‘buffer’ that has slowed the rate of global warming. It is estimated that the oceans have absorbed about 30% of the carbon dioxide released by our industrial society. In the next 50 years or so, the oceans will be absorbing an increasing amount of the carbon generated by human society, especially if no changes are made to reduce that generation.

source
edit on 29-6-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


You know exactly why I'm calling you a denier:

Because every time I throw some inconvenient fact your way that disrupts the unwavering, downright ecclesiastic blind faith you demonstrate in your bad blog science, your shady sources, your specious reasoning skills - you simply deny it.


You NEVER come back with anything resembling a reasonable counter-argument. You simply either:


i) Ignore the point like it's somehow irrelevant, and quickly attempt to change the subject before anyone notices. See: read my blog, Henry's Law, yaddi yadda.

ii) Try to deflect it with some vague, cowardly assertion that this evidence is just "part of the conspiracy". See: Heat-seeking missiles you say? Why the 1940's U.S. Air Force is clearly in on Al Gore's scam too! (When you - as usual - demonstrate absolutely no proof of that claim whatsoever).

iii) Move the goal posts and look for some false balance in the weakest of rebuttals. See: Your peer-reviewed, scientific paper that uses the most hi-tech modern instrumentation is invalid - because I know a couple of Libertarian stooges with absolutely NO background in atmospheric physics who went outside with an infrared camera and got different results.

iv) Either play dumb, or exhibit genuine unbridled ignorance. See: that can't be right because it doesn't make sense to me (and my linear, one-dimensional, totally unqualified understanding of the subject in question).

v) Declare it some kind of unfair ad-hominem attack. While immediately launching some ad-hominem attack.

vi) Try to deflect from the subject matter by pointlessly arguing semantics. See: What is a climate denier? Nobody I know is denying the climate wakka wakka!




You're also a denier because you constantly brag about how science is founded on skepticism when you have no idea what true skepticism even is. Real Skeptics are skeptical to ALL sides of an argument - not just whatever they deem to be the "mainstream" position. You are blinded by your narcissistic belief that you are somehow the skeptic by default here. So in turn you instantly play devil's advocate to any "warmist" supposition, while automatically accepting whatever counter argument comes your way, without the slightest regard for fact-checking, scrutiny, objectivity, or balance.

In other words, you blindly fall for all the climate denier BS that litters the internet. Which is why you post links to junkscience.com when it comes from a PROVEN shill, or run back to Joanne Nova even though she has been debunked and discredited time and time again.

Your track record on here is abysmal - and yet you just return with more and more of this fluff because of how much these people stroke your ego on what a noble and stoic "skeptic" you are, fighting the supposed good fight against the big, bad scientific establishment.




So with that in mind you wanna see something ironic? Go over to The Skeptics Society right now and have a look at the cover of this month's issue of Skeptic Magazine:



Maybe since you're such a big fan of calling yourself a skeptic - you should read their headline article:


How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused


Looks like you might actually learn something about skepticism for once!...Oh but let me guess - The Skeptics Society is just in on the conspiracy too, right?


Or maybe?...


Your science is a fraud. Your sources are a fraud. And you are a fraud.

(Deal with it)

edit on 30-6-2012 by mc_squared because: ATS fix your bbcode please



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Oh and here's another thing that makes you a clear-cut, stage-5 denier:


Originally posted by Nathan-D

Has Joanne Nova 'worked' for Shell? The quote you gave us said that she accompanied a group of CAGW-skeptics that were affiliated with Shell. I'm sorry, but I don't see how that makes her under the employment of Shell. You seem to have made that bit up all by yourself as far as I can see.



What planet are you living on? How do you get that from this quote:


Joanne spent five years touring Australia with Shell Questacon Science Circus. For her first full time job, she managed the half million dollar exhibition with a team of twelve.




How did I "make that up" when it's written ^^right there^^ in plain english?? She managed the project. It was her first full time job.



