Did you not listen to the clip you posted? Since you clearly didn't and you clearly don't know anything regarding Carlin, let me enlighten you. Carlin very much agreed in the scientific FACT of global warming. Carlin is of the opinion, and is most of us who agree with the overwhelming scientific evidence of the global warming FACT, that recycling cans and outlawing plastic bags will change global warming. There is so much carbon footprinting by industrial nations that individual personal action is spurious at best,
YET, Carlin is right. Even all the crap we're doing isn't going to kill the planet. HOWEVER- we will change the environment just enough to make the planet inhospitable to humans. We will take a bunch of species with us as well. HOWEVER, Carlin is also correct that the planet will survive. How does "the great and powerful" yahweh fit into reality?
I'm still amused that many people believe that some guy was floating wherever he supposed to be floating for billions and billions and billions and billions.......of years and then decides to "create" the universe. NOW THAT"S FUNNY!
So typical of today's liberal...and so shallow...They get so frustrated with people who dare disagree with them they resort to belittling what they believe in.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
So typical of today's liberal...and so shallow...They get so frustrated with people who dare disagree with them they resort to belittling what they believe in.
I'm not frustrated with anyone, especially little brains like yourself. I just call things as they are. You prefer to believe in superstition and voodoo. I prefer reality.
However, if you have any EVIDENCE to support your invisible man in the sky opinion, I'll be more than happy to evaluate it. Better yet- perhaps you can DEMONSTRATE 6 day creation, talking serpents, every species of animal on one boat, sun stopping, instantaneous healing by simply willing it to happen (specifically, cause an amputee to instantaneously regrow a limb), walk on water in the middle of the ocean, bring a rotting corpse that has been buried for several days back to life instantaneously by simply willing it and my favorite- instantaneously turn water into wine by simply willing it.
Nothing to belittle. Isn't reality a mother f***er!
How did religion come into the debate of global warming? Besides I'm still waiting for the 2nd ice age scientist were so positive was coming 20 years ago to get here
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
they have to say that if they want the grant money and corporate support of 'new inventions'
The overall global temperature has gone up over one degree since the early 20th century and rising. Now you can kick and scream that carbon emissions have nothing to do with it, but global warming is happening. If you prefer the stick your head in the sand approach- that's your prerogative.
I'm not frustrated with anyone, especially little brains like yourself. I just call things as they are. You prefer to believe in superstition and voodoo. I prefer reality.
However, if you have any EVIDENCE to support your invisible man in the sky opinion, I'll be more than happy to evaluate it. Better yet- perhaps you can DEMONSTRATE 6 day creation, talking serpents, every species of animal on one boat, sun stopping, instantaneous healing by simply willing it to happen (specifically, cause an amputee to instantaneously regrow a limb), walk on water in the middle of the ocean, bring a rotting corpse that has been buried for several days back to life instantaneously by simply willing it and my favorite- instantaneously turn water into wine by simply willing it.
Nothing to belittle. Isn't reality a mother f***er!
You're such a motherfucking tool, it's beyond belief. I just made the comment that people like you, instead of simply doing the civil thing and just ignoring the people and their beliefs you revile, resort to belittling, poking fun, and generally acting like an immature and spoiled little f@ck. It was a comment on civility, not who was right and wrong. You do realize that most of what you list has been pretty much described by people of the church more symbolic than actual accounts?...or course you don't nor do you care...
You better hope you're right, because when your time comes, if you're wrong, reality will bite you in the a**...hard..
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
You're such a motherfucking tool, it's beyond belief. I just made the comment that people like you, instead of simply doing the civil thing and just ignoring the people and their beliefs you revile, resort to belittling, poking fun, and generally acting like an immature and spoiled little f@ck. It was a comment on civility, not who was right and wrong. You do realize that most of what you list has been pretty much described by people of the church more symbolic than actual accounts?...or course you don't nor do you care...
You better hope you're right, because when your time comes, if you're wrong, reality will bite you in the a**...hard..
For you judging civility- I just have to say HYPOCRITE!
Since you don't want to talk about right and wrong- you sure want to talk about right or wrong.
For you judging civility- I just have to say HYPOCRITE!
Since you don't want to talk about right and wrong- you sure want to talk about right or wrong.
You get what you give.. too bad you're such a p*ssy and can't take it
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Back to the subject at hand= I agree with the OP- CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FACT!
I too agree that climate change is a fact. I hear the next significant change will occur sometime from around mid-March to early April.
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
Peer Review; Last Refuge of the (Uninformed) Troll
Posted on December 29, 2013 by Guest Blogger
Current peer review science, by attempting to explain away model failure, in fact confirms that the science is wrong
Guest essay by David M. Hoffer
It has become a favorite tactic amongst trolls to declare their belief in peer reviewed science. With this simple strategy, they at once excuse themselves from the need to know anything about the science, and at the same time seek to discredit skeptic arguments on the grounds that, not having been published in peer reviewed journals, they may be dismissed out of hand.
A retreat to authoritarian arguments in the face of dead simple observations is not new. It is a repeat of history. Not having learned from it, we appear to be condemned to repeat it. But both history and the current peer reviewed science are, if one steps back and looks at the big picture, on the skeptic side.
In the fifth century BC, Empedocles theorized that one could see by virtue of rays emanating from one’s eyes. Falsifying this notion required no more than pointing out that one cannot see in a dark room. Despite this simple observation, his theory enjoyed substantial support for the next 1600 years.
