-
I bought this book some time ago, both in hard back and for my iPad, and I slowly have been slogging through it. It reads like an introductory but highly technical textbook with a bit of a conversational style. And 900 pages.
After an intro chapter and a review of scientific concepts, the book launches into ever deeper scientific subject: light, energy, geochronology. I've made it to chapter 10: The Climate System. Great stuff so far, and highly recommended.
-
What about it appeals to you so much?
-
What about it appeals to you so much?
I think he's trying to slide us into a discussion on glowball cooling warming climate diversity. Establishing his credentials as a great scientific mind and such.
-
I think he's trying to slide us into a discussion on glowball cooling warming climate diversity. Establishing his credentials as a great scientific mind and such.
Frank has touted you as being the most intelligent and best educated person on this board. Here is your chance to engage in a conversation on a scientific subject on an intellectual plane.
-
Frank has touted you as being the most intelligent and best educated person on this board. Here is your chance to engage in a conversation on a scientific subject on an intellectual plane.
Kool!!! But, I'm pretty sure the coach has never touted me as being much of anything. Help me out please, post a link.
-
It's not like Frank died or moved where there is no internet. Ask him.
==========
UPON EDIT: Ok, if you don't want to put Frank on the spot, this is my recollection (I couldn't possibly find the link): Bain was over here telling you guys how stupid you were, and Frank intervened. He specifically spoke of you saying that you were highly intelligent, highly educated, and fully credentialed. "He not only has a PhD, he trains people with PhDs." That's what I remember. If I'm wrong, so be it.
Can we move on?
-
It's not like Frank died or moved where there is no internet. Ask him.
Good idea. COACH!!! am I the "most intelligent and best educated person on this board"
-
<<<you were posting as I was editing ... I'll paste the edits below>>>
UPON EDIT: Ok, if you don't want to put Frank on the spot, this is my recollection (I couldn't possibly find the link): Bain was over here telling you guys how stupid you were, and Frank intervened. He specifically spoke of you saying that you were highly intelligent, highly educated, and fully credentialed. "He not only has a PhD, he trains people with PhDs." That's what I remember. If I'm wrong, so be it.
-
What about it appeals to you so much?
How about we answer the question.
-
<<<you were posting as I was editing ... I'll paste the edits below>>>
UPON EDIT: Ok, if you don't want to put Frank on the spot, this is my recollection (I couldn't possibly find the link): Bain was over here telling you guys how stupid you were, and Frank intervened. He specifically spoke of you saying that you were highly intelligent, highly educated, and fully credentialed. "He not only has a PhD, he trains people with PhDs." That's what I remember. If I'm wrong, so be it.
So be it --indeed. As you can see, the Coach doesn't reply to mere minions.
-
How about we answer the question.
wasp69 doesn't care about the answer. You and I haven't interacted much, so I'll answer it for you:
The book was written by a brilliant scientist with broad experience. It is scientific exploration of the basis of climate science starting from the very basic concepts and their history building up to present day explorations.
-
Frank has touted you as being the most intelligent and best educated person on this board. Here is your chance to engage in a conversation on a scientific subject on an intellectual plane.
Not with you, he can't. Send someone over who has brains, knows science, doesn't lie, doesn't open with ad hominem and can carry on a decent conversation.
Don't waste your time at DU, such a person does not exist. You MIGHT find someone at DI (but not among liberals).
-
wasp69 doesn't care about the answer. You and I haven't interacted much, so I'll answer it for you:
The book was written by a brilliant scientist with broad experience. It is scientific exploration of the basis of climate science starting from the very basic concepts and their history building up to present day explorations.
Not really an answer about what appeals to you so much. A very generalized response.
So was Bad Dog correct with his assumption? Or maybe you can explain in a discussion here what really appeals to you about the basis of the book.
-
I'm up to section 10.6, about one third of the way through -- page 305 in the hard bound version.
I posted this thread hoping to generate a discussion. Don't read the book. Don't enter the discussion. I don't care.
-
I'm up to section 10.6, about one third of the way through -- page 305 in the hard bound version.
I posted this thread hoping to generate a discussion. Don't read the book. Don't enter the discussion. I don't care.
So you wanted to generate discussion on a book you're reading, yet you discuss nothing about it.
-
I'm up to section 10.6, about one third of the way through -- page 305 in the hard bound version.
I posted this thread hoping to generate a discussion. Don't read the book. Don't enter the discussion. I don't care.
Buzz,
I will reward you for striking out in a new direction. Good Buzzy.
(http://endlesspicdump.com/original/dog%20petting%20cat.gif)
For the benefit of those of us who haven't read the book, please describe Dr. Hay's thesis, and why you agree or disagree with it.
-
wasp69 doesn't care about the answer.
If I didn't care I wouldn't have asked the question.
I posted this thread hoping to generate a discussion.
Yet you failed to answer the first question asked. Pretty silly for someone who was trying to generate a discussion.
-
Big Dog --
Here's your pic (the page you chose sent your link into la-la land) Thanks, btw.
(http://endlesspicdump.com/original/dog%20petting%20cat.gif)
If I didn't care I wouldn't have asked the question.
Okay. An example: on page 271, Hay describes the discovery of greenhouse gases and how they function.
-
Okay. An example: on page 271, Hay describes the discovery of greenhouse gases and how they function.
Allow me to clarify: Is it interesting because of the technical aspect? Is it interesting because the author tunnels down into macro level scientific detail? Is it interesting because you think it fits your politics? Is it interesting because you think it's apolitical?
What about the book interests you the most?
Bear in mind that I've heard of neither the author nor any of his works.
-
Big Dog --
Here's your pic (the page you chose sent your link into la-la land) Thanks, btw.
(http://endlesspicdump.com/original/dog%20petting%20cat.gif)
Okay. An example: on page 271, Hay describes the discovery of greenhouse gases and how they function.
Told ya. Buzzy is going to edumicate us on climate diversity. Buzzer, are you a big fan of Dr. Paul Ehrlich? Have you read his book "The Population Bomb". Other than his theory of glowball "cooling" and his prediction that the earth would be uninhabitable by the mid 90's, He was dead on. Strangely enough, he is still lionized by climate Nazis.
-
Guys, if you don't want to enter into this discussion, fine. I'll talk about the book, the science, or the author. But, I will not talk about the politics surrounding global climate change or my motivations for reading the book.
-
Buzzy, if you are a big fan of the study of the great glow bull warming swindle, we have a whole board dedicated to it.
I wish you would check it out.
I would certainly engage you there.
A recent report from some climate scientists finds that carbon dioxide is not the agent for global warming it has been presented as.
This is information that conservatives have known for a long time.
The "greenhouse gas" theory of global warming is falling apart at the seams, as it should.
-
Guys, if you don't want to enter into this discussion, fine. I'll talk about the book, the science, or the author. But, I will not talk about the politics surrounding global climate change or my motivations for reading the book.
I wouldn't either if I were you Buzzy. Simple question for you what does your book theorize the climate to be "changing" to? You also need to keep up with the "science" the current term is "climate disruption" which helps you avoid the above question. I personally prefer "climate diversity" which allows you to completely ignore actual data and nuisances like East Anglia and other data fudging activities.
-
I wouldn't either if I were you Buzzy. Simple question for you what does your book theorize the climate to be "changing" to? You also need to keep up with the "science" the current term is "climate disruption" which helps you avoid the above question. I personally prefer "climate diversity" which allows you to completely ignore actual data and nuisances like East Anglia and other data fudging activities.
I realize I am not as smart or erudite as you, and so the elitist Buzz may ignore my question, but here goes:
Buzz, what is the proper temperature of the earth, and upon what do you base your answer?
