What the F? wrote:
Kiju wrote:What does taking a physics class have to do with this? And why would any physics class be ok? Shouldn't it be a physics class relavent to why we are talking about? Some of you post one really unthoughtful things.
In the case of the poster I was responding to, taking ANY physics class should be helpful.
Why would it be helpful?
Kiju wrote:
What the F? wrote:In the case of the poster I was responding to, taking ANY physics class should be helpful.
Why would it be helpful?
Two reasons:
1) The study of math and physics promotes logical thinking - something desperately needed in this case.
2) Physics is about understanding how the physical world works. It is clear that this understanding is something that is sorely lacking in our friend.
LOL. Two masters degrees pal (an undergrad and grad in engineering to boot). Took a few physics courses in my day. Nice attempt though.
What The F? wrote:
Red squirrel wrote:It's not like that at all. The fact that you don't see the difference is "the big deal." Youre looking at that example backwards.
Smoking causing cancer in the lungs (direct inhalation from a cigarette to the lungs) is a faaaaaaar more simple (exponentially) system to diagnose than the constantly changing climate on planet Earth. But yes, in your example, since "people have been dying for thousands of years", we would acknowledge that humans smoking isn't the main cause of cancer, yes? That is the difference that you fanatics won't acknowledge. Thank you for proving my point.
Anyway, you don't feel that a large portion of the northern hemisphere being covered in ice/glaciers, which then melted down to just the North Pole long before the ICE was even invented, isn't relevant? You don't think showing receding glaciers in GW propaganda videos is a touch disingenuous? Just a tad? That literally happened for thousands of years on a much, much larger scale... It continues to happen... And now we're to blame (which of course you Libs twist into just "Conservatives are to blame")?
Grow up, man.
Take a physics class.
What the F? wrote:
Two reasons:
1) The study of math and physics promotes logical thinking - something desperately needed in this case.
2) Physics is about understanding how the physical world works. It is clear that this understanding is something that is sorely lacking in our friend.
Your comment still doesn't make sense.
His response to the smoking and cancer comment made perfect sense. It was logical and more thought out than yours was (or whoever brought up the smoking thing).
Sure, physics is about understanding the natural world, but saying "take a physics class" still doesn't make sense. Not every or even most physics classes have anything to do with understanding climate change.
There's plenty of evidence that climate change isn't really an issue. There even evidence that it is all a big lie.
Kiju wrote:
There's plenty of evidence that climate change isn't really an issue. There even evidence that it is all a big lie.
Could you please present all of this evidence? You should probably get it published and collect your Nobel Prize.
No Way wrote:
Kiju wrote:There's plenty of evidence that climate change isn't really an issue. There even evidence that it is all a big lie.
Could you please present all of this evidence? You should probably get it published and collect your Nobel Prize.
I don't understand why you have such a mean and condescending response. Especially because your comment makes no sense. Why would publishing this get me a Nobel Prize?
Kiju wrote:
No Way wrote:Could you please present all of this evidence? You should probably get it published and collect your Nobel Prize.
I don't understand why you have such a mean and condescending response. Especially because your comment makes no sense. Why would publishing this get me a Nobel Prize?
Putting aside whether it would or wouldn't get you the Nobel Prize, please provide us with all this evidence. Either present it or shut up. And keep in mind not to present anything easily - and probably already - debunked.
Kiju wrote:
No Way wrote:Could you please present all of this evidence? You should probably get it published and collect your Nobel Prize.
I don't understand why you have such a mean and condescending response. Especially because your comment makes no sense. Why would publishing this get me a Nobel Prize?
Such a huge scientific accomplishment would surely win the Nobel Prize. Debunking climate change would be huge.
The reason my comment may have been condescending is because people like you keep claiming there is this body of evidence that flies completely in the face of everything that has been published, but can never back it up. Meanwhile, someone who doesn't know any better may hear/read what you say and actually believe there is a bunch of evidence disproving climate change.
If there is so much evidence, people should be climbing over each other to present it so that their name can be associated with one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever.
No Way wrote:
Kiju wrote:I don't understand why you have such a mean and condescending response. Especially because your comment makes no sense. Why would publishing this get me a Nobel Prize?
Such a huge scientific accomplishment would surely win the Nobel Prize. Debunking climate change would be huge.
The reason my comment may have been condescending is because people like you keep claiming there is this body of evidence that flies completely in the face of everything that has been published, but can never back it up. Meanwhile, someone who doesn't know any better may hear/read what you say and actually believe there is a bunch of evidence disproving climate change.
If there is so much evidence, people should be climbing over each other to present it so that their name can be associated with one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever.
Kiju - You have been exposed.
Good job!
Red squirrel wrote:
LOL. Two masters degrees pal (an undergrad and grad in engineering to boot). Took a few physics courses in my day. Nice attempt though.
What The F? wrote:Take a physics class.
You are obviously a liar. Nobody with any real understanding of how the physical world works or with even a modicum of logical reasoning ability could post such nonsense as you have.
Oh, but good use of the word, 'pal'. Good job!
No Way wrote:
Such a huge scientific accomplishment would surely win the Nobel Prize. Debunking climate change would be huge.
The reason my comment may have been condescending is because people like you keep claiming there is this body of evidence that flies completely in the face of everything that has been published, but can never back it up. Meanwhile, someone who doesn't know any better may hear/read what you say and actually believe there is a bunch of evidence disproving climate change.
