Hey Yowzer Excellent reply back to this student who was asked by a teacher this and that. I like students. At least they are trying to become know it alls but are not quite there yet. I do know quite a bit about evolution yet admit I am no expert by a long shot.
I suppose in the world of ARDY one must refuse to personally comment but is allowed to speak of what the video spoke of. But my question to you is, why didn't you stick to his video?
Nope So long as there is truth to spread, and there certainly is, based on the many scientists who think as I think, nope, no can do.
I was interested to see if you could address my questions. I was not interested to decipher through an unrelated rant. Who is Robert? And what possible relation he/she could have?
Why dont you try beating the dead horse in order to prove that your attempt will not result in the dead horse beating you, when only he latter result has been observed so far?
Climate change for scientists Were scientists telling us this, they would have my rapt attention. Here we will go into feedback science. We will see if the 41 scientists that blame humans got it right. [video=youtube;0gDErDwXqhc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc[/video]
What you call "truth" is called "ignorance" by the rest of humanity. It's not open for debate that global warming is man-made. The people most qualified to debate this issue--climate scientists--overwhelmingly interpet the data as evidence of man-made global warming. In fact, the entire theory is based on the data. Until a better theory comes along to interpret the data, this is what we got. Here's the million dollar question: If someone has a better theory to interpret the data, then why hasn't it been put out there for the scientific community to discuss? It's mighty easy to "debate" science when you do it from your own soapbox on your own terms. Your "alternate theory" would never survive scientitic scrutiny, and you know it, which is why you continue to rant from a safe place. Whenever you have non-qualified people "debating" science, you need to ask: Who stands to gain what? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that Big Oil, which spends millions of bucks promulgating this "alternate theory," stands to gain the most of anyone on either side of this "debate."
Someone seems to need these two videos. [video=youtube;fbW-aHvjOgM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM[/video] [video=youtube;PTY3FnsFZ7Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q[/video] Enjoy... Hadfields series on climate change is excellent.
I like how each and every believer in the total hoax of GW sees himself as all humanity and all scientific community, and would never see that such a vision is not only a sure sign of total ignorance, but a sure sign of mental delusion.
The only delusion is you interpreting my words thusly. It's telling that you ignore the rest of my post to zero in on this sentence.
Since you seem to be better informed than robert I ask you a simple series of questions Have scientist tested various chemical compounds and detirmined their properties via reproducable experiments? Is co2 among those tested chemical compounds Have reputable scientist idetified ghg properties of various chemicals inc,uding co2 with reproducable experiments Is there any dispute in the scientific community about the ghg properties of co2 For yur reference, here is an extensiviely detailed review of the subject by the acs---american chemical society https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
google “Argumentum ad populum”, “Bulverism”, and see if you can understand. If you can't don't give up until you see you can. The main thing do not give when you see that you are stupid. Remember every smart started from stupid. Then come back and thank me. - - - Updated - - - The answer was given to you. You could provide no objection but you set up you buddy Robert to cheat and twist.
In classic anti-science fashion, you attack the concept of scientific consensus. This entire anti-global warming BS is as absurd as the flat earth "theory." It's absolute nonsense, and there's no reasoning with you because your belief is not based on reason; rather, you twist reason to support your belief. Go hang out with the creationists and the ancient anstronaut folks, because I'm tired of wasting my time on your madness.
So you figured out that “Argumentum ad populum” is an attack on the concept of scientific consensus you believe does exist. Very good. But I have nothing to do to that. I was not the one who wrote all those articles. You fury should be directed not to me but to statements of the discipline called LOGIC.
What I gleaned from this rant above is that said poster votes Democratic party. Though 41 of the 1100 scientists do accept her view, the balance have one of two other views. A. Humans do some of the warming. I personally am in that camp. B. Humans do nothing. Though many are in that camp, not me. This has nothing at all to do with big oil. If they really wanted to make their mark, they would remain in the oil business and not get involved in solar, wind or other pet projects favored by Democrats.
Yep, it is all about politics. Democrats are bad and it says somewhere that I vote democrat, therefore I don't know physics. It is the first time I hear that I ever voted democrat, but I will leave it like it is since it is a criteria of proving/disproving physical processes for mentally handicapped who feel safe only in this or taht camp.
That's a lie. It is endlessly repeated, as Leftists are wont to do, but it remains and will always remain, a lie. Stop lying.
Thank you for the two videos. I refuse to operate like Democrats do and get angry. I won't be calling you names. I will not call you a denier. Though the videos are very interesting, and show Monckton is spreading some manure, it seems to also come from the Democrats side. Who has fact checked Al Gore? Why is it so many of his predictions are pure horse manure? Sorry horses everywhere. But the Democrats take Gore at face value. Why as Dick Rutan points out, have the models created in the 1980s and 90s turned out to be factually incorrect? Why do I watch your videos but when I present them from sources, some by Monckton but predominately by genuine genius people those get called nonsense?
I have guessed long ago you are not American and more than likely not in the USA. I would not call you a Democrat. I have not told you you don't understand physics. When you tell posters they are mentally handicapped, you quit operating on science.
Socialists stand to gain from the transfer of wealth they demand, from the U.S. and other successful capitalist economies, to third world crapholes, which dominate humanity and the United Nations, which is the principal driving force behind the fraud. University researchers don't simply "stand to gain," they have ALREADY gained many billions of dollars to do their faux "research," and will continue to reap more billions from public and private coffers. Few university professors have the courage to stand up to the fraud perpetuated by their peers, for they know that if they do, they will be blackballed, be denied tenure, not promoted, and ostracized by the greedy promoters of the fraud. You don't get it, do you? Sanctimonious "saviors of the environment," such as you, play along with this charade to make yourselves feel superior and always more intelligent than anyone else. It's liberalism/atheism at its typical, its worst.
Now the 41 suddenly became 99 percent? Actually it would smarten them up to actually study those various papers trying to understand which of the 41 put all the blame on man vs those who do not or the third group who says a bit of this can be pinned on humans. I challenge the Governments to show us what they are doing to ward off hotter temperatures, more storms and what is the status of those sea walls since they allege the coast will be swamped. They want us to know we have an emergency but the Government has no plans of any sort to do mitigation. Why do they claim storms will be worse as the evidence points in the other direction? These people are so confused that when it snows, they claim it is proof of global warming. When there is no rain,also proof. They simply claim everything points to global warming. Fine, we have global warming. Sure, we enjoy it. We will have more plant life. Plants can collect moisture from the soil and emit it to the atmosphere. We call that humidity. Warm air is needed for a great deal of the rain. Witness heavy rains where it is tropical. Far more rain than say in California. This is a cult here in the USA. They enjoy gloom and doom.
