Another Old Beat's Weather Thread...

[BSmack]

Our well below avaerage temps are because of global warming?

nice try tard.

[Dinsdale]

Well we know you're quite OK with grifting.

And now that we came up with some cool new meteorology tools and discovered the climate goes through cycles even faster then we thought, the disgusting grifters can't get their hands out fast enough, science be damned.

Some of them are jumping ship though -- here on the west coast, the Flat Earthers/Warmists are switching their focus to asking for money to study the effects tsunami debris might have... not money to do anything about it or clean it up... they want to study the impact it might have.


Meanwhile, the temperatures continue to plummet, despite the Flat Earthers' going back and altering observed data to make it look otherwise, on it's way to the next solar cycle, which should show us some temperature increases starting around 2018... funny how the solar scientists have been right about this stuff, and the grifters have been consistantly wrong.

[BSmack]

So the tard who once tried to claim that second hand smoke was not harmful is now standing against EVERY major scientific organization on the planet on the issue of climate change?

No, I'm not going to debate you. I am going to laugh at you.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Well we know you're quite OK with grifting.

Well, of course he is.

Tell me you knew...

[Dinsdale]

So the tard who once tried to claim that second hand smoke was not harmful

Incorrect. I didn't "once" claim that -- I'm claiming it now. And the legitimate studies on the subject back that up 100%.

FACT.


But this, combined with your Flat Earther stance, speaks to your weakness of character. I'll explain your shortcoming, since it's beyond you:

Your need to feel superior through political correctness clouds your ability to reason. Since the beginning of mankind, prejudice is a normal human emotion. The next tribe over, the next culture over, other ethnic groups -- people have always validated their standing through prejudice. In recent decades, people have seen the error in their ways, and have tried to quash prejudice... except it's part of the human condition, so they haven't quashed it at all, merely switching their focus. The last bastion of "acceptable prejudice" was homosexuals, which are now deemed by advanced cultures to be hunky-dory.

And since we need to hate on somebody, people needed a repacement for their prejudice, to support their auara-of-superiority... and who better than to take the brunt than smokers?

But a group of people only harming themselves of their own volition wasn't good enough for the outrage. So they needed to manufacture a reason to really drum up some universal hatred... and what better way than to claim THEY'RE KILLING US ALL!!!?

Nevermind that they took liberties with the scientific process in outrageous fashion, the weak-minded needed to feel superior to someone, and their White Knight came riding on in... facts be damned. And now those folks use scientific falsehoods to control the behavior of others to their liking.


And since the general public bought that complete horseshit hook, line, and sinker, it really set the stage for further misrepresentations of the scientific process, and gave the grifters an even better excuse to get on the multi-billion dollar dole...

Global Warming.

Nevermind that it takes established, repeatedly proven over decades and decades science and throws it out the window in favor of non-repeatable experiments and made-up formulas to fill in for unknown variables... the PC Folk are all over it.

is now standing against EVERY major scientific organization on the planet on the issue of climate change?

Isn't it odd how "EVERY" major scientific organization" is defined as thosewho are funded by taxpayers somewhere? Yet the guys who have made all the major breakthroughs in climate science over the last 30 years all think the theory is bullshit?

Funny how that works.

When taxpayer-funded "research" sets out to achieve a desired, predetermined result, their success rate seems to be right around 100%... shocker.


Think for yourself, get over your "liberal guilt," and follow the money -- it leads straight back to preconceived "theories" that if accepted, are a massive financial boon to the PC Folk.


And I laugh at all of them.


But since grifting appears quite acceptable to you, and personal freedom is your archenemy, I can see why you buy into the horseshit that government-sponsored "science" offers up.

[BSmack]

So the tard who once tried to claim that second hand smoke was not harmful

Incorrect. I didn't "once" claim that -- I'm claiming it now. And the legitimate studies on the subject back that up 100%.

FACT.

I'm sure the Joe Camel Institute will back you up 100%.

