Is your reliance on name-calling when you have no substance and you are losing a discussion just your board persona, or is that the way you conduct yourself off the board as well? In other words ...Try meteorologist.
.. is it a character flaw or just a momentary frustration.
Here's a "climatologist" ...
... the Clintons would "listen" to her ... as long as she wore knee pads. Originally Posted by LexusLover
- i'va biggen
- 10-18-2015, 10:22 PM
- gnadfly
- 10-18-2015, 11:31 PM
- Guest040616
- 10-19-2015, 01:31 AM
- LexusLover
- 10-19-2015, 09:09 AM
- i'va biggen
- 10-19-2015, 09:20 AM
- Rey Lengua
- 10-19-2015, 09:26 AM
- timpage
- 10-19-2015, 10:02 AM
What discussion would it be that I am losing knucklehead? You people are the new generation of know-nothings. You base opinions and decisions on ideology, not facts or science. You rely on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for your "facts" and consequently, you appear to be idiots. I've provided you with multiple citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles that support the position. You post up a picture of a weather girl and then insult the Clintons. Don't talk to me about "losing a discussion" you fucking moron.
Is your reliance on name-calling when you have no substance and you are losing a discussion just your board persona, or is that the way you conduct yourself off the board as well? In other words ...
.. is it a character flaw or just a momentary frustration.
Here's a "climatologist" ...
... the Clintons would "listen" to her ... as long as she wore knee pads. Originally Posted by LexusLover
- IIFFOFRDB
- 10-19-2015, 10:44 AM
What discussion would it be that I am losing knucklehead? You people are the new generation of know-nothings. You base opinions and decisions on ideology, not facts or science. You rely on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for your "facts" and consequently, you appear to be idiots. I've provided you with multiple citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles that support the position. You post up a picture of a weather girl and then insult the Clintons. Don't talk to me about "losing a discussion" you fucking moron. Originally Posted by timpage
timothy, your new name is moonbeam2...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/1...m-is-nonsense/
Even the LA Times thinks California Governor Brown’s latest Climate Claim is Nonsense
Eric Worrall / 3 hours ago October 19, 2015
The LA Times, which frequently expresses strong support for climate alarmist themes, has printed an article expressing skepticism of Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown’s attempt to link global warming to Californian wildfires.
According to the LA Times;
Gov. Brown’s link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say
The ash of the Rocky fire was still hot when Gov. Jerry Brown strode to a bank of television cameras beside a blackened ridge and, flanked by firefighters, delivered a battle cry against climate change.
The wilderness fire was “a real wake-up call” to reduce the carbon pollution “that is in many respects driving all of this,” he said.
“The fires are changing…. The way this fire performed, it’s not the way it usually has been. Going in lots of directions, moving fast, even without hot winds.”
“It’s a new normal,” he said in August. “California is burning.”
Brown had political reasons for his declaration.
He had just challenged Republican presidential candidates to state their agendas on global warming. He was embroiled in a fight with the oil industry over legislation to slash gasoline use in California. And he is seeking to make a mark on international negotiations on climate change that culminate in Paris in December.
But scientists who study climate change and fire behavior say their work does not show a link between this year’s wildfires and global warming, or support Brown’s assertion that fires are now unpredictable and unprecedented. There is not enough evidence, they say.
University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke said Brown is engaging in “noble-cause corruption.”
…
Even in a warmer world, they say, land management policies will have the greatest effect on the prevalence and intensity of fire.
- nevergaveitathought
- 10-19-2015, 11:42 AM
Great Climate change climatologists:al gore's tobacco speech
Not one has ever worked on a farm, in a forest, or anything to do with plants or nature. . Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
"Throughout most of my life, I’ve raised tobacco…I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."
but then he merely smears people without any back up or proof as when he told CBS news
"Some of the largest carbon polluters…try to convince people – as the tobacco industry did years ago on the link between smoking cigarettes and lung disease – that there really isn’t a link – between global warming-pollution and global warming."
CBS entitled their report: “Gore: Carbon Polluters Like Big Tobacco.”
its very offensive for polluters, well documented big carbon footprinters, and liars like gore to smear good faith well informed people who doubt a theory that predicts the future with well established medical facts of the effect of tobacco
his bragging about growing tobacco was especially galling because it was after his sister had died of lung cancer, but you see he was still eliciting large campaign contributions from tobacco interests....he's a typical dim
- IIFFOFRDB
- 10-19-2015, 12:09 PM
ManBearPig gets roasted
- timpage
- 10-19-2015, 12:09 PM
Truly? You think he is bragging about growing tobacco? Halfwit.
And, the analogy is a good one. You idiots and Big Oil are doing exactly the same thing that Big Tobacco did and does....deny the existence of an undeniable scientific (or, in the case of tobacco, medical) fact.
And, the analogy is a good one. You idiots and Big Oil are doing exactly the same thing that Big Tobacco did and does....deny the existence of an undeniable scientific (or, in the case of tobacco, medical) fact.
al gore's tobacco speech
"Throughout most of my life, I’ve raised tobacco…I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."
but then he merely smears people without any back up or proof as when he told CBS news
"Some of the largest carbon polluters…try to convince people – as the tobacco industry did years ago on the link between smoking cigarettes and lung disease – that there really isn’t a link – between global warming-pollution and global warming."
CBS entitled their report: “Gore: Carbon Polluters Like Big Tobacco.”
its very offensive for polluters, well documented big carbon footprinters, and liars like gore to smear good faith well informed people who doubt a theory that predicts the future with well established medical facts of the effect of tobacco
his bragging about growing tobacco was especially galling because it was after his sister had died of lung cancer, but you see he was still eliciting large campaign contributions from tobacco interests....he's a typical dim Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
- timpage
- 10-19-2015, 01:04 PM
Here's a timely op-ed on the issue. A RICO claim against Big Oil for fooling you dunces into carrying their water would be sweet....and well-deserved.
>>>>Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.
Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise.
The Big Tobacco playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.
Thankfully, the government had a playbook, too: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry groups, alleging that the companies “engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”
Tobacco spent millions of dollars and years of litigation fighting the government. But finally, through the discovery process, government lawyers were able to peel back the layers of deceit and denial and see what the tobacco companies really knew all along about cigarettes.
In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise. According to the court: “Defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective — to . . . maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public.”
The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.
In the case of fossil fuels, just as with tobacco, the industry joined together in a common enterprise and coordinated strategy. In 1998, the Clinton administration was building support for international climate action under the Kyoto Protocol. The fossil fuel industry, its trade associations and the conservative policy institutes that often do the industry’s dirty work met at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute. A memo from that meeting that was leaked to the New York Times documented their plans for a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to undermine climate science and to raise “questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.”
The shape of the fossil fuel industry’s denial operation has been documented by, among others, Drexel University professor Robert Brulle. In a 2013 paper published in the journal Climatic Change, Brulle described a complex network of organizations and funding that appears designed to obscure the fossil fuel industry’s fingerprints. To quote directly from Brulle’s report, it was “a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate.” That sounds a lot like Kessler’s findings in the tobacco racketeering case.
The coordinated tactics of the climate denial network, Brulle’s report states, “span a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.” Compare that again to the findings in the tobacco case.
The tobacco industry was proved to have conducted research that showed the direct opposite of what the industry stated publicly — namely, that tobacco use had serious health effects. Civil discovery would reveal whether and to what extent the fossil fuel industry has crossed this same line. We do know that it has funded research that — to its benefit — directly contradicts the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science. One scientist who consistently published papers downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change, Willie Soon, reportedly received more than half of his funding from oil and electric utility interests: more than $1.2 million.
To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But there’s an awful lot of smoke."
>>>>Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.
Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise.
The Big Tobacco playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.
Thankfully, the government had a playbook, too: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry groups, alleging that the companies “engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”
Tobacco spent millions of dollars and years of litigation fighting the government. But finally, through the discovery process, government lawyers were able to peel back the layers of deceit and denial and see what the tobacco companies really knew all along about cigarettes.
In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise. According to the court: “Defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective — to . . . maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public.”
The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.
In the case of fossil fuels, just as with tobacco, the industry joined together in a common enterprise and coordinated strategy. In 1998, the Clinton administration was building support for international climate action under the Kyoto Protocol. The fossil fuel industry, its trade associations and the conservative policy institutes that often do the industry’s dirty work met at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute. A memo from that meeting that was leaked to the New York Times documented their plans for a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to undermine climate science and to raise “questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.”
The shape of the fossil fuel industry’s denial operation has been documented by, among others, Drexel University professor Robert Brulle. In a 2013 paper published in the journal Climatic Change, Brulle described a complex network of organizations and funding that appears designed to obscure the fossil fuel industry’s fingerprints. To quote directly from Brulle’s report, it was “a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate.” That sounds a lot like Kessler’s findings in the tobacco racketeering case.
The coordinated tactics of the climate denial network, Brulle’s report states, “span a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.” Compare that again to the findings in the tobacco case.
The tobacco industry was proved to have conducted research that showed the direct opposite of what the industry stated publicly — namely, that tobacco use had serious health effects. Civil discovery would reveal whether and to what extent the fossil fuel industry has crossed this same line. We do know that it has funded research that — to its benefit — directly contradicts the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science. One scientist who consistently published papers downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change, Willie Soon, reportedly received more than half of his funding from oil and electric utility interests: more than $1.2 million.
To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But there’s an awful lot of smoke."
- LexusLover
- 10-19-2015, 01:20 PM
Here's a timely op-ed on the issue. ....... Originally Posted by timpageThe cut and paste Queen #2 strikes again.
If you keep it up Appendage, you'll beat BigTits' record for "op-ed pasties."
All you have is pasting and name calling .... no substance and no critical thinking.
All the "climatologists" in the world haven't refuted this ..
.
.. unless they are Bible thumpers!!!!! And if so, they don't buy your theories anyway!
Give it up, Appendage, you are trying to put that square bullshit in a round hole. "
Scientific" conclusions are not founded upon sociology studies about the behavior of segments of a society ... and conclusions based on those social studies are not "scientific"! The 4 to 5 BILLION years of this planet show "climate changes" e.g. the cycling from "cool" to "warm" mean temperatures of the Earth ... (see graph) ...
... LONG BEFORE MAN SHOWED UP!!!!! ... IN FACT FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE MAN SHOWED UP. ...
Aren't you the least embarrassed that you think like Jerry Brown?
- timpage
- 10-19-2015, 01:33 PM
Unlike you, I'm not stupid and uneducated enough to believe that my opinions on global warming have any weight. Understand? I don't think you and Rush Limbaugh's opinions on global warming amount to a bucket of warm spit. The same way I wouldn't rely on you to give me advice on how to treat cancer or to build a jet engine.
Understand now? While you make my fucking point with every post you throw up about cutting and pasting? Get it? That's the whole point. You show how stupid you are every time you try to take the position that you are qualified to offer an opinion.
And, I will ask you again. Taking a page from your playbook: why are you willing to accept that the temperature estimates from billions of years ago shown in your little graph are accurate? Could those estimates be the work of....gasp....climatologists? But, wait...they are always wrong aren't they?
Don't you talk to me about losing an argument again, you clueless chowderhead.
Understand now? While you make my fucking point with every post you throw up about cutting and pasting? Get it? That's the whole point. You show how stupid you are every time you try to take the position that you are qualified to offer an opinion.
And, I will ask you again. Taking a page from your playbook: why are you willing to accept that the temperature estimates from billions of years ago shown in your little graph are accurate? Could those estimates be the work of....gasp....climatologists? But, wait...they are always wrong aren't they?
Don't you talk to me about losing an argument again, you clueless chowderhead.
The cut and paste Queen #2 strikes again.
If you keep it up Appendage, you'll beat BigTits' record for "op-ed pasties."
All you have is pasting and name calling .... no substance and no critical thinking.
All the "climatologists" in the world haven't refuted this ..
.
.. unless they are Bible thumpers!!!!! And if so, they don't buy your theories anyway!
Give it up, Appendage, you are trying to put that square bullshit in a round hole. "Scientific" conclusions are not founded upon sociology studies about the behavior of segments of a society ... and conclusions based on those social studies are not "scientific"! Originally Posted by LexusLover
- LexusLover
- 10-19-2015, 01:35 PM