Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Saturday, October 03, 2009

Climate Depot- Another site exposing the Global Warming Hoax

-

The following site offers more information pertaining to the global warming hoax- enjoy:

Climate Depot

posted by Joe G @ 9:31 AM  

87 Comments:

  • At 1:16 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    That site is a member of www.CFACT.org, which is funded by Exxon, Chrysler, and others who would love climate change to be fake!

    You are so gullible!

     

  • At 2:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TFT,

    Anyone who buys into global warming without knowing what the Earth's temperature should be, is gullible.

    Here is another interesting article:

    the dog ate global warming

    Global warming is bullshit.

    Deal with it.

     

  • At 8:39 PM, Blogger jillsmo said…

    I bet that dog died. Poor dog. Is nothing sacred?

     

  • At 8:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The dog was missing too...

     

  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I don't know. I think I am going to put my lot in with the majority of scientists who say we are damaging the earth.

    My own eyes have seen lots of damage, and I find it hard to believe our impact is impact-less, but, maybe.

    I have a feeling the "missing data" is not a secret to most scientists, and they have probably made whatever corrections to their models as needed.

    Or, you are right and all the experts, some of them smarter than you, have been duped.

    Anything is possible (except the stuff that isn't!).

     

  • At 8:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I think I am going to put my lot in with the majority of scientists who say we are damaging the earth.

    I never said we weren't "damaging" thne Earth.

    Are you that desperate that you have to try to change the subject?

    But anyway there isn't a majority of scientists who say that CO2- manmade CO2 nor any other CO2- is a major player in global warming.

    As a matter of fact global warming has all but been refuted.

    It's all in the science and global warming alarmists just don't have any.

     

  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Global Warming is a misnomer. It should be called, more accurately, dangerous climate change.

    You are too dense to go beyond nomenclature. Climate change. Global warming. Global cooling. Whatever. We are causing irreversible damage that is impacting our climate, which will impact our way of life.

    I did not change the subject. I am not limited by the tag; we are not arguing law or technicalities. We are arguing about the veracity of the claim about man-made, dangerous, possibly irreversible climate change. Right?

    At least you haven't called me nasty names. Yet.

     

  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We aren't causing the climate to change.

    What I am saying is that there isn't any scientific data to support the claim that we are.

     

  • At 6:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    In your opinion, what do you think the carbon we release into the atmosphere does? And how much more do we release than nature operating freely (you like that one?)?

     

  • At 8:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In your opinion, what do you think the carbon we release into the atmosphere does?

    Carbon or carbon dioxide?

    The CO2 floats around until it gets absorbed.

    It's the CO2 that the US Supreme Court in its ignorance labeled a pollutant.

    And how much more do we release than nature operating freely (you like that one?)?

    Just humans vs. nature, operating freely, for EXAMPLE volcanic discharge, I would say nature wins.

    We have ice records that show that before humans were allegedly around there was a high concentration of CO2- higher than today.

    But if we include all agencies on this planet then it would be much, much closer.

    And humans vs all other plantary agencies the agencies out produce us even given our artificial CO2 production.

    But what we produce along with that CO2- the soot- is the real problem.

    Ya see when that falls back to Earth some (most?) falls on the snowcaps and glaciers.

    This turns white snow blacker.

    And we all know that that white snow reflects but darker colors absorb.

    The sunlight hits the soot, the soot absorbs the rays and gets hot.

    This surface heat melts the snow/ ice below it.

    That melt-off bores a hole and starts collecting.

    In some cases it collects enough to start melting away at the bottom also.

    It then acts as lubrication to bring the whole sheet sliding away.

    All that without raising the atmospheric temperature.

    But anyways I take it that you cannot present any scientific data that supports the claim that man-made CO2 is the cause of this climate change.

    That is what I thought.

     

  • At 9:03 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    If your only concern is rising temperatures, you may indeed be correct. However, as I said above, global warming is not the correct term; human induced global climate change seems more accurate.

