Out of context; his FULL statement is; “WE’RE the chumps.”
The reversal of facts, or distortions and total misinterpretation of evidence, is the “denier” playbook, going back to the myth of Noah, they totally accept as absolute fact.
^My favorite comment some time a go was “Jesus Saves, Green Stamps”. Today’s Repulicans and “conservative Chrirstians”, probably don’t know the reference. “Deniers” know no science reference but Rush and Snerdly, at best.
What a bunch of idiots … from Clay Bennett to all the man-made global warming – oh, wait, climate change screamers.
If anyone would read the facts presented, it is impossible for CO2 to create climate change. Why? Because, according to the facts presented by the ice core scientists, the change in CO2 comes after the temperature change. It is utterly impossible for an event to create a change before the event!
There are dozens and dozens of other facts available to the unwashed masses who refuse to listen. If you want to see some, go to YouTube, search “global warming hoax” and watch about a dozen videos presenting the facts.
What a bunch of idiots. And we have another one in the White House.
From David Archer, “The Global Carbon Cycle”, p. 65:“One often reads on the Internet the temperature lead cited to suggest that CO2 has no effect on climate, but that is a silly argument, because there is no reason why the direction of cause and effect can only go one way or the other. A feedback look is by definition a loop of cause and effect, and it happens all the time.”Archer is no idiot.
I don’t think we will be able to educate Mr. Guess, but perhaps there’s some value in continuing to refute these persistent misunderstandings. Here’s a general rule I keep in mind: if (in a field in which I am not an expert) I see what looks like an obvious problem, it probably is even more obvious to the people who are experts, and probably they have been able to deal with it.
On cllimate change and other issues dealing with science, and notably species extinctions caused by human activity, I’ve long considered “feedback loops”. When it comes to “denier” arguments and knowledge, when my dog is observed consuming its own feces I wonder if his diet is deficeient, then realize like deniers, he’ll just continue consuming this same product from his “handlers”, then keep feeding himself. Eventually it will kill him.
And, over millions of years, movement of tectonic plates changed climate, about the same as 200 or so years of human activities with industry, but agriculture started making changes regionally a LONG time before the industrial revolution.
You say, “That ‘feedback loop’ garbage is just that. Garbage.” Assertion is not argument.Here’s what my dictionary says about feedback (one of several definitions): “the modification or control of a process or system by its results or effects”.You seem to be claiming (not arguing, since you make no argument at all) that if an event of type A (such as warming) can cause an event of type B (such as increase in CO2), then an event of type B can never cause an event of type A. Let’s say that event A is a Guess-post, and let’s say it causes a Lonecat-post, then by your claim, no Lonecat-post can cause a Guess-post. But I replied to your post and then you replied to mine. So a Guess-post caused a Lonecat-post which caused a Guest-post. So an event of type A can cause an event of type B which can cause an event of type A. Warming can cause an increase of CO2 which can cause warming. Or you can start with event B. I could post first, and you could reply, and I could reply to that: B>A>B. Even if on an earlier occasion an event of type A causes an event of type B, on a later occasion an event of type B can cause an event of type A.
I wasn’t seriously thinking that there’s a basis of discussion with Mr. Guess. I use these conversations to help clarify my own thinking, not because I have hopes of converting someone who thinks that the proper mode of argumentation is baseless claims and arrogant insults.
I am just going back to pure science. Can you not see that?
It is still utterly impossible for and event (CO2 rise, for example) to cause another event (Temperature rise in same example) to happen before the first event!
THAT is pure science! And, until any scientist and demonstrate the opposite of my argument, any claim that CO2 causes climate change is ridiculous. - Period. End of argument. - Can you not see that clearly? If not, then I have been discussing science with someone who does not believe in true science. Goodbye, by fine feathered friend. God help you … and the rest of the man-made-global-warming supporters.
I can’t summon the science the way you guys can, but a lot of the time I can spot errors in logic. But I think Guess’s problem is neither science nor logic, but something deeper.
superposition almost 9 years ago
http://news.agu.org/press-release/west-antarctic-melt-rate-has-tripled/
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
Out of context; his FULL statement is; “WE’RE the chumps.”
The reversal of facts, or distortions and total misinterpretation of evidence, is the “denier” playbook, going back to the myth of Noah, they totally accept as absolute fact.
Jason Allen almost 9 years ago
“Awfully optimistic for someone with their head stuck in the sand.”Then pull your head out of the sand and see if you’re still optimistic.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
^Uh, you mean, “idiot”.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
^My favorite comment some time a go was “Jesus Saves, Green Stamps”. Today’s Repulicans and “conservative Chrirstians”, probably don’t know the reference. “Deniers” know no science reference but Rush and Snerdly, at best.
