Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
11-19-2008, 11:38 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-20-2008, 12:00 AM by JazzRoc.)
#1
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Quote:not evil just wrong

Nothing so simple... read: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008...o_a_sceptic.php

And watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oCYW4ScUnw

Seeya next month! :)
Reply
11-20-2008, 03:59 PM,
#2
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Quote:BULL lol watch the trailer, you obviously didnt. my head is not overtaken or jarred by the hysteria!
The BLOATWARE locked up after a few seconds, after repeated attempts to use it. The difference between us seems to be that I tried and you didn't.

I'd like to ask you why you consider the findings of the NAS, the AAAS, the USCAP are "hysteria" (after all, they are merely thousands of professional scientists and Nobel Laureates), while you hold the fund of commonsense?
Reply
11-20-2008, 04:35 PM,
#3
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Quote:
Quote:BULL lol watch the trailer, you obviously didnt. my head is not overtaken or jarred by the hysteria!
The BLOATWARE locked up after a few seconds, after repeated attempts to use it. The difference between us seems to be that I tried and you didn't.

I'd like to ask you why you consider the findings of the NAS, the AAAS, the USCAP are "hysteria" (after all, they are merely thousands of professional scientists and Nobel Laureates), while you hold the fund of commonsense?

That's curious - I recall reading you on Outlaw saying you didn't suscribe to theories of Global Warming.. :eyebrow::eyebrow::eyebrow:
Reply
11-20-2008, 09:03 PM,
#4
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Quote:you didn't suscribe to theories of Global Warming
I despised Gore. I listened to the other camp, hated them too, studied up, and CHANGED MY MIND. (I also remembered that CO2 had me worried since the sixties. What had confused me was the Global Cooling due to particulates and the hidden (unknown) CO2 sink that still exists, and still remains unknown.)

Quote:rubbish.. seems to me like you're trying to scare people.
You're already out of the equation. You haven't the decency to debate. Answer my questions or pipe down.
Reply
11-20-2008, 09:49 PM,
#5
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
I posted this resource up roughly a year ago, I assume its updated. Anyway, here's some light reading:

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technol...?showtopic=2050
I'm lumping together various information concerning law (the illusion of control through words) here: http://honesty.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=59
Reply
11-21-2008, 02:16 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-21-2008, 02:52 AM by ---.)
#6
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Quote:
Quote:you didn't suscribe to theories of Global Warming
I despised Gore. I listened to the other camp, hated them too, studied up, and CHANGED MY MIND. (I also remembered that CO2 had me worried since the sixties. What had confused me was the Global Cooling due to particulates and the hidden (unknown) CO2 sink that still exists, and still remains unknown.)

Quote:rubbish.. seems to me like you're trying to scare people.
You're already out of the equation. You haven't the decency to debate. Answer my questions or pipe down.

'mug with no handle' LOL

@JR it's, of course, fair enough for someone to change their mind, if that's what your saying happened - but my point is that BEFORE you, as you say.'changed my mind', you were purporting Global Warming to be a collection of false modelling stats,bad data and untenable propositions WITH THE SAME COMPLETE UNYIELDING assuredness that you were, without a doubt, completely and utterly right.

It appears to me that you adopt the very same manner in ALL subjects that you engage - I merely point out an example where you, in retrospect, found yourself to be wrong (according to your new position on the topic of Global Warming).

I'm considering the oddity of how the opinions you previously held, or much the same, are now the ones you are now rather boisterously calling out as ill-researched and ill-informed bullshit - nominally in a tone that would never suggest that you yourself were toting the very same line ( in the very same manner as described) only a few months ago..

Does this not strike you as perhaps just a trifle incongruous or dissonant?

It is not so much the 'change in mind' that I find askance but rather why and how you seem to be hammering home this ( newly-adopted) position like it should be blindingly obvious to anyone who has a brain ergo giving the implicit appearance that it is a long held opinion of yours.

This is the manner you carry with all topics you engage in - the ' I can't possibly be wrong ' approach, as said, also exactly the manner you used whilst claiming Global Warming' was a myth yet here we have proof positive that, by your own admission, you can be glaringly incorrect in information you tout as fact..I'm essentially repeating myself here,ah well..

Perhaps, you should tone down the ' I am definitely right!!! ' brusque manner of your posts - as obviously sometimes you aren't (see above) and there are some impressionable people out there as you keep pointing out yourself in regards to 'chemtrails'

