stephenhawkings Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I am sure a reporter from Hawaii knows much more the the national oceanic and atmosphere administration, and when you consider that he is citing the temperature of Spokane Washington instead of the whole globe it further illustrates his great insight, along with his great age. What I loved the most was his citing of the National Institute for Science and Technology, a sham that has already been cited here before as being funded by the suppliers of fossil fuels. I don't doubt the point he brings up about water vapor being the largest greenhouse gas and man ignoring it, or that there is CO2 being uptaken by the environment, and even some regional cooling, but when he picks little things to illustrate his point and doesn't look at the whole picture, things like CO2 levels are rising, than i have to look at this link and Dr. Fox as a just that some fox trying to make money for a propagating a point of view that has record profits behind it. For the oil industry has record profits, and hence massive financial resources that beget it power and power corrupts, and absolutely power by oil has corrupted many (I do make a living of of fossil fuel propelled products) it is just a shame that so many want to stick their head in the sandand not see reality, just look for oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I am sure a reporter from Hawaii knows much more the the national oceanic and atmosphere administration, and when you consider that he is citing the temperature of Spokane Washington instead of the whole globe it further illustrates his great insight, along with his great age. What I loved the most was his citing of the National Institute for Science and Technology, a sham that has already been cited here before as being funded by the suppliers of fossil fuels. I don't doubt the point he brings up about water vapor being the largest greenhouse gas and man ignoring it, or that there is CO2 being uptaken by the environment, and even some regional cooling, but when he picks little things to illustrate his point and doesn't look at the whole picture, things like CO2 levels are rising, than i have to look at this link and Dr. Fox as a just that some fox trying to make money for a propagating a point of view that has record profits behind it. For the oil industry has record profits, and hence massive financial resources that beget it power and power corrupts, and absolutely power by oil has corrupted many (I do make a living of of fossil fuel propelled products) it is just a shame that so many want to stick their head in the sandand not see reality, just look for oil. Here's that "reporters" qualifications: Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. Yep, doesn't know a thing about the subject... :rolleyes: BTW, you're tin foil hat is on crooked... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 well if you can find historic records before 1850 please feel free to share them. Just lookin at the big picture. Nothing out of the ordinary to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Here's that "reporters" qualifications: Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. Yep, doesn't know a thing about the subject... :rolleyes: BTW, you're tin foil hat is on crooked... nuclear energy makes him knowledgeable about the environment, hmm? so should i have a podiatrist do my taxes this year? Recognized nationally for expertise in the communication of science and energy is on fox tidbit His interests and activities in the communications of science, energy, and the environment has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. another, tv talk shows are much better than harvard, or the US government Michael R. Fox is also a biased source. He is a member of the conservative thinktank, Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute "asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters." That includes the same think tank that links to Deming, another scientist sourced in the article. For objectivity and balance, the reporter should have made an effort to find a scientist or researcher who was unaffiliated with organizations that have a political stake in climate change. maybe we should have googled him, or realized he was slanted when he was on FOX news!!! "DO AND BELIEVE WHATEVER THE BOX IN MY FRONT ROOM SAYS" there is a reason they call it "TV PROGRAMING" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Blah blah blah lots and lots of useless bullshit... I hope you're happy being a dupe of the chicken little alarmists. As soon as MMGW is disproved, they'll move on to another "man-made disaster" scam and you'll be on here sounding that alarm. Good luck with that! BTW, if you don't believe that Al Gore et al don't have a political and financial stake in MMGW, you're an even bigger dupe than I thought. Edited February 17, 2009 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 You know, MMGW is a lot like a religion: - It has its prophet (Al Gore), standing atop the mounting, finger pointed skyward, castigating the masses with the sermon "Repent or face damnation!" - It attempts to control the masses with fear. - It brooks NO disbelief. - It has its own "theocracy" that attempts to proselytize the infidels (that's "non-believers" for those that don't speak "zealotry"). Those that don't convert are labeled as heathens