Global Warming Exposed as B.S. during Debate

Sep 24, 2010 Full story: The Prox 40

In our beloved Frist 307 this afternoon, former classroom of Albert Einstein, professor and internationally renowned global warming skeptic Fred Singer opened the debate.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
hojo

Garner, IA

#21 Sep 27, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
A very long post with more unsupported claims and NO support of the original claim. I can only assume you have nothing but more bluff and bluster.
Since your "dilusional religious obsession" for global warming, DOES NOT seem to allow you to be "able to comprehend" the authenticated and "supported quoted comments" from NASA'S most highly qualified and respected scientists, such as Dr. John Theon, Chief of Climate Process Research, Dr. Walter Cunningham, physicist and NASA astronaut and Dr. Nicholas Drapola, a close associate of James Hansen,--- maybe a 5 way, personal conference call on Skype, with these three scientists OR any of the other 100's and 100's of testimonies from other Atmospheric, Climatology, Physicist, Mathematicians and Engineering Climate Scientists,who have debunk and refuted global warming and may help to "absorb" the FACTS of this Government perpetrated AGW scam, hoax and fraud, that has a "science fiction" strangle hold on you!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#22 Sep 27, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
But the issue was the claim of a scientific forecast by a well publicized scientist. Why are you dodging any backup of your claim. Or is that obvious..
Isn't it interesting how the media covers up Hansen's wrong forecast? I've offered citations, use google to find a source you trust. What does your realclimate dogma sources say to justify Hansen's error?
hojo

Garner, IA

#23 Sep 28, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially as he has no serious credentials himself on which to base even a CHALLENGE to the work of thousands of employed scientists. How is his career in political spin these days?
You may "write off" Fred Singer, just like you do with EVERYONE else, that gets in the way of your "global warming fantasy religion", but there---ALREADY,--- has come a time when you no longer are able to "invent" and "come up with ANY factual "rebuttal" evidence, that supports the TRUE SCIENCE DATA research, that comes from the statements of the long list of 100's and 100's of Atmospheric and Climatology Scientists that I presented to you. In addition, this group of Scientists also includes,world re-noun Physicists, Mathematicians and Engineering Climate Scientists consisting of some of the most highly respected, credible and authoritative climate research experts in the world today!!---- Individually and unilaterally they have ALL labeled the UNPCC,NASA, NOAA, CRU and the National Academy of Science, political and governmental "think tanks" for Al Gore's "science fiction" fabricating of man-made global warming. The "cat is out-of-the-bag"----the dog and pony-show is over, your three-ring circus clown act is being exposed for what it REALLY is!--The greatest scientific hoax, ever perpetrated in the world today!"
Earthling

Spain

#24 Sep 28, 2010
Hojo, alarmists have no alternative but to defend their guys, from Fat Al, to any one of their chosen climate scientists, whether they're right or wrong.
They don't care, because they're sheeple who believe anything thir masters say without question.

They also believe they have every right to besmirch anyone who dares to disagree with their chosen leaders.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#25 Sep 28, 2010
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it interesting how the media covers up Hansen's wrong forecast?
You mean that you cannot find any basis for your claims of an invalid forecast and you suspect EVERYONE..?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#26 Sep 28, 2010
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
Since your "dilusional religious obsession" for global warming, DOES NOT seem to allow you to be "able to comprehend" the authenticated and "supported quoted comments" from NASA'S most highly qualified and respected scientists, such as Dr. John Theon, Chief of Climate Process Research, Dr. Walter Cunningham, physicist and NASA astronaut and Dr. Nicholas Drapola, a close associate of James Hansen,--- maybe a 5 way, personal conference call on Skype, with these three scientists OR any of the other 100's and 100's of testimonies from other Atmospheric, Climatology, Physicist, Mathematicians and Engineering Climate Scientists,who have debunk and refuted global warming and may help to "absorb" the FACTS of this Government perpetrated AGW scam, hoax and fraud, that has a "science fiction" strangle hold on you!
You dropped a lot of names but didn't support your claim that they disagree with Dr. Hansen who is the HEAD of the climate department. Obviously you are just blowing smoke again. No substance despite a big post.
hojo