-
I realize I am not as smart or erudite as you, and so the elitist Buzz may ignore my question, but here goes:
Buzz, what is the proper temperature of the earth, and upon what do you base your answer?
There is elegance and brilliance in simplicity Big Dog. It also usually cuts to the bone as is your style.
-
Guys, if you don't want to enter into this discussion, fine. I'll talk about the book, the science, or the author.
Well, I've tried twice...
-
Well, I've tried twice...
What you tried to do was undermine this discussion by questioning my motivations. You have not read a word of the book, and it is clear you don't intend to do so. I declared at your first question that you didn't what my answer was, and you have proven that to be true.
Done and done.
-
What you tried to do was undermine this discussion by questioning my motivations. You have not read a word of the book, and it is clear you don't intend to do so. I declared at your first question that you didn't what my answer was, and you have proven that to be true.
Done and done.
Lame.
You have told us precisely nothing about your book but expect us to discuss it? So do you expect us to run out & buy the book that you have only completed 1/3 of before you will discuss it with us.
-
Buzz, what is the proper temperature of the earth, and upon what do you base your answer?
The average global temperature is pretty close to meaningless. It's a nice, simple number that is easily accessible to the general public, but carries no value.
The science of climate change always has been about more than average global temperature. The maps that have been generated concerning vulnerable areas demonstrate this clearly: in the US, California is highly vulnerable and will suffer high temperatures and decreased rainfall; the Midwest will be nearly immune. One pole will be nearly unchanged; the other will heat up considerably.
-
I wouldn't either if I were you Buzzy. Simple question for you what does your book theorize the climate to be "changing" to? You also need to keep up with the "science" the current term is "climate disruption" which helps you avoid the above question. I personally prefer "climate diversity" which allows you to completely ignore actual data and nuisances like East Anglia and other data fudging activities.
Ok.
-
The average global temperature is pretty close to meaningless. It's a nice, simple number that is easily accessible to the general public, but carries no value.
The science of climate change always has been about more than average global temperature. The maps that have been generated concerning vulnerable areas demonstrate this clearly: in the US, California is highly vulnerable and will suffer high temperatures and decreased rainfall; the Midwest will be nearly immune. One pole will be nearly unchanged; the other will heat up considerably.
"The science of climate change always has been about more socialism than average global temperature"
Fixed it for you
-
The average global temperature is pretty close to meaningless. It's a nice, simple number that is easily accessible to the general public, but carries no value.
It's too bad your side has to resort to "meaningless" numbers to scare your low-information supporters. But your boy Harry Reid let the cat out of the bag about Democrat integrity, didn't he?
The science of climate change always has been about more than average global temperature. The maps that have been generated concerning vulnerable areas demonstrate this clearly: in the US, California is highly vulnerable and will suffer high temperatures and decreased rainfall; the Midwest will be nearly immune. One pole will be nearly unchanged; the other will heat up considerably.
Gee, just like the last four and a half billion years.
The very spot I am sitting on has been under a mile of ocean, and a mile of ice. Ten feet below my chair are fossils of animals and plants who lived, and died, in temperatures hot enough to make Rosie O'Donnell lose weight, and cold enough to make a mastodon buy a fur coat.
Color me unimpressed by the alarmism.
-
I'm just waiting for any advocate of anthropomorphic global warming to explain why there has been a larger percentage increase of the temperature on Mars than on Earth during the same period.
-
I'm just waiting for any advocate of anthropomorphic global warming to explain why there has been a larger percentage increase of the temperature on Mars than on Earth during the same period.
It's obvious- WE'RE ****ING UP THE WHOLE SOLAR SYSTEM!!!!!!
-
What you tried to do was undermine this discussion by questioning my motivations. You have not read a word of the book, and it is clear you don't intend to do so. I declared at your first question that you didn't what my answer was, and you have proven that to be true.
Done and done.
Actually, what I did was ask you what appealed to you, I clarified my question to guage what I may have wanted to ask next, actually admitted that I was unfamiliar with the author and his work, and your reaction is a ****ing tantrum?
You schizophrenic twat, I was the only one that tried to advance this discussion on your terms and you pissed in my face?
Go sit in the corner and suck your thumb, DUmbass, you're no use to anyone here.
-
The average global temperature is pretty close to meaningless. It's a nice, simple number that is easily accessible to the general public, but carries no value.
The science of climate change always has been about more than average global temperature. The maps that have been generated concerning vulnerable areas demonstrate this clearly: in the US, California is highly vulnerable and will suffer high temperatures and decreased rainfall; the Midwest will be nearly immune. One pole will be nearly unchanged; the other will heat up considerably.
All time highs for the antarctic ice cap is "nearly unchanged".
I guess everything is up for grabs in libland.
-
I have made it a strict, personal policy to never discuss scientific issues with those unable or unwilling to discuss the science. I'll take a couple of examples from here as illustration why:
- Political discussions may be motivated by scientific findings, but they are devoid of scientific content. The term "alarmist" is a political term, not a scientific one.
- Conjured scandals are fun but pretty friggin' stupid. East Anglia was shown to be nothing by three different panels. A truly informed person knows this.
- The climate/average temperature on Mars has some value in these discussions, but only in the proper context. That context was missed in the comment about Mars on this thread.
- CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for more than 100 years. The amount of radiation re-directed back to earth undergoes some tiny amounts of tuning, but nothing of significance.
I will not debate comments (1) and (2) above at all; if you can make a scientifically relevant statement in the context of (3) and (4), I'd consider discussing those.
I'm just not interested in the "gotcha" bullshit that drives you guys. If you want to discuss the science, prove it.
-
Explain the pause of rising temperatures on Earth, when the models all predict rising temps, but the temps on Mars have been increasing without human interference.
-
Explain the pause of rising temperatures on Earth, when the models all predict rising temps, but the temps on Mars have been increasing without human interference.
No.
-
If you want to discuss the science, prove it.
Here's some simple science for you: Various parts of the Earth has been much hotter, much colder, much wetter, and much dryer than they are currently. The current conditions on this planet are well within those extremes. Billions and billions of animals and plants have lived, adapted, and died through those changes. If species of animals and plants are unable to adapt and reproduce in sufficient quantities, those species become extinct. That is nature.
So-called "climate science" is not science, in the same way that psychology and sociology are not sciences. Just because a person can get a PhD in it, does not make it valid- Penis Denial Gender Studies and Vagina Gazing Womyn's Studies are paragons of silly things you can get a doctoral degree in.
"Climate science" is not verifiable or falsifiable, nor does it have an accurate predictive value. You can not tell me, with any degree of accuracy beyond the WAG, what the surface temperature, barometric pressure, or relative humidity would be for any point on earth at midnight 30 days from now, or even where or when the next hurricane will touch the eastern seaboard of the United States. Yet the "climate scientists" purport to predict conditions with pinpoint accuracy 100 and 1,000 years from now; that is probably the most significant indication that "climate science" is bullshit. In real science, the margin of error grows greater, not more precise.
The use of computer models which are programmed with assumptions and biases, is the antithesis of science. Garbage in, garbage out. If you believe them, you are a fool.
"Climate science" is imaginary, like "gender identity"; and just like "gender identity", a group of people expect everyone else to accept a product of the imagination, as though it was real. If you expect someone outside of your Hive to believe in it, then you expect us to be fools, too.
As a wise man once said, "If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong".
-
I have made it a strict, personal policy to never discuss scientific issues with those unable or unwilling to discuss the science. I'll take a couple of examples from here as illustration why:
- Political discussions may be motivated by scientific findings, but they are devoid of scientific content. The term "alarmist" is a political term, not a scientific one.
- Conjured scandals are fun but pretty friggin' stupid. East Anglia was shown to be nothing by three different panels. A truly informed person knows this.
- The climate/average temperature on Mars has some value in these discussions, but only in the proper context. That context was missed in the comment about Mars on this thread.
- CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for more than 100 years. The amount of radiation re-directed back to earth undergoes some tiny amounts of tuning, but nothing of significance.
I will not debate comments (1) and (2) above at all; if you can make a scientifically relevant statement in the context of (3) and (4), I'd consider discussing those.
I'm just not interested in the "gotcha" bullshit that drives you guys. If you want to discuss the science, prove it.
Start by qualifying yourself.
1) What is a scientific theory?
2) Why do the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity fit?
30 What is "scientific consensus." Give 3 examples
3) Give 1the above how does AGW (or Climate Change or whatever it is called these days) fit?
If you cannot properly answer these questions you have disqualified yourself from discussing science and can be dismissed as just having talking points encapsulating a purely political agenda (and thus, once again, outed as a liar).
-
I'm just not interested in the "gotcha" bullshit that drives you guys.
And you have the nerve to call someone else a hypocrite?
-
No.
You can't be anthropomorphic global warming doesn't exist.
-
I have made it a strict, personal policy to never discuss scientific issues with those unable or unwilling to discuss the science. I'll take a couple of examples from here as illustration why:
- Political discussions may be motivated by scientific findings, but they are devoid of scientific content. The term "alarmist" is a political term, not a scientific one.
- Conjured scandals are fun but pretty friggin' stupid. East Anglia was shown to be nothing by three different panels. A truly informed person knows this.
- The climate/average temperature on Mars has some value in these discussions, but only in the proper context. That context was missed in the comment about Mars on this thread.
- CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for more than 100 years. The amount of radiation re-directed back to earth undergoes some tiny amounts of tuning, but nothing of significance.
I will not debate comments (1) and (2) above at all; if you can make a scientifically relevant statement in the context of (3) and (4), I'd consider discussing those.
I'm just not interested in the "gotcha" bullshit that drives you guys. If you want to discuss the science, prove it.
1. So is "climate denier" especially whilst linking I with holocaust denier.
2. I read the e-mails which East Anglia was forced to apologize for and I have never seen any panel findings. The standard phony scandal defense (like the race card) is pretty much used up at this point. I prefer phony, scandal defense.
3. Cop out.
4. Your problem is that, with the advent of satellite data, all you have are models that have failed over and over You have been trying to sell this "alarmist" crap in its various forms since the mid 60's changing from "cooling" to "warming" to "change" and now "disruption". Unfortunately, satellite data is now killing you and panic is setting in.
On a positive note, your solution has remained constant... More Socialism.
I would be most appreciative if you would give some links to the East Anglia "panels" you mentioned.
-
This will be my only set of comments on this, Dog. You're entitled to your opinion, and that opinion won't change no matter how long we debate. So, this one time:
So-called "climate science" is not science, in the same way that psychology and sociology are not sciences. Just because a person can get a PhD in it, does not make it valid- Penis Denial Gender Studies and Vagina Gazing Womyn's Studies are paragons of silly things you can get a doctoral degree in.
Psychology and sociology are soft sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science) but sciences nonetheless. Climate science (which is a very limited field and a small subset of the multiple disciplines contributing to the study of climate change) is a hard science: it has testable theories based on chemistry, physics, etc.
"Climate science" is not verifiable or falsifiable, nor does it have an accurate predictive value. You can not tell me, with any degree of accuracy beyond the WAG, what the surface temperature, barometric pressure, or relative humidity would be for any point on earth at midnight 30 days from now, or even where or when the next hurricane will touch the eastern seaboard of the United States. Yet the "climate scientists" purport to predict conditions with pinpoint accuracy 100 and 1,000 years from now; that is probably the most significant indication that "climate science" is bullshit. In real science, the margin of error grows greater, not more precise.
This assertion of yours is quite wrong on many fronts. Climate is not what happens to the weather 30 days from now; it is the trends in weather-related observations over long periods of thirty years or more. Climate predictions become more precise (less noise) with longer periods of prediction. Their accuracy is actually quite good over relatively short periods but falters with longer periods (i.e., approaching 1000 years).
The use of computer models which are programmed with assumptions and biases, is the antithesis of science. Garbage in, garbage out. If you believe them, you are a fool.
Computer assisted models have a real role in every aspect of science: chemistry, astrophysics, biology, etc., and some of these models have essentially zero error. Your slam on computer models is totally wrong, but let's bring it back to climate change computer models. The role of the models is multi-fold; predicting changes in climate across the globe is only one of those outcomes.
About ten years ago, I had an hour-long talk with a post doctoral associate in front of his highly technical poster on climate change. He and his advisor, a colleague of mine, were skeptics about climate change (particularly the origins of climate change). However, they recognized the undeniable fact that the climate was changing. The poster was discussing vulnerable regions in the US. They predicted that the West Coast was going to fry along with some parts of the Southwest. The Midwest would remain largely unchanged, and the East Coast would experience colder, wetter winters. All based on computer models. Sound familiar?
-
2. I read the e-mails which East Anglia was forced to apologize for and I have never seen any panel findings.
Ignorance is no excuse.
4. Your problem is that, with the advent of satellite data, all you have are models that have failed over and over
No. The models have improved with tremendously over the past 30 years with satellite data.
You are not well informed on this subject.
-
Ignorance is no excuse.
No. The models have improved with tremendously over the past 30 years with satellite data.
You are not well informed on this subject.
Nor is lying. If such "panels" existed, they would have been splattered all over the press and, you would be spamming us with links.
The only progress that has been made is that the propagandists have learned to hide their "improved" models after the early ones were destroyed simply by running them backwards. Oh, and threats of professional destruction (or worse) have forced many to hide their doubts. But, thankfully, some are coming forward also contributing to your increasing panic.
You have been consistently lying in many of your posts here but, we must now take your word on glowball diversity. Not likely Buzzard.
-
Psychology and sociology are soft sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science) but sciences nonetheless.
Ah, yes. Soft sciences, or more accurately, pseudosciences. Unprovable, no predictive value, but a great opportunity for some people to make a living from Other People's Money without accountability. Getting a PhD in a "soft science" is like getting a license to steal.
This assertion of yours is quite wrong on many fronts. Climate is not what happens to the weather 30 days from now; it is the trends in weather-related observations over long periods of thirty years or more.
Redefining a word to suit your purposes does not make it correct. It makes you disingenuous. Again, I refer you to the progressive use of "gender". I can describe the climate on the Great Plains today. With much less precision, I could describe the climate on the Great Plains 100 years ago on this date, and with equal imprecision I could predict the climate of the Great Plains 100 years from today.
But climate does not exist, physically. It is a concept which selectively describes arbitrarily chosen weather conditions in an arbitrarily chosen area, over an arbitrarily chosen period of time. Because it has four variables (one selective and three arbitraries, not counting the biases and assumptions added to the computer models), it can not even be said to be real in an objective sense- which makes it merely subjective, like emotions.
So, although you called it "hard science", climatology is ultimately on a footing with pseudosciences like sociology and mesmerism. I'd say that I wouldn't be surprised if people 100 years from now laugh at "climatology" the way we laugh at medicinal leeches today; but I will be dead, so I will not be able to be surprised.
In closing: You may not have noticed, but no matter what happens with the real world, your side declares that ever-increasing government control of free men and women is needed to save Mother Gaea from us eeevil planet-raping humans. Because "climate science" is, at its end, an emotional demand for total government control of free will, it is not science at all, but politics- your politics, specifically.
