Sciencedoyousmellthat

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:23 AM

Beginning to reek of desperation in there

Bill Nye says we should throw Climate Change deniers in Jail


Bishop of the Church of Climate Change, Bill Nye, has been preaching the fire and brimstone theology of global cooling - I mean global warming - I mean climate change for a while. Not only is he a diehard in the faith, but he's lashed out against those who don't quite see it his way.

His latest sermon has him stating that "climate deniers," maybe should go to jail.

YouTube channel, cfact, sat down with Nye and at some point Marc Morano asked the celebrity in a lab coat if the idea being passed around by climate change activists to throw skeptics in jail isn't too extreme.

“We’ll see what happens, was it appropriate to jail the guys at Enron?” responded Nye. “Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive?”

(Bill Nye, the Mechanical Engineering Guy, had a Mr. Wizard type kids show in Seattle. He is no more an expert on Climate Change than I am. Fight the Power)

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/04/14/no-one-expects-the-climate-inquisition/



Who are ya gonna believe, Me or your lying eyes?

51 replies, 4559 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply Beginning to reek of desperation in there (Original post)
Gunslinger201 Apr 2016 OP
nolidad Apr 2016 #1
Gunslinger201 Apr 2016 #3
nolidad Apr 2016 #27
Gunslinger201 Apr 2016 #28
Muddling Through Apr 2016 #32
Jack Burton Apr 2016 #33
Noumenon Apr 2016 #2
Gunslinger201 Apr 2016 #4
Scary Red Apr 2016 #5
Gunslinger201 Apr 2016 #6
kcci Apr 2016 #47
Appalachian Man Apr 2016 #12
Transcendence Apr 2016 #17
nolidad Apr 2016 #40
goodwords Apr 2016 #7
Gunslinger201 Apr 2016 #9
kcci Apr 2016 #48
Gunslinger201 Apr 2016 #49
nolidad Apr 2016 #41
kcci Apr 2016 #50
fszwfnj Apr 2016 #8
nolens volens Apr 2016 #10
Gunslinger201 Apr 2016 #11
Frostlight Apr 2016 #14
nolens volens Apr 2016 #15
Frostlight Apr 2016 #13
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #16
Frostlight Apr 2016 #19
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #23
Frostlight Apr 2016 #24
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #43
Transcendence Apr 2016 #18
Frostlight Apr 2016 #20
Transcendence Apr 2016 #21
Jack Burton Apr 2016 #22
Frostlight Apr 2016 #26
Jack Burton Apr 2016 #29
Frostlight Apr 2016 #30
Jack Burton Apr 2016 #31
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply ?
Frostlight Apr 2016 #34
Jack Burton Apr 2016 #35
Frostlight Apr 2016 #36
Frostlight Apr 2016 #25
Transcendence Apr 2016 #37
Frostlight Apr 2016 #39
Transcendence Apr 2016 #42
Transcendence Apr 2016 #38
LeeCPTINF Apr 2016 #44
Junglejim43 Apr 2016 #45
Gunslinger201 Apr 2016 #46
marmot84 Apr 2016 #51

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:29 AM

1. The lefts' tolerance on view!

They will toleraqte every view as long as it matches theirs. Otherwise- throw em in jail or off with their heads!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:44 AM

3. Yes, Communist/Socialist Governments

Always end up oppressing their own People

Look what the little Marxists on College Campuses are pulling already

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 06:27 AM

27. If this is the brave new world the left is leading us to

I prefer the cowardly old world instead! Where people could disagree- even vociferously and still be respectful somewhat of each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 06:58 AM

28. I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it

It begins with the term "Hatespeech"

That quickly becomes anything said that they don't like

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:53 PM

32. The modern fellow-travellers on the Left

have an extensive track record of speech with which they disagree.

See: Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot.

Move forward to Al Gore, Bill Nye, etc.

Business as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 01:24 PM

33. Yep.

Notice how the same totalitarian mindset always embraces leftist ideology. Or the other the other way around. Chicken and egg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:41 AM

2. Frankly I can wait a few years first.

Math says it's already too late to avoid the worst anyway. The models could be wrong, but the evidence says the changes are starting. And so far, it's on track with the early predictions.