[Dinsdale]

I'm sure the Joe Camel Institute will back you up 100%.

And so will every legitimate study done on the subject. The World Health Organization's being by far, far and away the largest.

Of course, they're grifters too, and tried to hide the results. The EU FOI laws put an end to that.

But that's what your ilk does -- ignore, or flat out hide any science that disagrees with your political agenda. You people just can't seperate science and politics, because that takes away your opportunity to take money from others that you didn't earn (sup Wolfman).

[Truman]

If the folks voting for politicians who don't believe in global warming are suddenly and adversely affected by weather having to do with global warming then that is simply karma rubbing one out in their faces. Vote better next time bitches.

Here we go...

Buncha old salts hangin' over the back fence, sippin' beers, spinnin' yarns and chewin' the fat over the weather, and you just HAD to chime in. I'll bet your neighbors hate you.

Lemme ask you a question, B…

Why do you persist with an argument you will never win?

The temps and snowfall totals “enjoyed” here the previous two winters were akin to what I experienced as a kid –deep, heavy snows and bitter cold. This year, not so much. We checked in with a total of three inches of snow and never cracked zero.

Not a peep from the local global warming crowd, BTW.

Climate DOES change, B. But neither you, I, or the trainloads of tax dollars do-gooder liberal sycophants such as yourself demand to be raised to address the arrogance and ignorance that is climate change has a prayer of making an impact (other than separating people from their hard-earned money) by any measure whatsoever.

Ever heard of the Ice Ages? Wasn’t Rochester buried under a mile-thick glacier during that time? Ever see a map of the inland tropical sea that once swamped the Flyover? I’m pretty sure man (or George Bush) wasn’t around back then with his carbon emissions to be pinned with the blame for such æffects from you Chicken Littles.

As for temperature gradients in upstate New York… You alarmists keep trying to apply 150 years of empirical weather data to a six billion year old planet. If man could (allegedly) rise from the primordial ooze in such a span, then surely the damn weather can change too. Take it to Huffpo, B.

[BSmack]

Tru,

I'm not here to change your mind. Just to laugh at you.

[Bizzarofelice]

Why do you persist with an argument you will never win?

99.9% of climate scientists think there is a problem. Are you a climate scientist? Or do you know more about the subject than they do without having spent your entire career and education focusing on the science? Take your time to answer.

[Truman]

Tru,

I'm not here to change your mind. Just to laugh at you.

Then some good will come of it... It sure as hell isn't to address legitimate questions with proven answers known to wreck your agenda...

[Truman]

Why do you persist with an argument you will never win?

99.9% of climate scientists think there is a problem. Are you a climate scientist? Or do you know more about the subject than they do without having spent your entire career and education focusing on the science? Take your time to answer.

No, I just know more than you do, and for message boarding puposes, that's enough.

Of course you have that link handy for the 99.9% of climate scientists who believe climate change is caused by man. I believe this is the place where I'm supposed to say, "take your time to answer."

[Bizzarofelice]

Why do you persist with an argument you will never win?

99.9% of climate scientists think there is a problem. Are you a climate scientist? Or do you know more about the subject than they do without having spent your entire career and education focusing on the science? Take your time to answer.

No, I just know more than you do

Doubtful. And I'm not going to take your word on greetings cards over that of Hallmark just because you know more than me regarding greeting cards. and for message boarding puposes, that's enough. Your logic sucks.

I'll go on trusting scientists instead of people who read a lot of right-wing blogs. They seem to know more about science. What with their name being "scientist".

[Dinsdale]

99.9% of climate scientists think there is a problem.

When did you make that number up?

Even the grifters known as the IPCC only try to sell 97% "consenus" -- of course, some to find out their "97%" is 97% of their fellow grifter IPCC employees.

Oh, and can someone explain why the3 IPCC employs more psychologists than they do climate scientists? If tha doesn't make you go "HMMMMM.....," I guess nothing will.