If there is so much evidence, people should be climbing over each other to present it so that their name can be associated with one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever.
That's no excuse for being condescending.
"People like me" have backed it up. "People like you" for some reason ignore this.
Every time you post, you make no sense. Why would countering the idea of manmade climate change be one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever? That's not a scientific discovery. I'm not sure you really have a solid understanding of the Nobel Prize system, science, science as an occupation, or what a great scientific discovery is.
For example, you say "...flies completely in the face of everything that has been published". That's not true at all. Everything that has been published does not support the idea of man-made climate change. So yes, there is a bunch of evidence against the idea of climate change, and someone who "might not know better" should be aware of that instead of turning into a condescending brainwashed person like you.
I'll post some refutations later (I'm not doing a serious search on a small phone). But you really shouldn't need me to do this.
1) you have Google
2) climate change is not universally accepted by scientists so that should indicate to you that this is a debatable topic. How is this not obvious?
Kiju wrote:
No Way wrote:Such a huge scientific accomplishment would surely win the Nobel Prize. Debunking climate change would be huge.
The reason my comment may have been condescending is because people like you keep claiming there is this body of evidence that flies completely in the face of everything that has been published, but can never back it up. Meanwhile, someone who doesn't know any better may hear/read what you say and actually believe there is a bunch of evidence disproving climate change.
If there is so much evidence, people should be climbing over each other to present it so that their name can be associated with one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever.
That's no excuse for being condescending.
"People like me" have backed it up. "People like you" for some reason ignore this.
Every time you post, you make no sense. Why would countering the idea of manmade climate change be one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever? That's not a scientific discovery. I'm not sure you really have a solid understanding of the Nobel Prize system, science, science as an occupation, or what a great scientific discovery is.
For example, you say "...flies completely in the face of everything that has been published". That's not true at all. Everything that has been published does not support the idea of man-made climate change. So yes, there is a bunch of evidence against the idea of climate change, and someone who "might not know better" should be aware of that instead of turning into a condescending brainwashed person like you.
I'll post some refutations later (I'm not doing a serious search on a small phone). But you really shouldn't need me to do this.
1) you have Google
2) climate change is not universally accepted by scientists so that should indicate to you that this is a debatable topic. How is this not obvious?
I'll be sure to check back later.
No Way wrote:
I'll be sure to check back later.
Why? Are you unable to use Google? I don't understand your refusal to accept that legitimate counterarguments exist.
Kiju wrote:
No Way wrote:I'll be sure to check back later.
Why? Are you unable to use Google? I don't understand your refusal to accept that legitimate counterarguments exist.
I totally accept that counter arguments exist. What I'm claiming is that there isn't "plenty of evidence," as you stated.
A Google search for "journal articles refuting climate change" doesn't yield much. Perhaps you'll have better luck.
What the F? wrote:
Red squirrel wrote:LOL. Two masters degrees pal (an undergrad and grad in engineering to boot). Took a few physics courses in my day. Nice attempt though.
You are obviously a liar. Nobody with any real understanding of how the physical world works or with even a modicum of logical reasoning ability could post such nonsense as you have.
Oh, but good use of the word, 'pal'. Good job!
Once again, nothing original or worthwhile in your rebuttal. I'm not lying, and you're going to have to deal with that. Just like you have to deal with the fact that the global temperature has fallen short of nearly all Global Warming predictions from 10-15 years ago.
You probably believed the ACA was going to reduce costs of health care too, didn't you?
Let me guess, Bachelor of Arts? History? English? Selectively read, recite, repeat ad nauseum.
Red squirrel wrote:
Once again, nothing original or worthwhile in your rebuttal. I'm not lying, and you're going to have to deal with that. Just like you have to deal with the fact that the global temperature has fallen short of nearly all Global Warming predictions from 10-15 years ago.
You probably believed the ACA was going to reduce costs of health care too, didn't you?
Let me guess, Bachelor of Arts? History? English? Selectively read, recite, repeat ad nauseum.
B.S. and M.S. here.
Your statement about global temps falling short of projections is false.
Also, based on your description of your degrees, I'm also assuming you're lying about them. What are they in?
This sounds a lot like the argument over lead pollution from lead in gasoline back in the 60s. And hopefully the result will be the same today as it was then or else the consequences will be worse than what would have happened had lead not been removed from gasoline.
Kiju wrote:
That's no excuse for being condescending....
You must be new around here.
Not a Pro wrote:
Red squirrel wrote:Once again, nothing original or worthwhile in your rebuttal. I'm not lying, and you're going to have to deal with that. Just like you have to deal with the fact that the global temperature has fallen short of nearly all Global Warming predictions from 10-15 years ago.
You probably believed the ACA was going to reduce costs of health care too, didn't you?
Let me guess, Bachelor of Arts? History? English? Selectively read, recite, repeat ad nauseum.
B.S. and M.S. here.
Your statement about global temps falling short of projections is false.
Also, based on your description of your degrees, I'm also assuming you're lying about them. What are they in?
Red squirrel - You have been exposed.
Kiju wrote:
No Way wrote:I'll be sure to check back later.
Why? Are you unable to use Google? I don't understand your refusal to accept that legitimate counterarguments exist.
I can honestly say that I will read and contemplate whatever you end up finding and posting. I love reading and learning so I hope you find something good.