Galileo died while under house arrest for supporting the notion that the earth orbited the sun. His was convicted in part on the basis of peer reviewed literature of the time insisting that the movement of the planets as observed from the earth could be explained by the planets simply reversing direction in orbit from time to time. For nearly two thousand years, into the early 1800’s, when people fell ill, the peer reviewed literature confirmed that the best course of action was to let some blood out of them. The simple observation that death rates increased when this treatment was applied was dismissed out of hand on the premise that, if it was true, it would appear in medical journals. Sound familiar?
History is replete with examples of what seems today to be utterly absurd ideas. Ideas which stubbornly refuse to die, sustained in part by the equally absurd notion that evidence to the contrary was not to be accepted simply because it hadn’t appeared in the “right” publications. But is the notion of climate science today as easily falsified by simple observation? I submit that it is. We have the climate models themselves to upon which to rely.
For what are the climate models other than the embodiment of the peer reviewed science? Is there a single model cited by the IPCC that claims to not be based on peer reviewed science? Of course there isn’t. Yet simple observation shows that the models, and hence the peer reviewed literature upon which they are based, are wrong. We have none other than the IPCC themselves to thank for showing us that.
The leaked Second Order Draft of IPCC AR5 laid bare the failure of the models to predict the earth’s temperature going forward in time. In fact, if one threw out all but the best 5% of the model results…they would still be wrong, and obviously so. They all run hotter than reality. Exposed for the world to see that the models (and hence the science upon which they are based) had so utterly failed, the IPCC responded by including older models they had previously declared obsolete as now being part of the current literature: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....they-still-look-bad/
Even with those older and supposedly obsolete models included, the models look to be complete failures. In other words, confronted with the data showing that thousands are dying from bloodletting, the IPCC is resurrecting old studies showing that three or four patients recovered once in an old study from a long time ago. They are point blank asking you to believe that planets reverse direction in orbit quite of their own volition. They’ve contrived a theory that you can’t see in the dark because the rays from your eyes must interact with light to work.
As ridiculous as that may seem, for the IPCC, it is (literally) even worse than that. For this we have the foremost climate scientists on the planet to thank.
Kevin Trenberth, arguably the most politically powerful climate scientist on earth, famously lamented in the ClimateGate Emails that we cannot account for “the missing heat”, a tacit admission that the models are wrong. Since then we’ve seen multiple papers suggesting that perhaps the heat is being sequestered in the deep oceans where, conveniently, we cannot measure it. If true, this also invalidates the models, since they predicted no such thing.
Dr Roy Spencer’s paper suggests that the heat is escaping to space. If he’s right, the models are wrong. More recently we have the paper by Cowtan and Way, which tries to make the case that the heat is hiding in places on earth where we have no weather station or satellite data. Pretty selective that heat, going where nobody can measure it, but not where we can. If they are right, then not a single model predicted any such thing, and so, once again, the models would be wrong. Spencer’s paper stands apart from the others because it doesn’t twist itself into absurd contortions in a blatant attempt to preserve the CAGW storyline. But make no mistake about it, all these papers are being published, not because the models (and the science they are predicted upon) are right, but because they are wrong, and obviously so.
No longer is the debate in regard to if the models are wrong. The debate is now about why the models are wrong. The models having fallen, the peer reviewed science they purport to represent falls with them.
But you need not believe me in that regard. Just the peer reviewed science by the foremost climate scientists on earth.
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
The overall global temperature has gone up over one degree since the early 20th century and rising. Now you can kick and scream that carbon emissions have nothing to do with it, but global warming is happening. If you prefer the stick your head in the sand approach- that's your prerogative.
I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that we are NOT as smart as we think we are.....save ourselves? I'm not of the belief that we can. It will be a fun little exercise in changing light bulbs, going green etc etc....
someone I know is having a 'green wedding', nice thought, only to have as a request $ donations to a honeymoon of which they will take a plane to the destination....
climate change DOES exist our little exercises are like psychiatric voodoo along with the prediction of a giant asteroid hitting the earth....
my head isn't in the sand...I'm a pragmatist, I work in healthcare and have seen the drugs to manage health(oxymoron) INCREASE just like green house gases......talk about poisoning...if we don't know the difference between health care and medical care....we're doomed already.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
I get printed letters from national grid(local power/gas provider) that shows my electric/gas use compared to my neighbors. why? to shame me into lowering my heat etc? I pay them what ever the bill is. I work for my money and I work for my comfort.
national grid maintains the gas/power lines in what ever way it is they do it, whether that be with subcontractors or not.
my question is why are they not putting solar panels on my house instead of sending a letter? they can maintain those too.
so going 'off the grid' is the ONLY option when it comes to climate change and carbon foot print....
they are not serious because either way those 'jobs' must be kept.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Back to the subject at hand= I agree with the OP- CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FACT!
You can agree that it's a fact, but you would have to provide the repeatable experiment that makes it a scientific fact. What is the control? How do the replicate all the climate variables in a control? How much carbon dioxide has to be released to raise the earths temperature 1 degree, and over what lenth of time?
I can factually prove that heating water to 212 degrees will turn it into a gas, and repeate it over and over. Can you tell me how much CO2 has to be released into the atmosphere to raise the global temperature 1 degree?
Climate change is a belief. If you want to believe it's fact you can, but even the scientific method doesn't allow it to be a proven fact.
. "The climate changes to come," says NASA climate researcher Gavin Schmidt, "are going to be larger than anything that human civilization has seen in its entire existence."
Lol...The prophets from the church of climate change are warning us that the earth is going to smite those that sin against it. Or so say disciple Gavin.
Climate change proverb - Thou shall not use incandescent lighting, for the earth will unleash its fury against thee by warming thy air 1 degree.
Logged
