Global Warming Standup Comedy

[LessHypeMoreFact]

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
You cannot strengthen your case concerning AAGW with anti-religious rants like this. Especially not when they are based on such a gross misrepresentation of the history of science.
What we NOW call the "scientific method" grew naturally out of medieval philosophy and the experiments in physics (yes, in the modern sense of the word) of 12 century Franciscans.

Bullshit. The whole renaisance came out of adopting the advances of the Arabs, who developed the scientific method, algebra, the zero, etc etc etc. Culturally, they were heads above the relious morass of Western Europe in the Dark Ages.

And it was an Arab (Ab&#363; &#703;Al&#299; al-&#7716;asan ibn al-&#7716;asan ibn al-Haytham ) that first developed and used the logic of the scientific methods in AD1000 or so. He had a number of contemporaries also involved in the 'scientific methods'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000
"The scientific achievements of the Islamic civilization also reaches its zenith during this time, with the emergence of the first experimental scientists and the scientific method, which would form the basis of modern science."

[MattJ]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Bullshit. The whole renaisance came out of adopting the advances of the Arabs, who developed the scientific method, algebra, the zero, etc etc etc.

Just like I said, you are showing off your ignorance here. That does not help your AGW cause.

Face it: you are going to have to choose: you can either have your way and spew anti-religious propaganda, or you can do something useful for the cause of spreading AGW awareness. You cannot do both.

And you made a whopper of a mistake here: it was an Indian who invented the zero and positional notation, NOT the Arabs.

Your credibility fell through the floor with that one huge gaffe.

Culturally, they were heads above the relious morass of Western Europe in the Dark Ages.

I see you are still clinging to the anti-religious propaganda. The Arabs were NOT "heads above". On the contrary: what culture they had they stole from Christian Syria and later Byzantium.

The only reason you believe this Moslem revisionist claptrap is because of your anti-religious prejudice.

What is more, the Dominicans found that the Arab translations of Aristotle were often deficient, so that they paid for the publishing of William of Moerbeke's translation instead. So the Arabs were behind the West even here!

BTW: the Arabs didn't even do these translations themselves! It was Monophysite and Nestorian Syrians who did it for them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1 000
"The scientific achievements of the Islamic civilization also reaches its zenith during this time, with the emergence of the first experimental scientists and the scientific method, which would form the basis of modern science."

This article does not even meet Wikipedia's own quality standards. You will have to do better than that for anybody to believe you.

In fact, the WAY it fails to meet the standards is TYPICAL of revisionism. It has no citations or sources, and makes grand statements of hyperbolic praise for the Islamic world. But that IS what revisisionists do.

[Earthling]

It matters not where they learned what they knew, the Moors brought civilisation to a barbaric Europe.

And it's a goodnight from him.

[Brian_G]

It's Karwa time here in Dietersdorf Germany. Beer tents, live music and liter beers for 5 Euros. My favorite CO2 comes from dancing and beer.

[beach bum]

Brian_G wrote:

It's Karwa time here in Dietersdorf Germany. Beer tents, live music and liter beers for 5 Euros. My favorite CO2 comes from dancing and beer.

Wish I could join you.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
And you made a whopper of a mistake here: it was an Indian who invented the zero and positional notation, NOT the Arabs.

Well, ok. The Arabs were the ones from which the Europeans got it. Minor point. Main thing is that the Arabs developed modern science and many other advances while Europe stagnated. Their is a REASON that they called it the 'dark ages'.

[ronnnie]

mememine69 wrote:

Ok that's it!!
Only funny stuff, and or at least original here from now on please.( I guess original disqualifies the warmies right away doesn't it!:))
And for once, could a warmie write something funny, please?

O.K. We'll try.

FACT:
Too little CO2 (BELOW 110PPM) in the atmosphere is harmful.
Too much CO2 (ABOVE 8000PPM) in the atmosphere is harmful.

AGW Theory states that CO2 levels are dangerously HIGH at 385ppm.

That is within 5% of the minimum to sustain life.

On a graph the absurdity of such a claim becomes obvious.

0000ppm [-!---2k----4k----6k----8k]800 0ppm

!= current level of CO2

Based on the above perspective, the current level of CO2 appears to be at a dangerously LOW level.

So what is it?

Poppa Bear [IPCC](too high)
Momma Bear [skeptics](just right)
Baby Bear [beach bums](too small)?

The chart indicates Baby Bear.

This is but one of many reasons for doubting AGW Theory.

But just to be on the safe side, 10 years ago we purchased some prime ocean beachfront property in Minneapolis, MN. We call it Mississippi Ocean Manor.

[truthist]

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like I said, you are showing off your ignorance here. That does not help your AGW cause.
Face it: you are going to have to choose: you can either have your way and spew anti-religious propaganda, or you can do something useful for the cause of spreading AGW awareness. You cannot do both.
And you made a whopper of a mistake here: it was an Indian who invented the zero and positional notation, NOT the Arabs.
Your credibility fell through the floor with that one huge gaffe.
<quoted text>
I see you are still clinging to the anti-religious propaganda. The Arabs were NOT "heads above". On the contrary: what culture they had they stole from Christian Syria and later Byzantium.
The only reason you believe this Moslem revisionist claptrap is because of your anti-religious prejudice.
What is more, the Dominicans found that the Arab translations of Aristotle were often deficient, so that they paid for the publishing of William of Moerbeke's translation instead. So the Arabs were behind the West even here!
BTW: the Arabs didn't even do these translations themselves! It was Monophysite and Nestorian Syrians who did it for them!
<quoted text>
This article does not even meet Wikipedia's own quality standards. You will have to do better than that for anybody to believe you.
In fact, the WAY it fails to meet the standards is TYPICAL of revisionism. It has no citations or sources, and makes grand statements of hyperbolic praise for the Islamic world. But that IS what revisisionists do.