Garner, IA

#27 Sep 28, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You dropped a lot of names but didn't support your claim that they disagree with Dr. Hansen who is the HEAD of the climate department. Obviously you are just blowing smoke again. No substance despite a big post.
The ONLY name that you "fatal doomsdayers" can hang your hat on, to justify AGW is James Hansen. There are over 700 websites, "nailing him to the wall" as the Governments overpaid--"think tank" expert, especially by his former boss, Dr. John Theon, recently retired NASA Chief of the Climate Process Research program. Hansen is well noted for his "bogus science" distorted and manipulated "overheating of the planet" testimony before Congress in 1988 and again in 2007. James Hansen has been classified by the majority of respectable and highly regarded Climate Scientists, who know the TRUTH and have researched, conclusively, the authenticated scientific data of global warming----as NASA's AGW Disgrace!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#28 Sep 29, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
You mean that you cannot find any basis for your claims of an invalid forecast and you suspect EVERYONE..?
There's nothing wrong with google on my PC, I have no trouble finding Hansen's false prophesy:

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said,“If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said,“Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained,“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said,“There will be more police cars.” Why?“Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-littl...

It's not 'EVERYONE' covering up for Hansen, I don't use caps like that in the first place. It's his media and corporate cronies who are making a mint off the global warming media hoax and pseudo-science.
Earthling

Spain

#29 Sep 29, 2010
Brian, here's a better link to Bob Reiss and what he wrote:
http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/wea...
LessFact and others, may be surprised to learn that Reiss is a staunch AGW advocate and evidently a Hansen supporter as well, reasonable evidence that Reiss quoted Hansen's words accurately.
So apart from the fact that the West Side Highway is still high and dry, nothing much else is new.
-
NB: I had a lot of trouble tracking Reiss down, mainly due to the misspelling of his name (Riess) in all the other web pages I've read.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30 Sep 29, 2010
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
The ONLY name that you "fatal doomsdayers" can hang your hat on, to justify AGW is James Hansen.
Total nonsense. Of all workiing and published climatologists, over 97% agree with AGW based on their work and science publications.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/...

And the more familiar they are with the data and methods, the stronger their support. So your bullshit doesn't stand up.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#31 Sep 29, 2010
Earthling wrote:
Brian, here's a better link to Bob Reiss and what he wrote:
http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/wea...
LessFact and others, may be surprised to learn that Reiss is a staunch AGW advocate and evidently a Hansen supporter as well, reasonable evidence that Reiss quoted Hansen's words accurately.
So apart from the fact that the West Side Highway is still high and dry, nothing much else is new.
First off I cannot find any quote about Hansen in your reference. The only claims there seem to come from Bob Riess and HE was not the person claimed. Try to give me SOMETHING, would you? All your d*cking around without showing a simple quote that you say is 'public record' just illustrates that it is BOGUS.
Earthling

Spain

#32 Sep 30, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
First off I cannot find any quote about Hansen in your reference.
Your reading issues are not my problem.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
The only claims there seem to come from Bob [Riess]
Bob Reiss.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
and HE was not the person claimed.
He was not which person claimed?
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Try to give me SOMETHING, would you?
When are you going to give me something to prove your unfounded claim that forty was spelt with a U?
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
All your d*cking around without showing a simple quote that you say is 'public record' just illustrates that it is BOGUS.
Where did I write, "public record," Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
hojo

Davenport, IA

#33 Sep 30, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Total nonsense. Of all workiing and published climatologists, over 97% agree with AGW based on their work and science publications.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/...
And the more familiar they are with the data and methods, the stronger their support. So your bullshit doesn't stand up.


This link that you posted is a "perfect" example of the manipulated and distorted Climate Research conclusions for AGW that you "doomsdayers" are (unsuccessfully and fraudulently) attempting to shove down the throats of the American people. "1,372 of the Climate Researchers show that 97-98% support the IPCC Global Warming (ACC) Climate Change"----MOST DEFINITELY--
1,372 of the most "hand picked" climate researchers- that were pre-determined to arrive at the necessary conclusions "needed" by the Government to support the claims of man-made global warming!