Are you a climate scientist? Or do you know more about the subject than they do

Richard Lindzen is, and yes, he knows a lot more than the Flat Earthers do about the subject.

And he thinks it's a politically driven grift job. As do a large chunk of the people who are actual experts on the subject.

George Taylor is considered one of the most knowledgeable pople out there on climate science. When he cast doubt on the Flat Earth Theory (Global Warming... same complete disregard for provable science goes into both "theories"), he was shown the door.

Why would any taxpayer-funded scientist anywhere cast any doubt, if they're immediately going to be discredited, ridiculed, aqnd unemployed, when if they toe the line, they're richly rewarded? It's not science, since scientific fact makes the CO2 ruse laughable, it's indeed completely fuelled by politics, and the grifters involved in said politics.

Small, insignificant people jump on the bandwagon because iyt gives them a sense of superiority in their otherwise insignificant lives... and the Flat Earthers take full advantage, despite every provable bit of data on the subject pointing towards the complete falsehood of it all. But they've got their boogieman, and they're riding him until the bitter end.

[Dinsdale]

What with their name being "scientist".

Only because the Flat Earthers have confused the terms "scientist" and "politician."

[Bizzarofelice]

99.9% of climate scientists think there is a problem.

When did you make that number up?

Even the grifters known as the IPCC only try to sell 97% "consenus"

Well you completely exposed the issue of climate change with that 2.9% difference. We're all dumber for having read you trying to make a point on that one.

[Dinsdale]

Honest question -- how many lies does "your" side have to get caught in before it plants a seed of doubt as to the entire agenda?

Again, an honest question.

[Bizzarofelice]

Honest question -- how many lies does "your" side

what side is that? and what "lies" are you talking about?

honestly don't know what you're referring to.

[Dinsdale]

If that's your sincere answer, it's time for you to eject from this discussion, since you're light years behind on current events.

I'll give you a starting place to start educating youjrself -- "HIDE THE DECLINE!!!!" And it gets more and more nefarious from there.

I don't see the flat-out lies from the "let's do the research and examine the science from a neutral standpoint" crowd -- it's an epidemic in the "the science is setlled!" crowd.

[Truman]

Bace argues Climate Change with thinking people

Still awaiting that link, friendo...

[Dinsdale]

Here's a link while you'reiding your time, Tru:

http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewr ... ime-again/


Not conjecture, guessing, or anything else. Just a jaw-dropping tale of how to keep the grift going once you've been proven wrong.

These people should be brought up on charges of fraud, not be rewarded with more "research" dollars.

Just truly evil people at work.


Here's another example of people using your tax dollars to fabricate lies to get even more of your tax dollars:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02 ... rmometers/


Why change your ridiculously flawed theory when you're also in charge of keeping the data? Much easier to just go back and change the observed data than to admit you made up the original bullshit in the first place.

I like the trick where they're taking temerature stations offline in very cold climates (almost 90% of the Canadian stations have been removed from the "average")... neat trick to further the evil agenda. Soros and Strong are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Dinsdale]

Of course you have that link handy for the 99.9% of climate scientists who believe climate change is caused by man.

Sure... if you engage in the data-collection techniques the Flat Earthers use to show the "warming trend."

Another example of Flat Earthers' willingness to lie their asses off.

[Bizzarofelice]

"HIDE THE DECLINE!!!!"

Climategate? That was already debunked. Two years ago. Guess you're light years behind on your current events.

[Dinsdale]

Climategate? That was already debunked.

Really?

"We thoroughly investigated ourselves, and we determined we did nothing wrong" was good enough to count as "debunked"?

No, they were caught red-handed being dishonest to increase their funding, plain and simple, even violating laws in order to do it.

[Truman]

Climategate? That was already debunked.

You're funnier when you're being irrelevant. I mean, besides now...

[Bizzarofelice]

Climategate? That was already debunked.

Really?

"We thoroughly investigated ourselves, and we determined we did nothing wrong" was good enough to count as "debunked"?

No, they were caught red-handed being dishonest to increase their funding, plain and simple, even violating laws in order to do it.

sad.

and even if those two people had salacious e-mails, and the multiple reviews of climategate said that there was nothing to them, does that throw out every other bit of data about climate change? If one of Ted Williams' hits was with a corked bat, is every other hit out of the record books?

but you'd rather believe the insignificant than the overwhelming evidence.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

but you'd rather believe the insignificant than the overwhelming evidence.

environmentalism = collective consciousness = fags

[Dinsdale]

The overwhelming evidence that the Warmists fabricate data, and hide/destroy evidence that doesn't support their demands for more funding?

OVERWHELMING.

"Climate Change" is a great name for it -- the climate of 80 years ago has changed dramatically from the observed data, because the grifters have actually gone back and changed it from what actually happened.

If you're not pushing known-false "science," why would anyone need to go back and change observed data?

[Truman]

but you'd rather believe the insignificant than the overwhelming evidence.

So your overwhelming evidence is better than Dins's overwhelming evidence?

Help me keep up. So how does that chip away at your 99.9%? Why do you worry, since only 0.01% of scientists disagree with your position? BTW, your mathmatical consensus sounds a whole lot like the same folks living in parks, blocking ports, and shitting on the vehicles of our public servants.

[Bizzarofelice]

So your overwhelming evidence is better than Dins's overwhelming evidence?

I guess this is the difference between me and Dins. I trust science. Overwhelming science I trust even more.

[Truman]

I guess this is the difference between me and Dins. I trust science. Overwhelming science I trust even more.

Unless Din's overwhelming scientists overwhelm your overwhelming scientists.

It isn't settled science, Bace. Despite your overwhelming scientists.

Regardless, do you truly believe anything we do as a species will have any collective long-lasting effect to change our climate?

God laughs. Erf will be here long after we're gone. Stand down, Bace. Your dumbass is showing...

[Dinsdale]

The garbage science the warmists roll out flies in the face of stuff we can actually prove.

And no part of "science" involves changing observed data to match your false hypothesis.

Why do they do that if "the science is settled"?

[smackaholic]

was watching a hsow today on the history channel about the erf's history.

a few billion years ago, we were completely iced over. imagine that. and we've swayed wildly back and forth ever since long before dick cheney had the bugs worked out of his hurricane machine.

that alone should make two things clear. the earth changes. and it does it without our help.

[Bizzarofelice]

God

this is a science discussion. please take your God takes to thread about wive's tales.

Erf will be here long after we're gone.

And "long after we're gone" may come sooner thanks to man made climate change. Hopefully the cockroaches will appreciate what we've done with the place.

Again, this is acknowledged science. You may disagree about the extent to which man should affect their economies to slow down climate change, but climate change itself is science.

I would appreciate you no longer sullying the good name of my alma mater. That is an institution of higher learning, and your anti-science, anti-education stupidity makes Mizzou look bad. Consider sporting a K State av. They're more your speed.

[Bizzarofelice]

garbage science

did you judge this? are you a scientist?

[Dinsdale]

So, in conclusion, your definition of "science" is to run with a new theory, and accept it as fact, even though massive chunks of it have been disproven, and even larger chunks are completely at odds with things we can actually prove, yet this is "science."


Let me explain the actual definition of the scientific process, since this newfangled one isn't it:

In the scientific process, someone proposes a theory. They, and others, gather data, review it, and try to either prove or disprove the new theory. Orhers then try to find any errors in the method used in the proof/disproof.

And we're still waiting on the proof of this radical new theory that, once again, flies in the face of proven astrophysics.

And even better yet -- you have the same people running the data gathering equipment as offering up the theories, to the excusion of others. And they've spent 0.00% of their efforts disproving, and 100% of their time proving it. And even betteryet, the main proponents have come right out, for all to see, and altered observed data to "smooth" their data.

