Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

climategateFollow

#252 Dec 06 2009 at 10:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ThiefX wrote:
And anyone else notice that it always seem to take 5+ of you to argue against Gbaji.

That's like saying it takes 5+ people to argue against Intelligent Design or 9/11 Conspiracy theories.

I have, however, noticed that 45% of your posts are you cheerleading Gbaji and how he's just wtfpwning all of us, 45% are (ironically) telling Pensive that he's sucking up to the board and 10% are some inane, but at least original, thoughts. So there's that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#253 Dec 07 2009 at 1:57 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Original? Everything else he posted is just varus-style neo-conservative bullshit.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#254 Dec 07 2009 at 2:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
yossarian wrote:
gbaji wrote:

yos wrote:
We have one forum poster who seems to indicate that it isn't - who literally said we will asphyxiate on CO2 before it raises temperature.


Please tell me that this isn't a reference to me. I didn't say that at all. I was responding to someone who said that it wasn't just about temperature, but CO2. My response was that the only reason we worry about CO2 is because it may cause the temperature to rise via a greenhouse gas effect.


So that could be true, except that gbaji said this:

gbaji wrote:
yos wrote:
What gbaji could say is that the amounts of carbon dioxide humans have put don't have the power to change the global temperature much. He almost says this when he says: "The argument is not about CO2 levels themselves. They aren't harmful (unless they're a whole hell of a lot higher)."


Actually, what I was hinting at there is that really high concentrations of CO2 will cause asphyxia in humans. Not because the gas is poisonous, but because we can't actually breathe it. Too much CO2 means there's too little O2 and Nitrogen, which is what we need. CO2 is bad for us in more or less the same way that water is. We can't breathe it. That's really it.


See why it is useless to argue with gbaji? Posts the first thing that comes into his head: contradicts anything his opponents say.

When I post about how gbaji acts, and then he DOES EXACTLY WHAT I SAY HE WILL DO it isn't an insult. It is a prediction.


I'm entirely unsure what you think your point is here.

I mentioned that extremely high levels of CO2 are harmful to animal life only to be complete. I knew that if I didn't mention it, someone would claim that I was wrong since I'd failed to mention that. Of course, I mention it and now you're running around insisting that I'm being inconsistent.

The proposed carbon reductions related to global warming are *not* predicated on a fear that CO2 levels will rise to such levels that we'll all asphyxiate. They are predicated on an assumed greenhouse gas effect which will cause temperatures to rise, melt the icecaps, kill off the polar bears, and raise ocean levels resulting in massive flooding and loss of human life (and other things).

That is the entirety of the argument for reducing carbon emissions. As I've said repeatedly, it's all about temperature increase. It's not enough to just look at the CO2 levels and proclaim an emergency. You have to actually show that this is causing or will cause a significant enough temperature increase to warrant the kind of actions that are being proposed. Someone earlier in the thread insisted that even if temperatures can't be shown to increase, we should still act to reduce CO2 levels anyway. That's what spawned that little debate, to which you choose to be a nit.


It's not all or nothing. I'm not denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I simply disagree that the results of carbon emissions are so great as to justify the costs being proposed. I have been very consistent with this position from the beginning. Yet, no matter how carefully I explain this, I still get ninnies like you twisting the words around to find ways to insist that I'm saying something wrong.


It's funny watching this btw. I can't imagine how some of you manage to so consistently fail utterly to understand a point being made, and instead zero in on single words or phrases, which can be taken out of context to form a pretty silly counter argument. Honestly, I've read that quote above over and over and still can't figure out what you think I'm saying that's inconsistent, or how it somehow validates some position you've taken inside your own mind. It's almost like you're just ignoring all the words in between (which you quoted anyway), finding two sentences which don't actually contradict each other, but insist that if only we all had really poor reading skills that they would, so apparently, they do.

Funny!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#255 Dec 07 2009 at 3:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's funny watching this btw. I can't imagine how some of you manage to so consistently fail utterly to understand a point being made, and instead zero in on single words or phrases, which can be taken out of context to form a pretty silly counter argument.