But don't worry too much....I'll forgive stupid -- after all I understand most cons can't help themselves and we don't have enough jails anyway.

But....

If proof ever rises about tobacco-like funded disinformation campaigns then yes, I'm all for jail for those losers.

That is a hypothetical of course. I'm sure all those well coordinated deniers' media blitzes simply planned and executed themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Noumenon (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:47 AM

4. The Models ARE wrong

It's junk science

http://junkscience.com

Here, educate yourself, the truth shall set you free

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:02 AM

5. Educate yourself with THAT?

I went through a few of their little rebuttals, and well-funded studies by reputable institutions and researchers were simply dismissed by these assholes with one paragraph, or sentence, putdowns.

junkscience.com is itself junk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:12 AM

6. The lefts equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears

And going Lalalalalalalalalalala

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 01:01 PM

47. Then take a look at peer reviewed scientific studies...

 

Or I suppose you could take a couple of days off at the garage, with "junkscience.com" as "evidence" and set those accomplished experts straight.

Don't forget to add an emoticon so they know the caliber of person they are speaking to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Noumenon (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:43 AM

12. Mississippi will take them right now...

Just wave the requirement that inmates be from Mississippi.

County officials across Mississippi are warning of job losses and deep deficits as local jails are being deprived of the state inmates needed to keep them afloat. The culprit, say local officials, is state government and private prisons, which are looking to boost their own revenue as sentencing and drug-policy reforms are sending fewer bodies into the correctional system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mississippi-jails-revenue_us_57100da1e4b06f35cb6f14e8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Noumenon (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:50 PM

17. Math says it's already too late?

I think you need to read IPCC AR5 again. It says ECS might be anywhere from 1.5°C to 4.5°C. In other words, the "math" says that our understanding of climate is so poor our estimates of how much warming we will see range anywhere from "who gives a shit" to "holy shit we're all going to die".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Noumenon (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 06:40 AM

40. So if we have past the point of no return

Then who cares????

It's been hotter before, its been colder before, we have worst droughts before, we've had worst flooding before. We've had quieter hurricane seasons before. We've had more numerous hurricane seasons before. We've had less snowy winters before, we've had snowier winters before. We've had milder winters before, we've had colder winters before. We've had hotter summers before, we've had milder summers before.

Do you see a pattern here?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:18 AM

7. Men of science don't use words like "denier". Implies belief, not empirical study. Bill Nye is a

loser looking for attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goodwords (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:53 AM

9. Bill has a degree in "Mechanical Engineering" from Cornel

Science Guy he is not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 01:06 PM

48. And what degree do you have?

 

But it's nice to see that you now appreciate climate science experts....
and they overwelmingly side with Bill Nye (or, more accurately, he sides with them)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #48)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 01:09 PM

49. I have a Masters degree from the School of Hard Knocks

But I'm nobody's fool (I can read)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goodwords (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 06:42 AM

41. But they are forced to use terms like denier

Because the studies are based on math models and not actual data.

Just remember scientists were lost as to why there was a pause to AGW for over 15 years until one of them came up with the idea that the oceans were gobbling up all the extra warmth. Then all the lemmings got in line and jumped off the cliff with that "scientist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #41)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 01:11 PM

50. It's so cute when the uneducated try to talk to the adults...

 

Feel free to cite the peer reviewed scientific paper you are basing your statement on....

I really hope you can find time in between changing oil and stocking shelves to enlighten us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:34 AM

8. He can't be a bishop

Cults usually have chief priests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:08 AM

10. Well that's a stupid comment

for anyone to make. Unless of course it turns out that companies who benefit from the denial funded what would amount to a fraud as was discovered with big tobacco, which is why people went to jail. They didn't go to jail for offering dissent they went to jail for publicly declaring that which they knew (based on their own data) was a lie as the truth and as real science when it fact it was not.

Fraud has always been a crime.

I think where people get all hung up is the AGW vs GW. There's no disputing the simple fact the oceans have absorbed more heat in the last 20 years than they've absorbed in most of the history of man prior to that. The oceans are warmer, they will an impact on the climate.

That's not a hypothesis, that's not speculation that's a simple fact.

But what does that fact actually mean? What will that stored heat energy do to the climate over the globe and what if anything should we do about it?