    If you limit yourself to only one term when that one term has been bastardized, you end up arguing a non-argument.

    I am not at all convinced of global warming, but climate change? That seems to be pretty real.

    You argue in the same fashion with your ID stuff; you isolate a term or 2, limit your experimentation and come out indefinite.

     

  • At 9:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If your only concern is rising temperatures, you may indeed be correct. However, as I said above, global warming is not the correct term; human induced global climate change seems more accurate.

    Are you fucking retarded?

    I said:

    We aren't causing the climate to change.

    What I am saying is that there isn't any scientific data to support the claim that we are.

    Notice the phrase "CLIMATE TO CHANGE".

    I have noticed that you haven't provided any scientific data.

    So the bottom line is that you are a fucking retard and you think your retardation is a refutation.

    And as for ID all YOU have to do is to actually support YOUR position and it will go away.

    But again you have never supported anything you have said on this blog.

     

  • At 1:40 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Joe, I am retarded. I don't really appreciate you wondering aloud if I am "fucking" retarded. Didn't your mother teach you manners? Silly question.

    Using the words "climate" and "change" in the same sentence is not the same as calling "global warming" "climate change" is it?

    Anyway, like you, I am not a scientist. I only know what I read, and I have read a lot about the fact that we are causing the climate to change.

    I know there are folks who deny it, just as there are folks who deny evolution. But denial is not refutation.

    When you refute the Academy of Science, and your refutation has been replicated by others, then I will begin to take you seriously. Until then I will continue to lump you in with the "deniers" of science, you religious twit.

     

  • At 6:58 PM, Blogger jillsmo said…

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     

  • At 6:30 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um. In all that babble you must have forgotten to mention how much MORE CO2 is released by humans than is released by nature operating freely.

    Surely an oversight....

     

  • At 7:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Using the words "climate" and "change" in the same sentence is not the same as calling "global warming" "climate change" is it?
    When I say:

    We aren't causing the climate to change.

    It cereatinly means "climate change" and not "global warming".

    But now I understand your frustration- you are a mental midget and your students are smarter than you- that must be frustrating.

    I only know what I read, and I have read a lot about the fact that we are causing the climate to change.

    Then it is a little strange that you can't post any scientific data that supports that claim.

    Scientific data you ignorant alarmists asshole.

    Without that you don't have anything but a big mouth spewing alarmist ignorance.

     

  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW TFT I was employed as a scientist.

    Go figure...

     

  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In all that babble you must have forgotten to mention how much MORE CO2 is released by humans than is released by nature operating freely.

    What babble?

    IOW just because you are too stupid to understand what I post doesn't make it babble.

    And obviously you are still too stupid to understand what I posted because I didn't say humans release more than nature, operating freely.

    That said you can do your own research or better yet post some scientific data that refutes my claims and supports your position.

    If you refuse to post that data don't bother posting.

     

  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TFT,

    When the NAS has the scientific data that supports their claims I will listen to them.

    Until then they don't have squat.

    And if they had the data then all these other scientists wouldn't be refuting the claim of man-made climate change.

     

  • At 5:33 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you have no idea or guess as to how much MORE CO2 is released as compared to nature operating freely?

    That's okay, Joe. If you didn't know when I asked, you could just say, "I don't know." It's fine.

     

  • At 9:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    Why do you have to prove you're ignorant every freakin' day?

    When you ask:

    And how much more do we release than nature operating freely (you like that one?)?

    And I answer that nature, operating freely produces more, that means that no, I don't have a number for how much more we produce than nature, operating freely because we don't produce more.

    Something else to consider- no one knows how much CO2 should be in our atmosphere.

    No one has a clue as to any upper or lower limits- although the plants may tell us when/ if it gets too low.

    Hurricane seasons were supposed to be getting worse and worse.

    What happened to that?

    Scientific data clownie.

    It is very telling that neither you, TFT nor Al Gore can muster any to support the claim of human caused climate change.

