BF2S Forums While the globe may be warming, it is not manmade.

Uzique wrote:

Are we going to be doing natural selection and evolution next week? Jesus H. Christ...

Ffs. Don't encourage them.

topal63 wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

topal63 wrote:

PS: Who do think funds physics research in America. You, private enterprise or the government on behalf of the people, because it is our best interests to fund science as almost all of it  would go unfunded otherwise.

You can't do can you? I'm challenging the credibility of the reports you hold onto so dearly. They are tainted by money given by an entity that is set to reap $6.7 trillion, an entity that represents the interests of people who would love to create a new market in carbon credits. As for conspiracy??? greed and profit are not a conspiracy they are a driving motivation and when 6.7 trillion is on the table and the creation of a whole new false market in carbon credits will allow wall street profiteers to reap billions, I think that's as far as I need to go.

You  try to say I didn't amke an argument, I would differ on that, people on this thread were calling in to question the credibility of the links on this page. I have now undermined the credibilty of these reports and you don't like it, well tough. The least you could do is retort on how $6.7 trillion isn't a huge moitivating factor, But I doubt you could succeed on that one.

I repeat my challenge, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove your point.  If you continue to attack the debater instead of trying to argue the debate then this thread would really be about you shooting down any dissenting voice while pretending you $hit doesn't stink. Then this isn't much of thread or a debate. I challenged the credibilty of these reports so I repeat my chalenge find us a credible source not paid for by the govt or a govt proxy.

BTW I used to be in academia so I know how the sausage gets made, the ivory is on the outside, but the inside is a septic tank. Oh yah, ridiclous comment about ever read an academic journal, I feel like I was just called a sinner, Sorry for not being a believer LOL.

LOL-ing, saying it isn't credible by funding, saying I have an emotional attachment to a science paper (utterly ridiculous), saying science is a sham, a credit market for carbon emissions (<-- isn't science) supports your conspiracy theory, etc... is not an argument.

You may have problems with the idea of carbon-swaps, maybe I do to, but that is not the science of climate change. You have not presented one single piece of evidence for your conspiracy theory.  You've made an inference that carbon-swaps might be a sham, so that doesn't have anything to do with the underlying science. Also, is it more plausible that if carbon swaps is a sham it is getting legs (a political life) due to the fact that it is exploiting science, and not generating the science. Climate change (AGW is well documented), but that doesn't mean carbon-swaps are the solution.

Either way you've yet to demonstrate that the science is not credible or the scientist are working in a secret cabal to undermine truth. The easiest way to present your conspiracy theory is to demonstrate you do understand the science to a degree that you can demonstrate the errors therein. And, then demonstrate the widespread lying scientist are doing; for funding. Some papers seem like pointless shams (in physics, anthropology, biology, climate change, any field that is), science makes mistakes and weeds the weak out eventually. You're not talking about that though--you're suggest some ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Just because lie is told a 1000 time doesn't make it any less a lie, it just becomes more believable by the weak and feeble minded. Ohm trust thy holiest of holies the high priest of science. Ohmmm.

I call it like I see it. Scientist/academics are careerists who like tenure, grant money and to travel to great conferences. Start waiving money in the face of an academic who writes a paper whose conclusion you like, and see how many other academics wil trip over themselves to line up behind that guy. Pretty soon you have a peer group with vested interests to keep the money tap flowing.

I never claimed there was a conspiracy, just greed and whoring. You would like to label what I'm saying as a conspiracy to simply attack the debater, its got nothing to do with this debate. Trillions of dollars is a strong motive for greed and whoring and undermines the credibility of the research and reasonable person would agree that its at least possible given the huge sums of money. Only a zealot would ignore a reasonable conclusion.



LOL label my argument a conspiracy. What a joke. You know what fine!!! I talked with someone in high govt who said

"We really have them all fooled. I was a lowly paid scientist and Al Gore was giving me a blow job when he let me join the high council for scamming the world. Big Gay Al told me he needed research showing that global warming is real so that we could tax the $hit outta people. In reality its a total scam. He gave me some money to hire some other scientists to get on board with the program. I'm so giddy I feel like a school child, this thing has really snow balled. I can't believe we tapped into something that people really really want to believe in and I'm going to make a millions on these new carbon credits, you know being a scientist doesn't pay $shit. MMMmmmrmmmohffffmmmmm"

There, is that the conspiracy your talking about? lolz. From a credible source too, I'd let him talk but his mouth is full right now, this guy is a real whore you know.



I raised the credibility issue after everyone was cackling about linking to provide prove. You've made it clear that you don't like my question well that's tough. If the science is SO infallible in this area, it should not be hard to come up with a one source not paid for by the govt or a govt entity.  I find that the sources people here want to rely on are simply not credible. Just one source. Can you do it? Try to convince me.

I promise you this though, come up with one or I will troll each and every global warming debate on DS&T until someone does. I really can't stand having debates where people think their position can't be undermined and do personal attacks to avoid legitimate questions. I guess thats why the global warming phenomena has been likened more to a faith/religion where dissenters are peronsally attacked as heretics being relentlessly pursued by zealots.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/1 … al_Warming

does anyone even read all those links or read those massive essays?

No, most are recycled shit (the contrarian conspiracy crap). I've read them before why reread them again.

Kmarion wrote:

topal63 wrote:

More truth:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … r-readers/

We would like to apologize to our loyal readers who have provided us so much support since we first went online in December 2004. However, after listening to the compelling arguments of the distinguished speakers who participated in the Heartland Institute's recent global warming contrarian conference, we have decided that the science is settled — in favor of the contrarians. Indeed, even IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri has now admitted that anthropogenic climate change was a massive hoax after all. Accordingly, RealClimate no longer has a reason for existence. The contrarians have made a convincing case that (a) global warming isn't happening, (b) even if it is, its entirely natural and within the bounds of natural variability, (c) well, even if its not natural, it is modest in nature and not a threat, (d) even if anthropogenic warming should turn out to be pronounced as projected, it will sure be good for us, leading to abundant crops and a healthy environment, and (e) well, it might actually be really bad, but hey, its unstoppable anyway. (Can we get our check now?)

From a link in your link..
http://i42.tinypic.com/154g2ec.jpg
I loled

APRIL FOOLS!

I find that the sources people here want to rely on are simply not credible. Just one source. Can you do it? Try to convince me.

What, apart from a peer-reviewed paper, would you find 'credible'?

Definitely an option.