I think you are too biased in your view of history. Your view seems to be based on the Catholic Church views rather than the truth.

Remember history is not science.

[truthist]

ronnnie wrote:

<quoted text>
O.K. We'll try.
FACT:
Too little CO2 (BELOW 110PPM) in the atmosphere is harmful.
Too much CO2 (ABOVE 8000PPM) in the atmosphere is harmful.
AGW Theory states that CO2 levels are dangerously HIGH at 385ppm.
That is within 5% of the minimum to sustain life.
On a graph the absurdity of such a claim becomes obvious.
0000ppm [-!---2k----4k----6k----8k]800 0ppm
!= current level of CO2
Based on the above perspective, the current level of CO2 appears to be at a dangerously LOW level.
So what is it?
Poppa Bear [IPCC](too high)
Momma Bear [skeptics](just right)
Baby Bear [beach bums](too small)?
The chart indicates Baby Bear.
This is but one of many reasons for doubting AGW Theory.
But just to be on the safe side, 10 years ago we purchased some prime ocean beachfront property in Minneapolis, MN. We call it Mississippi Ocean Manor.

Bad.. bad, ronnnie ;)

You know no science. You tell tales. But AGW is still REAL. We must reduce CO2 emissions for our own good.

[mememine69]

ronnnie wrote:

<quoted text>
O.K. We'll try.
FACT:
Too little CO2 (BELOW 110PPM) in the atmosphere is harmful.
Too much CO2 (ABOVE 8000PPM) in the atmosphere is harmful.
AGW Theory states that CO2 levels are dangerously HIGH at 385ppm.
That is within 5% of the minimum to sustain life.
On a graph the absurdity of such a claim becomes obvious.
0000ppm [-!---2k----4k----6k----8k]800 0ppm
!= current level of CO2
Based on the above perspective, the current level of CO2 appears to be at a dangerously LOW level.
So what is it?
Poppa Bear [IPCC](too high)
Momma Bear [skeptics](just right)
Baby Bear [beach bums](too small)?
The chart indicates Baby Bear.
This is but one of many reasons for doubting AGW Theory.
But just to be on the safe side, 10 years ago we purchased some prime ocean beachfront property in Minneapolis, MN. We call it Mississippi Ocean Manor.

Good stuff, thanks. We needed that.

[ronnnie]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Good stuff, thanks. We needed that.

Ya shor, u betcha.

[ronnnie]

Gotta get out and mow the lawn again...

looks good tho.

Come to think of it, there is some concern when thinking about Man increasing CO2.

How many times a day might one have to mow the lawn if CO2 levels were at 2000ppm?

Good night all.
Tomorrow promises to be another beautiful day.

[MattJ]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, ok. The Arabs were the ones from which the Europeans got it. Minor point. Main thing is that the Arabs developed modern science and many other advances while Europe stagnated. Their is a REASON that they called it the 'dark ages'.

And that reason is WRONG. Nor is it true that the Arabs "developed modern science". You are following 'historians' who overstated their case. It was the Europeans who developed it, influenced though they were by Ibn al-Haytham.

That is, what we now call "the scientific method" was influenced by Ibn al-Haytham, but both Bacons DID make improvements on his idea before it could earn the name "the scientific method".

[MattJ]

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>I think you are too biased in your view of history. Your view seems to be based on the Catholic Church views rather than the truth.
Remember history is not science.

And I KNOW you are too biased in your view of history. Your view is based on anti-religious propaganda -- just like LHFM's.

And oh, BTW: history IS a science -- in the classical sense of the word. It is not just the Marxists who talk about "scientific history" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/140... .

[Brian_G]

MattJ wrote:

...
And oh, BTW: history IS a science -- in the classical sense of the word. It is not just the Marxists who talk about "scientific history" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/140... .

You can occaisionally use the scientific method in the study of history, but that doesn't make it a science.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
And that reason is WRONG. Nor is it true that the Arabs "developed modern science".

History doesn't lie. You are very confused and obviously finding the facts 'hard to take'.

[Earthling]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

History doesn't lie.

The same could be said for anyone who accepts a theory as dogma?

History isn't always recorded accurately, not even recent history.
Take as an example the outcome of WWII and you'll find that the victors wrote it as they saw it, as with almost any war that ever was.

Another good example is the Christian Bible, a 2009 year old document that was written by many different scholars over a long period, much of it from hearsay and more than any Christian cares to admit in the myriad translations.

We really haven't come a long way if some of us still believe in fairies, myths, miracles and dragons?

[truthist]

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
And I KNOW you are too biased in your view of history. Your view is based on anti-religious propaganda -- just like LHFM's.

Actually, you are the anti-religious propagandist..i.e. only your religion is wortwhile; dump the rest.

You will stay clueless about history when you ignore, deny, and misrepresent the truth of other cultures. Your own bias makes you unscientific. History of science misses you big time!

[Earthling]

How weird is this?
Two Warmists arguing about other religions when they both bow down to the same AGW religion.

[MattJ]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
History doesn't lie. You are very confused and obviously finding the facts 'hard to take'.

"History doesn't lie" is itself an empty slogan that is neither history, nor scientific. Your resort to it makes you sound like it is YOU who is finding facts hard to take.