That's okay. I feel the same when I see you trying to argue it despite having obviously never read any of the studies or materials beyond the occasional sensationalist blog (which is your sole source of cites) and a repeated mantra of "It's obvious!" in the face of any skepticism regarding your posts.

It's funny because I sincerely wonder about your real life. You've obviously never learned how to cope with people questioning your pseudo-authoritative stances so is it because people around you just blindly accept whatever you say as truth or do they just sigh deeply and not bother with the fruitless attempts of trying to correct you or do you just never touch on any of these topics in your real life interpersonal relationships or are you just a hermit or what?

Edited, Dec 7th 2009 3:51pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#256REDACTED, Posted: Dec 07 2009 at 3:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm still waiting for any of you climate control ***** to explain to me why we should give a d*mn if we are causing temperatures to increase. Longer growing seasons and decreased energy costs seems to me like we should be pushing for more global warming.
#257 Dec 07 2009 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm still waiting for any of you climate control ***** to explain to me why we should give a d*mn if we are causing temperatures to increase.
Matthew 7:6a wrote:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#258 Dec 07 2009 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm still waiting for any of you climate control ***** to explain to me why we should give a d*mn if we are causing temperatures to increase. Longer growing seasons and decreased energy costs seems to me like we should be pushing for more global warming.

Buy a vacation home on Venus and get back to me.
#259REDACTED, Posted: Dec 07 2009 at 3:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) still waiting...
#260 Dec 07 2009 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
still waiting...



p.s. Posting bible passages is not a reason.

Tell that to the ******.
#261 Dec 07 2009 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
still waiting...



p.s. Posting bible passages is not a reason.
I guess that's only true if it's inconvenient.
#262 Dec 07 2009 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
p.s. Posting bible passages is not a reason.

No, but it's a reason why you're still waiting Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#263REDACTED, Posted: Dec 07 2009 at 4:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sweet,
#264 Dec 07 2009 at 4:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
still waiting...
Serious answer:

You're still waiting because you refuse to believe the reasons already given by a worldwide network of authorities on the subject. It doesn't matter what anyone says on the subject: Rush Limbaugh knows better than all of them, and therefore so do you.
#265REDACTED, Posted: Dec 07 2009 at 4:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,
#266 Dec 07 2009 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
You mean a worldwide network of liars who ignore data to push their own agenda driven tripe? Yeah you're right I refuse to believe when someone, with absolutely no hard evidence, tells me the human race is on the brink of extinction and we better change our ways or the world won't be here 100yrs from now.
And for the nth time I have to ask: what agenda do you suppose this world-wide network of liars is trying to push?
#267 Dec 07 2009 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
You mean a worldwide network of liars who ignore data to push their own agenda driven tripe? Yeah you're right I refuse to believe when someone, with absolutely no hard evidence, tells me the human race is on the brink of extinction and we better change our ways or the world won't be here 100yrs from now.
And for the nth time I have to ask: what agenda do you suppose this world-wide network of liars is trying to push?


Control. See, Varrus thinks that if we get people to recycle and drive cleaner cars, then the liberals will control their minds.

No one said the agenda made sense.
#268 Dec 07 2009 at 5:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

Heh... that's a pretty creative way of saying "adjusting the ranking of five years which are pretty much tied and one of which is in the 1930s." I mean, I'm sure the Washington Times didn't intend to make it sound as though 80 years of data was all suspect or anything.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#269 Dec 07 2009 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm still waiting for any of you climate control ***** to explain to me why we should give a d*mn if we are causing temperatures to increase. Longer growing seasons and decreased energy costs seems to me like we should be pushing for more global warming.

Oh...you're serious? Wow...that's a painful thought.

Polar ground-ice melt, rise in ocean levels, flooding and destruction of most of the world's coastal population zones. Interruption of the oceanic currents and disruption of current regular weather patterns. Destruction of current croplands and fresh-water systems. Runaway greenhouse effect resulting in all liquid water evaporating and melting of the Earth's crust.

