The Global Warmists' Last Line Of Defense: The Warming Must Be In The Bermuda Triangle

Apr 27, 2013 Full story: The Heartland Institute 49

Global warming activists have finally come up with a last line of defense they know nobody will able to prove wrong: The missing global warming is in the Bermuda Triangle.

Full Story

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#21 Apr 28, 2013
Himself wrote:
histeria (sic)
Fun Facts wrote:
embarassing (sic)
Is there some reason deniers are always bad spellers?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#23 Apr 28, 2013
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' flopped:
science fiction, diarrhea & beer cans.......
//////////
litesong wrote:
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' can't ask a proper scientific question because it never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Of course,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' never had any other science or mathematics training.
At least,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' tried math calculations, tho only a few attempts ended in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' has never attempted math calculations, which prove that its proficiency in math is worse than that of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver'.
//////////
'I didn't think well' wrote:
You are drunk.
//////////
litesong wrote:
As the disciples of Jesus, who testified about the saving BLOOD OF JESUS were considered drunk, toxic topix AGW deniers consider scientists & mathematicians drunk. toxic topix AGW deniers who didn't & couldn't take advanced science & mathematics, can't understand advanced scientists & mathematics.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#24 Apr 28, 2013
Pointing out spelling errors is an indication of nothing valuable to say.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#25 Apr 28, 2013
Himself hissed:
histeria (sic)
/////////
Fun Facts fluffed:
embarassing (sic)
////////
Fair Game wrote:
Is there some reason deniers are always bad spellers?
//////////
litesong wrote:
toxic topix AGW deniers, who didn't & couldn't take advanced science & mathematics, can't understand advanced scientists & mathematics. They let spelling pass themselves by, also.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#26 Apr 28, 2013
litesong wrote:
Himself hissed:
histeria (sic)
/////////
Fun Facts fluffed:
embarassing (sic)
////////
Fair Game wrote:
Is there some reason deniers are always bad spellers?
//////////
litesong wrote:
toxic topix AGW deniers, who didn't & couldn't take advanced science & mathematics, can't understand advanced scientists & mathematics. They let spelling pass themselves by, also.
and then we have litesong... demonstrating how to add absolutely nothing of value to the conversation, but he does it well and often.

There's an old saying, if you're stupid, keep your mouth shut, you at least have a chance of fooling some of the people.
Himself

Oceanside, CA

#27 May 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
An open mind is not what's needed when looking at misinformation from Heartland.
What's needed is some scepticism.
The consensus arises from the weight of the evidence, looked at by people who understand it, which is why ever scientific academy has said that warming is real and we are responsible- hardly hysteria.
In another post, you suggested that I am a "denier". I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I simply stated the fact that consensus is only what it is. I also never said that consensus is worthless, and yet you defended it. My point, Einstein's actually, was that consensus can be proven wrong by one person. Usually, but not always, that one person is a skeptic. I would argue that skepticism is far more scientific than consensus. Skepticism has been the starting point of disproving a great many fallacies. "The world is flat", is a basic example. Scientific consensus, hundreds of years ago, was that it was flat. Consensus is agreement on a result. Any result can be later proven wrong. Or, perhaps, it is never proven wrong. But consensus, by itself, is not part of the scientific method.

I also noticed you like to point out typos and spelling errors. Therefore, I'll note you wrote "ever scientific academy" above, where I believe you meant to write "every scientific academy". This is not important to me, but since perfect prose on the internet seems to be important to you, I thought I would do you the favor of pointing out your error.
Himself

Oceanside, CA

#28 May 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
An open mind is not what's needed when looking at misinformation from Heartland.
What's needed is some scepticism.
The consensus arises from the weight of the evidence, looked at by people who understand it, which is why ever scientific academy has said that warming is real and we are responsible- hardly hysteria.
Also, as for your comment about the limitations of having an "open mind", I would only say that I have rarely, if ever, sensed that those who preach scientific consensus are receptive to any other possibility other than that of, well, the consensus.

I'm interested to know what you believe the difference between having an open mind and scepticism is, scientifically speaking. Also, how do you marry consensus and skepticism in your mind, if you believe both are important? When I consider the passion global warming alamists display, armed with consensus, their doesn't seem to be any room for skepticism. They are not "open" to "skepticism". As much has been said countless times by the AGW high priests.
Himself

Oceanside, CA

#29 May 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
An open mind is not what's needed when looking at misinformation from Heartland.
What's needed is some scepticism.
The consensus arises from the weight of the evidence, looked at by people who understand it, which is why ever scientific academy has said that warming is real and we are responsible- hardly hysteria.
By the way...did you also write "scepticism"? I'm sure you meant to write "skepticism". I'll reiterate my understanding that you prefer zero errors when posting opinions on the web. Again, it's not important to me, but I hope my pointing this out is helpful to you.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#30 May 2, 2013
Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way...did you also write "scepticism"? I'm sure you meant to write "skepticism". I'll reiterate my understanding that you prefer zero errors when posting opinions on the web. Again, it's not important to me, but I hope my pointing this out is helpful to you.
blah blah you were wrong to correct Fair Game. He's correct.

Why do you use words that are foreign to you?

P.S. Check your dictionary. Both spellings are correct.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31 May 2, 2013
Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
In another post, you suggested that I am a "denier". I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I simply stated the fact that consensus is only what it is. I also never said that consensus is worthless, and yet you defended it. My point, Einstein's actually, was that consensus can be proven wrong by one person. Usually, but not always, that one person is a skeptic. I would argue that skepticism is far more scientific than consensus. Skepticism has been the starting point of disproving a great many fallacies. "The world is flat", is a basic example. Scientific consensus, hundreds of years ago, was that it was flat. Consensus is agreement on a result. Any result can be later proven wrong. Or, perhaps, it is never proven wrong. But consensus, by itself, is not part of the scientific method.
I also noticed you like to point out typos and spelling errors. Therefore, I'll note you wrote "ever scientific academy" above, where I believe you meant to write "every scientific academy". This is not important to me, but since perfect prose on the internet seems to be important to you, I thought I would do you the favor of pointing out your error.
Look at your post. Know thyself!

You are a card-carrying denier of science. Isn't it nice that you can publish this nonsense on topix?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#32 May 2, 2013
Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, as for your comment about the limitations of having an "open mind", I would only say that I have rarely, if ever, sensed that those who preach scientific consensus are receptive to any other possibility other than that of, well, the consensus.
I'm interested to know what you believe the difference between having an open mind and scepticism is, scientifically speaking. Also, how do you marry consensus and skepticism in your mind, if you believe both are important? When I consider the passion global warming alamists display, armed with consensus, their doesn't seem to be any room for skepticism. They are not "open" to "skepticism". As much has been said countless times by the AGW high priests.
Isn't it nice for you to publish this nonsense on topix?

You mumble nonsense about things you know nothing about. You are a denier of science and a closed mind. Obviously...
Himself

Sterling, VA

#33 May 2, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't it nice for you to publish this nonsense on topix?
You mumble nonsense about things you know nothing about. You are a denier of science and a closed mind. Obviously...
Well then, read the questions I pose above and enlighten me. The comments you have made thus far serve no purpose, except perhaps for your own twisted thrill. Which is the song of the truly desperate or uneducated.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34 May 2, 2013
'itself' iterated:
did you also write "scepticism"? I'm sure you meant to write "skepticism".
//////////
SpaceBlues wrote:
you were wrong to correct Fair Game. He's correct.
////////
litesong wrote:
toxic topix AGW deniers, who have affiliations with the kkk, as dramatically emphasized by 'large lying language', prefer,'skepticism', as 'itself' prefers.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#35 May 2, 2013
itself wrote:
..... read the questions I pose above and enlighten me.
'itself' passed on its education, by not taking science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, if 'itself' even has a DEE-plooomaa.'itself' has no science or mathematics degrees from higher education.

'itself' should have asked questions in its lowly education.
Himself

Sterling, VA

#36 May 2, 2013
litesong wrote:
'itself' iterated:
did you also write "scepticism"? I'm sure you meant to write "skepticism".
//////////
SpaceBlues wrote:
you were wrong to correct Fair Game. He's correct.
////////
litesong wrote:
toxic topix AGW deniers, who have affiliations with the kkk, as dramatically emphasized by 'large lying language', prefer,'skepticism', as 'itself' prefers.
Marvelous Job!
Himself