Of course climate changes. Seasons change, people change (hat tip to Expose'). That's nature. Adapt yourself to it, or die.
The People rest.
And now for a musical interlude.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCQiYJrsqYo[/youtube]
-
The People rest.
Dayum!!! H-5 my friend.
-
Dayum!!! H-5 my friend.
I'm glad you 2 dogs are on our side.
-
I'm glad you 2 dogs are on our side.
Careful there, I think the other BD may be a mole. Word to the wise.
-
Careful there, I think the other BD may be a mole. Word to the wise.
I'm not a mole, I'm a Bull Mastiff.
(http://dogs.bsl-sbt.com/imagefiles/dogsimages/bullmastiff_relaxed.jpg)
Sue said so!
-
Sue said so!
And they called Billy-Bob the horndog.
-
And they called Billy-Bob the horndog.
If all the cavers had to have a dog nickname, mine would be ozombie dog.
Big Dog already has a dog nickname.
That leaves horndog available for another caver.
-
My only comment (as I warned ahead of time):
Redefining a word to suit your purposes does not make it correct.
Please feel free to show me a definition of climate that includes 30-day predictions.
-
Nor is lying. If such "panels" existed...
Did I say three panels? I was wrong -- there were eight. All eight exonerating the East Anglia Climate Unit of any wrong doing.
It's not my job to educate you. Do your own research.
-
My only comment (as I warned ahead of time):
Please feel free to show me a definition of climate that includes 30-day predictions.
You're the one who has consistently said you don't have to prove or show anything. The mere fact that it dribbles out of your pie hole makes it undisputable fact.
I'm still trying to figure out what you were trying to accomplish with this thread. You aren't going to convert anyone here and conservatives have always disputed the religion of climate diversity.
-
Did I say three panels? I was wrong -- there were eight. All eight exonerating the East Anglia Climate Unit of any wrong doing.
It's not my job to educate you. Do your own research.
Doesn't work that way here, DUmmie. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
-
Doesn't work that way here, DUmmie. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
Buzzie is a special flower and, gets to make up his own rules. Seems he thinks "climate" only applies to the future not the past nor the present. In other words he's over his head as far as this subject goes.
-
In other words he's over his head as far as this subject goes.
Every DUmmie that slithers out of $kinner's asylum finds out very fast that their bullshit doesn't play very well in the real world. Which is why I love seeing them come over here and learn the hard way.
I liken them to hood rats that try and bluster their way out of a situation where their alligator mouths badly overloaded their hummingbird asses.
-
Doesn't work that way here, DUmmie. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
It's going to work this time.
If you want to be part of this, bring something. Open your browser to Wikipedia and look it up. Verify the results you find by following the references. You will see that I am right. And, if you disagree with what you read, prove it wrong, but only for yourselves because I am done with this.
I am not here to educate you or do your work. If you disagree with that notion, tough shit.
-
It's going to work this time.
If you want to be part of this, bring something. Open your browser to Wikipedia and look it up. Verify the results you find by following the references. You will see that I am right. And, if you disagree with what you read, prove it wrong, but only for yourselves because I am done with this.
I am not here to educate you or do your work. If you disagree with that notion, tough shit.
Wikipedia is a lib hack site.
I wouldn't trust a thing they publish there.
If you have a "smidgen" of honesty, you wouldn't either.
-
It's going to work this time.
If you want to be part of this, bring something. Open your browser to Wikipedia and look it up. Verify the results you find by following the references. You will see that I am right. And, if you disagree with what you read, prove it wrong, but only for yourselves because I am done with this.
I am not here to educate you or do your work. If you disagree with that notion, tough shit.
No shit! You are here to spew progressive propaganda and pretty much lie about who you voted for etc. etc. Since nobody here believes anything you say, exactly what are you here to accomplish. Go sell your weak tea over at the DUmp.
Since you said you are done with this, I'll understand if you don't come back with a lame reply.
But you will, won't you buzzie.
-
It's going to work this time.
If you want to be part of this, bring something. Open your browser to Wikipedia and look it up. Verify the results you find by following the references. You will see that I am right. And, if you disagree with what you read, prove it wrong, but only for yourselves because I am done with this.
I am not here to educate you or do your work. If you disagree with that notion, tough shit.
Actually it's not going to work this time.
As stated, the burden is on you for the accusation you've made.
Instead of being on the defensive attack, maybe you should try debate.
-
Why are you wasting your time with this illiterate?
He could not answer my simple questions about science.
He can repeat talking points but he doesn't know ANYTHING about real science.
And thus he is unworthy of any more time on his alleged "talks" with scientists (yeah, that happened) nor his understanding of science nor the scientific method. He understands science the same way a monkey understands that a banana appeared in his hand through a string attached to a stick. Actually, the monkey is smarter is it sees the correlation.
bzc -- you are a liar and posuer. You can't put up and you certainly won't shut up.
In other words, a liberal.
-
What a crew. "Let's dwell on tangential topics so that we can avoid talking about the science, because, when it comes to the science, we have nothing to contribute."
So, you people are fully able to scour the archives of DU to find every comment I've ever made, but incapable of performing the simplest Google search to determine whether or not the scientists of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit have ever been exonerated for "Climategate"? What bullshit. I am not at all surprised by anything but the depth of immaturity displayed by all of you.
So, here you go -- before you hold your collective breaths and turn blue in the face:
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/climategate-inquiry-largely-clears-scientists/
In its report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact,†adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.â€
http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/SAP.pdf/a6f591fc-fc6e-4a70-9648-8b943d84782b
We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work
of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely
that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if
slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures
were rather informal.
Less than ten minutes, children.
So, do carry on with your empty insults and other demonstrations of intellectual impotency. I won't be back on this thread to read your comments because you already have demonstrated that which I already knew.
-
What a crew. "Let's dwell on tangential topics so that we can avoid talking about the science, because, when it comes to the science, we have nothing to contribute."
So, you people are fully able to scour the archives of DU to find every comment I've ever made, but incapable of performing the simplest Google search to determine whether or not the scientists of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit have ever been exonerated for "Climategate"? What bullshit. I am not at all surprised by anything but the depth of immaturity displayed by all of you.
So, here you go -- before you hold your collective breaths and turn blue in the face:
Less than ten minutes, children.
So, do carry on with your empty insults and other demonstrations of intellectual impotency. I won't be back on this thread to read your comments because you already have demonstrated that which I already knew.
Answer my questions or admit you are fraud, liar.
-
What a crew. "Let's dwell on tangential topics so that we can avoid talking about the science, because, when it comes to the science, we have nothing to contribute."
How science works is on point. Awaiting your answers.
So, here you go -- before you hold your collective breaths and turn blue in the face:
So the other paid off academics cleared the paid off academics. Still not science and 100% political (so much for your pure science feeble attempt at argumentation).
Less than ten minutes, children.
Even less for you to be exposed a talking-points-repeater with no knowledge of science.
So, do carry on with your empty insults and other demonstrations of intellectual impotency. I won't be back on this thread to read your comments because you already have demonstrated that which I already knew.
IOW, you can't actually deal with real science so, once again, you run away.
No surprises anywhere here.
-
It's going to work this time.
If you want to be part of this, bring something. Open your browser to Wikipedia and look it up. Verify the results you find by following the references. You will see that I am right. And, if you disagree with what you read, prove it wrong, but only for yourselves because I am done with this.
I am not here to educate you or do your work. If you disagree with that notion, tough shit.
What's one more lie among friends eh buzzinator.