Those are speculative questions that require speculative responses...that's where the argument should lie, the lies shouldn't be about facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolens volens (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:13 AM

11. I think the point is, this isn't a "Crisis"

It's being sold to the Chicken Littles to advance an agenda that people don't want

I used to say they want us living in mud huts burning candles (but I think they want to take the candles too)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolens volens (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:12 AM

14. The poster is deliberately misleading.

Nye didn't say we should throw all the deniers in jail, but the people that have perpetrated the fraud of denial propaganda.

We're facing disaster just so that these companies can turn quarterly profits. That's a level of fraud we've never seen before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:26 AM

15. Agreed

fraud is and always has been a crime, perpetrating fraud for profit should be prosecuted. Especially in cases like this where there are large dollar amounts involved.

The heat energy absorbed by the oceans isn't a faith based perspective, it's a simple fact. One that even the deniers haven't been able to deny.

There are certainly areas where the modeling may be flawed with respect to outcomes of the energy currently stored as heat in the ocean, and there is room to extrapolate additional data sets to discuss appropriate remedies, if there are in fact any available that will make a difference. It might more be a case of mitigating the damaging effects of an inevitable outcome at this point as opposed to being able to prevent an outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:52 AM

13. You guys expose your monumental ignorance when you use words like 'belief' and 'faith'.

Do you need 'faith' to believe that 2+2=4? That the Earth revolves around the Sun? That viruses, not spirits, cause disease?

You see, those are science not 'faith'. Science is about learning, not just saying "we know". Faith is about claiming to know without learning anything, without actually knowing. Science is about learning so that we can actually know.

So when you guys say it's 'faith', you're admitting that you don't know a damn thing, and that because you don't know, you don't believe anyone else can. So you assume that it must be 'faith'.

This says much about you guys: First: That you think so much of yourselves that anything you can't understand must therefore be subjective and immaterial. Second: That you're too intellectually lazy and scientifically illiterate to be bothered to learn what we know. Third: That you aren't even aware of the first two.

It's actually pathetic, like a belligerent little child telling a neurosurgeon he doesn't know what he's doing, because that child can't understand there is knowledge beyond his understanding.

And just as my explanation sails over the head of that child, so too does it over yours.

Nye never said, "We should jail deniers." That's you guys just twisting meanings in order to create more propaganda. Me? I believe that we should certainly jail people who create propaganda to mislead the public, as the energy industry has even admitted it has done, to pursue short-term profits at the cost of the long-term destruction of the climate that sustains us.

The damage they have done will eventually be measurable in not trillions, but quadrillions of dollars, and not millions, but eventually billions of lives.

But you can't think or imagine those kinds of long-term costs. Just like that child, you can only wrap your head around small ideas and concepts. Fifty years of devastation, starvation, and wars is just too big to fit in your head.

And you prove it every time you make these kinds of posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:35 PM

16. No, but you *do* have to have faith to believe in a "model" as fact.

And not only that, but models which have been proved to be wrong time and again.

Do you need 'faith' to believe that 2+2=4? That the Earth revolves around the Sun? That viruses, not spirits, cause disease?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:38 PM

19. And you just told me, without realizing it, that you have no idea what a model is or how it works.

Models are not meant to 'predict the future' with absolute certainty until all factors can be accounted for. It's impossible to account for the entire global climate system and predict how it will behave in absolutely every way.
What climate models actually do is take all the factors we can account for or create algorithms for and run hundreds of thousands of simulations... if not millions. Then we take all the events that were consistent in the simulations, look to see if those are absent in other simulations and by what proportion, and then assign a level of probability to those particular events.

And guess what? All the events with high probabilities have been happening sooner than predicted. One only needs half a brain to understand that that's confirmation.

But you buy the propaganda in your ignorance because that's easier than learning what models are and how they work. You could do that by spending 30 whole minutes going through these:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/


But I already know that you can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:17 PM

23. Thanks for the information on climate models. What would we Neanderthals do without your

love and guidance? In other words, take a hike. Like many, I've been studying this phenomenon for quite some time and have done some fairly heavy reading on the subject. I've also read many articles stating just how wildly unreliable the models have been. For example:

Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading,” Spencer wrote on his blog.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz45wpkiekQ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:29 PM

24. That you choose not to accept simple, factual information

Based solely on your chosen worldview actually puts you below Australopithecus.

You will never understand how pathetic you are, while citing the Daily Caller, because you can't listen to the how or why.

Bye now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #24)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 08:11 AM

43. Nice way to influence the conversation. Bye.

You will never understand how pathetic you are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:13 PM

18. Questions

If you really believe that we should jail people who create propaganda to mislead the public how do you feel about the following examples:

1) In 1969 Paul Ehrlich said "the battle to feed humanity is over" and predicted that the US population would fall to 120 million. Should he be jailed for grossly exaggerating the dangers of over population? Should he be held accountable for the millions of people that were forcibly sterilized by an Indian government that foolishly considered his predictions to be "settled science"?

2) Recently Dr. Guy McPherson publicly stated that humans will go extinct by 2030 due to climate change. If he turns out to be wrong, should he be jailed for deliberately misleading the public by making statements he is well aware are way outside the mainstream scientific consensus?

3) You have stated that trillions of dollars in damage and billions of lives will be lost because of climate change. How many years do we have to wait without that happening before we can throw you in jail?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:04 PM

20. You don't seem to understand how this works.



1) Ehrlich was warning the world about the danger of overpopulation, which happens to be real. We see what happens to animals that overproduce beyond their resources. Many starve and die. Oh wait! India, one of the most densely populated countries in the world is experiencing zero poverty and unlimited resources! Oh, wait.... no. India is deep in poverty, pretty much as Ehrlich predicted.

Climate change denial propaganda is the opposite: It's telling people that the problem doesn't exist and that we need to do nothing about it.

In these two examples, one was promoting a scientifically correct theory that is indeed supported not just by science, but simple common sense. The other is creating lies that will lead to far greater harm than mere sterilization of people who already have children. It will lead to war, famine, and a massive number of deaths.

If he lied about the problem of overpopulation, that would be another thing. But he didn't.

2) Almost identical to the above. Is he overstating a problem that actually exists? Probably. But that's the point: We're in trouble and it's better to take it seriously. Only the fossil fuel industry will be harmed by taking action on this issue.... and guess who creates all that bullshit about how it will 'destroy the economy' so we 'shouldn't do anything'?

Again, you're comparing concern over something that's a possible concern to lies.

3) It's already been happening.
The insurance industry, you know, the guys in the game of figuring out how much shit is going to cost, have already concluded that the damage from climate change has been increasing.... and won't stop any time soon.

http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pubs/pdf/climate-action-insurance.pdf

Oh, and I said quadrillions of dollars... and that's a conservative estimate considering the size and speed of this particular train.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 05:48 PM

21. You don't seem to understand how this works

Last edited Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:34 PM - Edit history (2)

When you claim that food is going to become so scarce that the population of a country (the US) will fall to 120 million, and then subsequently food supplies increase and the population increases to over 300 million, that is called being wrong.

You can argue that Ehrlich might have truly believed what he was saying and is therefore not guilty of lying, but you cannot argue that his warnings of the dangers of overpopulation were correct. They were not.

Don't even get me started on your lies regarding India. Ehrlich said things would get worse. They got better:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:57 PM

22. You'd have better luck arguing with a sign post.

Doomers are on Klimate Kool-Aid overload. They are unreachable with logic and reason and facts. Their increasing frustration over the lack of unanimity with the holy church of global warming is palpable and amusing. They can't understand why everyone just doesn't immediately agree with them. In their mind they are the most intelligent, tolerant, and altruistic people on the face of the planet. Of course they are better qualified to run everyone else's life. Just ask any liberal. Anyone who disagrees with them must either be on the payroll of evil big corporations, stupid, or usually stupid AND evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:03 PM

26. When you actually have 'Logic, Reason, and Facts', then we'll all come around to your

conspiracy theories.

Until then, the actual facts, logic, and reason tell us some very simple truths about how we made the climate suck up more energy in a shorter period than ever in the history of the climate.

But you have no 'facts', or 'reason', or 'logic', to deal with that.

So you just spout bullshit. Why? Are you being paid? If so, your employers are not getting their money's worth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 10:17 AM

29. "we made the climate suck up more energy"

That's just comedy gold. Thanks for the laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #29)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 11:45 AM

30. That you insist on proving you know nothing is the real joke.

Seriously, why do people like you think that arguing from ignorance is ever effective?

Lol... just kidding, I've long since known you're just trolling.

But yes, we have done exactly what I have stated, and the facts confirm it: The climate we live with is taking on energy faster than it ever has before.

And I do actually hope that people who get paid to spread the easily disproved denialist propaganda wind up in jail one day, because they have helped allow the destruction of the climate that sustains us all. I cannot think of a greater crime than such a threat to every living thing on Earth.... including us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #30)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:04 PM

31. In long standing leftist tradition

from Robespierre, to Lenin, to Mussolini, to the mainstream Democratic Party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:02 PM

34. ?

You really are trolling. Grasping, actually. Irrelevance is a tactic now?

You really become more pathetic the more you try. You're transparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:13 PM

35. You are the one who admitted you want to imprison people for the thoughtcrime

of not believing the global warming hoax.

I may be "transparent" but you are hateful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #35)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:19 PM

36. You're really bad at reading comprehension.

I never said anything of the sort. Otherwise you'd be able to quote me.

You can't.

BAD TROLL!

lmao.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:33 PM

25. You equated factually supported positions to outright lies.

Sorry, but you're lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:00 PM

37. Interesting response

You can tell when a person knows they have lost an argument. They make a response with no specific examples, no links, and no facts. They basically say: "I'm right and you're wrong. Neener-neener."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 09:51 PM

39. So you can't identify a simple statement of fact, backed up by all previous exchanges.

But in your little mind, everything is kindergarten.

Pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:46 AM

42. Here you go

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html?_r=0

Dr. Ehrlich’s opening statement was the verbal equivalent of a punch to the gut: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” He later went on to forecast that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that crowded India was essentially doomed, that odds were fair “England will not exist in the year 2000.” Dr. Ehrlich was so sure of himself that he warned in 1970 that “sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come.” By “the end,” he meant “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/near-term-human-extinction-a-conversation-with-guy-mcpherson/5373909

The planet will not be habitable for the human species long beyond 2030. And there is NOTHING the human species for all its sophistication and technology can do about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:08 PM

38. Regarding the insurance industry...

...you might want to read this Pulitzer Prize winning article on how they justified raising their rates:

http://archive.pulitzer.org/archives/9195

Hurricane Katrina extracted a terrifying toll -- 1,200 dead, a premier American city in ruins, and the nation in shock. Insured losses would ultimately cost the property insurance industry $40 billion.

But Katrina did not tear a hole in the financial structure of America's property insurance system as large as the one carved scarcely six weeks later by a largely unknown company called Risk Management Solutions.

RMS, a multimillion-dollar company that helps insurers estimate hurricane losses and other risks, brought four hand-picked scientists together in a Bermuda hotel room.

There, on a Saturday in October 2005, the company gathered the justification it needed to rewrite hurricane risk. Instead of using 120 years of history to calculate the average number of storms each year, RMS used the scientists' work as the basis for a new crystal ball, a computer model that would estimate storms for the next five years.

The change created an $82 billion gap between the money insurers had and what they needed, a hole they spent the next five years trying to fill with rate increases and policy cancellations.

RMS said the change that drove Florida property insurance bills to record highs was based on "scientific consensus."

The reality was quite different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 08:45 AM

44. 2+2=4 only under specific conditions and only if aprioi assumptions of addition hold valid

Just because you've lived you're whole life in an infinate number set, don't believe for a minute that's all there is. In a closed ring set with four intergers, 2+2=0.


Why yes, I am a math nerd. How did you guess?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 12:58 AM

45. Desperation? Thy name is Denier.

You are losing. Losing internationaly. Losing with big corporations. Losing with insurance corporations. Losing with extraction industries. Losing with scientists.

You keep regurgitating the same old lies that have been discredited time after time. Well as we all know, reality does have a liberal bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junglejim43 (Reply #45)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 06:06 AM

46. Amusing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junglejim43 (Reply #45)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 02:47 PM

51. +1

thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencedoyousmellthat