Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#49079 May 10, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>So is there anything at all we can do aside from genocide or a limit on births per year that will do anything to stop the population from growing?
Yes. Women in Europe and in the US average less than two kids. Women in developing nations average about 7. We just need to end the religious lies about contraception and empower women worldwide. 99 percent of world population increases come from developing nations. The population is expected to top off around 9 billion when that happens. But overpopulation is a tea bagger's worry. It really isn't something we can "control." We can allow women to make the choices they always have to benefit civilization, and we can limit the number of children families can legally have, but neither will actually do anything for world population. We will take care of that ourselves - our environmental ignorance will kill a bunch of us somewhere soon. A major outbreak is due. A natural disaster. Something will always keep populations in check.
George

Lizemores, WV

#49080 May 10, 2014
bacon hater wrote:
*Forgot NOAA under the NOT ACCEPTED category. My bad. Basically any agency that studies climate. But people in charge of burning fossil fuels, they are usually good to go.
How many major hurricanes did NOAA predict last year again? The year before, the year before that? And how many actually happened?

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#49081 May 10, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>Even Stephen Hawking has been wrong. And I have never seen Stephen say manmade CO2 is causing harmful global warming, has he said that? Has Stephen Hakwing said that the US slightly lowering its emissions will make any difference on the changing climate? I dont recall him saying that either, guess I missed it.
http://www.rtcc.org/2012/01/06/stephen-hawkin...

Well I wouldn't know how to "seen" somebody say anything, but obviously Hawking has reviewed the mountain of evidence and doesn't pretend it's a hoax that ALL GOVERNMENTS of the world have fallen for. Who is talking about "slightly lowering emissions?" All of science has been pretty clear - we need DRASTIC CUTS.

So again I ask: Are you smarter than Neil Degrasse-Tyson and Stephen Hawking or just harder to fool? Because it seems like you were saying they were wrong - but wrong about what? They aren't climate scientists, they just READ THE DATA and use their capacities to interpret it. So are you better at that than them?
George

Lizemores, WV

#49082 May 10, 2014
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
These are the sources that George WILL NOT accept:
EPA
IPCC
USGS
NASA
USGS
These are the sources he WILL accept:
BP
Judith Curry
There may be more, but he has never cited them.
Back to you same old used up trick. Make up the other guys opinion, claims, whatever suits the purpose so you can ridicule your own lies. Yeah you are brilliant.

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#49083 May 10, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>Back to you same old used up trick. Make up the other guys opinion, claims, whatever suits the purpose so you can ridicule your own lies. Yeah you are brilliant.
Which one of those agencies' position on climate change will you accept?
Mgtn Res

“Leg Humper!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 13

Bad Dog! Bad Dog!

#49084 May 10, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>Back to you same old used up trick. Make up the other guys opinion, claims, whatever suits the purpose so you can ridicule your own lies. Yeah you are brilliant.
A legend in his own mind.

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#49085 May 10, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>How many major hurricanes did NOAA predict last year again? The year before, the year before that? And how many actually happened?
Not sure. I'm only on the coast 5-6 times per year. But clearly you still just don't understand how science works. You say "predict" as if there some guys in a room betting on how many hurricanes will occur. That's not how it works. They take the data, and it leads to probabilities of hurricanes. Regardless of how many you think they "predicted," their probability calculations were correct. And, one more time, weather isn't climate. Someday you're gonna get this stuff George. I can feel it.
2 posts removed

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#49088 May 10, 2014
Forgot another one - the Geological Society of London.

I'm trying to keep track of all the scientific agencies that George has outsmarted in the climate change debate. So far:

IPCC
EPA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
US Geological Survey (USGS)
NASA
Geological Society of London (GSL)

Please, add them as they are "debunked" (in George's mind).

Each one of these entities fully acknowledges MAN'S CONTRIBUTION to climate change. George claims they are either part of a conspiracy to take money, have been duped by those in the conspiracy or are just dumb.