I swear - dealing with climate "skeptics" is like talking to some absurd brick wall that responds to all your facts with delusional denier riddles.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by minor007
 
Thanks for the article-quote. But where is the evidence that the oceans have absorbed only 30% of human CO2-emissions? Don’t tell me, I can guess. It’s from another model simulation, isn’t it? While it is true that the oceans’ ability to absorb CO2 will diminish as ocean temperature rises, the idea that their capacity to absorb CO2 also diminishes is an illusion. It isn’t true. You have to understand Henry’s law in order to understand this point. Henry’s law determines a specific fixed ‘partitioning ratio’ between the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere and the amount that will be dissolved in the oceans at a given temperature at equilibrium. At the current mean ocean temperature of ~15C (at the surface), that partitioning ratio comes out to be ~1:50. If the oceans were to warm to say ~20C, the partitioning ratio would rise to ~1:40. However, it is only that ratio which changes with temperature, not the oceans’ absolute capacity to absorb CO2, which you can go on adding virtually indefinitely, albeit at the altered ratio. It is true that the oceans must have a finite capacity of course, because they are finite structures themselves, but their capacity is vast and is greater than a million times the amount presently residing in the atmospheric greenhouse. So the idea of their ceasing to be a net sink later this century and will not absorb 98% of human CO2 is straight out of cloud cuckoo-land. It is a scientific fallacy that contradicts a well-tried and tested law of physical chemistry. But what do climate modelers care for such real-world scientific laws?
edit on 30-6-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   


Because every time I throw some inconvenient fact your way that disrupts the unwavering, downright ecclesiastic blind faith you demonstrate in your bad blog science, your shady sources, your specious reasoning skills - you simply deny it.

What are you accusing me of denying? Have you studied the psychology of unconscious projection? If not, I think you need to. But you might not get many links from a search on that specifically. You’ll probably get a lot more if you do a search on ‘scapegoat’ as well. I have already given my objective reasons for saying that all of your primary data is unoriginal, synthetic, manufactured and unaccountable to outsiders for its claimed veracity and therefore it is not authentic ‘real world’ data as you and they pretend it is. What am I in denial of?


You NEVER come back with anything resembling a reasonable counter-argument.

Isn’t it always the way that self-ignorant people see in others what they are doing secretly in themselves? I have presented my scientific arguments in this thread, and no-one has addressed them. How can you account for not seeing them? Are you wearing glasses with green-lenses in?


owardly assertion that this evidence is just "part of the conspiracy".

I never suggested any such thing. You sound a bit delrious to me.


Libertarian stooges with absolutely NO background in atmospheric physics who went outside with an infrared camera and got different results.

Sorry mc_squared, but I had no idea you were this confused! David Evans didn’t do any experiments with an IR-spectrometer-camera, Evans 2006 did.


Real Skeptics are skeptical to ALL sides of an argument - not just whatever they deem to be the "mainstream" position.

So, you understand that science looks at all sides of the argument? Oh dear mc_squared, you’re evidently sobering up and your programming’s reasserting itself again. Ah well, we should be grateful for such rare moments of clarity as we have just seen I suppose, brief as they are. Look, feathered fulminator, the planet is just fine and not in any danger from us. All this man-made global warming rot is just a bad dream that has no substance in reality. If you could do the elementary science that’s required to check the AGW-alarmists’ claims for yourself you would see that this is true. But since you have not done that you are not in any position to pronounce upon the truth of those claims and you are at the mercy of others to tell you what to think and believe about them. You should choose your beliefs with care, you know. They will possess your mind and become the reality that you inhabit. It may all be just a dream, but it will seem real enough while you are having it.


Your track record on here is abysmal

I suppose your track-record is much better on this forum, of course. Hopefully one day I can become as level-headed and rationally-minded, as you clearly are.


Looks like you might actually learn something about skepticism for once!...Oh but let me guess - The Skeptics Society is just in on the conspiracy too, right?

What conspiracy? I haven’t been discussing conspiracy theories in this thread. I have been discussing the science in this thread. When you are ready to discuss the science, I’m be here.


