> Futureman wrote:
>>>>>>> So what are you trying say?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am trying to say: that it was never warmer for 50,000,000
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's your burden of proof to find the dead corals from 5000-8000
>>>>>> years ago and those 1000 years ago. Don't come back until you
>>>>>> have found
>>>> your
>>>>>> missing coral fossils.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'll come back when I feel like it. I'm not a climate scientist, I
>>>> never
>>>>> claimed I was.
>>>> Your claim is irrelevent. You don't know anything about the science
>>>> and have no qualifications to even form opinions on the subject.
>>> You're right, but your reading comprehension problems seem to
>>> prevent you from understanding what I wrote. I am in fact a
>>> scientist. Not a climatologist, but I have a solid understanding of
>>> how the science game is played.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You aren't a climate scientist either, if you were, you
>>>>> would have a healthy skepticism about global warming and wouldn't
>>>>> be buying into the hype. Unless of course you were applying for
>>>>> funding,
>>>> in
>>>>> which case you would have no choice.
>>>> Neurotic skepticism is not healthy. You are insane. I know enough
>>>> science to say that prisms prove infrared. Night-vision scopes
>>>> prove it. Heat- seeking missiles proves it. Toasters and clothes
>>>> driers and hair dryers prove it.
>>> You don't know shit about science. If you did, you would be
>>> skeptical of dogma.
>>
>>
>> There's nothing to be skeptical about. In science the explanation
>> that explains all the evidence can stand until some evidence debunks
>> it.
>
> No, that's not how it works. Only those permitted to perform the
> science are in a position to provide evidence. If you don't get
> funding you can't do science and produce evidence.
There's a lot of science that was done and fully paid off before either
one of us was born. The science remaining becomes increasingly cheap and
commonly available.
You are delusional about what constitues science.
>> Your crowd cannot put up any explanation that isn't debunked in 5
>> minutes. No wonder you are "skeptical" about lots of explanations
>> which fall in 5 minutes.
>
> Who exactly is my "crowd"?
The scum you often chat amicably with and the scum you quote to support
your bogosity.
>> Only problem is there is an explanation that has stood and evolved
>> for 150 years. You can't debunk it.
>
> What are you talking about?
Sorry. I find explaining basic facts to morons unfulfilling. Ask google
for tutors for hire in your areas of deficiency.
>> The explanation accepts all the modern discoveries.
>
> See above.
>>
>> You are not a working scientist -- you are a stinking pile of shit.
>
> I have about 10 peer reviewed papers and abstracts in highly respected
> journals. How many do you have?
>> What you don't do is be skeptical about explanations that fall in
>> five minutes.
>
> You seem to have a problem expressing yourself, you can get help for
> that these days.
>
>>
>> You are the one with the dogma.
>
> From
dictionary.com:
>
> dog·ma /ˈdɔgmə, ˈdɒg-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
> Pronunciation[dawg-muh, dog-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> Pronunciation –noun, plural -mas, -ma·ta /-mətə/
> Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-muh-tuh] Pronunciation
> Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. 1. a system of principles or tenets,
> as of a church. 2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively
> laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
> 3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
> 4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.
>
>>
>> You have no coherent explanation which fits the evidence, but you
>> have a dogma that known crooks are your best pals. You are a fraud.
>
> Is English your second language, because if it is, I may cut you some
> slack, if not I will consider you mildly retarded.
>
>>
>> Infrared lamps keep french fries hot at McDonalds. You can't debunk
>> that because anybody reading this can go check it out.
>>
>> Infrared sensors track flying objects in heat-seeking missiles and
>> anybody here can tune in the TV news to watch helicopters in Baghdad
>> drop flares as decoys to keep from being hit by a heat-seeker. You
>> can't debunk that.
>>
>> Anybody here can click this link and go look at satellite pictures
>> taken with infrared sensors:
>>
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/
>>
>> You can't debunk that.
>
> I thought the Bush Govt. was suppressing this information. It shows
> weather systems, so what?
Sorry. I find explaining basic facts to morons unfulfilling. Ask google
for tutors for hire in your areas of deficiency.
>> Plans for making CO2 lasers are all over the internet. You can't
>> debunk that.
>>
>> On and on and on the evidence keeps kicking the shit out of you
>> Exxon- Republican hired liars.
>
> I can't vote in the US, but if I could, I sure as hell wouldn't vote
> Republican. I work at a top US University not Exxon.
>>
>> You can't make a skeptic out of somebody that has reviewed the
>> evidence and there's plenty of people that have. The numbers increase
>> all the time.