The TRUE facts are this: I have, in the past, and will continue in the present AND the future, present the authenticated and research "quoted documents from 100's and literally 1000's of the worlds most highly credible Atmospheric, Climatologist, Mathematicians.Physicists, and Engineering Climate REFUTING this
ridiculous, "invented" % consensus claim!----This is just a continuation of the "politically initiated"and monetary subsidized government "think tank" science organizations such as the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, ERU, and the National Academy of Science, and a PROVEN to be "minority" of Climate Scientists (1,372)???? including James Hansen, the AGW "trumpet section" for Al Gore and the Government "political science" hoax of Global Warming. This bias and one-side AGW global warming link you provided has more holes in it than a piece of Wisconsin swiss cheese!!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#34 Sep 30, 2010
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
This link that you posted is a "perfect" example of the manipulated and distorted Climate Research conclusions ..
The scientists and academies has crediblity. You have none. Note that the scientist spent at least a DECADE qualifying to understand the issue and have a valid opinion. You pull crap from you posterior and think you have made some 'inroads' on the issue.

You are just another deluded 'useful idiot', same as all the other ditto heads that the denial industry fosters.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#35 Oct 3, 2010
Evil climate politicians, trying to scare us into paying higher taxes and fees. Trying to buy votes with climate cures.

It makes me sick!
Earthling

Spain

#36 Oct 3, 2010
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
The scientists and academies has crediblity.
Has they, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#37 Oct 3, 2010
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I've offered citations..
But never delivered even one credible source for the claims. Despite the fact that YOU are making it. I have to wonder if you heard from a friend who heard it from a cousin who was married to a moron who heard it from the grapevine..

If you are going to make serious accusations, you should have a SOLID REFERENCE to it already to post. Not dick around with secondary sources ( who didn't say it either ) and challenged for the other party to find it.. what a fracking jack@ss.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38 Oct 3, 2010
Earthling wrote:
LessFact and others, may be surprised to learn that Reiss is a staunch AGW advocate and evidently a Hansen supporter as well, reasonable evidence that Reiss quoted Hansen's words accurately.
No it isn't. And the quote is presented as a confidential offhand remark, not a study of the effects of AGW. It may have been exaggeration for effect in a private conversation. Reiss may have misremembered or misinterpretted something.'hearsay' is notoriously unrealiable even in the most intelligent circles. It was certainly not a 'forecast' of actual climate change twenty years into the future (and this as twelve years ago?) If this is all you have, you have NOTHING.
Earthling

Spain

#39 Oct 3, 2010
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
But never delivered even one credible source for the claims.
You ignore credible sources that evidence anything you disagree with.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
If you are going to make serious accusations, you should have a SOLID REFERENCE to it already to post.
You ignore those too.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Not dick around with secondary sources
You, "dick around with secondary sources," in a pathetic attempt to prove that fourty ever had a U in it, so how are you any different?
http://i56.tinypic.com/2hozrpu.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/2iavbzs.jpg
Earthling

Spain

#40 Oct 3, 2010
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
And the quote is presented as a confidential offhand remark, not a study of the effects of AGW.
It was part of a conversation between a climate scientist and an author friend of his.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
It may have been exaggeration for effect in a private conversation.
That isn't how Reiss describes it, you're clutchiong at straws.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Reiss may have misremembered or misinterpretted something.'hearsay' is notoriously [unrealiable] even in the most intelligent circles.
An author friend and admirer of Hansen would misquote him?
Your straws are getting shorter.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
It was certainly not a 'forecast' of actual climate change twenty years into the future (and this as twelve years ago?)
12 years ago?
Are you joking or are you really as dyslexic as I believe you to be?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
If this is all you have, you have NOTHING.
And you have what, precisely, apart from baseless, uncorroborated argument?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Gadgets Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How to spy a mobile phone for 100% FREE. (Jun '13) Tue suzikata 5
How to recover deleted contacts from Samsung No... (Mar '14) Sep 29 Psoter 7
How to convert TS to MP4 on windows? (Mar '10) Sep 27 mankeedly 14
Cosmic dust definitely clouded Big Bang researc... Sep 24 Adrian Godsafe MSc 1
Would you want a Fish Tank Coffee Table? Sep 19 Rob H 1
How to transfer contacts from iPhone to Samsung... (Aug '13) Sep 12 Anonymous 12
cd-r king solar panels - good review Sep 9 erap 2

Gadgets People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE