General Climate Discussion

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Hortlund
you lying sack of s hit.

just to show everyone just what a piece of dishonest scum you are.

 Isnt it sad lasz, to have to lie in every single f ucking post to try to build an argument?

Eat that you lying sack of s hit.

There is some warming going on here. As a matter of fact, a total melt down.
At least he is good for showing what the "Chicken Little For Lunch Bunch" mindset is.

But...but ..but......

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Jackal1
There is some warming going on here. As a matter of fact, a total melt down.
At least he is good for showing what the "Chicken Little For Lunch Bunch" mindset is.

And this post of yours would be different how exactly? An ad hom is an ad hom, regardless of the exact wordings of said ad hom you know.

But hey, at least I can present some real arguments inbetween my outbursts of frustration that comes from trying to argue facts with morons lacking the mental capacity required to understand said facts...

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Hortlund
But hey, at least I can present some real arguments inbetween my outbursts of frustration that comes from trying to argue facts with morons lacking the mental capacity required to understand said facts...

Well, so far, I have seen no facts from you other than of someone who has no business getting involved in a discussion if they can`t control their tantrums.
Pretty well missed the boat all the way around IMO.

By page 2 you had pretty well blown a fuse with.........................

they all have scientific qualifications you lying sack of s hit.

You did not take the time to understand that the quote was from the very article listed on the first page, not me.
You have pretty well went into meltdown and gone off on some mystical journey since then as shown above.
If you have something to say about GW, say it after you cool down and can get a grip in exactly what you are not comprehending.

[Neubob]

Does any of this have any bearing on my ability get a car with a high-performance v8 or v12?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Well, so far, I have seen no facts from you other than of someone who has no business getting involved in a discussion if they can`t control their tantrums.
Pretty well missed the boat all the way around IMO.

I see. And the post where I went over the peer-reviewed articles and showed just how massive the consensus is in the scientific community about global warming?

Let me guess, you just skipped right over those pesky facts and chose to pretend they dont exist? Its not like thats an uncommon tactic among the anti-environment crowd...heck, its pretty much the only tactic you guys have.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Neubob
Does any of this have any bearing on my ability get a car with a high-performance v8 or v12?

Yeah, when oil prices hit $100/barrel and above, you'll wish you had bought something else. Other than that...nope.

[Neubob]

The Koenigsegg CCX actually has higher output when burning vegetable oil, according to the good people at Top Gear. Over 900HP.

A guy can dream, right?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Neubob
Does any of this have any bearing on my ability get a car with a high-performance v8 or v12?

Build it and they will come.
Light em if you got em.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Hortlund
my outbursts of frustration that comes from trying to argue facts with morons lacking the mental capacity required to understand said facts...

bork bork

[NoBaddy]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Nor should a consensus among the scientific community be taken as an indication that the premise is incorrect...which seems to be what you are implying.

And there was no scientific method back in the "earth is flat"-days. So I suppose you and lasz must long for those days. Burn the heretics eh?

The consensus is that you are incorrect about what I was implying . Perhaps I should have said that consensus doesn't mean that the subject in question is correct or incorrect, only that a group agrees that it is correct. You made a judgment on me based on inaccurate data. Then, you compound your error with your following statement.

In point of fact, I view "nature" as a chaotic system and find it arrogant in the extreme that people can look at a system so large and complex and then tell me they can predict what will happen with it 100 years in the future. Heck, they can't even accurately forecast what will happen tomorrow.

As for Lazs and I longing for "those days", it would appear that you are the one longing for the dark ages to return. The view that you support would have us headed back to the horse and buggy days. I'm quite sure you could find employment shoveling meadow muffins, you've gotten enough experience here.

[NoBaddy]

Originally posted by Hortlund

But hey, at least I can present some real arguments inbetween my outbursts of frustration that comes from trying to argue facts with morons lacking the mental capacity required to understand said facts...

Theory and conjecture don't equal facts. That is what has been presented here and you haven't tried to "argue" anything. You have attempted to demand recognition of these theories as fact and resorted to insulting and demeaning anyone with the audacity to question you or them.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by NoBaddy
Theory and conjecture don't equal facts. That is what has been presented here and you haven't tried to "argue" anything.

Dear God what has happened to the US educational system?

Is this a fact?
In the 1993-2007 period 32 of 1456 published peer-reviewed papers disagreed with the global warming consensus.

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Dear God what has happened to the US educational system?

Is this a fact?
In the 1993-2007 period 32 of 1456 published peer-reviewed papers disagreed with the global warming consensus.

It may be fact but that doesnt make it right.  As long as even one disagrees and can show a reasonable explaination for the disagreement then there is always room for doubt

[lazs2]

I guess that I have to make it even simpler.

If...  for 4 years...  100 people believe that the world is flat.   That is a consensus.


If..  for the next for years...  6% continue to believe the world is flat and 6% decide that it is for certain not flat... and...  48% change their mind and say that they now don't know if it is flat or not...

It means that the flat earth'ers  have lost ground.

hortlund is either stupid or dishonest...

lazs

[AKH]

Talk about reading between the lines...

Stating that the neutrals have changed their minds or are undecided is a gross assumption.  Neutral simply means that those papers made no explicit or implicit statements of endorsement or rejection.