>
> And a million monkeys with a million typewriters and an infinite
> amount of time will eventually produce the entire works of William
> Shakespeare.
>
>>
>> There's no need to be neurotically skeptical, psychotically
>> skeptical.
> Also from
dictionary.com
> skep·ti·cal /ˈskɛptɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
> Pronunciation[skep-ti-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –adjective
> 1. inclined to skepticism; having doubt: a skeptical young woman.
> 2. showing doubt: a skeptical smile.
> 3. denying or questioning the tenets of a religion: a skeptical
> approach to the nature of miracles.
> 4. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to Skeptics or
> Skepticism.
>
>>
>> The truth is bad enough, but the Hell on Earth of not dealing with it
>> is far worse. Being skeptical about facts proved by everyday
>> experience is insanity. YOU ARE INSANE.
>
> No, a human cause of global warming has yet to be proved, it is still
> highly theoretical. Right now, it is a popular opinion by person's
> unqualified to have an opinion such as yourself.
I am qualified to have opinions about who I will trust. In medicine that
usually is the doctor and sometimes the nurse. In prescriptions that
would be the pharmicist.
I trust my employees specialists to do the job they are trained for in
most cases.
We as a society have hired specially trained and skilled persons to watch
for us on the frontiers for dangers and threats that they need to
appraise us of in an early and timely fashion. Some of those highly
skilled and trained employees have produced reports of threats which have
been abundantly examined by a secondary tier of specialy trained and
highly skilled employees. Because of the implications of the particular
threat additional staff in large numbers have been set to the tasks of
reviewing and verifying every single essential fact of the matter.
They were hired in the first place because they were capable and
trustworthy. There have been multiple redundant verifications of all the
essential facts.
I presonally have reviewed the most significant facts and verified them
myself to my own satisfaction.
I have an opinion based on this process, and I am entitled to have this
opinion whether you wish me to or not.
I have a much greater certainty of the facts of Global Warming than I do
about a poster identifying himself as Rev Turd Fredericks.
>> To the extent that you lack the science skills to follow all the
>> science, than you have to accept it that you don't have what it takes
>> to even form an opinion on the matter. Accept your limitations. You
>> don't have any opinion because you lack what it takes to have an
>> opinion.
>
> Heh. And what do you do for a living? Let me guess, you work at the
> quickie mart with Vendicar Decarian.
I live for a living. Doesn't everyone? As I recall Albert Einstein was a
clerk at a government office in Switzerland when he formulated his best
ideas.
A person's employment is not a signifier of their mental comprehension.
Your tactic is well known. Annoy, harass, insult. Drive away people in
anger and frustration.
The facts of Global warming have been explained often enough in so many
different ways that clerks at Quickie Mart can understand it, or at least
understand that ttheir employees are doing the science job they were
hired to do.
>> You don't have arguments -- what you have is harassment of the
>> designated Emergency Response Team hired by society to be our early
>> warning system and appraise us of the nature and risks of dangers. If
>> you were harassing firefighters trying to save lives and property at
>> the scene of a blaze I would hate you no less than I hate you for
>> harassing the hired employees specially trained and skilled we
>> created to be our watchdog for this kind of emergency.
>
> You keep calling me insane, this is a highly kookified rant if you ask
> me, but I see you aren't asking, you're foaming.
No. I'm not asking. I'm telling.
It takes insanity to kill the planet and you are doing it for which I
hate you.
>> That you smear them and foul them with your innuendo makes you an
>> object of hatred. They have earned a right to be respected by going
>> through the lengthy and full educational process which you were too
>> lazy to complete or too incompetent to pass. They have earned basic
>> respect, and you have thrown shit at them because you are insane.
>
> Nice projection dumbass. I am a scientist and you are a quickie mart
> employee.
Josef Mengele called himself a scientist too. You are that kind, if any,
and I don't see any science from you to trust your brazen claim that you
are employed in science.
>> You have been observed creating a trail of archived posts generating
>> unfounded and unsubstantiated suspicions, leaving your slime trail of
>> a treacherous leech to suck the gullible blood of people who don't
>> themselves know enough to recognize your venomous poison memes.
>>
>
> Like yourself perhaps?
The archive trail followed to it's end shows that I give initial benefit
of the doubt first, then let the attacker draw first blood. That's what
any archive search of this exchange would produce.
You are attacking my world. I am confronting you about it and informing
you that there are ever higher prices to pay for each escalation of
attack on your part. I understand that I am dealing with the insane and
the insane are unpredictibly dangerous, but I have studied your kind of
insanity in the literature. You are not exactly on the scale of Hannible
Lector.