Any way I called it and you came back parroting your talking points. The total "science" you have "discussed" is nothing more than standard alarmist dogma. Those here with actual scientific experience have knocked the snot out of you.
Now you are just making a bigger fool of yourself.
-
After my challenge of his "knowledge" he won't be back.
-
After my challenge of his "knowledge" he won't be back.
Yeah, he will. Can't help himself, he's just that stupid
-
Yeah, he will. Can't help himself, he's just that stupid
He is busy researching talking points. To those of us who KNOW science it will be like a first grader reciting Chaucer phonetically.
If he comes back be prepared for huge amusement.
-
He is busy researching talking points. To those of us who KNOW science it will be like a first grader reciting Chaucer phonetically.
If he comes back be prepared for huge amusement.
Good luck but, I think he will just keep ignoring or refusing to answer any question as a matter of principle (works great for democrat politicos). He's what Gruber was talking about when he referred to the “stupidity of the American voterâ€
-
I'm up to section 10.6, about one third of the way through -- page 305 in the hard bound version.
I posted this thread hoping to generate a discussion. Don't read the book. Don't enter the discussion. I don't care.
OK.
-
Quote from: BuzzClik on April 04, 2015, 03:39:14 PM
I'm up to section 10.6, about one third of the way through -- page 305 in the hard bound version.
I posted this thread hoping to generate a discussion. Don't read the book. Don't enter the discussion. I don't care.
Well, we do have to admit he is slogging through dogma. Sort of like "Mein Kampf" without all that German. I think Page 305 is where he declares all Jews as against all Germans (but that might only be the hard cover version).
Science is irrelevant, knowledge is irrelevant, appeal to authority -- now THAT is relevant (/liberal groupmindthink)
-
He is busy researching talking points. To those of us who KNOW science it will be like a first grader reciting Chaucer phonetically.
If he comes back be prepared for huge amusement.
That sounds like the Buzz Click we all remember from CU. :clap:
-
What a crew. "Let's dwell on tangential topics so that we can avoid talking about the science, because, when it comes to the science, we have nothing to contribute."
Just think, if you'd only answered my question, we could be having a non political discussion in a non political sub-forum. You have no one but yourself to blame, DUmmie.
So, you people...
Ponder for a moment, if you will, how much shit you didn't catch for using that particular turn of phrase. I can count at least 3 of your beloved victim groups that would be howling for your head over that one, white boy.
...are fully able to scour the archives of DU to find every comment I've ever made, but incapable of performing the simplest Google search to determine...
You may be one of the smartest retards at the DUmp, and thus your word is enough to the rest of the mouth breathers, but that doesn't work here. Your reaction also pretty much tracks with the rest of $kinner's "intellectual giants" when asked to source their opinion: Tantrum followed by a stomping exit.
whether or not the scientists of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit have ever been exonerated for "Climategate"? What bullshit. I am not at all surprised by anything but the depth of immaturity displayed by all of you.
So, here you go -- before you hold your collective breaths and turn blue in the face:
Only two, buzzy? I thought you claimed 8 investigations where the foxes found no wrongdoing in the henhouse burglaries?
I would like to show you something that the Seattle Times article you quoted missed when they skimmed over the Executive Summaries and failed to dig further into the Parliament's report: EAU's CRU was not exonerated of anything. To the contrary, they were found to have hidden data (by legal meas or otherwise), thwarted FOI requests, and sought to discredit those that they did not believe were going to advance their agenda in what the Parliamentary Committee called a "limited inquiry".
You can read the report here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf) and review the oral and written evidence here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf).
Less than ten minutes, children.
God, I would hope so. It only took me about 30 seconds to find what I just gave you. Just think of the frustration you could have saved yourself had you only sourced your words the first time.
I won't be back on this thread to read your comments...
Heh...
Yeah, you will, buzzy.
-
Heh...
Yeah, you will, buzzy.
Very well done Wasp double H-5.
And, he will be back. If nothing else to throw a purple faced screaming tantrum AKA Jugs.
-
Very well done Wasp double H-5.
And, he will be back. If nothing else to throw a purple faced screaming tantrum AKA Jugs.
So long as my questions about science are out there, he won't be back.
-
I will repeat what I said in the DUmpster.
Buzzy,you are so far in over your head and out of your league it is pathetic.
-
Btw Buzzy,the 8 independent investigations canard is as easily debunked as the 97% consensus meme.
At least 2 of them were done by Penn State investigating Mann,who was on their payroll.
Yes,the same Penn State of the same era as Sandusky look the other way review.
-
Carl, reading your drivel leaves me of two minds. On the one hand, your hateful igorance frustrated me because you are so confident in the knowledge you simply don't possess. On the other hand (and this one won the day), your sad situation reminded me of three quotes. I'll share them with you:
"The problem with educating stupid people was that they didn’t know they were stupid."
--- Chuck Palahniuk
“Stupid people will mistake your confidence for arrogance.â€
---Habeeb Akande
"Most people who spew hatred aren’t very intelligent or motivated. They tend to be lazy, and if for some reason they are coaxed into picking up a pen, their messages are mostly incoherent and largely illiterate."
---Damien Echols
I have no doubt their meaning will be lost on you and your fellow travelers, but perhaps you can find someone who can put them on your level.
-
Carl, reading your drivel leaves me of two minds. On the one hand, your hateful igorance frustrated me because you are so confident in the knowledge you simply don't possess. On the other hand (and this one won the day), your sad situation reminded me of three quotes. I'll share them with you:
"The problem with educating stupid people was that they didn’t know they were stupid."
--- Chuck Palahniuk
“Stupid people will mistake your confidence for arrogance.â€
---Habeeb Akande
"Most people who spew hatred aren’t very intelligent or motivated. They tend to be lazy, and if for some reason they are coaxed into picking up a pen, their messages are mostly incoherent and largely illiterate."
---Damien Echols
I have no doubt their meaning will be lost on you and your fellow travelers, but perhaps you can find someone who can put them on your level.
Poor Buzzy. Reduced to flinging his poop. Sad...sad Buzzer.
You owe me a dollar Freedumb.
-
I have no doubt their meaning will be lost on you and your fellow travelers, but perhaps you can find someone who can put them on your level.
I've never heard of those people.
The quotes sound to me like something community instigators would say.
You know, like your messiah.
I never heard of Alinsky until Beck turned me on to him.
But, evidently...your hero Hitlery has worshipped him all her life.
So you libs are more than one up on me knowing about famous community agitators.
But here's a quote for someone who has real achievements that have advanced the cause of mankind...
"Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them"...-Albert Einstein-
P.S. Here's a hint, this quote applies directly to you.
-
Carl, reading your drivel leaves me of two minds. On the one hand, your hateful igorance frustrated me because you are so confident in the knowledge you simply don't possess. On the other hand (and this one won the day), your sad situation reminded me of three quotes. I'll share them with you:
"The problem with educating stupid people was that they didn’t know they were stupid."
--- Chuck Palahniuk
“Stupid people will mistake your confidence for arrogance.â€
---Habeeb Akande
"Most people who spew hatred aren’t very intelligent or motivated. They tend to be lazy, and if for some reason they are coaxed into picking up a pen, their messages are mostly incoherent and largely illiterate."
---Damien Echols
I have no doubt their meaning will be lost on you and your fellow travelers, but perhaps you can find someone who can put them on your level.
So you can't answer my simple science questions and just use ad hominem to address the entire issue.
Yep, you a lib.
-
Hey, I want props for predicting bzc would use, once again, Appeal to Authority (said authorities known to 12 people each)!
-
Hey, I want props for predicting bzc would use, once again, Appeal to Authority (said authorities known to 12 people each)!
After I get my dollar.