and marginalized. - It's predicated on faith in events yet to occur. - It demands a monetary sacrifice as penitance for our "sins". - It lays claim to the belief there is one and only one TRUTH. - It reinvents itself in order to maintain societal relevance (i.e. "global warming" has become "global climate change") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 You know, MMGW is a lot like a religion: - It has its prophet (Al Gore), standing atop the mounting, finger pointed skyward, castigating the masses with the sermon "Repent or face damnation!" - It attempts to control the masses with fear. - It brooks NO disbelief. - It has its own "theocracy" that attempts to proselytize the infidels (that's "non-believers" for those that don't speak "zealotry"). Those that don't convert are labeled as heathens and marginalized. - It's predicated on faith in events yet to occur. - It demands a monetary sacrifice as penitance for our "sins". - It lays claim to the belief there is one and only one TRUTH. - It reinvents itself in order to maintain societal relevance (i.e. "global warming" has become "global climate change") Amen and Halleluja. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) I hope you're happy being a dupe of the chicken little alarmists. I enjoy being a gay male. As soon as MMGW is disproved, they'll move on to another "man-made disaster" scam and you'll be on here sounding that alarm. Good luck with that! BTW, if you don't believe that Al Gore et al don't have a political and financial stake in MMGW, you're an even bigger dupe than I thought. In case you haven't read much i am not a big al fan, at least as not as much as you like gay sex. and i am not religious either, as you pray for penis in your hairy butt. maybe i am being mean and childlike, but than again i think its par for the course blah blah blah now you can quote it correctly! Edited February 18, 2009 by stephenhawkings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 In case you haven't read much i am not a big al fan, at least as not as much as you like gay sex. and i am not religious either, as you pray for penis in your but. maybe i am being mean and childlike, but than again i think its par for the course blah blah blah now you can quote it correctly! Just a tad juvenile, don't you think? Even for this course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) "Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease. "did you read the whole thing? or just that its the coolest since 2000? Talk about selective. You ignored the information in both articles that is contra to your position. Or you didn't fully read the articles. Edited February 17, 2009 by DUCKRACER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) In case you haven't read much i am not a big al fan, at least as not as much as you like gay sex. and i am not religious either, as you pray for penis in your but. maybe i am being mean and childlike, but than again i think its par for the course blah blah blah now you can quote it correctly! There ya go! No coherent rebuttal. Just insults (with bad grammar and spelling no less). Par for the course. EDITED per Nick's request. Edited February 17, 2009 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 There ya go! No coherent rebuttal. Just insults (with bad grammar and spelling no less). Par for the course from the weak minded dupe. Can we knock it off with the name-calling? If there is nothing more worthwhile to be added to this thread I'm going to close it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Can we knock it off with the name-calling? If there is nothing more worthwhile to be added to this thread I'm going to close it. Close it. It jumped the shark a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 It is difficult to convince somebody of anything logical if he has been brainwashed to believe the illogical. It is true for religion, and it is also true for believers in man-made global warming. How can the actions of people, who are invisible compared to the earth; who would all fit in a small remote canyon and be buried by a snow avalanch, have any influence on the earth's climate that would rival the actions of the sun and the oceans? Yet, many still believe this myth, and are prepared to do anything they are asked to reverse it. What are they being asked to do? Of course, they are being asked to give money. The explanation of how giving money will reverse global warming is as complex and convoluted as the explanation of man-made global warming, itself. Still, there are the unwavering followers who would try to walk on water if they were told to, and would believe that they were walking on water even as they were drowning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Close it. It jumped the shark a long time ago. Jumping the shark is fine, as long as it's not insulting. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Jumping the shark is fine, as long as it's not insulting. :lol: Come'on now Nick. I can remember you hurling insults every now and then in the forum. Was it mlhm5 or P71 you called a moron? :poke: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Come'on now Nick. I can remember you hurling insults every now and then in the forum. Was it mlhm5 or P71 you called a moron? :poke: Exceptions are warranted at times. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Exceptions are warranted at times. :P For me, it was "one of those times". :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 (edited) You know, MMGW is a lot like a religion: - It has its prophet (Al Gore), standing atop the mounting, finger pointed skyward, castigating the masses with the sermon "Repent or face damnation!" - It attempts to control the masses with fear. - It brooks NO disbelief. - It has its own "theocracy" that attempts to proselytize the infidels (that's "non-believers" for those that don't speak "zealotry"). Those that don't convert are labeled as heathens and marginalized. - It's predicated on faith in events yet to occur. - It demands a monetary sacrifice as penitance for our "sins". - It lays claim to the belief there is one and only one TRUTH. - It reinvents itself in order to maintain societal relevance (i.e. "global warming" has become "global climate change") Sounds like a lot of projection to me.. I could say all those traits are of those who proclaim there is no such thing as GW. And talk about fear mongering, you guys keep saying it's a big conspiracy to take all your money and freedom away. Aren't you also one of those who thinks Ford should sell nothing but a bunch of FWD fuel sipping Toyota clones anyways? Odd considering your complete lack of any understanding of science and the way you insult environmentalists. Humans can have no impact on the world we live in right? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gall...cture=334728081 Maybe you ought to try getting out of your comfort zone once in awhile and doing some reading/research outside of Fox news or RushLimbaugh.com?? Here's another interesting article from a credible source, I hope you don't try to burn him at the stake or anything.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...ropical-forests Edited February 18, 2009 by Blueblood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Aren't you also one of those who thinks Ford should sell nothing but a bunch of FWD fuel sipping Toyota clones anyways? I'm no longer partaking in the global warming debate. I now see it as pointless. We believe differently and I'm ready to just leave it at that. I will say one thing: I'm not a right wing conservative as you imply. I'm an indepedent and I cast a critical eye on both[/i] sides. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a neocon. However, I will address the above question: NO. While I see a need for FWD fuel sippers, I prefer RWD. That's why we own an '02 Lincoln LS V8. With the exception of my '95 SHO, all of my favorite cars have been RWD, going back my first car, a '68 Cougar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Just a tad juvenile, don't you think? Even for this course. i agree but when i am miss quoted, "blah blah blah" it becomes apparent that we are still only on the playground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 There ya go! No coherent rebuttal. Just insults (with bad grammar and spelling no less). Par for the course. EDITED per Nick's request. i fixed the spelling and even added an adjective for you. i still haven't found the caps key yet though so beware! when ever you little boys want to act like grown ups and come up with tsome facts, and not some old dude funded by exxon or the like and perhaps open your eyes, not to fox news only, put up something here that is accurate, and based in science let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Talk about selective. You ignored the information in both articles that is contra to your position. Or you didn't fully read the articles. "Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease. " 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850 Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease temperatures will rise again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 When ever all over you little kiddies can grow up and learn what science is, and how to use it please feel free to post something, until then lets try and cut out the name calling, or inaccurate quoting, putting words in peoples mouths, or thinking everyone who cares for the environment is an Al Gore fan (although i suspect you guys are just mad the george W got appointed instead and screw up the economy for all of us) and come up with some hard facts, and studies that are replicable in order to prove there is no climate crisis or alteration by man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 When ever all over you little kiddies can grow up and learn what science is, and how to use it please feel free to post something, until then lets try and cut out the name calling, or inaccurate quoting, putting words in peoples mouths, or thinking everyone who cares for the environment is an Al Gore fan (although i suspect you guys are just mad the george W got appointed instead and screw up the economy for all of us) and come up with some hard facts, and studies that are replicable in order to prove there is no climate crisis or alteration by man. Steps of the scientific method 1. Name the problem or question 2. Form a hypothesis 3. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment or study (with proper controls) WE ARE HERE. 4. Check and interpret results 5. Report results to the scientific community for peer review 6. Explain descrepancy 7. Form Conclusion THE MMGW CROWD HAVE JUMPED TO HERE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.