T1B

Truman wrote:You gotta point on the subject, you fucking Loser Taliban Sympathizer Talking Retarded Nonsense, or are you content struggling to string together a cognizant “take” from talking points e-mailed to you from the likes of moveon.org or the daily kos?

Mix in a take, or die in a fire you fucking Loser.

Wow....just, WOW.

Pray for polarbearsius and iceflowidian.

And Rack any thread that elicits a new sig file

Truman wrote:Near Consensus once suggested that the world was flat and that the sun, moon, and stars rotated around the planet.

No it didn't. The Church may have thought such things. But they didn't call it "science". And anyone willing to climb high enough to see the curvature of the Earth knew full well the Church was full of shit.

Consensus ain’t science, you fucking Loser.

True enough. Science is based on observable data. You know, like the correlation between the rise of ocean temperatures and the increase of man made carbon emissions.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:Hmm, let's see Truman or a near consensus of the scientific community...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ju ... sensus.htm

BSmack wrote:Science ...like the correlation between the rise of ocean temperatures and the increase of man made carbon emissions.

Oh my goodness.


Dude, try passing a junior high school science class before you comment on "science."


While I haven't been able to formulate my own scientific opinion about the causation of the warming trend, it's due to lack of hard evidence. My mind is open in both directions.

But when people start busting out absolute stupidity such as this and calling it "science," it just makes me laugh and shake my head, and feel sorry for those that are so otherwise-worthless that they're really that deperate to cling to some sort of cause to give themselves moral superiority to the point where normal cause/effect scenarios aren't relevant in their world anymore.


If you wanna make a "scientific" argument, them I'm all ears. If you want to roll out the unfreakingbelievable stupidity that you did in the last post, then shut the fucvk up and get a clue what you're talking about.



Oh, and BTW -- tards like LTS TRN and his ilk are gonna be some really lost puppies on emotional overload, now that Big Oil is pimping the "global warming crises," and strategizing to fully profit from the hysteria.


You people truly are playing right into their hands.

I've been hearing the "concensus ain't science" dead horse being flogged on the AM radio/Right Wing crank circuit since last Thursday.

It's a talking point, folks. That memo made it's way down days ago. Tell me you knew.

BSmack wrote:Science is based on observable data. You know, like the correlation between the rise of ocean temperatures and the increase of man made carbon emissions.

What correlation? The one between Algores nutsack and your chin?

Where's the undeniable, irrefutable proof that rising ocean temps are directly related to man made carbon emissions?

Oh, thats' right, you don't have any proof, just speculation and half-baked theories.

War Wagon wrote:Where's the undeniable, irrefutable proof that rising ocean temps are directly related to man made carbon emissions?

You will receive your undeniable, absolutely irrefutable proof when Kansas City is rendered uninhabitable.

On second thought, perhaps that's a bad example.

BSmack wrote:

Truman wrote:Near Consensus once suggested that the world was flat and that the sun, moon, and stars rotated around the planet.

No it didn't. The Church may have thought such things. But they didn't call it "science". And anyone willing to climb high enough to see the curvature of the Earth knew full well the Church was full of shit.

...and garnered a date tied to a post in the midst of a blazing woodpile. BTW, Loser, the Church was Science in the Middle Ages. Damn it, B, as an amateur historian, you should know better.

Science is based on observable data. You know, like the correlation between the rise of ocean temperatures and the increase of man made carbon emissions.

[mvscal]Link?[/msvcal]

...And spare me the worn-out diatribes of the Gore Institute.

Speaking of observable data... How 'bout that increased glaciation in Greenland and Colorado, and the thickening of the ice shelf in Antarctica?

Loser.

Is the World getting warmer in parts?

Yup.

Is it cooling in others?

Why, yes it is.

Is Global Warming a political issue?

You bet.

Look, loser, I appreciate your advocacy (or is it activism?) to grow a nanny state here in America. A rising tide floats all ships, right? And clearly, The Great Unwashed is too stupid to think for itself. Pity that stolid Constitution thang is in the way of a living and breathing true progressive Utopia. Bottom line is, Gore is fuill of shit. Too much evidence has been presented to give his postulates any credence. And to suggest othwerwise is completely ignorant.

Eject now, B. You are about to lose yet another debate with Truman... Badly.

Your choice, Loser.

Truman wrote:...and garnered a date tied to a post in the midst of a blazing woodpile. BTW, Loser, the Church was Science in the Middle Ages. Damn it, B, as an amateur historian, you should know better.

If you think the Church "was" science during the Middle Ages, you're even more uninformed than I previously thought. The Church was the antithesis of science then and now.