-
After I get my dollar.
(http://i.imgur.com/MDYgipr.gif)
-
I believe you just witnessed what Rush refers to as "shining the light of truth" on what is the equivalent of a cockroach and cultist. :rotf:
-
Here ya go buzzy,I`m sure the cult doesn`t allow reading of these but give it a try.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6886-were-the-climategate-inquiries-whitewashed
https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/official-probe-shows-climategate-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140
There is much more if one wants to look for it.
-
Carl, reading your drivel leaves me of two minds.
Told you that you'd be back, didn't I, liar?
On the one hand, blah blah blah...
There's that punk ass DUmmie that I remember from CU, I knew you wouldn't disappoint anyone. Can't baffle 'em with bullshit? Time to pull out the bluster.
You're not different than any other DUmbass that slithers in the door, buzzy. Every last one of you do the exact same thing, in the exact same manner, in almost the exact same time frame.
-
I believe you just witnessed what Rush refers to as "shining the light of truth" on what is the equivalent of a cockroach and cultist. :rotf:
Nah, we just witnessed the atypical DUmmie arc that every one of these mouth breathers take when they stray from their echo chamber. When they find out their opinion, and their approved sources, don't quite cut it with this crowd, they tell us how stupid we are and then ratchet up the whining about how they're being picked on. These special little snowflakes can't withstand being called names (which they do to others with frequent glee), not having their opinion taken as fact (even though they demand "proof" for everything we say), or questioning their "sources" (despite their complete rejection of anything to the right of Mother Jones).
The next phase in buzzy's tenure here at CC will be trolling until he's finally thrown back into his cesspool.
Happens every time...
There is much more if one wants to look for it.
The report from the House of Commons is what several of these "investigations" based their "exoneration" upon when the truth is that more than a cursory glance past the summarized "conclusions" will show (at least to an intellectually honest person) that the CRU was anything but cleared.
Not that I expected the obtuse **** to click the links I provided... :whatever:
-
I hope this doesn't get lost in this huge thread (which, I admit, I did not read completely)...
Buzzy, if you're interested in science books....I'm currently reading "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene.
Here is the synopsis from Amazon:
From Brian Greene, one of the world’s leading physicists and author the Pulitzer Prize finalist The Elegant Universe, comes a grand tour of the universe that makes us look at reality in a completely different way.
Space and time form the very fabric of the cosmos. Yet they remain among the most mysterious of concepts. Is space an entity? Why does time have a direction? Could the universe exist without space and time? Can we travel to the past? Greene has set himself a daunting task: to explain non-intuitive, mathematical concepts like String Theory, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and Inflationary Cosmology with analogies drawn from common experience. From Newton’s unchanging realm in which space and time are absolute, to Einstein’s fluid conception of spacetime, to quantum mechanics’ entangled arena where vastly distant objects can instantaneously coordinate their behavior, Greene takes us all, regardless of our scientific backgrounds, on an irresistible and revelatory journey to the new layers of reality that modern physics has discovered lying just beneath the surface of our everyday world.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fabric-Cosmos-Texture-Reality/dp/0375727205
I'm going to be honest when I say that I don't understand a few things in this book; but I find it fascinating. I've just started the chapters on string theory. The book is not formula/math heavy at all...he gives some great analogies and examples, though.
-
I hope this doesn't get lost in this huge thread (which, I admit, I did not read completely)...
Buzzy, if you're interested in science books....I'm currently reading "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene.
Here is the synopsis from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fabric-Cosmos-Texture-Reality/dp/0375727205
I'm going to be honest when I say that I don't understand a few things in this book; but I find it fascinating. I've just started the chapters on string theory. The book is not formula/math heavy at all...he gives some great analogies and examples, though.
I had to read "Theories of Chaos" 3 times and even then only about 25% of it stuck (and about 2% of the math).
-
I had to read "Theories of Chaos" 3 times and even then only about 25% of it stuck (and about 2% of the math).
That doesn't sound like an easy read at all.
My son bought Fabric of the Cosmos at Goodwill and read it while he was working out of town. I decided to give it a try because I LOVE the universe/space shows on the Science Channel (Through the Worm Hole with Morgan Freeman is just one of them). I am a Christian, and the order and delicate balance of the Universe just screams a Creator to me. It truly fascinates me.
Another book about the Universe and the way it works is The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. It is a MUCH easier read than the Brian Greene book.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-For-Creator-Investigates/dp/0310242096
-
I would like to show you something that the Seattle Times article you quoted missed when they skimmed over the Executive Summaries and failed to dig further into the Parliament's report: EAU's CRU was not exonerated of anything. To the contrary, they were found to have hidden data (by legal meas or otherwise), thwarted FOI requests, and sought to discredit those that they did not believe were going to advance their agenda in what the Parliamentary Committee called a "limited inquiry".
You can read the report here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf) and review the oral and written evidence here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf).
God, I would hope so. It only took me about 30 seconds to find what I just gave you. Just think of the frustration you could have saved yourself had you only sourced your words the first time.
Heh...
Yeah, you will, buzzy.
Just for you, dimbulb: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026483009
Everything you claimed was wrong. As usual. Everything. If you had any level of intellect, self-awareness, and even a shred of honesty, you'd admit it. You won't, because "if not a and not b and not c, then d"
Next time take more than 30 seconds, and maybe you won't look like such a chump. Maybe not.
-
I hope this doesn't get lost in this huge thread (which, I admit, I did not read completely)...
Buzzy, if you're interested in science books....I'm currently reading "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene.
Here is the synopsis from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fabric-Cosmos-Texture-Reality/dp/0375727205
Thanks for the recommendation. It's available in electronic form, so I'll get a copy on my iPad.
I'm extraordinarily busy, but I will get back to you when I have read it. On a different thread, no doubt.
-
Oh look,buzzy runs away for a few days and then pops in late at night to spew his idiocy.
Really buzz,a DUmp thread where none of us will be allowed to respond? :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
You are not just a pathological liar and deluded cultist,you are a gutless,simpering coward.
-
This will be my only set of comments on this, Dog. You're entitled to your opinion, and that opinion won't change no matter how long we debate. So, this one time:
Psychology and sociology are soft sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science) but sciences nonetheless. Climate science (which is a very limited field and a small subset of the multiple disciplines contributing to the study of climate change) is a hard science: it has testable theories based on chemistry, physics, etc.
This assertion of yours is quite wrong on many fronts. Climate is not what happens to the weather 30 days from now; it is the trends in weather-related observations over long periods of thirty years or more. Climate predictions become more precise (less noise) with longer periods of prediction. Their accuracy is actually quite good over relatively short periods but falters with longer periods (i.e., approaching 1000 years).
Computer assisted models have a real role in every aspect of science: chemistry, astrophysics, biology, etc., and some of these models have essentially zero error. Your slam on computer models is totally wrong, but let's bring it back to climate change computer models. The role of the models is multi-fold; predicting changes in climate across the globe is only one of those outcomes.
About ten years ago, I had an hour-long talk with a post doctoral associate in front of his highly technical poster on climate change. He and his advisor, a colleague of mine, were skeptics about climate change (particularly the origins of climate change). However, they recognized the undeniable fact that the climate was changing. The poster was discussing vulnerable regions in the US. They predicted that the West Coast was going to fry along with some parts of the Southwest. The Midwest would remain largely unchanged, and the East Coast would experience colder, wetter winters. All based on computer models. Sound familiar?
If climatology is a hard science, please describe the Laws that have been developed to predict results.
Chemistry has Boyle's Law, the Ideal Gas Law, etc. Physics has Newton's Laws of motion.
