Industrial-Sized Deals TextBTS15 Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums $5 Off Fire TV Stick Grocery Shop Popular Services pivdl pivdl pivdl  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage Shop Back to School with Amazon Back to School with Amazon Outdoor Recreation STEM Toys & Games
Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 650 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 8:25:16 AM PST
Dragi Raos says:
:o)

+1

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 9:27:44 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 23, 2012 10:34:38 AM PST]

Posted on Feb 23, 2012 9:29:16 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
Oh, but when EB's brain is washed like his is, no abundance of evidence will penetrate his mind; I am sure he will come back with yet another lame excuse or twist.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 9:54:33 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "As usual, you are wrong on multiple counts:"

As usual, you don't know hat you are talking about but are still talking.

"America does not have the largest national debt in terms of percentage of GDP."

But what was SAID was that it has the largest national debt. And your attempt to dodge that fact has not worked.

"America does not have the only Anti-AGW quackery political party."

Yes. It does. As you immediately concede by changing the subject. AGAIN.

"Evidence" would have constituted demonstration that another such party exists. And as usual, you don't have any.

"And proof that to say 97% of climatologists believe that AGW is proven as "settled science" is completely dishonest - a blatant lie! "

Yes, and we're still waiting for you to come up with number one point five.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 9:57:04 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "no abundance of evidence will penetrate his mind"

Since we have thousands of pages of science and you have literally nothing, and can't come up with more than three named climatologists even when beaten with the challenge repeatedly, not to mention being unable to post two consecutive sentences without calling yourself a liar, we can safely say that you are not in a position to complain about the denial of evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 9:58:06 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 9:59:23 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 23, 2012 10:04:44 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "And Canada doesn't? And the UK's Cameron does not want to talk about AGW, why? And Gillard isn't in big trouble?"

STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT. Can you name another political party that denies anthropogenic warming or can you not? Not an individual, a PARTY.

"And even Germans are completely tired of this spiel?"

No, that's just a straightforward lie.

"No wonder you can't get a job - your lack of logic and washed brain prevents any employer in their right minds to hire. "

You're pretending that I don't have a job and you think OTHERS are unable to do logic?

It's no wonder you are incapable of dealing with science!

"Oh by the way, these days, employers use web social media listening tools to vet prospective employees, so what you say here or on facebook is likely to get back to any potential employer. "

Yes, but I'm not lying scum. Not to mention not short of a job.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 10:41:56 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 10:43:41 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 10:48:11 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 10:53:21 AM PST
A customer says:
Not merely individuals - you couldn't even show that they deny AW.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 10:53:48 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 10:54:23 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "And, yeah, get a job. "

I rather think I'll leave the sheer stupidity of thinking that a five year old CV means I do not have a job stand for itself.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 10:56:58 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 10:57:43 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "Lol, you don't know too many Germans right?"

Well, apart from my wife's entire family and all my friends from about 7 years on Überlingen, perhaps not. Bit I forget - you keep posting my CV from five years ago,so you actually KNOW that everyone can see you are confabulating.

"Oh I forgot, you can't sprechen the sprache."

No, that would be you.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 11:00:16 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "Germany Dumps Global Warming - Climate Disruption is Last Green Gasp "

In other words, you are now so desperate that you can even persuade your worthless self that discussing the problem under a different name is twin to your own denial.

"You guys cried wolf too many times and now more and more people don't believe your spiel. "

And what does a compulsive liar like yourself learn from this?

Nothing, that's what.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 11:01:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 11:04:56 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 11:07:35 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "Some 39% of those questioned for the poll said climate change was not proven to be man made."

So, still unable to name A SINGLE PARTY that denies the reality of AW, you try to change the subject to a poll about the public being wrong. And you still think that evading questions won't end in your humiliation, after all the times you've tried it.

Desperation has no frontiers, it appears.

Here are the four paragraphs from your very own link immediately following the snatch of text that you try to dodge behind when you couldn't name a party:

"But a separate international poll for BBC World Service revealed that global public concern about climate change was at a high level.

"Nearly two thirds of those polled said climate change was a "very serious" problem but concern has fallen in China and the USA

"Only 6% of the 24,000 people polled want their government to oppose a climate deal being reached in Denmark.

"The poll also shows that, in spite of the global recession, an average of 61% support their governments making investments to address climate change, even if these investments hurt the economy."

'nuff said.

Posted on Feb 23, 2012 11:08:59 AM PST
Ron Reagan says:
I have noticed that the only comments my post got was concerning extrainous issues, i.e. my comparision of the god of global warming lack of qualifications and my comment that in the 60s "climatologists" were agreed that earth was in a mini ice age.
1. In my area the weather men aka climatologists get the next days weather forecast right approxiamately 50% What is that called? -guessing I would no more believe a climatologist is a scientist than I would someone who studies black magic. When and if they are ever able to actually prove their scare claims than you can destroy our economy. By the way before man and his evil carbon producing ways was around the earth was still going through periodical climate changes, why? explain those and you will gain some respectability.