I'll say that again -- they've altered observed data to match the curve they think things should conform to. By their own admission. That isn't "science" -- it's a very high dollar shell game. Altering observed data is the most heinous act of non-science a person/group could ever engage in.

In fact, the whole Man Made Global Warming Fiasco has made a mockery of the scientific process, and should be a stark warning for the future when it comes to government agencies getting too deeply involved in the scientific process, since nothing attracts grifters like government money.

This debacle isn't "science" -- it's a complete affront to the scientific process, and anybody with even a passing interest in any form of science should be offended by it.


In short -- STFU with your "science" shit until such a time you actually understand what "science" is.

And would the last Global Warmist turn out the lights when you leave your club meeting? TIA. We're trying to conserve energy here.

[H4ever]

You've got 77?

It's a balmy 57 here in sunny (OK cloudy) SoCal, and waiting for the eminent downpoor.

Near 90 degrees in Nebraska the last two days. Upper 70's to mid 80's and sunny for two weeks now (March in NE keep in mind). Fuck So Cal weather!

*disclaimer* Low to upper 60's for the the week or so! sort of back to normal....still warm for this early in a Nebraska spring.

[Mace]

You've got 77?

It's a balmy 57 here in sunny (OK cloudy) SoCal, and waiting for the eminent downpoor.

Near 90 degrees in Nebraska the last two days. Upper 70's to mid 80's and sunny for two weeks now (March in NE keep in mind). Fuck So Cal weather!

*disclaimer* Low to upper 60's for the the week or so! sort of back to normal....still warm for this early in a Nebraska spring.

Same here in Iowa. We're breaking or approaching record highs set over 100 years ago, so I guess global warming must have started in the 1890's. I blame the fucking horse manure.

[Truman]

God

this is a science discussion. please take your God takes to thread about wive's tales.

Why yes it is...

Sorry the Crichton reference escaped you. He also said this:

“I want to… talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

But since the mere mention of God appears to be a source of irritation, let’s talk about your religion. Wives tales, indeed:

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 15576.html

Erf will be here long after we're gone.

And "long after we're gone" may come sooner thanks to man made climate change. Hopefully the cockroaches will appreciate what we've done with the place.

Again, this is acknowledged science. You may disagree about the extent to which man should affect their economies to slow down climate change, but climate change itself is science.

Oh, I don’t discount that climate changes – I made reference to such in an earlier post. I even acknowledge the fact that some folks study it. But what I find amusing - and dangerous to the expense of our liberty - is the arrogance of people who believe that we can actually do anything of significance about it.

Let me ask you a question, Bace: If the nearly 7 billion people we have on earth jumped up-and-down all at once, could we change our planet’s orbit? And despite what we know of them, how well have we done controlling the disastrous effects of tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes? Think that kind of advanced knowledge might’ve come in handy in Japan or Joplin last year? Then why do you believe that taxing people – and nations – into oblivion would have any positive effect on this planet’s climate?

[I would appreciate you no longer sullying the good name of my alma mater. That is an institution of higher learning, and your anti-science, anti-education stupidity makes Mizzou look bad. Consider sporting a K State av. They're more your speed.

Could be, but I’m pretty sure the good professors down at the School of Arts and Sciences – Biology just might take issue with your presumptive assessment and indictment of their capabilities.

BTW, the raised calligraphy of my diploma reads The University of Missouri the same as yours...

As for my av...

a•lum•nus ( -l m n s)
n. pl. a•lum•ni (-n )
A male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university.

Sorry, Bace, but that dog won’t hunt. Your Gene-Gene the Dancing Machine av makes the Gong Show look stupid.

[Dinsdale]

Tru, you haven't heard?

Science is no longer based on gathering data and analyzing it -- it's a democracy.

So what if there's more dangling chads than 50 Floridas, it's been put to a vote -- astrophysics no longer is a factor.