What Laws have been developed for climatology? What is the climatologist's equivalent of PV=nRT?
-
About ten years ago, I had an hour-long talk with a post doctoral associate in front of his highly technical poster on climate change. He and his advisor, a colleague of mine, were skeptics about climate change (particularly the origins of climate change). However, they recognized the undeniable fact that the climate was changing. The poster was discussing vulnerable regions in the US. They predicted that the West Coast was going to fry along with some parts of the Southwest. The Midwest would remain largely unchanged, and the East Coast would experience colder, wetter winters. All based on computer models. Sound familiar?
Ben Franklin predicted the climate changes of the American Colonies 250 years ago. Indians predicted climate changes across the North American continent for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Neither required computer models or data manipulation.
Weather changes. Climate changes. That is nature. Adapt or die.
-
You know, guys, it's mouth-breathers like this that make me regret giving 20+ years of my life to their security. I give and vermin like buzzy here pay me back by being the most useless dickhead he can possibly be.
Just for you, dimbulb: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026483009
You posted this from behind $kinner's apron strings and question my honesty?
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Lindsay-Lohan-Spits-Out-Drink.gif)
Worthless, gutless, punk-ass, pathetic coward.... I see now that calling you an obtuse **** of a DUmmie was tragically inaccurate and far more credit than you deserve. To attribute obtuseness is to imply that you know better, you're just being an ass. I can see that you don't know any better and you're just an ass.
Slither your useless self back to the DUmp and do what you do best, whatever that might be.
-
Thanks for your service, Captain Nonsequitur!
You were proved wrong, so you respond with insults (just like your retarded cousin, Carl).
Game, set, match. Thanks for playing. Next time, I'll look for a worthy adversary. But not here.
-
Thanks for your service, Captain Nonsequitur!
You were proved wrong, so you respond with insults (just like your retarded cousin, Carl).
Game, set, match. Thanks for playing. Next time, I'll look for a worthy adversary. But not here.
Still flinging your poop eh buzzclit? At least Jugs had some class, honesty and.....jugs. You, on the other hand, are a weak popcorn fart. You had no actual scientific arguments just your algore inspired dogma and you weren't even particularly good at that. Like your lord and savior O'bunga, you run to a safe place and brag about what a hero you are using the DUmp retards prop you up.
Game, set, match indeed.
-
Thanks for your service, Captain Nonsequitur!
You were proved wrong, so you respond with insults (just like your retarded cousin, Carl).
Game, set, match. Thanks for playing. Next time, I'll look for a worthy adversary. But not here.
As I just said in the Dumpster.
You ignorant mutts are all alike and you just set a new record for stupidity.
God help us given that you and Alex are supposedly "professors".
Run back to the DUmp and hide in the corner sucking your thumb buzzy.
You can close your eyes and pretend that people think you even have half a brain.
-
Still flinging your poop eh buzzclit?
So glad you found it impossible to resist acting like yourself. The emptiness, by the way, was a bit of a disappointment considering the buildup you were given by the coach. No matter.
About this: I read the e-mails which East Anglia ws forced to apologize for an I have never seen any panel findins. The standard phony scandal defense (like the race card) is pretty much used up at this point. I prefer phony, scandal defense.
How did that turn out for you? Have you heard of the panels now? Your ignorance was glairing and sad for someone purported to be so brilliant.
Well, it's been fun revealing your lack of depth, Bad Dog.
Be sure to say something angry and stupid in response. I wouldn't have it any other way. And this is it for me on this thread. Enjoy, children!!!
-
(http://www.harveymackay.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/cowardly-lion.jpg)
-
So glad you found it impossible to resist acting like yourself. The emptiness, by the way, was a bit of a disappointment considering the buildup you were given by the coach. No matter.
About this:
How did that turn out for you? Have you heard of the panels now? Your ignorance was glairing and sad for someone purported to be so brilliant.
Well, it's been fun revealing your lack of depth, Bad Dog.
Be sure to say something angry and stupid in response. I wouldn't have it any other way. And this is it for me on this thread. Enjoy, children!!!
buzzikins!!
I never claimed "depth" buzzer and, this business about the coach and my brilliance, like the imaginary posts from Big Dog, are your delusions not mine. One does not have to be brilliant to spot a poser and liar. Especially if he is not very good at it. I never said I hadn't heard of your precious panels, I said I read the actual e-mails. The panels did not exonerate the so called scientists of East Anglia they just tried to obfuscate their dishonest actions. Typical leftist "don't believe your lying eyes" bullshit.
Your whole exercise over here has done nothing more than expose your pitiful lack of scientific competence and weak communication skills.
-
Thanks for your service, Captain Nonsequitur!
Spare me your sarcasm for doing what you couldn't be bothered to do, buzzy. I take solace in the fact that for everyone like you, there are at least 100 that are unlike you. The rain falls on the just and unjust alike, buzzy, just as it falls on those who understand serving something greater than themselves and those who don't.
You were proved wrong
An actual reading of the material at the two links I provided you says differently, buzzy. I know that you're a DUmp democrat, and unable to generate an ounce of intellectual honesty to look past your dogmatic narrative, but no such thing happened. What I showed you (attempted to show you) casts much doubt upon what you claim. That you can't bother yourself to acknowledge those doubts, well...
so you respond with insults (just like your retarded cousin, Carl).
"Whhaaaaaa! Mommy, they insulted me and called me names!"
"But, buzzy, you insult people and call them names all of the time."
"Yeah, but they're mean!"
Whiny, hypocritical, thin-skinned bitch... :whatever:
Actually, DUmbass, I was the first (and only) one who tried to advance what could have been a non-political discussion in a non-political sub forum on your terms and you pissed in my face. You have no one to blame but yourself, buzzy.
Moral of the story? Don't start any shit, there won't be any shit. If you start shit, don't cry when you get it back. No one here is under any obligation to be polite to someone as hostile to them as you have shown yourself to be.
Game, set, match. Thanks for playing.
:lmao:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rV9dLRnYQyY/U2H5FsPr1iI/AAAAAAAAPZc/tr6-twng29A/s1600/TisButaScratch.png)
Next time, I'll look for a worthy adversary. But not here.
:lmao: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :lmao:
No you won't! You'll run back to your echo chamber and hide behind $kinner's apron, coward.
Next time... :rofl:
-
If climatology is a hard science, please describe the Laws that have been developed to predict results.
Chemistry has Boyle's Law, the Ideal Gas Law, etc. Physics has Newton's Laws of motion.
What Laws have been developed for climatology? What is the climatologist's equivalent of PV=nRT?
I notice Buzz still ducks my questions. Am I scary to you Buzz?
-
<empty bullshit>
Show some balls. I came here and was treated to nothing but a series of insults, but at least I persisted. You don't have the guts to do anything but stay in the hive and whine.
Come to DU. Post on my thread about the science. As long as you stay on topic, DU will protect you from being insulted, denigrated, or harassed -- unless this cesspool.
Bring it, baby man.
I'm out. I know I will not be seeing your chicken ass.
-
Show some balls. I came here and was treated to nothing but a series of insults, but at least I persisted. You don't have the guts to do anything but stay in the hive and whine.
Come to DU. Post on my thread about the science. As long as you stay on topic, DU will protect you from being insulted, denigrated, or harassed -- unless this cesspool.
Bring it, baby man.
I'm out. I know I will not be seeing your chicken ass.
Legitimate questions have been asked of you here. Why would we come to DU to debate you? If you're the best and brightest, you should be able to hold your own in our house without the cheering crowds.
Instead, you come here, spew invective, claim to have won, and then announce that you are leaving. Do what the bouncies always do: convert us to your thinking with your logic and rhetorical skill. I DARE YOU. Coward...