2. No one has addressed the fact that SO2 is a tremendously strong greenhouse gas and that millions of tons are produced without rhyme or reason by nature by volcanic action. Makes mans carbon contribution look like a lit match compared to a nuclear detonation. Man probably has very little practical impact on climate change

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 11:12:40 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "People with jobs (except those very wealthy like myself) don't post on Amazon non-stop on a Thursday afternoon."

That depends whether they are at work, cretin. Once again, I'd have thought even YOU could work that much out.

Now I'm going to have a chat with the nice lady at Amazon about your stalking behaviour.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 11:18:08 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
"And not a climatologist. Whereas Spencer does not deny that it is warming and Christy does not even deny anthropogenic warming, describing it as "scientifically inconceivable" that we are not influencing the climate."

Lol, both are lies.

PapaSmuref: "http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png"

LOl, EB and Joshua caught lying once again.
Spencer's UAH data shows a peaking and decline since 2007. Exactly what I said.

And the trend line in black is also very well done on the graph - it is not a straight up, statistically garbage trend line as the quacks normally fudge.

The quacking of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (based on 1998 weather) was outed since 2007.

Only way the quacks can continue to propogate their garbage is by hiding the decline - cherrypicking Connecticut and Clownwall :)

Thanks PapaSmuref!

Spencer's caveat of the trend line is that "The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2012-0-09-deg-c/

That said, 'no predictive value', it still illustrates an underlying cycle of climate cooling, warming, and cooling regardless of CO2 levels. It is an underlying oscillation of normal variation upon which CO2 levels have an influence not terribly different than zero.

======================

And Christy:

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

==========

And about Gray. Isn't climatology part of Atmospheric sciences?
Ah no! Climatequackery is part of witchcraft :)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 11:27:02 AM PST
A customer says:
Actually, even a non German-speaker could see that the dates and figures in those two passages are unrelated. Since you are not merely a non German-speaker but in fact completely innumerate, perhaps this is too much to ask. However, it bears pointing out that apart from the first two sentences the two texts are completely different. The second paragraph, which once again you were too stupid to check before posting, says the following:

"Deutschland will seine CO2-Emissionen bis 2020 um 40 Prozent senken."

Germany wants to reduce its CO2 emissions by 40% by 2020.

"Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen, seien ergänzend zum Klima- und Energiepaket der EU auf nationaler Ebene zahlreiche Gesetze und Gesetzesänderungen verabschiedet worden"

In order to reach this goal, numerous laws and legislative changes have been introduced at the national level pursuant to the EU climate and energy package.

"schreibt die Regierung in der Antwort."

Writes the government in its answer.

"Dazu zählten die im Rahmen des Energiekonzepts verabschiedeten Neufassungen des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes (EEG), des Energieeinsparungsgesetzes oder des Kraft-Wärme-Kopplungs-Gesetzes."

Among these, in the energy framework concept, number the new implementations of the Renewable Energy Law, the Energy Efficiency Law or the Combined Heat and Power Law.

"Es gebe außerdem das Integrierte Energie- und Klimaschutzprogramm (IEKP), das durch das Energiekonzept bis über das Jahr 2020 hinaus fortgeschrieben werde."

Besides this there is the integrated energy and climate-protection program, that will apply through the year 2020 through the energy concept.

As usual, not only is it obvious to someone who knows the material that you didn't even bother to check, it is completely opaque to your lying self.

That last paragraph was not from the German text, by the way.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 11:31:23 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 11:32:46 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 11:31:36 AM PST
A customer says:
Ron Reagan - - "my comment that in the 60s "climatologists" were agreed that earth was in a mini ice age."

As a couple of us said first time round, this is a straightforward invention. You were challenged for a citation. Produce it.

"What is that called? -guessing "

It's called you not knowing what climate is.

"No one has addressed the fact that SO2 is a tremendously strong greenhouse gas and that millions of tons are produced without rhyme or reason by nature by volcanic action. Makes mans carbon contribution look like a lit match compared to a nuclear detonation. Man probably has very little practical impact on climate change "

As I believe was mentioned at the time, anthropogenic emissions are 140 times those of all volcanoes in aggregate. I might add that the Huanyaputina eruption which precipitated early events in the Little Ice Age, one of the largest eruptions in historic times, is exceeded in about five years by anthropogenic emissions.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 11:34:28 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "Spencer's UAH data shows a peaking and decline since 2007. Exactly what I said."

So once again, not able to show that what you have stated is true you change the subject AND lie at the same time. Spencer does not deny that it is warming. Nor does his data show anything of the sort, the comedic and unlabelled curve that he happens to have drawn on the graph notwithstanding.He even admits himself that the curve is meaningless, as you are perfectly well aware having already been beaten with it repeatedly.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 11:34:40 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  103
Total posts:  650
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers

Search Customer Discussions