Well, nothing is likely to affect Kentucky in the next fifty years, so I guess it doesn't really matter, does it?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#270REDACTED, Posted: Dec 08 2009 at 8:36 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,
#271 Dec 08 2009 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Debo,

Quote:
Oh...you're serious? Wow...that's a painful thought.


What's painful is listening to you people invent crisis designed to scare people into living the way you think they should. In fact if you cared to look even Nasa isn't releasing the information on global warming.

Is the earth warming; maybe. Does the earth go through warming and cooling cycles; yes. Are humans causing the earth to rapidly warm; the data is inconclusive.
One day Varus, maybe you'll try a look at things from a broader perspective.

One could easily say that YOU people are forcing US people to conform to your ways of excess and to suffer the consequences along with you.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#272 Dec 08 2009 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
In fact if you cared to look even Nasa isn't releasing the information on global warming.

I did look. Some dude from a conservative think tank is claiming that he never got his FOIA requests filled but does admit that NASA has been in communication with him over those requests. Without knowing any specifics (how much data he's requesting, contents of emails, etc), there's really no judgments to be made. If he wants to sue, power to him and if NASA is intentionally stonewalling then they should be forced to release the data. But I'm not about to go all loopy over some guy's rather weak claims.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#273 Dec 08 2009 at 10:09 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Is the earth warming; maybe. Does the earth go through warming and cooling cycles; yes. Are humans causing the earth to rapidly warm; the data is inconclusive.


That's an even worse dichotomy for you than if you deny the warming at all. Whether humans cause a catastrophic phenomenon isn't really that important. What's more important is the ultimate functional reality.

The potential functional catastrophe regarding the earth's temperate really doesn't care what the source is. If it's warming in a manner detrimental to human life because of human life, then that's bad; fortunately, the only thing required of humanity then, is to stop the affect by restraining itself. If the earth is warming in a manner independent of humanity, but still detrimental to it, then the burden onto humanity becomes to start affecting global climate change in the opposite direction.

Your third choice is to deny warming entirely, which might be salient, but the onus upon humans if you fail to deny that is much the same regardless of the source. Assuming of course you and your enterprising American spirit of ingenuity isn't resigned to taking a backseat to Nature in the face of possible bad things. Didn't know you were such a defeatist.


Edited, Dec 8th 2009 11:15am by Pensive
#274 Dec 08 2009 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Is the earth warming; maybe. Does the earth go through warming and cooling cycles; yes. Are humans causing the earth to rapidly warm; the data is inconclusive.


That's an even worse dichotomy for you than if you deny the warming at all. Whether humans cause a catastrophic phenomenon isn't really that important. What's more important is the ultimate functional reality.

The potential functional catastrophe regarding the earth's temperate really doesn't care what the source is. If it's warming in a manner detrimental to human life because of human life, then that's bad; fortunately, the only thing required of humanity then, is to stop the affect by restraining itself. If the earth is warming in a manner independent of humanity, but still detrimental to it, then the burden onto humanity becomes to start affecting global climate change in the opposite direction.

Your third choice is to deny warming entirely, which might be salient, but the onus upon humans if you fail to deny that is much the same regardless of the source. Assuming of course you and your enterprising American spirit of ingenuity isn't resigned to taking a backseat to Nature in the face of possible bad things. Didn't know you were such a defeatist.


Edited, Dec 8th 2009 11:15am by Pensive


But Pensive, if people can't change the climate for the worse, then they can't reverse the naturally occurring effects for the better. It's just simple logic.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#275 Dec 08 2009 at 10:58 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
Oh...you're serious? Wow...that's a painful thought.

What's painful is listening to you people invent crisis designed to scare people into living the way you think they should. In fact if you cared to look even Nasa isn't releasing the information on global warming.

Is the earth warming; maybe. Does the earth go through warming and cooling cycles; yes. Are humans causing the earth to rapidly warm; the data is inconclusive.

There are plenty of real, current reasons to alter our energy usage and consumption now. I could tell you what they are, but you don't care and wouldn't listen anyways.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#276 Dec 08 2009 at 11:04 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
still waiting...



p.s. Posting bible passages is not a reason.
Really? I thought that was always a big deal with conservatives.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 369 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (369)