-
Show some balls. I came here and was treated to nothing but a series of insults, but at least I persisted. You don't have the guts to do anything but stay in the hive and whine.
Come to DU. Post on my thread about the science. As long as you stay on topic, DU will protect you from being insulted, denigrated, or harassed -- unless this cesspool.
Bring it, baby man.
I'm out. I know I will not be seeing your chicken ass.
Mole trap fail.
God you are a moron. :loser:
-
Show some balls. I came here and was treated to nothing but a series of insults, but at least I persisted. You don't have the guts to do anything but stay in the hive and whine.
Come to DU. Post on my thread about the science. As long as you stay on topic, DU will protect you from being insulted, denigrated, or harassed -- unless this cesspool.
Bring it, baby man.
I'm out. I know I will not be seeing your chicken ass.
Sorry buzzer, I overestimated you. You are nothing but a weakling and coward. Jugs must be so disappointed in you.
-
Come to DU. Post on my thread about the science. As long as you stay on topic, DU will protect you from being insulted, denigrated, or harassed -- unless this cesspool.
Bring it, baby man.
No, you DUmb bitch, they won't, and you know it. We're ban on sight at $kinner's Mogadishu, and to imply any different is a bit, you know, dishonest...
So, feel free to abandon your thread here and go back to your cesspool. Run, Forest, run!
I'm out.
Awwwwwwww... Poor baby..... This is, what, the fourth or fifth time you're stomping out of the room? How can you be missed if you won't stay gone?
I know I will not be seeing your chicken ass.
You have a thread, right here, already going, where you're not banned for being different, that you refuse to participate in, and you question my courage?
I'm sorry, what was that about "chicken ass", buzzy?
Why don't you invite your friends over here if you need so much help? They won't be banned for being DUmmies, your continued existence here proves that. Why do you have to run, buzzy? What are you so afraid of? Can't stand and fight in your own thread?
You know, for all of the bluster you turds generate about coming here and kicking our asses, none of you seem to be able to pull it off, and every last one of you run away.
Why is that, "chicken ass"?
-
The Buzzbitch is just off probation, so he can now go to the Fight Club.
Just sayin'.... :-)
-
Thanks.
Amazing I had to find out here.
-
Thanks.
Amazing I had to find out here.
It takes precious little to amaze you people.
And before you go into your grievance knee jerk, by you people, I mean libs.
-
Thanks.
Amazing I had to find out here.
You mean you couldn't find out just by looking around?
Do you proglodytes have to be spoon-fed everything?
-
41 degrees this morning in S.C.....my 3 weeks in the ground tomato plants haven't grown a damn bit.
GIMME ME SOME GLOBULL WARMING......PLEASE
In memory on Dan Quayle, I started to add an "e" to tomato but then I thought, "My grade school teacher knew better than the one that had him add an "e" to potato. My teacher wasn't a democrat."
-
Thanks.
Amazing I had to find out here.
You didn`t get the flowers with notice or see the plane flying the banner?
Self absorbed cretin.
-
I was looking for a place to share this article I recently stumbled across, and I figured what better place than The Science Club. Since I don't want to create a new topic when there are topics into which this piece would fit, I figured why not stick it in this lovely attempt by AGW cultist buzzy to lord his goateed brilliance over us knuckle-draggers.
Global Hurricane Activity At 45-Year Low
Even though it is not true, alarmist sites everywhere continue citing “increased storm activity†as evidence of man-made climate change. Yet, when we look at the numbers, we see that nothing could be further from the truth.
Some years ago alarmist climate scientists, who insist a consensus backs their science, claimed with high certainty that global warming would increase the frequency and intensity of cyclones globally. We were told to expect “super-charged stormsâ€, all fueled by global warming heat.
(http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ACE-Global-2015.png)
Well, something must be awfully wrong with their science. The exact opposite is true. The same has happened with temperature, global sea ice, and snow cover.
Perhaps the global warming experts will tell us that the huge cyclones are hidden somewhere deep in the oceans along with the “missing heatâ€, getting ready to pounce later in the future.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/10/global-hurricane-energy-at-45-year-low/
Along with the now 19 year "pause" (http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/02/a-new-record-pause-length-satellite-data-no-global-warming-for-18-years-8-months/) in "global warming", it would seem that Mr Hay's book is a nice little exercise in theory, but not in practice.
As it is with most things these liberal hemorrhages hold as "truth".
-
*From wasp69's link*
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-oPVag7R4FFY/Vee6BC3PpvI/AAAAAAACM8Q/qXZrR2klnhc/s800-Ic42/m1.png)
-
For those of you that are keeping track:
Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row
Latest figures on fossil-fuel emissions for 2015 show for the first time during a period of global economic growth that the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere has remained stable for two consecutive years.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-stall-for-second-year-in-a-row-a6763776.html
-
Hiya, buzzy! Guess what American voters don't give two shits about:
Poll: 91% Of Americans Aren’t Worried About Global Warming
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/poll-91-of-americans-arent-worried-about-global-warming/
-
Buzzy got his arse handed to him so completely he won't ever show back up.
-
Hey, Paulie buzztard, lookit what I found:
Sea level has been falling on the Atlantic seaboard for the past six years.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/falling-sea-level/
I don't know if I have thanked you recently for putting a thread in the Science Club where we can talk about what idiots you AGW cultists tend to be, so, thanks! :bigbird:
-
Hey, Paulie buzztard, lookit what I found:
Sea level has been falling on the Atlantic seaboard for the past six years.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/falling-sea-level/
I don't know if I have thanked you recently for putting a thread in the Science Club where we can talk about what idiots you AGW cultists tend to be, so, thanks! :bigbird:
So Obama was right about one thing.
this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/03/obamas-nomination-victory_n_105028.html
-
Hey, Paulie buzztard, lookit what I found:
Sea level has been falling on the Atlantic seaboard for the past six years.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/falling-sea-level/
I don't know if I have thanked you recently for putting a thread in the Science Club where we can talk about what idiots you AGW cultists tend to be, so, thanks! :bigbird:
Great Scott! The ocean is running dry!
It must be The Joker Global Manmade Climate Warming Change. Quick, we must pass more restrictive laws and send more American taxpayer money to third world shitholes!
-
owebuma caused the oceans to recede as promised.
Now I have a measure of respect for him...NOT!
-
Even though this may be a couple of days late, I wanted to post this in Paulie buzztard's thread in honor of the 10th anniversary of Albert Arnold Algore Junior's bullshit mockumentary - An Inconvenient Truth.
An Inconvenient Review: After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate
In honor of the upcoming 10th anniversary, The Daily Caller News Foundation re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth†just to see how well Gore’s warnings of future climate disaster lined up with reality.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/#ixzz47h2jBizY
You all can follow the link and read the article for yourselves (i highly recommend it), but I wanted to share the points that the article highlighted:
1. Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow
2. Gore Left Out The 15-Year “Hiatus†In Warming
3. The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse
4. The North Pole Still Has Ice
5. A “Day After Tomorrowâ€-Style Ice Age Is Still A Day Away
It's a very good read, please clik the link and have a giggle.
-
Some more bad news for Paulie Buzz-nuts and Albert Arnold Algore Jr's cult:
New Study: Global Warming Is 'Not As Bad As We Thought'
Climatologist downgrades impact forecast by as much as 45%.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29865/new-study-global-warming-not-bad-we-thought-james-barrett
A fairly decent read, done by two actual scientists, but I wanted to share with all of you the money shot:
... scientists have acknowledged that attempting to forecast future global temperatures is a near impossibility...
:lmao: