As I've posted previously, you keep over rating the pinhead wonderboy.
He has NEVER posted anything that he has thought out for himself. He has no clue what a CONSERVATIVE, neo-con, socialist or any other political position amounts to!
First he supported blowhard doofus joe and in the next breath he was a Ron Paul fan, political polar opposites?

quote:

Originally posted by The Bozman:
Jeremy,
Now I think your posts have been getting to close to Boob's posts because you are starting to loose your acumen. You of all people can see the sacaism in those statements, "Ice Age", "run for your lives", come on Jeremy. I know you believe this Global warming CRAP but you are actually smarter than that. look at all the information, look at the picture from a grand perspective instead of the small period of time the "Global warming scientists" (yes, they have to be quantified that way since they have fabricated the data and left out data that would debunk thier stance) are looking at you will see it.

Your smarter than this Jeremy, and you know I wouldn't state my beliefs on just the snow in Washington, lake Erie freezing, Texas being 15 degrees below avegare for the entire 2010 so far, etc. It takes a lot more than that to show a GLOBAL pattern.

So why do you choose to criticize me and not Koski?

Why don't you look back on this thread and read how I really feel about GW/CC instead of just placing a label on me JUST BECAUSE I pick on Koski? I've only mentioned it SEVERAL times, I'm not doing it again.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
As I've posted previously, you keep over rating the pinhead wonderboy.
He has NEVER posted anything that he has thought out for himself. He has no clue what a CONSERVATIVE, neo-con, socialist or any other political position amounts to!
First he supported blowhard doofus joe and in the next breath he was a Ron Paul fan, political polar opposites?

Hey genius, tell us about Lake Erie!!!

Still waiting......

I noticed that you were definitly defending one side of the arguement. Why do you think I gave you the benifit of the doubt on your intellegence level. If you and Koski want to go at it then go ahead, good luck, LOL.

I just posted it for everyone to see. It states the level from both sides, I just know that you have a better intellegence level than some so it struck me odd that you would be defending something so ignorant.

Blaze on Jeremy and Koski, enjoy your debate, or debacle, or whatever you want to call it, LOL.

pinhead wonderboy is too ignorant to joust with so don't put me in any debates with pinhead!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
pinhead wonderboy is too ignorant to joust with so don't put me in any debates with pinhead!

Yet you keep coming back for more............

Tell us about Lake Erie!! Still waiting!

Boz, there are countless hundreds of thousands of studies with an indefinite amount of data available pertaining to all fields of study that do not even include the favored temperature readings that all love to focus on. Every single one of them can be used to try to prove or disprove GW/CC. Any reputable scientist, meteorologist or climatologist will tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove or disprove otherwise because every single one of them that has an agenda against the opposition will use their selected studies to make headlines. Unfortunately, these reputable scientists will NEVER become mainstream because of the fact that it is not newsworthy, only drama is newsworthy. For any one person to come forward and say they can debunk any theory is misguided and biased because it is quite literally impossible to do so. For every story somebody posts about increasingly hot weather, I can post an equal amount of stories about increasingly cold weather and vice versa. It's a real shame some people are unwilling to understand the differences between weather and climate. There is more to GW/CC than temperature alone.

Well said, I agree with what you are saying. The biggest issue I am having now is that the people (the main group for the summits and the groups that published data that the summits were based on) that published the data are now coming forward and saying that their data is not accurate due to the items that they have excluded.

It is a shame that the Agendas are costing our tax payers a HUGE amount of money. A perfect example was Obamer stating that he helped a company in Arizona hire 15 people at only a cost of 100 million dollars of the stimulas money. Now tell me how you can only hire 15 emplyees with an investment of 100 million dollars. Especailly in a place that makes windows!!!!!

It's a simple proposition!
The man-made global warming hoaxers are intent on forcing their agenda on the world and they have cheated, lied and connived to try and foist a BIG LIE on the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The supposed deniers are simply asking for some valid science to be provided!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
It's a simple proposition!
The man-made global warming hoaxers are intent on forcing their agenda on the world and they have cheated, lied and connived to try and foist a BIG LIE on the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The supposed deniers are simply asking for some valid science to be provided!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must be talking to somebody else because I wasn't worth your time remember? Did you find anything about Lake Erie that you'd like to share with us?

Regardless of what happens, something needed to be done to clean up the planet... the means by which they do it is questionable. Unfortunately for you 'deniers' you can't offer any more evidence against GW than the advocates can to support it.

Global warming=power and money.

pinhead wonderboy is having an orgasm thinking I responded to him? Talk about a lost soul!
All I was doing was pointing out to boze that the man-made global warming hoaxers are at the point of desparation because their bogus psuedo science has backfired on them!
Anybody that understands the first iota about science or physics knows it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
pinhead wonderboy is having an orgasm thinking I responded to him? Talk about a lost soul!
All I was doing was pointing out to boze that the man-made global warming hoaxers are at the point of desparation because their bogus psuedo science has backfired on them!
Anybody that understands the first iota about science or physics knows it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet you keep coming back for more............

Don't flatter yourself you self-absorbed partisan hack!

Tell us about Lake Erie!! Still waiting!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
pinhead wonderboy is having an orgasm thinking I responded to him? Talk about a lost soul!
All I was doing was pointing out to boze that the man-made global warming hoaxers are at the point of desparation because their bogus psuedo science has backfired on them!

Anybody that understands the first iota about science or physics knows it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“You can’t prove a negative.”



People who are searching for excuses to believe silly things frequently make this statement. A theist makes a positive assertion, and then declines to provide a basis for it. You deny their assertion (rightly so, what with no basis and all), but your denial is deemed invalid because it is impossible to prove a denial.



There is so very much wrong with this situation, it will take a while to wade through it.



The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages. That’s the answer to this statement in theory.



However, in practice, there is usually a lot more happening with the person who makes such a proclamation. The person who makes this kind of statement has a great many fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of logic, science, and productive thought.



First, many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.



Secondly, a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring (in opposition to common sense) that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Simply put, that what is true for others might not be true for themselves. But this is madness – this also turns its back on productive thinking. This idea is called “solipsism,” and it refers to the notion that every person lives in his own reality, and what is true in his or her life might not be true for others. This is an old idea and it was shown to be ridiculous many centuries ago. Think about it – if it solipsism really was real, there wouldn’t be any books, schools, learning, or science. And people would never be able to communicate effectively.



Thirdly, the statement that “you cannot prove a negative” is simply false. On the surface, it seems to be true: if Person A says “I think God exists” and Person B says “I don’t think God exists,” it’s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn’t a God. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:



Five is not equal to four
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld

The tsetse fly is not native to North America



Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement.

The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”



Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist – no one even knows what God is supposed to be.

Now the whackado man-made global warming nuts are admitting they screwed up in their predictions of the sea levels rising???????????
Why don't don't these bozos save temselves numerous contortions and just admit their entire goofy prognostications were all a wet dream????????????????????????????????

Anybody know if Koski found anything about Lake Erie yet?

JJ, tell me about Lake Erie, I want to know.

quote:

Originally posted by 82Blackbird:
JJ, tell me about Lake Erie, I want to know.

Ask Koski, he knows......

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy J.:

Boz, my point was it froze EVERY year like clockwork prior to 1995, but hasn't since (which I don't think is accurate to begin with) but you've all spent page after page after page saying there hasn't been any kind of warming in the last decade. Why is that? If the lake hasn't frozen in 15 years yet there was no global warming, how is it that the lake freezing over now has anything to do with it?

When the lake doesn't freeze over the snow belt gets bombarded with snow, which they have over the last 15 years. Why is it the snow in DC means that there is global cooling? Wouldn't all the snow in BFLO mean that it's cooling? But the lake wasn't frozen all those years....... I don't get it, can you explain it to me?

FYI, BFLO and the rest of the snow belt has had very little snow over the last month, I guess that means it's warming right?

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy J.:

quote:

Originally posted by 82Blackbird:
JJ, tell me about Lake Erie, I want to know.

Ask Koski, he knows......

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy J.:

Boz, my point was it froze EVERY year like clockwork prior to 1995, but hasn't since (which I don't think is accurate to begin with) but you've all spent page after page after page saying there hasn't been any kind of warming in the last decade. Why is that? If the lake hasn't frozen in 15 years yet there was no global warming, how is it that the lake freezing over now has anything to do with it?

When the lake doesn't freeze over the snow belt gets bombarded with snow, which they have over the last 15 years. Why is it the snow in DC means that there is global cooling? Wouldn't all the snow in BFLO mean that it's cooling? But the lake wasn't frozen all those years....... I don't get it, can you explain it to me?

FYI, BFLO and the rest of the snow belt has had very little snow over the last month, I guess that means it's warming right?

Does not "El Nino" and "La Nina" have a dominant effect on Lake Erie? I know the only thing that effects our weather as much as these is a "Burmuda High".