Simon_Jester almost 9 years ago
Got any links to backup those claims, or are we all supposed to belirve them just because YOU made them?
SKJAM! Premium Member almost 9 years ago
The unicorns didn’t believe in climate change either :-P
moosemin almost 9 years ago
The Unicorns were also Republican.
jimguess almost 9 years ago
What a bunch of idiots … from Clay Bennett to all the man-made global warming – oh, wait, climate change screamers.
If anyone would read the facts presented, it is impossible for CO2 to create climate change. Why? Because, according to the facts presented by the ice core scientists, the change in CO2 comes after the temperature change. It is utterly impossible for an event to create a change before the event!
There are dozens and dozens of other facts available to the unwashed masses who refuse to listen. If you want to see some, go to YouTube, search “global warming hoax” and watch about a dozen videos presenting the facts.
What a bunch of idiots. And we have another one in the White House.
lonecat almost 9 years ago
From David Archer, “The Global Carbon Cycle”, p. 65:“One often reads on the Internet the temperature lead cited to suggest that CO2 has no effect on climate, but that is a silly argument, because there is no reason why the direction of cause and effect can only go one way or the other. A feedback look is by definition a loop of cause and effect, and it happens all the time.”Archer is no idiot.
lonecat almost 9 years ago
I don’t think we will be able to educate Mr. Guess, but perhaps there’s some value in continuing to refute these persistent misunderstandings. Here’s a general rule I keep in mind: if (in a field in which I am not an expert) I see what looks like an obvious problem, it probably is even more obvious to the people who are experts, and probably they have been able to deal with it.
Darsan54 Premium Member almost 9 years ago
Your ignorance isn’t equal to our knowledge.
jimguess almost 9 years ago
When someone comes up with an actual test like I proposed to lonecat, then I will believe CO2 causes global warming.
Oh, by the way, we are now expected to have the COLDEST summer on record in the middle US. How does THAT fit into your ‘global warming’ drivel?
markjoseph125 almost 9 years ago
Chumps believe anything mdavis4183 says.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
On cllimate change and other issues dealing with science, and notably species extinctions caused by human activity, I’ve long considered “feedback loops”. When it comes to “denier” arguments and knowledge, when my dog is observed consuming its own feces I wonder if his diet is deficeient, then realize like deniers, he’ll just continue consuming this same product from his “handlers”, then keep feeding himself. Eventually it will kill him.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
And, over millions of years, movement of tectonic plates changed climate, about the same as 200 or so years of human activities with industry, but agriculture started making changes regionally a LONG time before the industrial revolution.
lonecat almost 9 years ago
You say, “That ‘feedback loop’ garbage is just that. Garbage.” Assertion is not argument.Here’s what my dictionary says about feedback (one of several definitions): “the modification or control of a process or system by its results or effects”.You seem to be claiming (not arguing, since you make no argument at all) that if an event of type A (such as warming) can cause an event of type B (such as increase in CO2), then an event of type B can never cause an event of type A. Let’s say that event A is a Guess-post, and let’s say it causes a Lonecat-post, then by your claim, no Lonecat-post can cause a Guess-post. But I replied to your post and then you replied to mine. So a Guess-post caused a Lonecat-post which caused a Guest-post. So an event of type A can cause an event of type B which can cause an event of type A. Warming can cause an increase of CO2 which can cause warming. Or you can start with event B. I could post first, and you could reply, and I could reply to that: B>A>B. Even if on an earlier occasion an event of type A causes an event of type B, on a later occasion an event of type B can cause an event of type A.
lonecat almost 9 years ago
I wasn’t seriously thinking that there’s a basis of discussion with Mr. Guess. I use these conversations to help clarify my own thinking, not because I have hopes of converting someone who thinks that the proper mode of argumentation is baseless claims and arrogant insults.
jimguess almost 9 years ago
I am just going back to pure science. Can you not see that?
It is still utterly impossible for and event (CO2 rise, for example) to cause another event (Temperature rise in same example) to happen before the first event!
THAT is pure science! And, until any scientist and demonstrate the opposite of my argument, any claim that CO2 causes climate change is ridiculous. - Period. End of argument. - Can you not see that clearly? If not, then I have been discussing science with someone who does not believe in true science. Goodbye, by fine feathered friend. God help you … and the rest of the man-made-global-warming supporters.
lonecat almost 9 years ago
I can’t summon the science the way you guys can, but a lot of the time I can spot errors in logic. But I think Guess’s problem is neither science nor logic, but something deeper.