Science is based on observable data. You know, like the correlation between the rise of ocean temperatures and the increase of man made carbon emissions.

[mvscal]Link?[/msvcal]

I gave you your fucking link. Obviously you're gunning for a short attention span award.

Speaking of observable data... How 'bout that increased glaciation in Greenland and Colorado, and the thickening of the ice shelf in Antarctica?

WTF are you talking about? Greenland is LOSING ICE.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385475/

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020 ... nland.html

And the Antarctic ice shelf is dumping more ice into the water, not less.

http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/

As for Colorado, same as before. Their glaciers are SHRINKING, not expanding.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/l ... 15,00.html

Get back to me when you know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a fucking joke.

Oh, and BTW:

Memo to the sackless, un-named mod that elected to anonymously cure LTS TRNzskis mindless response by editing my initial post:

Fuck you, you gutless Fuck.

Don’t agree with my take?

Perfect.

Debate it in open Forum, you gutless Loser . Either that, or grant me mod rights to “assist” your brain-dead takes.

we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade)

**Insert "BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!" Here**


"We predict it will warm approximately 0.3oC per decade , unless of course we're wrong, and it in fact drops 0.2oC per decade."


This is what we're supposed to surrender US Sovereignty over? Someone's guess, that includes a margin of error of 166%?

So what if the oceans rise by 0.9 meters in 100 years.

What do you mean "so what"?

"So what?"


So... it means the amount of water on the earth's surface would increase dramatically (that is the alarmists' contention, right?), which would do a couple things --

A) Dilute the high levels of pollutants in the ocean, which would improve both quality and quantity of...

B) Phytoplankton and other marine microorganisms, which are by far the major consumer of CO2... which would reduce the atmosperic CO2, and assuming said CO2 causes the warming (a dubious assumption at best), would now cause cooling, which would cause more glaciation and icecap building, which in turn would trap more CO2, which in turn would cause more cooling... which would lead to the Global Cooling Alarmists trying to make a buck, and the "screw scoience, let's act NOW" crowd having us all in a rush to revisit the Glory Days and start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible, resulting in a huge boon to Big Oil...


Sounds like certain people need to be careful what they wish for.

BSmack wrote:

Science is based on observable data. You know, like the correlation between the rise of ocean temperatures and the increase of man made carbon emissions.

[mvscal]Link?[/msvcal]

I gave you your fucking link. Obviously you're gunning for a short attention span award.

OK then, humor me --

Tell me how, exactly, these "scientists" are able to distinguish between "man made carbon emissions" and your regular, run-of-the-mill CO2, like for example the kind that elephants and volcanoes exhale?


Better come up with a good explaination, since you're about to get completely hammered for even entertaining this bit of "scientific" CRAP.


Absolute CRAP.

Dinsdale wrote: CRAP. Absolute CRAP.

Spot on.

The largest producers of methane gasses are cows.

Yes Cows.

But do cows get rants from BSmuck, Martytard & LTLtard and the rest of the Libbys?

No.

Why?

They're an inconvenient target.

And there's your inconvenent truth.

BSmack wrote:

Truman wrote:...and garnered a date tied to a post in the midst of a blazing woodpile. BTW, Loser, the Church was Science in the Middle Ages. Damn it, B, as an amateur historian, you should know better.

If you think the Church "was" science during the Middle Ages, you're even more uninformed than I previously thought. The Church was the antithesis of science then and now.

Science is based on observable data. You know, like the correlation between the rise of ocean temperatures and the increase of man made carbon emissions.

[mvscal]Link?[/msvcal]

I gave you your fucking link. Obviously you're gunning for a short attention span award.

Speaking of observable data... How 'bout that increased glaciation in Greenland and Colorado, and the thickening of the ice shelf in Antarctica?

WTF are you talking about? Greenland is LOSING ICE.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385475/

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020 ... nland.html

And the Antarctic ice shelf is dumping more ice into the water, not less.

http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/

As for Colorado, same as before. Their glaciers are SHRINKING, not expanding.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/l ... 15,00.html

Get back to me when you know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a fucking joke.

Tit for tat, Loser. BTW, kindly die in a fire while you're up:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3 ... d_ice.html

http://www.universetoday.com/2005/11/04 ... s-growing/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... -thickens/

http://www.iceagenow.com/Colorado_Glaciers_Growing.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1806.html

KC Scott wrote:The largest producers of methane gasses are cows.

Yes Cows.

But do cows get rants from BSmuck, Martytard & LTLtard and the rest of the Libbys?

No.

Why?

They're an inconvenient target.

And there's your inconvenent truth.

And anyone who's anyone knows that methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

A very simple answer on two fronts, especially æffective in these United States, where we lead the world in beef consumption by a good margin...

Is to tap the cows' flatulence as both a means of controlling a particularly nasty strain of greenhouse gas, and an aid in our current energy demands.



It's not so much that I really give a fuck, but if we're to live with excessive government bullshit programs, I'd just as soon they enact one that involves some government schmuck going around shoving pipes up cows' asses.


Now there's a reality show I might watch.

Truman wrote:Tit for tat, Loser. BTW, kindly die in a fire while you're up:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3 ... d_ice.html

http://www.universetoday.com/2005/11/04 ... s-growing/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... -thickens/

http://www.iceagenow.com/Colorado_Glaciers_Growing.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1806.html

Larouche? Are you fucking kidding me? I give you NASA and you come back with a bunch of batshits who think up is down and black is white?

Psst! The Queen of England is conspiring with the Jews to take your freedom. Wakey Wakey!

KC Scott wrote:The largest producers of methane gasses are cows.

Yes Cows. But do cows get rants from BSmuck, Martytard & LTLtard and the rest of the Libbys? No. Why? They're an inconvenient target.

And there's your inconvenent truth.

Obviously you haven't been reading PETA's press releases. Plenty of ranting about factory farming there.

BSmack wrote:

Truman wrote:Near Consensus once suggested that the world was flat and that the sun, moon, and stars rotated around the planet.

No it didn't. The Church may have thought such things. But they didn't call it "science". And anyone willing to climb high enough to see the curvature of the Earth knew full well the Church was full of shit.

Consensus ain’t science, you fucking Loser.

True enough. Science is based on observable data. You know, like the correlation between the rise of ocean temperatures and the increase of man made carbon emissions.

they had ladders that were 30,000 ft high back then? damn, who knew?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:If you think the Church "was" science during the Middle Ages, you're even more uninformed than I previously thought. The Church was the antithesis of science then and now.

You're a fucking moron. Check back in when you get a clue. Monastaries were the centers of learning in the Middle Ages.

Which explains why terms such as The Renaissance and The Age of Enlightenment were applied to the 300 or so years AFTER the Middle Ages.

None of that has to do with the modern definition of the word science. The Church rejected scientific inquiry. Galileo out front should have told you that.

BSmack wrote:None of that has to do with the modern definition of the word science. The Church rejected scientific inquiry. Galileo out front should have told you that.

there is plenty of evidence to believe that Galileo was threatened by other scientists as much as the church. basically they weren't taking too kindly to the fact he was proving them to be idiots also. the whole scientific community wasn't as tolerant as you might think.

Galileo's trouble with the Church had nothing to do with science and everything to do with his rejecting the pope's authority to run his church.

this thread is funny

Gore has received a ton of awards, and the Nobel is just another. In fact, its kinda a shitty award (Peace prize for Palestinian terrorists). Liberals didn't care.

The knee jerk reaction was from Fox News and their falaffel stroking pundits. They all freaked out over Gore getting the prize. They said the liberals cared, but I didn't see many who did. I'd say the ratio of caring is 20 to 1, conservative pill poppers having the larger number.

mv,

You're confusing observation with investigation and method. Looking out your window at the stars does not make you a scientist.

Yo babs, recognize these criminals? Notice how the young Cheney bears a scaly resemblance to the sour puss fronting your nic....just sayin'..


Anyways, what are you robotically attacking now? Critics of the anti-science legacy of the Catholic church? Nice. You'll of course provide a synopsis of the good pope's reluctance to accept the sun-centric design of our solar system as provided by Galileo, right? And the reasoning behind his reluctance? Good.

mvscal wrote:Making astronomical observations does, in fact, make you a scientist.

No, it makes you a data entry clerk. Tell me you knew?

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...the good pope's reluctance to accept the sun-centric design of our solar system as provided by Galileo, right? And the reasoning behind his reluctance? Good.

Academic jealousy and Galileo's abrasive personality were the motivating factors behind his prosecution. You will find that Academia really hasn't changed much over the years. He made quite a few enemies among the Jesuits at the Collegio Romano. A simple dispute over the nature of comets escalated into gratuitous personal vitriol. His largest mistake was to mock Urban VIII who, up until that point, had been Galileo's friend and patron.

Galileo was brilliant, but an insufferable asshole. Nor was he always right. He heaped his customary scorn on Kepler's notion that the moon caused the tides dismissing it as "useless fiction" and also rejected Kepler's theory that the orbit of planets was ellipitical rather than spherical.

This Galileo fellow sounds like an early prototype of mvscal. I’ll bet he even called the pope a dumbfuck.

Dinsdale wrote: Mining uranium takes a lot of energy.

So Nuke plants use more energy than they produce. Gotcha.

Except the scientists are beginning to believe the nitrates used to fertilize the biocrops create more greenhouse gasses than the petroleum that bio is supposed to replace...

Beginning to believe? Scientist are also beginning to believe in GW.

But how much petroleum is used building wind farms?

So Wind plants use more energy than they produce. As do Solar plants and Hydro plants. Gotcha.

Yet you're pimping technologies that would do nothing to reduce its long-term consumption...

‘Cause Nukes use more energy than they produce. Thanks for your input. Now go drink yourself to death you pickled fuck.

Yes, babs, we know of the mockery and veiled insults of Galileo, but as usual you avoid the actual question entirely. Why did the pope refuse to accept the basic tenet of a sun-centered solar system? Not because he didn't like Galileo's character, you jackass. Rather, it challenged the biblical paradigm, etc., and thus his power. In fact, the "official" if unheeded Vatican position on an earth-centered universe remained on the books into the 20th century.

Is it just me, or is EVERY single post by LTARD 2 complete bullshit? I mean ALL of his threads and posts are quickly discredited. He needs to go visit Iraq as an American citizen and agree with our enemies. His head will be cut off, posted on the internet, and I'll have a favorite bookmark.

Is it just me, or is EVERY single post by LTARD 2 complete bullshit?

Were you on the fence about Netboy Reid, also?

Ang wrote:What really amazes me is that people either seem to love or hate Al Gore, a person that I can't dredge up anything but indifference about.

Yep.

Ang wrote:I kind of liked his first book, Earth in the Balance, because he addressed the whole idea of keeping the genetic purity intact of native stands for plants that are heavily hybridized in order to keep the original species around after plant breeders whack them all up, but that's about it. And I think that someone else probably wrote that part of the book for him anyway.

OK, I was about to give you the obligatory Rack ... except, you read his book? :wink:

Ang wrote:Al needs something to do.

Ah, and there it is. Rack.

Although, like Bace pointed out, seeing the dumbfucks on the Right melt over this, is mildly entertaining. I hadn't read about this in the Tulsa World. I must have missed the brief it printed about this shit. I guess I'm not watching as much TV news as I should, for all of the "insightful" stories involving Paris Hilton, the missing pregnant chick of the week, and Al Gore.

RadioFan wrote:Although, like Bace pointed out, seeing the dumbfucks on the Right melt over this, is mildly entertaining.

Yep.

I guess I'm not watching as much TV news as I should, for all of the "insightful" stories involving Paris Hilton, the missing pregnant chick of the week, and Al Gore.

We aim to please.

Sin,

at work they recently let a really cool guy go. I loved provoking him by mentioning Hillary's name. Anyway, I had the task of cleaning up his computer for the next person, and his e-mails were full of Newsmaxx bulletins. The fun thing was a good 1/3 of them had "Hillary" in the title. Bitch ain't done anything but have fat ankles and try to toe the line, but she does enough to warrant 1/3 of Newsmaxx's bulletins.

mvscal wrote:He was given formal authorization to produce a work which was supposed to be an objective presentation of the pros and cons of the Aristotelian and Copernican theories on the subject and to include the views of the Pope. He did include the views of the Pope in a buffoonish caricature figure named "Simplicio", but never even pretended to produce a balanced or objective presentation.

Maybe that is because there is no scientific argument that can be presented to show the rest of the Universe orbits the earth. Urban was grasping at straws trying to defend a world view that could only be defended through the use of Scripture, not empirical scientific data.

Yeah, 'cept that besides Ayn Rand, no one in the past two hundred years has taken Aristotle seriously. His scientific method remains, but his philosophic basis has long been discredited...except by total jokes like Ayn Rand

Vhat iz the matter, my cuckolded hubby?...Don't you like my insane power act?...NO GREY AREA

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Yeah, 'cept that besides Ayn Rand, no one in the past two hundred years has taken Aristotle seriously.

The adults were referring the early 17th century, slappy.

Well, so what! That they were totally full of shit...and, really, what is the fake argument being forwarded by babs, and his attendant morons?...that the Catholic church was somehow tolerant, inquisitive...scientific?...

Who are you trying to bullshit?...me?...



Here, have some Faith, bitch!....

Precisely that the Church then--and since--has done whatever it could to maintain its odious power.

This includes attempting to muzzle Galileo, but his is but a famous story of a hero who more or less defied the vile contagion of Rome. It is the overall disastrous effect of the Christer cult in all its crimes and efforts that demands examination. The untold millions who have been tyrannized and tortured--the very earth itself--demand retribution from these criminals.

What you're doing defending the fucking pope is typical of your slimy manner.