R: How is it that we are debating climate science?

Started by Cannonpointer

2 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,410 05 Nov 2015, 2:50 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,718
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,409.58

Log in or register to remove this ad..

How did the argument become snarky, universal, unscientific? Who the heck decided to poll ME about it? :blush: :huh:

I can remember a time when I had never heard of global warming/climate change/fugeddabouddit. You? I wasn't an advocate. I didn't have an opinion. The very NOTION of arguing with purported or actual scientists had never even crossed my mind - never crossed my mind.

Here is MY recollection and MY "take." Correct me - tell me where I'm wrong. Memory is subjective - mine and yours as well. Let's compare notes.

1. My first exposure was through the dishonest advocacy of al gore. I watched "inconveninent truth," which was given unearned - PURCHASED - accolades by hacks.

2. I was told - by that film and by those whom it duped, that no contrary opinion would be - COULD be - tolerated.

3. I observed Wiki taken over by bullies who supressed scientific knowledge.

4. I became aware of the climate gate emails, which expressly and in clear language conspired to extinguish opposition to a purported "consensus."

5. I was told on many occasions on these debate boards that gore's hockey stick graph was the smoking gun without which climate science would fail, but because of which it was unassailable.

6. I lived to see thaat graph destroyed. I have destroyed that graph myself, simply by showing (the previously-supressed information) that the entire climate science community admits that carbon was many, many times higher in the recent past, whereas the hockey stick shows things being more like - well, a hockey stick, fellas. That graph is dead - but the religion, contrary to previous promises, lives on.

7. I have personally - and very easily - dissected the asinine 97% fib. It's based on the credulity of unwashed hicks plus a perfect and irremediable ignorance of the rules of statisticial presentation.

8. I have personally observed - and duplicated here - the IPCC resorting to the most egregious chicanery in their reportage, ESPECIALLY as regards dishonest charts and graphs.

9. Virtually all of the name calling, bullying and attempts at career destruction have come from the side which does all the cheating.

10. I still cannot figure out why anyone gives a fuck how I feel about an issue that is allegefly a question of sccience. I AM NOT A FUCKING SCIENTIST.
Log in or register to remove this ad..

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
  18,272 23 Jan 2016, 3:29 am

Sgt Bilko User avatar

Posts: 12,639
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Gender: Male
Money: 18,271.62

Reverend Al Sharpton » 22 Jan 2016 10:55 pm wrote:
RepublicanPolitician » 22 Jan 2016 10:52 pm wrote:
Damn. I'm only a sok, and even I know that CP made a total bitch of technorat.

It was what us coluhds call whuppin' the JERRY CURLS off a bitch.

Oh gee!! Two soks posting to each other!!
:die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die:
:loco: :loco: :loco: :loco: :loco: :loco: :loco: :loco:

User avatar
Posted by Reverend Al Sharpton
  809 31 Jan 2016, 4:46 pm

Posts: 239
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 808.97

Sgt Bilko » 23 Jan 2016 2:29 am wrote:
Oh gee!! Two soks posting to each other!!
:die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die: :die:
:loco: :loco: :loco: :loco: :loco: :loco: :loco: :loco:

It's a mess!


Return to Peanut Gallery

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests

Who has visited this topic