Sterling, VA

#37 May 2, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
'itself' passed on its education, by not taking science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, if 'itself' even has a DEE-plooomaa.'itself' has no science or mathematics degrees from higher education.
'itself' should have asked questions in its lowly education.
Interesting that you lump a class called "science" in with chemistry, astronomy, physics, etc. You are correct, I don't recall a class called "science" in my higher education. Perhaps this is because as you progress beyond sixth grade, it is an all encompassing term, not normally the name of a college, or even high school, course. Perhaps it hasn't been that long since you were in grade school. Fair enough. You also stopped writing at "pre-calc". Did you simply tire of writing down more class names, or is that the limit of your knowledge of mathematics. There is more beyond 'pre'. Just an observation. Regardless, you have quite a way with words.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38 May 2, 2013
Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
In another post, you suggested that I am a "denier". I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I simply stated the fact that consensus is only what it is. I also never said that consensus is worthless, and yet you defended it. My point, Einstein's actually, was that consensus can be proven wrong by one person. Usually, but not always, that one person is a skeptic. I would argue that skepticism is far more scientific than consensus. Skepticism has been the starting point of disproving a great many fallacies. "The world is flat", is a basic example. Scientific consensus, hundreds of years ago, was that it was flat. Consensus is agreement on a result. Any result can be later proven wrong. Or, perhaps, it is never proven wrong. But consensus, by itself, is not part of the scientific method.
I also noticed you like to point out typos and spelling errors. Therefore, I'll note you wrote "ever scientific academy" above, where I believe you meant to write "every scientific academy". This is not important to me, but since perfect prose on the internet seems to be important to you, I thought I would do you the favor of pointing out your error.
I suggest you produce one person to prove the consensus wrong then, instead of the endless number of charlatans, religious nut, freemarket fundamentalists and fossil fuel industry shills.

There are many examples of a consensus enduring despite the views of sceptics. They laughed at Galileo- they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

Your example is not very good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39 May 2, 2013
Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, as for your comment about the limitations of having an "open mind", I would only say that I have rarely, if ever, sensed that those who preach scientific consensus are receptive to any other possibility other than that of, well, the consensus.
I'm interested to know what you believe the difference between having an open mind and scepticism is, scientifically speaking. Also, how do you marry consensus and skepticism in your mind, if you believe both are important? When I consider the passion global warming alamists display, armed with consensus, their doesn't seem to be any room for skepticism. They are not "open" to "skepticism". As much has been said countless times by the AGW high priests.
Deniers are sceptical of the risks of AGW, but have open minds to any idea that says it's not happening, we're not responsible, or it won't be a problem.

No, I'm not open to scepticism of basic physics or observational fact. Deniers often are.

Their minds are so open that their brains fell out, and they want everybody to have minds just as open?

I remain a sceptic.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40 May 2, 2013
Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way...did you also write "scepticism"? I'm sure you meant to write "skepticism". I'll reiterate my understanding that you prefer zero errors when posting opinions on the web. Again, it's not important to me, but I hope my pointing this out is helpful to you.
Yes, no and no.
Himself

Oceanside, CA

#41 May 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Deniers are sceptical of the risks of AGW, but have open minds to any idea that says it's not happening, we're not responsible, or it won't be a problem.
No, I'm not open to scepticism of basic physics or observational fact. Deniers often are.
Their minds are so open that their brains fell out, and they want everybody to have minds just as open?
I remain a sceptic.
For the amount you write, you say very little. Choosing to attack personally, rather than debate or answer questoins. You are suggesting I have said things I have never said, and once again calling me a denier which I am not. I believe that to deny something such as this is just as negligent as emotionally following the crowd of consensus. However, there are many scientists who do not believe that a conclusion can be reached yet. You would probably call them names as well. But for you to say that I should provide that "one person" shows just how little you think of the scientific process. I would argue that consensus as it pertains to the AFG argument does not reach higher in the simplified scientific method than "hypothesis". This is not the end point in the process. It's closer to the beginning, truthfully. And yet people are expected, EXPECTED, to jump on board and have faith. In this case, ultimately, having faith means giving over more tax dollars so that politicians, not scientists, can get to work on making the oceans recede.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min wojar 178,256
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 4 min anonymous 56,074
Efforts underway to change GOP on gay marriage 4 min EdmondWA 59
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Teaman 1,111,564
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 min Fed Up Again 263,725
Rights Of Same-Sex Military Spouses Vary By State 7 min Quest 8
Hillary Clinton Faces Skeptical Iowa Voters 8 min serfs up 452
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr D-U-H 363
•••

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••