-
Recent Comments
DirkH on Millions Of Climate Refugees H… miked1947 on Obama Making College More… miked1947 on 143 Degrees Warming In Si… miked1947 on Scientific American Considers … The old Seadog. on Summer Begins In Greenlan… slimething on Lukewarmers : All Versions Are… slimething on Zimmerman Now Charged With Pay… Amino Acids in Meteo… on Zimmerman Now Charged With Pay… Amino Acids in Meteo… on Zimmerman Now Charged With Pay… Amino Acids in Meteo… on Zimmerman Now Charged With Pay…
Another pathetic attempt to dodge scientific reality by quoting a scientist as opposed to the majority of scientists; who:
1. Had no meaningful way of making the calculations necessary to come even close to an accurate description of what Global Warming would actually do and when.
2. Was, unlike most scientists of the time, a fool.
Now here is the superb logic of (choke, gag) skeptics:
a. The exception is the rule.
And its corollary:
a1. A fool (or a few fools) in one group represents the entire group.
b. You can pooh pooh reality away
c. True science (i.e. understanding reality) requires no quantification; just anecdotes and complaints about people’s faults, gaffes, etc.
d. Never make a committal to any meaningful prediction. Leave yourself open to anything that happens in the future an then claim that you predicted it. Example; predicting that the Arctic ice cap will either grow shrink or stay the same (remember who said that?) In other words, cover all bases.
And its corollary:
d1. So you can afford to throw rotten tomatoes at anything scientists say. That’s because when they’re vindicated by reality you can always point to another of your predictions that happens to coincide with what real thinkers predicted.
No effort, no sweat.
By the way, skeptics would make excellent weather men:
“And tomorrow we’ll have the possibility of light, medium, or heavy rains or no rain at all. Temperatures will be on the cold side with a possibility of their being on the hot side. No winds to heavy winds.”
I don’t have direct communication with the borg, so I quote Locutus.
“And tomorrow we’ll have the possibility of light, medium, or heavy rains or no rain at all. Temperatures will be on the cold side with a possibility of their being on the hot side. No winds to heavy winds.”
Sounds more like what alarmists say, in respect to what AGW causes.
@IWB: Something I see in common with you and just about every other warmist I have encountered … you are all so negative. Have you all forgotten how to enjoy and appreciate life and what a gift it truly is? Or are you capable of nothing but doom and gloom, and making others feel guilty for simply being on this Earth? What a sad existence … predicting floods, droughts, sea level rise, etc. and secretly (or not) hoping they happen just so you can say “I told you so”.
Ill wind blowing, I says, AGW Believers have another pathetic attempt to dodge scientific reality by quoting a concensus as opposed to the majority of facts; where:
1. They Have no meaningful way of making the calculations necessary to come even close to an accurate description of what Global Warming would actually do and when.
2. Most likely the gravy train scientists of the time, are all fools.
Now here is the superb logic of (choke, gag) Believers:
a. The exception is the rule.
And its corollary:
a1. A fool (or a few fools) in one group represents the entire group. Drink the Kool Aid you fools! Did I think that out loud?
b. You can pooh pooh reality away
c. True science (i.e. understanding reality) requires no quantification; Just faith and believe, just make anecdotes and complaints about people’s faults, gaffes, etc. to keep the faith.
d. Never make a committal to any meaningful prediction. Always use words like maybe, might, could, possibly, and very likely to leave yourself open to anything that happens in the future an then claim that you predicted it. Typicle alarmist behavior. Example; predicting that AGW wil cause warmcold, wetdry, and it will snow or not ever again or stay the same (remember Alarmist said that?) In other words, cover all bases to get a Cap and Tax.
And its corollary:
d1. So you can afford to throw rotten tomatoes at anything skeptic may say. That’s because when they’re vindicated by reality you can always point to another of your predictions that happens to coincide with what computer modles say.
No effort, no sweat.
By the way, Believers would make excellent weather men as it seems they are already predicting:
“tomorrow we’ll have the possibility of light, medium, or heavy rains or no rain at all. Temperatures will be on the cold side with a possibility of their being on the hot side. No winds to heavy winds.” Just to cover all bases.
ME:
Your version fits the current reality! IWB was projecting its own conditions on what it considers the opposing tribe.
But wait….I thought all climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age by the year 2000? What happened?
I thought all alarmists were wired in to the same collective.
I must return to Unimatrix 001.