Re: Irrefutable Data On Climate Change

Bret Cahill

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 12:36:59 PM12/27/09

to

> I've had about 12 replies to my requests for what deniers mean when
> they say 'climate change' or even 'global warming', and only *one* has
> even *attempted* to answer the question. That is Imgoodguy, who did
> one post with a loony but *too the point* response.
>
> So here are my scientific conclusions:
>
> Most deniers don't have even a basic education in physics.

Most are so bat crap crazy they are willing to ally themselves with
any established wacko.

> All don't have experience with or education about comples non-linear
> systems. True, this stuff requires some serious math, but the
> qualitative aspects have been discussed under the modern term
> 'chaotic'. And it seems obvious that some are not even all that clear
> on what "average" means.
>
> No freedom of information act required; it is in these newsgroups for
> all to see. No ooooh~~~~Fortran Code~~~ has been used on these
> statistics. Even the Socialist UN Cabal refused to supply me with a
> grant for this study.

Lyndon LaRouche says AGW is a conspiracy.

Try to make a list of all the wacko conspiracy theories that have come
from the granddaddy of all winger dingers.

Try to read the _full_ Wiki article on LaRouche.

You don't get to stop to eat or sleep until you are finished.

You will be on the honor system.

Bret Cahill

Robert Morpheal

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 12:43:42 PM12/27/09

to

There is absolutely nothing really convincing about the climate change
arguments.
Yes, climate is changing. It has always changed, at intervals, to
varying amounts.
The reasons for those changes are the subject of endless argument.

Check out Professor Mann's discussions on the subject, in
Pennsylvania. He actually makes some sense
whereas most of the others do not make much sense at all. But nowadays
a PhD does not have to make
sense in order to win grants funding. Often to the contrary. The less
sense it makes the better for
those who are in control.

Flip a coin and decide if the world is headed for a mini ice age, or
some more warming.
Then do the I-Ching to determine when.

You will be as likely to be correct as the pundits with their advanced
degrees.

Robert Morpheal

richp

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 12:49:47 PM12/27/09

to

Only a madman reads Lyndon LaRouche

Bret Cahill

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 1:16:04 PM12/27/09

to

Some of the rightards cite the LaRouche web page as an authority.

Bret Cahill

Claudius Denk

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 2:00:20 PM12/27/09

to

Exactly. AGW advocates fear nothing more than they fear conceptual
clarity.

JohnM

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 2:29:06 PM12/27/09

to

Nice one!!!

tg

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 2:40:46 PM12/27/09

to

What's depressing is that the only person who actually tried to answer
my question is an avowed Creationist. I guess faith makes you less
insecure about your lack of knowledge and reasoning ability.

-tg

Last Post

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 3:01:51 PM12/27/09

to

On Dec 27, 12:36 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > I've had about 12 replies to my requests for what deniers mean when
> > they say 'climate change' or even 'global warming', and only *one* has
> > even *attempted* to answer the question. That is Imgoodguy, who did
> > one post with a loony but *too the point* response.
>

• Are you still in the Jugende (Hitler Youth)??

Bret Cahill

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 3:15:59 PM12/27/09

to

A rightard dinger just cited a dowser on AGW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner

tg

unread,

Dec 27, 2009, 3:44:05 PM12/27/09

to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png

Note the source of the data---no UN Socialist Conspirators I suspect.

Perhaps any increase in water will follow cave-tunnels to The Center
Of The Earth, where dinosaurs still roam.

-tg