     

  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Try to follow along. If nature operating freely (I just love using this meaningless phrase--I see why you get a kick out of it) produces X CO2, then the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must be X + MAN. Here, "MAN" equals the MORE CO2 than nature operating freely.

    Now do be a good asshat and tell us what you think MAN equals. It's not that hard. If you don't know, then just say you don't know and we can move on.

     

  • At 7:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just how is "nature, operating freely" a meaningless phrase?

    I understand that it is meaningless to ignorant assholes like you, but tell us people interested in reality how it is useless.

    Please be specific.

    Also this is what you originally said which isn't anything like you are not saying:

    And how much more do we release than nature operating freely (you like that one?)?

    But anyway I take it that you can't present any scientific data that supports your position.

    And you sure as hell can't tell us how much CO2 is supposed to be in the atmosphere.

    So what the fuck is your point- IOW why are you even posting here?

    I ask because you have never added anything to any discussion.

    You just show up spewing shit and you think that your shit is meaningful discourse.

     

  • At 8:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Please try to follow along. It isn't that hard. I never said anything about how much CO2 was SUPPOSED to be in the atmosphere.

    I asked you how much MORE CO2 man put in the atmosphere as compared to nature operating freely.

    Please tell us if you have an idea on what amount of CO2 man put into the atmosphere on his lonesome. This is the question I originally asked and it hasn't changed.

     

  • At 8:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    My comment is completely position-neutral. I asked YOUR OPINION as to how much CO2 man releases into the atmosphere as opposed to nature operating freely. If you don't know what the phrase means perhaps you should stop using it.

     

  • At 8:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Try to follow along. If nature operating freely produces X CO2, then the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must be X + MAN.

    That is incorrect.

    I take it you didn't read my initial response to you.

    Or is it that you are just too stupid to understand what I posted?

    But anyway- if you wanted to know what humans contribute, that's all you had to ask.

    How much CO2 do humans contribute?

    Then we would have to break that down:

    How much do we contribute artficially? vs How much do we contribute naturally?

    Yet all that is moot if we don't have any thresholds to compare against.

     

  • At 8:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I never said anything about how much CO2 was SUPPOSED to be in the atmosphere.

    I know and that is what makes your position so retarded.

    If you don't know then what the fuck is your point?

    I asked you how much MORE CO2 man put in the atmosphere as compared to nature operating freely.

    Not originally.

    You asked:

    And how much more do we release than nature operating freely (you like that one?)?

    We don't release more than nature, operating freely.

    If you wanted to know how much we contribute that is what you should have asked.

    IOW just because you are too retarded to ask a question properly doesn't mean that I am retarded because I didn't answer it the way you wanted me to.

    BTW I know what "nature, operating freely" means- however it is obvious that you are clueless.

     

  • At 8:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Please tell us if you have an idea on what amount of CO2 man put into the atmosphere on his lonesome.

    Tell me how much we can put in before the climate changes.

     

  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. You fucktard. How much CO2 does man release that wouldn't fucking be there if fucking man wasn't doing fucking shit? Is that easier for you?

    Jesus H. Christ.

    How much CO2 does man release into the atmosphere, Joe? Please compare that amount to the amount that would exist if man didn't do shit and release CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Jesus.

     

  • At 8:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey asshole, just because you are soooo fucked up that you can't even ask a question properly don't go spastic on me.

    I answered your original question as asked.

    But anyway tell me how much we can release before we cause the climate to change.

    What's the tipping point?

    How many entertainers do we have to eliminate to get back in balance?

    But anyway as I said before we have ice records that show that before we were here there was a period when the CO2 was higher than it is now.

     

  • At 8:32 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Do you have any idea how much CO2 is released my man? That is what I asked (in part). I asked you to compare that number to what nature (operating freely) produces.

    You have not answered this question. You have said that you have answered this question. You are a liar.

     

  • At 8:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I said I answered your original question:

    And how much more do we release than nature operating freely (you like that one?)?

    Now you are claiming that is not what you meant to ask and you are blaming me because you no speaky English and I don't translate your drooling imbecile very well.

    Do you have any idea how much CO2 man can release before the climate changes?

    Yes or no?

     

  • At 8:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you have any idea how much CO2 is released my man?

    Explain the relevance- which would mean telling me the amount of CO2 man can release before we affect the climate.

     

  • At 8:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. You're a dickhead. How much CO2 does man produce? How does this compare with the quantity of CO2 produced by man and nature together? This has always been the question. Do you have an opinion or not? If so, what are the numbers?

    Stop being a dipshit.

     

  • At 9:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey anal licking clown-

    Explain the relevance- which would mean telling me the amount of CO2 man can release before we affect the climate.

    Don't keep asking the stupid question- explain the relevance.

    And no that wasn't always the question- oops that's right in your native drooling imbecile it may have been. But to the English speaking world your original question is very different than the question you are now posing.

    So explain the relevance.

     

  • At 9:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Top 15 Climate Myths:

    •Climate changes are not driven by CO2.

    •Air pollution has nothing to do with CO2.

    •Human-produced CO2 is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases.

    •96.5% of all greenhouse gases emit from the oceans, naturally.

    •The small amount of CO2 produced by humans is wholly beneficial to the planet.

    •Without CO2, vegetation dies, herbivores die, you die.

    •CO2 levels used to be much higher many times in the past.

     

  • At 9:49 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Answer the question. It's not a difficult one. The fact that you have tried for several comments to avoid answering is funny. Is there a reason you keep addressing the question without answering?

    Answer the question or say that you don't know. We can move on in either case.

     

  • At 7:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    asshole, tell me the relevance of the question.

    Explain the relevance- which would mean telling me the amount of CO2 man can release before we affect the climate.

    Don't keep asking the stupid question- explain the relevance.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    The fact that you won't tell me the relevance of your question tells me it ain't worth answering.

    Your next comment has to contain one of two things in order for it to get published:

    1- An explanation to the relevance of your question.

    or

    2- Scientific data that demonstrates man-made CO2 causes climate change.

     

  • At 3:45 PM, Blogger jillsmo said…

    Comment moderation is for pussies!

    (I wonder if this comment will get "moderated" ?)

     

  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Comment moderation is for pussies!

    If you are what you eat then I am guilty as charged.

    However comment moderation is enabled in order to weed out the shit covered dickheads spewing nonsense (they are what they eat also).

     

  • At 4:57 PM, Blogger jillsmo said…

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     

  • At 6:42 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Do you know or not?

     

  • At 7:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Calling me a pussy is a compliment, not an attack.

     

  • At 7:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No clownie I do not know the relevance of your question.

    Perhaps you can pull your little bitty head out of your gaping asshole long enough to tell me.

    Or you could just admit tat you are an intellectual coward and go pollute someone else's blog.

     

  • At 11:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What's the relevance of your asking the relevance of my question? Until you answer that I refuse to answer your question about my question.

    So there!

    Wow. This is easy.

     

  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well it looks like TFT doesn't have any intention of supporting her claims.

    And Pratt never had any intention of supporting its claims.

    So why do people think that their ignorance is meaningful discourse?

     

  • At 10:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Erik Pratt proves tat he is a little crybaby as well as being a liar and a loser.

    OK wittle Erik,

    Given your history of taking threads off topic and asking irrelevant questions you have to explain the relevance every question you ask.

    If you do not I have to assume the question(s) are irrelevant and do not require an answer.

    That is a small price you have to pay for being an asshole.

     

  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So how much CO2--than nature operating freely--does man release into the atmosphere, Joe?

     

  • At 5:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What is the relevance of your question, Erik?

    How much CO2 can we release before we tip the atmosphere to the point of changing the climate?

    And what part of the following don't you understand?:

    •Climate changes are not driven by CO2.

    •Air pollution has nothing to do with CO2.

    •Human-produced CO2 is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases.

    •96.5% of all greenhouse gases emit from the oceans, naturally.

    •The small amount of CO2 produced by humans is wholly beneficial to the planet.

    •Without CO2, vegetation dies, herbivores die, you die.

    •CO2 levels used to be much higher many times in the past.

     

  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Stop thinking you know what my point is. Just answer the question. You objections have no relevance to the answer. I'm asking you to provide a number, a fact.

    How much CO2 is released into the atmosphere as compared to the amount "nature operating freely*" is responsible for?

    * idiotic phrase trademarked by TARD Enterprises.

     

  • At 5:54 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Look around you, Joe. With the extra CO2, even though minuscule (according to Joe), and your claim that CO2 is good for the environment, is the environment improving? Has it improved since the industrial revolution?

    Why aren't there more healthy plants than ever?

    Instead we have forests dying of disease, insect and amphibian life dying off, and your inability to answer a simple question about how much CO2 man puts into the air (minus exhaling and farts).

    You state so much erroneous and/or unsubstantiated nonsense, yet we come back. I think that speaks poorly of us, not you.

    Oh, I am a "he" not a "she" in case you wanted to refer to me correctly (can Joe resist a sexist pseudo-joke now?)

     

  • At 6:00 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/#more-1184

    That whole thing about the 6 trees in Siberia? It's bullshit. What a surprise!

    Go read, Joe.

     

  • At 6:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Stop thinking you know what my point is.

    I don't have any idea what your point is.

    So stop being an asshole and tell me the relevance of your question.

    And if you could answer mine that would be great also.

    I say that because if you cannot answer my question then your question is irrelevant.

     

  • At 7:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Look around you, Joe. With the extra CO2, even though minuscule (according to Joe), and your claim that CO2 is good for the environment, is the environment improving? Has it improved since the industrial revolution?

    CO2 is not a pollutant.

    Plants NEED CO2.

    And the industrial revolution brought along much more than added CO2.

    Why aren't there more healthy plants than ever?

    It ain't the CO2 that is making them unhealthy.

    Instead we have forests dying of disease, insect and amphibian life dying off, and your inability to answer a simple question about how much CO2 man puts into the air (minus exhaling and farts).

    It is very telling that neither of you can tell me how much we can put in before it becomes an issue.

    And BTW it is YOU assholes who should have the answer to blipey's question.

    You should know how much we put in and how much the atmosphere can handle.

    However you got nuthin' and you blame me for your ignorance.

    You state so much erroneous and/or unsubstantiated nonsense, yet we come back. I think that speaks poorly of us, not you.

    That you say it is nonsense doesn't make it nonsense.

    It is also very telling that you never correct me with actual scientific data.

    It is like you think that your say-so is all that is required.

    Oh, I am a "he" not a "she" in case you wanted to refer to me correctly

    You "argue" like a woman on permanent PMS.

     

  • At 7:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That whole thing about the 6 trees in Siberia? It's bullshit. What a surprise!

    Go read, Joe.

    Whatever TFT.

    I have noticed you STILL haven't provided any scientific data linking humans' CO2 production to climate change.

    You don't have any idea what concentration of CO2 our atmosphere can handle.

    And you have a funny way of "refuting" what I post- just tell me that what I post is nonsense and it is so.

     

  • At 8:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. The number. How much CO2 does "nature operating freely" release into the atmosphere?

    Compare this amount to the total amount released into the atmosphere.

     

  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik, tell me the RELEVANCE of your questions or fuck off.

    You know you don't have to keep proving that you arean asshole everyone already knows.

    And then you have to answer my question-

    How much CO2 can humans release before we cause the climate to change?

    So have at it- you have some splainin' to do plus a question to answer BEFORE I will even consider answering any of your questions.

     

  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I told you, Joe. You asking the relevance of the the relevance of my question is not relevant.

    So, how about the number.

    You ever wonder why you don't like it when others do the exact same thing as you do? Think about it.

    Now, the number?

     

  • At 11:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I told you why it is relevant that you tell me the relevance of your questions.

    If you refuse to do so I donm't have any reason to answer you.

    So go ahead- ask away- until you tell me the relevance of your questions I will not answer them.

    And BTW I learned my tactics from reading posts by assholes like you.

    It is YOU who doesn't like your own tactics used against you- think about it.

     

  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why is it relevant, Joe? Is your answer going to change? Is the actual number contingent upon my reason for asking?

    Too funny. What's the number?

     

  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is relevant just because I said so.

    Ya see if you want me to answer any of your questions then you have to explain the relevance of each question as it is asked.

    If you don't want me to answer your questions just continue to be the asshole you are.

    But I will agree to answer your question without you telling me the relevance if and only if you answer the following:

    How much CO2 can humans release before the climate changes?

    Please support your answer with peer-reviewed scientific data.

    Thank you in advance.

     

  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I said earlier:

    So Erik Pratt proves that he is a little crybaby as well as being a liar and a loser.

    OK wittle Erik,

    Given your history of taking threads off topic and asking irrelevant questions you have to explain the relevance every question you ask.

    If you do not I have to assume the question(s) are irrelevant and do not require an answer.

    That is a small price you have to pay for being an asshole.

     

  • At 1:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    CO2 in our atmosphere is about 385 ppm (parts per million).

    In the Cretaceous and Jurassic it was closer to 2000 ppm (1950 ppm in the Jurassic).

    Life flourished during that time.

     

  • At 6:17 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, so close to answering. But not quite. A reminder:

    How much CO2 is released into the atmosphere by "nature operating freely"? Compare this number to the total amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

     

  • At 7:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A REMINDER:

    So Erik Pratt proves that he is a little crybaby as well as being a liar and a loser.

    OK wittle Erik,

    Given your history of taking threads off topic and asking irrelevant questions you have to explain the relevance every question you ask.

    If you do not I have to assume the question(s) are irrelevant and do not require an answer.

    That is a small price you have to pay for being an asshole.

    I know the answer to your question and you can find it just by doing a search using your question.

    The number is soooo low it is pathetic that some people think it makes a difference.

     

  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, don't assume you know what I'm after. What's the answer?

     

  • At 8:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't care what you are after.

    If you want me to answer any of your questions you have to explain the relevance.

    OR you could just do your own research.

    Your choice skippy...

     

  • At 10:19 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I asked you, Joe, what you thought the numbers were. The only way to find out that answer is for you to tell me what you think they are.

    So, what's the answer?

     

  • At 10:21 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    If you don't care what I think, why don't you just answer the question? If you want to know what I think the relevance is, then you obviously care what I think. Come on, Joe, just answer the question. You're looking like a giant asshat.

     

  • At 6:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I know you asked me.

    And I don't give a shit.

    If you want an answer from me you need to do one of two things:

    1- Explain the relevance of your question

    2- Answer my question:

    How much CO2 can humans release before it causes the climate to change?

    If you want to know what I think the relevance is, then you obviously care what I think.

    It is stupid comments like that that tells me to make to explain the relevance of your questions.

    Do your own research.

    What I think the numbers are is of absolutely zero importance.

    Ya see without the answer to the question I asked what I think we release is meaningless.

     

  • At 1:37 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    What I think the numbers are is of absolutely zero importance.

    I think that's about right, Joe. As is this:

    [W]hat I think we release is meaningless.

    I think blipey wants to know your numbers because once he knows them he will be able to show that it is you being an asshat, fucktard, or whatever. Of course, I could be wrong.

    Then again, we don't really need blipey for that...

     

  • At 2:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Still no scientific data that supports your claim so you have to keep attacking me.

    What a small-minded person you are.

    Are you proud that you are an asshole?

    Does it make you feel better by providing cover for another asshole?

    Where are your numbers TFT?

    You know the numbers that shows when CO2 levels reach a certain point the climate changes.

    If the science is right and there was 1950 ppm in the Jurassic then I would think that we should start finding ways to dump more CO2 into the atmosphere because life THRIVED during that period.

    Or do you think that 385 ppm > 1950 ppm?

     

  • At 3:31 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I think you are a simpleton.

     

  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And I know that you are an asshole.

    As a matter of fact you are an ignorant asshole.

    That said do you have ANY scientific data that demonstrates humans are causing the climate to change based on our CO2 output?

    Simpletons, like you, don't need scientific data because they just don't know what to do with it.

     

  • At 10:59 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um, Joe. How far will you go to avoid a simple question of fact?

    How much CO2 is released into the atmosphere by "nature operating freely"? Compare this number to the total amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

    Remember to approach your response from the position that you don't care one iota what I think the relevance is.

     

  • At 7:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am not avoiding anything.

    I am merely WAITING ON YOU TO PROVIDE ONE OF TWO ANSWERS THAT I ASKED FOR.

    IOW clownie YOU are the one avoiding questions here.

    And yes it is funny watching you avoid those questions.

     

  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, I asked you about a number. It was AFTER this that you wanted to know whatever it is you want me to answer.

    However, as the information I asked for is in no way contingent upon any of those things, it is strange that you can't answer.

    It makes me think that you are waiting for my answers in order to make up a number.

    So, what's the number? How much CO2 is released into the atmosphere by "nature acting freely"?

    Why is this number dependent upon my motives?

     

  • At 7:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Still waiting on Pratt...

     

  • At 7:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The point is if you are unwilling to answer my questions why should I bother answering any of yours?

     

  • At 9:59 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um.... You introduced a topic and I asked a question. You then refused to answer the question. That is the order of events.

    Why would you refuse to answer a question, Joe? It's not like you asked one of me and then I refused to answer until you did something else....

    It's just the opposite.

    How much CO2 is released into the atmosphere by "nature acting freely"?

    Why don't you want to tell us?

     

  • At 7:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik Pratt no understandy English.

    The point is if you are unwilling to answer my questions why should I bother answering any of yours?

    Put up or shut the fuck up.

    Why are YOU refusing to answer my questions?

    Still waiting...

     

  • At 6:00 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, you are unwilling to answer my questions. That is the fact. I asked you a question. You refused to answer it. You then made up reasons to not answer it. You are at fault here, not I.

    Please tell us how much CO2 you think is released into the atmosphere by "nature acting freely". Then compare this to the total amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

    Again, it is YOU who have refused to answer questions. It is YOU who have made up conditions post-question. It is you who are avoiding meaningful dialogue.

     

  • At 9:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Whatever Erik.

    I am WAITING on your answers to my questions.

    THAT is the FACT of the matter.

    As for meaningful dialog-

    BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAA

    The words "blipey" and "meaningful dialog" are in direct contradiction.

    And if you really wanted "meaningful" dialog you would have met my request days ago.

    Other than that you can follow the links I provided and if you find something you would like to discuss, take it up with the author(s).

    I am not interested in chasing the imaginary meaningful discourse with a clown.


    BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA.

    That's a good one...

     

  • At 9:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The point is if you are unwilling to answer my questions why should I bother answering any of yours?

    You are too much of a chicken-shit to answer that one.

     

  • At 11:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Look up thread. I asked you a question. After that fact, you have continually refused to answer it and have made shit up in order to avoid answering.

    How much CO2 is released into the atmosphere by "nature acting freely"? You don't even have to compare it to anything. Just that one number will do.

     

  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    Pull your head out of your ass for one fucking minute-

    I am WAITING for YOU.

    If you are not going to answer my questions- I will not answer yours.

    It is that simple.

     

  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So it looks like there isn't anything else to discuss in this thread...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home