NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by Fordama » Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:12 pm

kramer wrote:... I can post the study that says skeptics tend to be more knowledgeable on climate science than the believers...
You don't understand what being a skeptic really is. If you did, you wouldn't have had to go to a dictionary that doesn't say anything about the philosophy of skepticism. You are a denier.

What's worse is that you have been reduced to just trying to declare yourself the victor of an argument that you've never understood.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12525
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by Vilepagan » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:01 am

kramer wrote:All I'm doing is pointing out the weaknesses, fraud, and contradictions in the science.
No, obviously that's not all you're doing. You're inventing absurd and speculative political motives for those who disagree with you...for example:
And there is a reason for it. The solutions to AGW are a global leftist government, redistribution of wealth both within and among nations, a radical lifestyle change that will be much much lower than what we have today, etc. I want to **** and destroy this leftist trojan horse and that is why I point out the BS in the climate science.
These statements have no connection whatever to climate science, logic, or reason. They are however the reason your arguments are viewed with skepticism. Another reason your arguments fail is that you seem more interested in declaring yourself the "winner" than anything else.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24367
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by Wabash » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:35 am

Omar Bongo wrote:What is it with your repeated puerile references to glorifying violence against women? Do you like to hit women? Do you call your loved ones "bitches"?

You're making yourself look like an ass. Grow up.
Might be because the last time he was in a physical confrontation was when he stuffed into a locker in high school by a couple of the women jocks.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by kramer » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:52 pm

Fordama wrote: You don't understand what being a skeptic really is. If you did, you wouldn't have had to go to a dictionary that doesn't say anything about the philosophy of skepticism. You are a denier.
What specifically am I denying?
Fordama wrote:What's worse is that you have been reduced to just trying to declare yourself the victor of an argument that you've never understood.
Well, since you know exactly what I don't understand, enlighten us as to what it is. And be specific.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by kramer » Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:39 pm

kramer wrote:All I'm doing is pointing out the weaknesses, fraud, and contradictions in the science.
Vilepagan wrote:No, obviously that's not all you're doing. You're inventing absurd and speculative political motives for those who disagree with you...for example:
And there is a reason for it. The solutions to AGW are a global leftist government, redistribution of wealth both within and among nations, a radical lifestyle change that will be much much lower than what we have today, etc. I want to **** and destroy this leftist trojan horse and that is why I point out the BS in the climate science.
Vilepagan wrote:These statements have no connection whatever to climate science, logic, or reason.

They may not have a connection to climate science but policy makers are looking to leverage climate science in order to push their leftist AGW solutions that I listed.

And none of what I said above is invented. It's what I've read (actually, it's only some of what I've read) over and over from environmental books and policy papers (and MSM articles).


Vilepagan wrote: They are however the reason your arguments are viewed with skepticism.
"The reason?" No they aren't. Ever read my comments where I pointed out climate scientists saying things like "hide the decline," "we got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period," or them losing or deleting data and deleting emails in responses to FOI requests? There is data tampering, there is unethical science, and there is exaggeration.

Have you checked out my sig?...>If not, is says 80% of the ozone measurements was either faked or incompletely done. If scientists can get away with faking data or using incomplete data for the ozone issue, then they can fake the temperature (or any other) data just as easily and get away with it. (I'm still waiting for the MSM to do a thorough investigation into the faked data...). And indeed, they are adjusting the temp data and in some cases, it's been adjusted several times. And oddly enough, they tend to cool the older data and warm up the newer data. How convenient is that?...

Anyway, I've posted enough information here over the years to show that climate science is tainted by fraud, exaggerations, contradictions, etc. If this is 'science' that you can trust to you leftists, then I don't know what to say.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by kramer » Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:55 pm

Omar Bongo wrote:What is it with your repeated puerile references to glorifying violence against women? Do you like to hit women? Do you call your loved ones "bitches"?

You're making yourself look like an ass. Grow up.
Wabash wrote:Might be because the last time he was in a physical confrontation was when he stuffed into a locker in high school by a couple of the women jocks.
Actually, it's because some science studies suggested that liberal men might have lower testosterone levels. And since we know that females have very little testosterone, it stands to reason that liberal men are more effeminate than men with normal testosterone levels.

As such, I view liberal men as effeminate. Hence when I used the term "bitch-slap" the 'bitch" is in reference to the inherent femininity of liberal men.

The "slap" part of the term "bitch-slap" is just in reference to educating a liberal.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24367
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by Wabash » Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:30 pm

kramer wrote: Actually, it's because some science studies suggested that liberal men might have lower testosterone levels. And since we know that females have very little testosterone, it stands to reason that liberal men are more effeminate than men with normal testosterone levels.
I've read studies that state conservatives are the most uniformed in our society.
kramer wrote:As such, I view liberal men as effeminate. Hence when I used the term "bitch-slap" the 'bitch" is in reference to the inherent femininity of liberal men.
I'm betting you've never actually tried to "bitch" slap a liberal man. If so, please tell us who it was and how it turned out.
kramer wrote:The "slap" part of the term "bitch-slap" is just in reference to educating a liberal.
See above response.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by kramer » Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:14 pm

kramer wrote: Actually, it's because some science studies suggested that liberal men might have lower testosterone levels. And since we know that females have very little testosterone, it stands to reason that liberal men are more effeminate than men with normal testosterone levels.
Wabash wrote:I've read studies that state conservatives are the most uniformed in our society.
Post the links to these studies instead of spewing hearsay.

kramer wrote:As such, I view liberal men as effeminate. Hence when I used the term "bitch-slap" the 'bitch" is in reference to the inherent femininity of liberal men.
Wabash wrote:I'm betting you've never actually tried to "bitch" slap a liberal man. If so, please tell us who it was and how it turned out.
Using my definition of bitch-slap, I bitch-slap you liberal 'men' all the time here in these forums.
kramer wrote:The "slap" part of the term "bitch-slap" is just in reference to educating a liberal.
Wabash wrote:See above response.
Ditto to you.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24367
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by Wabash » Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:52 am

kramer wrote: Using my definition of bitch-slap, I bitch-slap you liberal 'men' all the time here in these forums.
There's an old saying that politics is show business for ugly people. In a similar vein, internet message boards are the Ultimate Fighting Championships for wimps. Especially for those who claim some sort of faux victory using words that connote violence.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by kramer » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:03 pm

kramer wrote: Using my definition of bitch-slap, I bitch-slap you liberal 'men' all the time here in these forums.
Wabash wrote:There's an old saying that politics is show business for ugly people. In a similar vein, internet message boards are the Ultimate Fighting Championships for wimps.
Says who? Got a credible link that backs this up or is this just more of your hearsay?
Wabash wrote: Especially for those who claim some sort of faux victory using words that connote violence.
I mostly bitch-slap (which is really a term for "educate") a liberal when I see them say something that is wrong. In essence, I'm just having a little fun with your side's lower testosterone levels and lower information levels...
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by Fordama » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:35 pm

kramer wrote:
What specifically am I denying?



Well, since you know exactly what I don't understand, enlighten us as to what it is. And be specific.
Been there, done that when I posted the tenants of denialism.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by kramer » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:45 pm

kramer wrote:
What specifically am I denying?



Well, since you know exactly what I don't understand, enlighten us as to what it is. And be specific.
Fordama wrote:Been there, done that when I posted the tenants of denialism.
Translation: I can't point out one thing that you are denying.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain to us what I don't understand. And be specific with your response.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by Fordama » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:49 pm

kramer wrote:

Translation: I can't point out one thing that you are denying.
Nope. The translation is that I already did and no longer care enough to go back and dig up that post again. It didn't stick the first time so why would it stick the second time?

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: NPR: more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago

Post by kramer » Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:07 pm

kramer wrote:

Translation: I can't point out one thing that you are denying.
Fordama wrote:Nope. The translation is that I already did and no longer care enough to go back and dig up that post again. It didn't stick the first time so why would it stick the second time?
I knew you'd find an excuse to get out of posting specific responses.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Post Reply