Joanne Nova

Even she was, as I say, that doesn’t matter. Sorry, but your argument seems a non-sequiteur to me. We have had this debate before and all of the points that you are making above have already been answered in so many words! Your thinking appears to be stuck in groove. Can we please drop this digressive preoccupation with who Joanne Nova has worked for and discuss the science?
edit on 30-6-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


LOL omg MC was right you are intellectually dishonest. Yeah lets stick all our co2 into the oceans and kill off all life thats lives within it which will start a chain reaction of mass extinctions on land.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by minor007
 

I'm intellectually dishonest for explaining to you how Henry's law works? Sure, okay.

I'm curious though, why would the oceans absorbing our CO2 kill off all marine life?
edit on 30-6-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I'm not so sure that people do not care. Any threat to their existence is taken seriously no matter who they are. Also, i do not believe that the majority of people deny climate change. The problem that most people have is that they are being told it is THEIR fault and they must pay for it through taxation.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


i am not even going to bother explaining it either....talk about dumb.....



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by minor007
 

Why am I dumb? Please, explain it. Why would the oceans absorbing our CO2 kill off all marine life?

EDIT: You can't explain it, can you? Oh well.

The Earth has been coping with vast quantities of CO2 for billions of years already and is well-adapted to it. It has built the entire planetary biosphere out of it. CO2 is vital plant-food, essential for the sustenance and maintenance of the biosphere of carbon-based life-forms and is completely non-toxic to humans up to levels of about 50,000ppmv (which means there must have been significantly more in the oceans than today according to Henry’s law). In the past the Earth’s atmosphere has had CO2-levels more than ten times higher than today’s and life flourished, eg. the Cambrian period. Indeed, it flourished so well that the proliferation of species which occurred then is known as the ‘Cambrian Explosion’. I think you need to calm down and get a sense of proportion.
edit on 30-6-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by minor007

I am not educated in the ways of how carbon credits work only the basic principal which i posted above. If the carbon credits is a scam to make money as you claim it is then I will be on your side with no doubt but as far as I am aware its a tax which goes to the government not individuals. However to say AGW is a scam is a nothing more than being blind to the obvious. AGW is real with real consequences if we dont do something about it.
edit on 29-6-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



Now I am confused You posted a link which clearly says Gore had invested in a company called Silver Spring Networks that produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient and by doing so create Jobs and strengthens the american infrastructure in which something has been lacking in the last several decades....And isnt he doing what any good capitalist should be doing?


Carbon credits can be bought off anyone who ahs them to sell, not only governments, but big corporations as well.

Everyone is given how much CO2 they can emit, and if they exceed the quota they either pay a hefty tax, or buy carbon credits from other companies to offset the amount they wasted.

If you look at leftist websites they will paint roses, and sugar coat carbon credits, but people like Al Gore didn't become billionaries by really being green, but rather because he started a company that doesn't supposedly emit the CO2 quota.

For example...


Carbon Trade Exchange is a global electronic exchange platform serving both the regulatory and voluntary carbon markets

With over 145 members in 22 countries, Carbon Trade Exchange offers its members a trusted and transparent electronic marketplace for buying and selling carbon credits. CTX supports the trading of carbon credits that are originated under both the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CERs) and independent voluntary standards (VERs).
...

www.carbontradexchange.com...


Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

RemTec is a proud member and Aggregator for The Climate Action Reserve or (Reserve); RemTec is a source and develops carbon offset credits that meet the requirements of the Climate Action Reserve (Reserve) Ozone Depleting Substances Project Protocol

www.remtec.net...


If you look at who started these companies you will find their funders to be rich people like Al Gore.

BTW, Al Gore is NOT a capitalist, he is a corporatist who is using the GREEN wave to become richer than he was.

Like him there are hundreds of rich people making money from the scam that is carbon credits.


Last February I speculated: Carbon Credit Trading, the next financial bubble to burst? That has now come to pass for U.S. markets with the collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Carbon credits allow industries to emit carbon dioxide above any cap & trade regulations imposed. The carbon market exists as a commodity only through the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats, who determine both the demand, by setting emissions limits, and the supply, by establishing criteria for offsets. It was a bubble waiting to burst. Unlike traditional commodities, which at sometime during the course of their market exchange must be delivered to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one.

Since 2005, when carbon trading was one of the fastest growing commodities, there was speculation that if the Obama administration passed cap & trade legislation, the market would grow to $3 trillion.
...

tucsoncitizen.com...

The carbon credit has also been used, and is used to redistribute wealth.


The Africa Carbon Credit Exchange (ACCE) is a leading African owned and managed marketplace uniquely designed to enable Africa’s participation in the global carbon markets. We provide innovative services and solutions to unravel the complexities of carbon markets and addressing the prevailing barriers to their success in Africa.


ACCE is unlocking low-carbon Africa by creating a reliable, structured and transparent trading platform for buying and selling compliance and voluntary carbon credits created in Africa – and in doing so, driving environmentally sustainable economic growth on the continent.
...

www.africacce.com...

And if you think the money made by the carbon credits is helping the people or the environment you are really wrong. It is only making people who were rich, richer, and even in third world countries you will find some rich people.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


LOL omg MC was right you are intellectually dishonest. Yeah lets stick all our co2 into the oceans and kill off all life thats lives within it which will start a chain reaction of mass extinctions on land.


Nature emits more than 770 gt of CO2 yearly, and the amounts are not constant, at times it is higher and at times a bit smaller. The amount of CO2 released by man also changes year to year to about 26 gt. Many times the differences in natural emissions from year to year surpasses what mankind emits yearly.

There is no "limit" of CO2 that can exist in the atmosphere, and much higher levels have existed and there wasn't "mass extinctions of animals" neither on land, or at sea. The extinctions have been caused by either massive volcanic activity, or asteroids/meteors crashing on Earth, or some other similar disasters. The mission of CO2 into the atmsphere which might have caused asphisiation of mammals in the past was an effect of a larger disaster such as alarge meteor crashing on Earth, or at sea.

If you want to talk about "intellectual dishonesty" just look in a mirror, because so far you have only shown complete ignorance on this topic.

edit on 1-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
...
Your science is a fraud. Your sources are a fraud. And you are a fraud.

(Deal with it)


The only frauds are you and your comedy hour of pseudo-science. You have been caught lying, and exagerating, yet like your masters Jones, Man, et al, deny, deny, deny...even when they were caught more than once posting false information...

(Deal with it)

Your idol Jones even contemplated suicide because he was CAUGHT...


...
Nowadays, Jones, who is at the center of the "Climategate" affair involving hacked CRU emails, needs medication to fall sleep. He feels a constant tightness in his chest. He takes beta-blockers to help him get through the day. He is gaunt and his skin is pallid. He is 57, but he looks much older. He was at the center of a research scandal that hit him as unexpectedly as a rear-end collision on the highway.

His days are now shaped by investigative commissions at the university and in the British Parliament. He sits on his chair at the hearings, looking miserable, sometimes even trembling. The Internet is full of derisive remarks about him, as well as insults and death threats. "We know where you live," his detractors taunt.

Jones is finished: emotionally, physically and professionally. He has contemplated suicide several times recently, and he says that one of the only things that have kept him from doing it is the desire to watch his five-year-old granddaughter grow up.

'100 Percent Confident'

One of the conclusions of his famous statistical analysis of the world's climate is that the average temperature on Earth rose by 0.166 degrees Celsius per decade between 1975 and 1998. This, according to Jones, was the clear result of his research and that of many other scientists.

"I am 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed," Jones says imploringly. "I did not manipulate or fabricate any data."

His problem is that the public doesn't trust him anymore. Since unknown hackers secretly copied 1,073 private emails between members of his research team and published them on the Internet, his credibility has been destroyed -- and so has that of an entire profession that had based much of its work on his research until now.
...

www.spiegel.de...

He should have done the world, and his grand-daughter the favor and killed himself....The same for every AGW RELIGIOUS FANATIC out there...

If you think "the world is overpopulated" and it doesn't matter if millions if not billions of people die because of the CO2 sequestration plans being implemented right now because of the AGW RELIGOUS FANATICS DEMANDS, you should be the first ones to leave this plane of existance...

edit on 1-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
48
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join