| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5 |
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
When sharing an article or study, it doesn't mean the poster agrees with everything the article or author has ever stated in their life and that every
person quoted and everything they ever said is affirmed as my own, in fact I point out studies because they include sources that may be evaluated in
support or denial of the topic we are discussing, instead of using phrases when you disagree like the "he is a kook" which has no substance nor
weight, if you disagree with a study, published paper, or it's contributors, or author or the original poster, state why and find sources to back-up
your view to reference.
I am not sure when in the history of thought did identifying source mean you agree with everything the authors of contributors ever said? It seems
like a recent phenomenon to ascribe every action of one individual to another person, which is absurd.
For example, I appreciate Benjamin Franklin, Issac Newton, and Pythagorus but I don't agree with everything they ever said or did, I don't agree at
all but that doesn't stop me from occasionally referencing their work I do agree with.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by gnukid  | In regard to Obama's evolution of thought, finally, which seems appropriate here for his fans, it appears he has come full circle, revealing that he
believes it is failure of the democratic to subscribe to identity politics, and that people should “engage with people not only who look different
but who hold different views.” “And you can’t do this if you just out of hand disregard what your opponents have to say from the start.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-critique-of-identity-politics... |
That's not the point gnukid. The point is you lied. Your statement wasn't 'supported by 97% of scientist'. It was an outright lie, an indefensible
lie. And if you lied about that your credibility about anything else is shot in my opinion.
I couldn't care less about 'Obamas evolution'.
|
|
|
lewmt
Junior Nomad
Posts: 79
Registered: 4-12-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
"And if you lied about that your credibility about anything else is shot in my opinion."
You are obviously seeking any scrap to condemn. Lie or opinion?
Funny how the true believers get as riled up as a tent revival of southern baptists if you question their piety on "climate science". You all sound
like someone just yelled praise the devil in an awkward moment of silence under the tent.
Some appreciate & comprehend your points gnukid, others will forever be blinded by their faith
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | When sharing an article or study, it doesn't mean the poster agrees with everything the article or author has ever stated in their life and that every
person quoted and everything they ever said is affirmed as my own, in fact I point out studies because they include sources that may be evaluated in
support or denial of the topic we are discussing, instead of using phrases when you disagree like the "he is a kook" which has no substance nor
weight, if you disagree with a study, published paper, or it's contributors, or author or the original poster, state why and find sources to back-up
your view to reference.
I am not sure when in the history of thought did identifying source mean you agree with everything the authors of contributors ever said? It seems
like a recent phenomenon to ascribe every action of one individual to another person, which is absurd.
For example, I appreciate Benjamin Franklin, Issac Newton, and Pythagorus but I don't agree with everything they ever said or did, I don't agree at
all but that doesn't stop me from occasionally referencing their work I do agree with.
|
Regarding Issac Newton, he once said, " “If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants,” may serve as a pithy reminder
that even the most famous scientists depended on their forebears."
Nobody is asking you Gnukid, to agree with everything of the writer or scientist your quoting, but we want to see where you are getting your
information from, and if it involves global warming, we want to see who is funding the person you're quoting, and where they are getting their
information from.
If you Gnukid, are standing on the shoulders of some crank or hired gun who is being paid to confuse the issue, or to muddy the waters, about
global warming, I for one will call you on it.
For example, Alex Jones, and his "Infowar" is very big global warming, denier, site, but the fact is Alex Jones, is a crazy loon, with a large fan
base that is as crazy as he is. So if anybody then starts quoting Alex Jones, it will reflect badly on them, except of course for Alex Jones, fans.
[Edited on 7-26-2018 by JoeJustJoe]
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 999
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
so you get your science on climate change from some guy you only know by name on the internet?
where do you go o brain surgery?
The guy behind the counter at 7-11?
If you want to question the science done on climate change - and there is an overwhelming amount - quit cherry picking some minute bits of data,
taking it out of context, and then believing that it competely disproves the massive amounts of well documented well collected well analyzed data.
I bet you were one of the "18 years" schmucks who repeately spout that "data" without having any idea where that info came from, and what it really
means - and why the "18 years" was chosen specifically by partisan hacks looking for a life raft in an ocean of data that completely drowns out their
beliefs.
Climate deniers are exactly like the Bigfoot believers I have dealt with on numerous occassions. They hold in their hand the holy grail - some hair
or crap or spit. simple science DNA tests prove it wrong - and of course that immediately leads to them attacking me , my methods, the science,
etc, and I'm part of the conspiracy.
You want to be taken seriously as a denier - get some data, demonstrate your expertise and understanding, be able to go study by study and
specifically show where they went wrong, why their data are wrong, and provide some counter science - not spouting internet blog posts - do a
little research, do a little literature review, inform yourself!
or - go take your car to your plumber to be fixed, and have your taxes done by the 12 year old at the corner lemonade stand - both of them
certainly have an equivelent knowledge of those subjects as compared to your denier gurus knowledge and understanding of climate science!
| Quote: Originally posted by lewmt | "And if you lied about that your credibility about anything else is shot in my opinion."
You are obviously seeking any scrap to condemn. Lie or opinion?
Funny how the true believers get as riled up as a tent revival of southern baptists if you question their piety on "climate science". You all sound
like someone just yelled praise the devil in an awkward moment of silence under the tent.
Some appreciate & comprehend your points gnukid, others will forever be blinded by their faith |
[Edited on 7-26-2018 by caj13]
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by lewmt | "And if you lied about that your credibility about anything else is shot in my opinion."
You are obviously seeking any scrap to condemn. Lie or opinion?
Funny how the true believers get as riled up as a tent revival of southern baptists if you question their piety on "climate science". You all sound
like someone just yelled praise the devil in an awkward moment of silence under the tent.
Some appreciate & comprehend your points gnukid, others will forever be blinded by their faith |
Same can be said of the deniers... you have obviously bonded.
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 999
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Deniers are a "religion" based on faith and belief.
Science is based on proveable fact, expermentation, observation data and verification.
Clearly Lewmt and others recognize the difference, and recognize the power of science, and the failability of belief based dogma.
so they spend inordinant amounts of energy trying to make their "religion" a self proclaimed science,while trying to convince others that science is
in fact the religion!
Ironic, isn't it!
| Quote: Originally posted by rts551 | | Quote: Originally posted by lewmt | "And if you lied about that your credibility about anything else is shot in my opinion."
You are obviously seeking any scrap to condemn. Lie or opinion?
Funny how the true believers get as riled up as a tent revival of southern baptists if you question their piety on "climate science". You all sound
like someone just yelled praise the devil in an awkward moment of silence under the tent.
Some appreciate & comprehend your points gnukid, others will forever be blinded by their faith |
Same can be said of the deniers... you have obviously bonded. |
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6943
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Putting the climate change issue aside, obtaining and burning fossil fuels pollutes the land, sea, and air and is not sustainable. Clearly, the more
energy derived from renewable, non-fossil fuel sources, the better off we'll be. The sooner the better. That in itself is reason enough to strive to
lessen the burning of fossil fuels.
[Edited on 7-26-2018 by SFandH]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Great Dialogue - Some Questions
Where does oil come from?
Is oil CO2?
Is oil abiotic or biotic or both? Meaning does it only come from fossils or all organic material or from rocks too?
Was oil created at one time and is no longer produced?
Is oil constantly being produced by the earth's processes?
Is there more oil or less today than 500,000 years ago?
If oil is being constantly produced what will happen is we stop converting it and it begins to pool up and become an excess at the surface of earth?
When we convert oil to energy and output CO2, does CO2 become oil again at some point?
What is sustainable energy?
Does solar/wind electricity have a carbon footprint?
What are signs of a shortage of CO2? What would happen if CO2 PPM was reduced by 50% or 100%?
[Edited on 7-26-2018 by gnukid]
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 999
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
excellent questions:
All of which have been answered multiple times.
so how about you do some research, come up with the answers,
and post them here - ALONG WITH THE CITATIONS (source material)
FOR THE ANSWERS!
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | Great Dialogue - Some Questions
Where does oil come from?
Is oil CO2?
Is oil abiotic or biotic or both? Meaning does it only come from fossils or all organic material or from rocks too?
Was oil created at one time and is no longer produced?
Is oil constantly being produced by the earth's processes?
Is there more oil or less today than 500,000 years ago?
If oil is being constantly produced what will happen is we stop converting it and it begins to pool up and become an excess at the surface of earth?
When we convert oil to energy and output CO2, does CO2 become oil again at some point?
What is sustainable energy?
Does solar/wind electricity have a carbon footprint?
What are signs of a shortage of CO2? What would happen if CO2 PPM was reduced by 50% or 100%?
[Edited on 7-26-2018 by gnukid] |
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Although fossil fuels are continually being formed via natural processes, they are generally considered to be non-renewable resources because they
take millions of years to form and the known viable reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are being made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
Another sign things are heating up. Beaches in San Diego, are hitting 100 year highs, and it's not even an El Nino year!
78.6 degrees at Scripps Pier in La Jolla!
_____________________________________
San Diego's Scripps Pier records highest ocean temperature in its 102-year history
he sea surface temperature at the Scripps Pier in La Jolla hit 78.6 degrees on Wednesday, the highest reading in the pier’s 102-year history,
according to UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
The reading broke the previous record of 78.4 degrees, which was set in 1931.
Scripps Oceanography officials say that local ocean temperatures have been running above normal for several days at that spot, but the record was not
broken until Wednesday.
The institute has been taking sea surface temperatures there since August 1916 as part of its scientific research.
Ocean temperatures also have been above average along the entire San Diego County coastline for much of the summer, and the reason isn’t clear. The
region is not experiencing an El Nino, which tends to produce very warm ocean temperatures in the summer and fall.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/sd-me-scrip...
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