LOL

that 'sink' will be sourced in the ocean - potentially linked to algae IMU*O (*uninformed)
Reply
11-27-2008, 06:40 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-27-2008, 07:18 PM by JazzRoc.)
#7
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
I recall reading you on Outlaw saying you didn't suscribe to theories of Global Warming
That's more or less what I said.
@JR it's, of course, fair enough for someone to change their mind, if that's what your saying happened - but my point is that BEFORE you, as you say.'changed my mind', you were purporting Global Warming to be a collection of false modelling stats,bad data and untenable propositions WITH THE SAME COMPLETE UNYIELDING assuredness that you were, without a doubt, completely and utterly right.
You're making this up. Amusing, but time-wasting!
It appears to me that you adopt the very same manner in ALL subjects that you engage - I merely point out an example where you, in retrospect, found yourself to be wrong (according to your new position on the topic of Global Warming).
Nobody told me I was wrong. I slowly remade my mind up.
I'm considering the oddity of how the opinions you previously held, or much the same, are now the ones you are now rather boisterously calling out as ill-researched and ill-informed bullshit - nominally in a tone that would never suggest that you yourself were toting the very same line (in the very same manner as described) only a few months ago.. Does this not strike you as perhaps just a trifle incongruous or dissonant?
Explain what you mean. As far as I know I haven't expressed any opinions on Outlaw or here...
It is not so much the 'change in mind' that I find askance but rather why and how you seem to be hammering home this (newly-adopted) position like it should be blindingly obvious to anyone who has a brain ergo giving the implicit appearance that it is a long held opinion of yours.
"Nothing so simple... read and watch." Doesn't seem strong to me.
This is the manner you carry with all topics you engage in - the ' I can't possibly be wrong ' approach, as said, also exactly the manner you used whilst claiming Global Warming' was a myth yet here we have proof positive that, by your own admission, you can be glaringly incorrect in information you tout as fact..I'm essentially repeating myself here,ah well.. Perhaps, you should tone down the 'I am definitely right!' brusque manner of your posts - as obviously sometimes you aren't (see above) and there are some impressionable people out there as you keep pointing out yourself in regards to 'chemtrails'.
It's good to have an imagination that works overtime. Perhaps you could direct it in a more useful direction than trying to poke a snake.
that 'sink' will be sourced in the ocean - potentially linked to algae IMU*O (*uninformed)
It seems that that's the only possibility. In which case it might be gone overnight, with a rise in temperature. That carbon sink will then be a further tipping point as it dumps.

Celltech Gasclock: Who do you think you are chatting to ? Cant be me. Already out of the equation eh ???? Ok mister !
when you decide to come back to earth and get down from where ever it is you think you are
maybe just maybe I might consider having a debate, but for now your as useful and a mug with no handle to me.


(REPEATED - and non-rhetorical) : I ask you why you consider the findings of the NAS, the AAAS, the USCAP are "hysteria" (after all, they are merely thousands of professional scientists and Nobel Laureates), while you hold the fund of commonsense?
Reply
11-27-2008, 09:35 PM,
#8
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Quote:Explain what you mean. As far as I know I haven't expressed any opinions on Outlaw or here...

not so. you were quite unambiguous, on Outlaw, in expressing your agreement that Global warming was a fabrication of available data.

It illustrates a complete u-turn in opinion to what you now espouse.

It's a concern considering the boarish nature in which you shout down anyone who evinces a belief in chemtrails. ie. as was the case with global warming, potentially you are not right even though you are convinced otherwise.
Reply
11-28-2008, 02:48 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-28-2008, 02:48 AM by JazzRoc.)
#9
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Quote:It illustrates a complete u-turn in opinion to what you now espouse.
Well, you know, it isn't impossible for people to change their mind. Believe you me, I do do it on a daily basis.
Quote:It's a concern considering the boarish nature in which you shout down anyone who evinces a belief in chemtrails. ie. as was the case with global warming, potentially you are not right even though you are convinced otherwise.
That makes even me believe it. Perhaps you'd like to quote to me an instance where you are sure this has happened?

In the meanwhile ole' gaslamp hasn't managed even a single decent reply. Perhaps you'd like to ask HIM why?
Reply
11-28-2008, 02:58 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-28-2008, 03:01 AM by ---.)
#10
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
also you're stating a reason to certain anomalous cloud formations - as if it were scientific FACT when in reality it is only a THEORY at this time forwarded to explain the anomalies..when nobody actually KNOWS the reason.

ie saying:

it IS because..

is a whole lot different to saying

is is BELIEVED to be because of..



Because you happen to subscribe a theory doesn't give carte blanche to present it as accepted fact.

Come on JR, Do you really want me to trawl around outlaw looking posts to validate that you said you didn't believe in global warming? You know you stated as such and so do I.

It's not a problem to change your mind - it's the strident conviction that you present only facts that you adopt in all your posts when it is not the case and giving an implicit appearance of having long held an opinion when in actuality you had a diametrically opposed one only a couple of months prior which is askance here.
Reply
11-28-2008, 03:51 AM,
#11
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Quote:also you're stating a reason to certain anomalous cloud formations - as if it were scientific FACT when in reality it is only a THEORY at this time forwarded to explain the anomalies..when nobody actually KNOWS the reason.
I'm sorry, Nik, but I really don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you'd like to clarify this.....

Quote:ie saying: "it IS because.." is a whole lot different to saying: "it is BELIEVED to be because of..". Because you happen to subscribe a theory doesn't give you carte blanche to present it as accepted fact. Come on JR, Do you really want me to trawl around outlaw looking posts to validate that you said you didn't believe in global warming? You know you stated as such and so do I. It's not a problem to change your mind - it's the strident conviction that you present only facts that you adopt in all your posts when it is not the case and giving an implicit appearance of having long held an opinion when in actuality you had a diametrically opposed one only a couple of months prior which is askance here.
If you are quoting me when I am referring to atmospheric science, especially as when I am concerned with "chemtrails", I have a "high" confidence, and can speak with considerable assurance. I am not talking about my belief, I'm trying to convey current scientific understanding.

Any chemtrailer "bastard" is ALWAYS talking absolute bollocks, and without any doubt in my mind whatsoever, if I hear a statement from some such C**T, I can confidently hunt in the opposite direction, and find the truth. There has NEVER been any case otherwise, AND THERE NEVER WILL BE. If you are a "chemtrailer", then so much the worse for you: you ARE an idiot.

Global Warming is a far more serious business. It is truly the most complex problem that has ever faced Mankind. It isn't a joke, which severely (and TOTALLY) distinguishes it from the topic we are covering here.

It can easily kill every human being on the planet, WITHOUT killing almost anything else. And it IS going to happen. (Unless...............)

Frankly, "chemtrails" is not a subject I am any more interested in. (For me, that is a serious statement.)

Have a chat with Gaslamp, will you? Or don't. Fuck it, why should I bother?
Reply
11-28-2008, 04:19 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-28-2008, 04:34 AM by ---.)
#12
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
I never said fuck all about chemtrails - because I wasn't referring to them

way to go calling me an idiot, regardless of whether you mask it with a cursory 'if' or not.

I was referring to the clouds which collapse in on themselves - you stated IT IS because of ice crystals falling in and thereby creating a recursive pattern.

I did some reading into it - it is only a proposed theory - no-one at this time actually KNOWS what is happening there, yet you presented it as if it was FACT. This is what irks me and combining with your dramatic shift from one camp to another in regards to global warming as if you've been renting a camp space there for time innumerable

I think you need to approach debates with a bit more humility but I think you've already begun to pick up on that
Reply
11-29-2008, 12:40 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-29-2008, 12:43 AM by JazzRoc.)
#13
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Quote:I did some reading into it - it is only a proposed theory - no-one at this time actually KNOWS what is happening there, yet you presented it as if it was FACT. This is what irks me and combining with your dramatic shift from one camp to another in regards to global warming as if you've been renting a camp space there for time innumerable.
I've watched it happen many times. It normally happens as the Sun is departing the scene and temperatures drop. When they do, then the relative humidity rises, and these conditions are precipitated. The increasing size of the ice crystals speeds their fall, and they entrain air. There isn't any other sensible way of explaining what one observes which involves no additional facts. If one has a belief system and hypothesizes additional inputs, such as HAARP, then I imagine one can come up with all sorts of fancy scenarios (check out DBOOTSTHEDIVA for tall stories), but personally I prefer Ockam and the "minimal" approach. You may treat me as some lay person with a belief system if you wish, but I'm answering you as a scientist with experience in this field.
Quote:I think you need to approach debates with a bit more humility but I think you've already begun to pick up on that.
You may think what you wish (you do, and it's all very exciting), but I'm merely trying to give you the benefit of my experience and judgment which has been hard earned over forty years.
What I understand about debates is that one asks and answers questions politely without bringing preconceptions to the table. So far this debate is entirely one-sided, and has yet to cover the topic in question. Or even answer the first question that was asked... so perhaps the "humility" issue is short of a mirror or two... can you see this?
Reply
11-30-2008, 08:35 PM,
#14
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Jazz i agree with alot of your statements. You do have some good points. however you may want to look into putting this data across in a more respectful manner. you have stated that the ppl on this forum are children with little to no experience of the subjects they contest. Heres a fact for you. Most of us are quite well educated, have kids, jobs, life experiences or our own. Not just nutty kids with an axe to grind against the powers that be.

If you change your mind on Global warming, fine. I didn't expect you to when I was debating you. My (and other's) main problem with you is that you constantly belittle the posters on this forum. Sensible debate requires SOME modicum of respect to your opponent. Let a young man give you some advice. explain your position, make it factual and keep off the personal insults.
Reply
12-01-2008, 01:27 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-01-2008, 01:30 AM by JazzRoc.)
#15
Cop a load of this Envirofascists....
Quote:Jazz i agree with a lot of your statements. You do have some good points. however you may want to look into putting this data across in a more respectful manner. you have stated that the ppl on this forum are children with little to no experience of the subjects they contest. Heres a fact for you. Most of us are quite well educated, have kids, jobs, life experiences or our own. Not just nutty kids with an axe to grind against the powers that be. If you change your mind on Global warming, fine. I didn't expect you to when I was debating you. My (and other's) main problem with you is that you constantly belittle the posters on this forum. Sensible debate requires SOME modicum of respect to your opponent. Let a young man give you some advice. explain your position, make it factual and keep off the personal insults.
Without doing a blow-by-blow account of what has happened so far, let me say I have NO idea of what age anyone is, nor their life experiences, etc. I merely deal in as brief a manner as possible (Occam again) with the logic of the discussion. That isn't to say I'm not so unsophisticated as to be unable to detect the origin of some expressions I meet. Again, for brevity, I try to cut to the chase. So don't misinterpret brevity for curtness.
Now name me a personal insult.
And what is the subject of this thread?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)