George, if you do accept any of these agencies' views on climate change, please correct me.
George

Lizemores, WV

#49089 May 10, 2014
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.rtcc.org/2012/01/06/stephen-hawkin...
Well I wouldn't know how to "seen" somebody say anything, but obviously Hawking has reviewed the mountain of evidence and doesn't pretend it's a hoax that ALL GOVERNMENTS of the world have fallen for. Who is talking about "slightly lowering emissions?" All of science has been pretty clear - we need DRASTIC CUTS.
So again I ask: Are you smarter than Neil Degrasse-Tyson and Stephen Hawking or just harder to fool? Because it seems like you were saying they were wrong - but wrong about what? They aren't climate scientists, they just READ THE DATA and use their capacities to interpret it. So are you better at that than them?
Not smarter but i definitely disagree on claims of "man causing a harmful rise in temps or that the US slightly lowering its emissions will make any difference". And lets be real, we are never going to "drastically" reduce our emissions, unless we have different understanding of the word, because even if we shut down coal completely, it wouldnt be a "drastic" change. Drastic would be no more livestock, no more cars, no more fossil fuels at all and even then we still would be emitting emissions. And if the US somehow lowered its emissions to zero, the global CO2 level would continue to rise. And since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of thousand of years, and we have less then 20 years worth of coal anyway(according to your types), how could it possibly be reasonable to forcibly end coal at this time, causing great economic harm in the here and now to millions of people, with no other viable alternative available and no real effect for a hundred thousand years?

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#49090 May 10, 2014
CO2's effect on climate is UNDERESTIMATED.

http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/12/carbon-dioxide...
2 posts removed
George

Lizemores, WV

#49093 May 10, 2014
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure. I'm only on the coast 5-6 times per year. But clearly you still just don't understand how science works. You say "predict" as if there some guys in a room betting on how many hurricanes will occur. That's not how it works. They take the data, and it leads to probabilities of hurricanes. Regardless of how many you think they "predicted," their probability calculations were correct. And, one more time, weather isn't climate. Someday you're gonna get this stuff George. I can feel it.
LOL They take the data and it leads to probabilities that they use to make predictions. The same as they do with mad caused climate change. Quite frequently they are wrong in their predictions. It doesnt matter how or why they make the predictions, if they are constantly wrong, it is not reasonable to base harmful economic policies on their predictions until we can have at least a reasonable expectation in their accuracy. They cant predict something 3 days from now, 3 weeks from now, 3 years from now or 300 years from now. They cant predict the climate or the weather with any accuracy at all and you take their next predictions as truth.
Just sayin

Ashburn, VA

#49094 May 10, 2014
Kevin wrote:
<quoted text> Obviously You are not hip to the Giant Dragonfly. The answer to your second question is right here on the Madison forum. Mr goodbbitch, which is gay, got made to look a fool, broke down and had a thread removed because he could not compete. So Theirs the proof. He's kinda slow.. He's always down at the tracks pissing over rail road cars. To me the mans cognitive impairment is severe enough to get social security disability benefits. The man is a nut..I present Mr goodbitch as my evidence. I don't think I need to say more, I rest my case.
The oxygen affected the size of the prehistoric giant dragonfly, not the life span.

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#49095 May 10, 2014
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global...

Pretty cool. Warning to tea baggers though - this is science, so DO NOT CLICK ON LINK. But it is smart. And BP's Judith Curry responds (well,. kinda).
George

Lizemores, WV

#49096 May 10, 2014
bacon hater wrote:
Forgot another one - the Geological Society of London.
I'm trying to keep track of all the scientific agencies that George has outsmarted in the climate change debate. So far:
IPCC
EPA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
US Geological Survey (USGS)
NASA
Geological Society of London (GSL)
Please, add them as they are "debunked" (in George's mind).
Each one of these entities fully acknowledges MAN'S CONTRIBUTION to climate change. George claims they are either part of a conspiracy to take money, have been duped by those in the conspiracy or are just dumb.
George, if you do accept any of these agencies' views on climate change, please correct me.
You are playing with words again, the "so vague of course it is true" routine, kinda like saying climate change instead of global warming. Yes man contributes to the environment so therefore to some degree contributes to "climate change". If our CO2 adds 0.000000000000001 degree to what it would otherwise have been, that is contributing to climate change, doesnt prove anything. And still telling other people what I am supposed to think or claim on what so you can ridicule your own lies/claims. Your debating skills need work> You constantly claiming the other persons opinion is something the weak minded resort to.
George

Lizemores, WV

#49097 May 10, 2014
Another Damn Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't you show us any actual data, George? Do the research and show us. We can't accept your verbal diarrhea as evidence.
LIke I would waste my time, look it up yourself.

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#49098 May 10, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>Not smarter but i definitely disagree on claims of "man causing a harmful rise in temps or that the US slightly lowering its emissions will make any difference". And lets be real, we are never going to "drastically" reduce our emissions, unless we have different understanding of the word, because even if we shut down coal completely, it wouldnt be a "drastic" change. Drastic would be no more livestock, no more cars, no more fossil fuels at all and even then we still would be emitting emissions. And if the US somehow lowered its emissions to zero, the global CO2 level would continue to rise. And since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of thousand of years, and we have less then 20 years worth of coal anyway(according to your types), how could it possibly be reasonable to forcibly end coal at this time, causing great economic harm in the here and now to millions of people, with no other viable alternative available and no real effect for a hundred thousand years?
So you disagree with the interpretation of the science regarding man-made climate change. You think your interpretations are MORE ACCURATE than Stephen Hawking's? Don't you think he not only is smarter, but also has MORE DATA than you? Don't you think he has more, proven successes in interpreting scientific data? Do you think you can compete with Stephen Hawking in all arenas of scientific interpretation or is it just this one?

An no one is forcing anyone to end coal. It can't compete as an energy source anymore and it's filthy. Coal is killing itself. And ending coal would be a major, drastic cut (it's the primary source of manmade CO2). But we do need innovation for the types of CO2 cuts we will need to make a difference. And no one fights energy innovation in the green field like science deniers and the fossil fuel companies and, of course, the GOP.

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#49099 May 10, 2014
Just sayin wrote:
<quoted text> The oxygen affected the size of the prehistoric giant dragonfly, not the life span.
Noah wasn't pre-historic.
George

Lizemores, WV

#49100 May 10, 2014
bacon hater wrote:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/20 14/01/30/global-temperature-th e-post-1998-surprise/
Pretty cool. Warning to tea baggers though - this is science, so DO NOT CLICK ON LINK. But it is smart. And BP's Judith Curry responds (well,. kinda).
Yeah the "blame the ocean" theory that came about because their previous theories turned out to be WRONG. The "theory" of the week by the same debunked idiots. Every time they are wrong they just make up a new theory that explains their last mistake until their next mistake, then they do it again.

“Comfort the afflicted”

Since: May 13

Afflict the comfortable

#49101 May 10, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>You are playing with words again, the "so vague of course it is true" routine, kinda like saying climate change instead of global warming. Yes man contributes to the environment so therefore to some degree contributes to "climate change". If our CO2 adds 0.000000000000001 degree to what it would otherwise have been, that is contributing to climate change, doesnt prove anything. And still telling other people what I am supposed to think or claim on what so you can ridicule your own lies/claims. Your debating skills need work> You constantly claiming the other persons opinion is something the weak minded resort to.
They ALL AGREE that man's contribution to our runaway CO2 levels will have a HARMFUL effect on climate (an increase of greater than 1.4 C). You say they ARE ALL lying, part of a conspiracy or are ignorant. Am I correct now?
George

Lizemores, WV

#49102 May 10, 2014

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Huntington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Baltimore Street bad bad 26 min 30th street rasa ... 15
Sharon Kaye Jordan From Louisa 26 min SKJ 22
Hillary wins the debate!! 37 min MarkJ- 73
Kneeger language 37 min Nancy 7
Donald Trump Raises $18 Million since debate 43 min MarkJ- 11
Create your own Forum (Jun '15) 1 hr Weepy 2,884
Anybody Ate At Clean Eatz ? 1 hr The Responsible N... 3

Huntington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Huntington Mortgages