First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Non-Believer”

Since: May 07

Bangor, Maine

#41 Jun 7, 2007
Sam_GW_IS_HAPPENING wrote:
<quoted text>
So according to you, they use the money for pointless research? Then why do they care if they have money? It's just funding to do their job, why would they be spending it on pointless research? Besides that, again you are implying that the vast majority of scientists are corrupted. And not only do you say they are corrupted for the money, but they must all be passionate about what they know doesn't exist. I didn't know we were living in such dark times when so many people had turned evil.
You obviously don't know how scientific funding works? The majority of the money goes to pay the saleries of the scientists. Scientists looking for funding for their projects will add to the title of their study "...and the effects Global Warming has on it" or something to that effect to get a piece of the billions of dollars out there available for global warming research.

So say I'm a scientist and I want to fund a study on "The nut gathering habits of the north american gray squrriel". I can't get any funding. So I change the title of my study to "The nut gathering habits of the north american gray squrriel, and how it is effected by Global Warming" Well Now I get funding. So as a Scientist I can now pay my bill and eat as I'm funded and watch squrriels most of the day. Once my study is done I can justify the Global Warming part by mentioning that the nut gathering season has grown now that the winter is shorter, or somthing similar.

This is how scientists "Embezzel" from Global Warming Research. Technically it's not wrong but it is deffinatly shadey.
joie de vivre

Malvern, PA

#42 Jun 7, 2007
Appanouki wrote:
<quoted text>
And who are you to decide what the truth is and how large the debate is? Grow up.
You retort with a: "Grow up" ? I don't think I'm the one that needs to grow up here.

You refuse or cannot see a simple truth in what I said. By giving equal time to both sides of an issue it gives a distorted picture. Global warming is not as controversial as the media makes it out to be. There are things that deserve equal weight. Examples: opinions of politicians, decisions made by congress, etc.

When there's a general consensus on a subject, but the media presents it as though it is not...that is distortion. If you want to be spoon fed by the media though, by all means...dig in.
joie de vivre

Malvern, PA

#43 Jun 7, 2007
Appanouki wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't patronise me b*tch. Anyone who says global warming causes tsunamis and then turns around and starts trying to preach about knowledge is a f**king joke.
Excuse me, that was my mistake...unlike you, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong. But global warming is considered to be the reason for the temperature increase as well an increase in storms.

I will patronize you all I want. You respond to me with foul language that demonstrates your self-righteousness beyond belief. It is not my fault that you put yourself in a position to be patronized. If you do not like it, than perhaps you should change your attitude with me. I will continue to point out the weakness of your debating (just like you do mine). The funny thing is, you have yet to actually indulge in debating.

FYI. A debate is presenting evidence to the contrary of the subject, it does not involve attacking the person who is debating with you. Yet, that is all you have done thus far. Is it possible for you to do something that would demonstrate intelligence and a skill at debating?

Since: May 07

South Shields, UK

#44 Jun 7, 2007
joie de vivre wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, that was my mistake...unlike you, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong. But global warming is considered to be the reason for the temperature increase as well an increase in storms.
I will patronize you all I want. You respond to me with foul language that demonstrates your self-righteousness beyond belief. It is not my fault that you put yourself in a position to be patronized. If you do not like it, than perhaps you should change your attitude with me. I will continue to point out the weakness of your debating (just like you do mine). The funny thing is, you have yet to actually indulge in debating.
FYI. A debate is presenting evidence to the contrary of the subject, it does not involve attacking the person who is debating with you. Yet, that is all you have done thus far. Is it possible for you to do something that would demonstrate intelligence and a skill at debating?
B*tch, your idea of debating is a f**king insult to the human capability to communicate. Get f**ked, you troll felching gimp.

Refer to other the other thread. I'm finished trying to talk to a person so stupid it's incredible it even managed to switch on its computer.
joie de vivre

Malvern, PA

#45 Jun 7, 2007
Appanouki wrote:
<quoted text>
B*tch, your idea of debating is a f**king insult to the human capability to communicate. Get f**ked, you troll felching gimp.
Refer to other the other thread. I'm finished trying to talk to a person so stupid it's incredible it even managed to switch on its computer.
If you were finished you would cease responding to me altogether.

At least I didn't come in using that foul language to attack you. That isn't debating. You take on a self-righteous, immature attitude because you're frustrated on the account that I won't bow down to you and back down from my stance. That's fine...although it isn't always a good attitude to use.
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#46 Jun 7, 2007
joie de vivre
note: the sun warms our planet Unfortunately there are some who want you to believe that a ONE degree temperature rise over ONE hundred years could not possibly be due to the sun. You apparently believe them.

WELL WE ALL CAN BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE NO OTHER PLANET VARIES IN TEMP GAG!
The average recorded temperature on Mars is -63 C (-81 F) with a maximum temperature of 20 C (68 F) and a minimum of -140 C (-220 F).

The Sun's outer visible layer is called the photosphere and has a temperature of 6,000C (11,000F).

Solar energy is created deep within the core of the Sun. It is here that the temperature (15,000,000 C; 27,000,000 F)

Sunspots are dark depressions on the photosphere with a typical temperature of 4,000C (7,000F).

Venus is scorched with a surface temperature of ---ABOUT --- 482 C (900 F).

ISNT IT NICE TO HAVE SUCH PEFECTION OF UNIFORM TEMP IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM

THE SUN CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A -- ONE -- DEGREE TEMP RISE.
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#47 Jun 7, 2007
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#48 Apr 23, 2013
joie de vivre wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if you were do an analysis of media, it gives a skewed representation, trying to give equal weight to both sides of it...which confuses most Americans. There is a consensus within science if you do the research, the media is what suggests that there isn't. When it gives "equal weight or time" to both sides of the issue, it suggests that there isn't a consensus, when in reality, there is.
Yes, there is. You were right then.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#49 Apr 23, 2013
JRS wrote:
joie de vivre
note: the sun warms our planet Unfortunately there are some who want you to believe that a ONE degree temperature rise over ONE hundred years could not possibly be due to the sun. You apparently believe them.
WELL WE ALL CAN BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE NO OTHER PLANET VARIES IN TEMP GAG!
The average recorded temperature on Mars is -63 C (-81 F) with a maximum temperature of 20 C (68 F) and a minimum of -140 C (-220 F).
The Sun's outer visible layer is called the photosphere and has a temperature of 6,000C (11,000F).
Solar energy is created deep within the core of the Sun. It is here that the temperature (15,000,000 C; 27,000,000 F)
Sunspots are dark depressions on the photosphere with a typical temperature of 4,000C (7,000F).
Venus is scorched with a surface temperature of ---ABOUT --- 482 C (900 F).
ISNT IT NICE TO HAVE SUCH PEFECTION OF UNIFORM TEMP IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM
THE SUN CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A -- ONE -- DEGREE TEMP RISE.
Where are you, JRS?

You were wrong then. And you are wrong today.

Are you hiding on the planet surface or under?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#50 Apr 23, 2013
JRS wrote:
ps GW peddlers - please - none of the usual "That has all been refuted" and "they have all been discredited"
LOL. Where are you know?

No good-bye before departure for good.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#51 Apr 23, 2013

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 21 min Leo 50,467
2014 was Earth's warmest year 33 min Born Again Denier 168
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr Brian_G 3,184
Study: Climate change to bring more nasty La Ninas 1 hr Complex One 3
Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 2 hr IBdaMann 1,921
Climate change scientists predicted monster sto... 3 hr Earthling-1 16
Previous climatic shifts deprived oceans of oxygen 3 hr Earthling-1 8
More from around the web