Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Maher admits "humility" not knowledge is the reason he believes in global warming
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Claudius Denk
Apr 7, 2013, 3:30:24 AM4/7/13
to
Bret Cahill
Apr 7, 2013, 7:44:10 AM4/7/13
to
. . . . debate other scientists.
An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
emoneyjoe
Apr 7, 2013, 8:15:29 AM4/7/13
to
Claudius Denk
Apr 7, 2013, 3:33:04 PM4/7/13
to
explain/debate/discuss the details of their thinking with anybody and
everybody.
Claudius Denk
Apr 7, 2013, 3:40:28 PM4/7/13
to
On Apr 7, 4:44 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://goo.gl/YJtEY
>
> > CD
> > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> . . . . debate other scientists.
Ha. Global warming scientist especially avoid debate with other
>
> > CD
> > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> . . . . debate other scientists.
scientist.
> An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
> creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
> and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
catastrophe would be eager to use any means necessary to get their
message out to anybody that will listen. Real scientists confronting
real emergencies have no need for a blacklist. The fact that alarmist
scientists have a blacklist is all one needs to know to conclude that
they have a hidden agenda.
Man of Mind
Apr 7, 2013, 3:59:46 PM4/7/13
to
On 4/7/2013 2:33 PM, Odious Stink <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> whined:
..
>> An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
>> creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
>> and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
>
> Real scientists confronting real emergencies are perfectly happy to
> explain/debate/discuss the details of their thinking with anybody and
> everybody.
But, you're not a scientist, nor are you opinions much
to debate, in my experience.. Maher spoke to this..
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/06/maher-debating-climate-change-is-like-arguing-whether-the-earth-is-flat/
Moore asserted that the debate on climate change is still ongoing.
“That’s a canard, Steve,” said Maher. “There are scientists on
the other side, but they’re backed by the American Petroleum
Institute.”
Again, Moore asserted that there’s still a debate about whether
the Earth’s climate is changing.
“Should we still debate whether the Earth is flat?” Maher demanded.
“That’s not how science works. At some point, you reach a consensus,
then debate the next issue.”
--
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, and whose philosophy
consists in holding humanity in contempt, is
like administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."
--from Common Sense, by Thomas Paine
..
>> An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
>> creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
>> and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
>
> Real scientists confronting real emergencies are perfectly happy to
> explain/debate/discuss the details of their thinking with anybody and
> everybody.
to debate, in my experience.. Maher spoke to this..
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/06/maher-debating-climate-change-is-like-arguing-whether-the-earth-is-flat/
Moore asserted that the debate on climate change is still ongoing.
“That’s a canard, Steve,” said Maher. “There are scientists on
the other side, but they’re backed by the American Petroleum
Institute.”
Again, Moore asserted that there’s still a debate about whether
the Earth’s climate is changing.
“Should we still debate whether the Earth is flat?” Maher demanded.
“That’s not how science works. At some point, you reach a consensus,
then debate the next issue.”
--
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, and whose philosophy
consists in holding humanity in contempt, is
like administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."
--from Common Sense, by Thomas Paine
Man of Mind
Apr 7, 2013, 4:02:20 PM4/7/13
to
On 4/7/2013 2:40 PM, Odious Stink <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> whined:
..
> Real scientists confronting real emergencies have no need for a blacklist.
What 'blacklist' are you making up now?
> The fact that alarmist scientists have a blacklist
Got cites?
Nah, didn't think so..
..
>> An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
>> creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
>> and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
>
> An intelligent person that is warning others of a genuine impending
> catastrophe would be eager to use any means necessary to get their
> message out to anybody that will listen.
But, you won't listen..
>> creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
>> and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
>
> An intelligent person that is warning others of a genuine impending
> catastrophe would be eager to use any means necessary to get their
> message out to anybody that will listen.
> Real scientists confronting real emergencies have no need for a blacklist.
> The fact that alarmist scientists have a blacklist
Nah, didn't think so..
Bret Cahill
Apr 7, 2013, 4:46:09 PM4/7/13
to
> > >http://goo.gl/YJtEY
>
> > > CD
> > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> > An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
> > creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
> > and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
>
> Real scientists confronting real emergencies are perfectly happy to
> explain/debate/discuss the details of their thinking with anybody and
> everybody.
And anyone who is interested in what real scientists have been
>
> > > CD
> > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> > An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
> > creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
> > and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
>
> Real scientists confronting real emergencies are perfectly happy to
> explain/debate/discuss the details of their thinking with anybody and
> everybody.
discussing with winger dingers can click on this link to find out:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Apr 7, 2013, 4:47:14 PM4/7/13
to
> > >http://goo.gl/YJtEY
>
> > > CD
> > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> Ha. Global warming scientist especially avoid debate with other
> scientist.
Lord Muckdom ain't no scientist.
>
> > > CD
> > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> Ha. Global warming scientist especially avoid debate with other
> scientist.
James
Apr 7, 2013, 9:10:42 PM4/7/13
to
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f4027b2-daa9-4f4b...@d8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com
You left out global warming. They don't debate that because their
"intelligence" tells them that they would lose.
news:8f4027b2-daa9-4f4b...@d8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com
"intelligence" tells them that they would lose.
Bret Cahill
Apr 7, 2013, 9:28:45 PM4/7/13
to
> >>http://goo.gl/YJtEY
>
> >> CD
> >> Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> > An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
> > creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
> > and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
>
> You left out global warming. They don't debate that because their
> "intelligence" tells them that they would lose.
Climate scientists publicly debate the science well enough and this
>
> >> CD
> >> Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> > An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
> > creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
> > and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
>
> You left out global warming. They don't debate that because their
> "intelligence" tells them that they would lose.
includes debunking all the wing nut denier "theories" most of which
are generated by paid shills If deniers were really interested in the
science they would click on the following link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
But a debate about science isn't what deniers really want. Deniers
just want to waste the time of climate scientists by acting like they
are too simple minded to figger out how a frozen radiator can cause an
engine to overheat.
Bret Cahill
emoneyjoe
Apr 7, 2013, 9:43:16 PM4/7/13
to
even before the leftist crowing started, just
stop trying to tax and increase energy costs
and the "deniers" will not say a word.
James
Apr 7, 2013, 9:55:40 PM4/7/13
to
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:ba22dcf3-aaa7-43b6...@n7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
An enviro site. I stand by my statement.
>
> Bret Cahill
news:ba22dcf3-aaa7-43b6...@n7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
>
> Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Apr 7, 2013, 10:28:08 PM4/7/13
to
> >>>>http://goo.gl/YJtEY
>
> >>>> CD
> >>>> Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> >>> . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> >>> An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time
> >>> debating creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun
> >>> loons, truthers and all the others with a host of other mental
> >>> disorders.
>
> >> You left out global warming. They don't debate that because their
> >> "intelligence" tells them that they would lose.
>
> > Climate scientists publicly debate the science well enough and this
> > includes debunking all the wing nut denier "theories" most of which
> > are generated by paid shills If deniers were really interested in the
> > science they would click on the following link:
>
> >http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>
> > But a debate about science isn't what deniers really want. Deniers
> > just want to waste the time of climate scientists by acting like they
> > are too simple minded to figger out how a frozen radiator can cause an
> > engine to overheat.
>
> An enviro site.
How does that change the fact that skepticalscience has degreed
>
> >>>> CD
> >>>> Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> >>> . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> >>> An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time
> >>> debating creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun
> >>> loons, truthers and all the others with a host of other mental
> >>> disorders.
>
> >> You left out global warming. They don't debate that because their
> >> "intelligence" tells them that they would lose.
>
> > Climate scientists publicly debate the science well enough and this
> > includes debunking all the wing nut denier "theories" most of which
> > are generated by paid shills If deniers were really interested in the
> > science they would click on the following link:
>
> >http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>
> > But a debate about science isn't what deniers really want. Deniers
> > just want to waste the time of climate scientists by acting like they
> > are too simple minded to figger out how a frozen radiator can cause an
> > engine to overheat.
>
> An enviro site.
scientists and the deniers have shills who majored in basket weaving?
Bret Cahill
Tunderbar
Apr 8, 2013, 11:03:06 AM4/8/13
to
On Apr 7, 6:44 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://goo.gl/YJtEY
>
> > CD
> > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> . . . . debate other scientists.
Why would he avoid debating non-scientists? LOL. Fear?
> >http://goo.gl/YJtEY
>
> > CD
> > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> An intelligent person just isn't going to waste a lot of time debating
> creationists, holocaust deniers, birthers, bigots, gun loons, truthers
> and all the others with a host of other mental disorders.
zero in common with those issues.
Claudius Denk
Apr 8, 2013, 11:54:09 AM4/8/13
to
On Apr 7, 6:28 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> But a debate about science isn't what deniers really want.
It always amazes me how often the global warming loons present
> But a debate about science isn't what deniers really want.
arguments based on their impression of their opponents state of
mind.
Claudius Denk
Apr 8, 2013, 11:55:21 AM4/8/13
to
On Apr 8, 8:03 am, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 6:44 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://goo.gl/YJtEY
>
> > > CD
> > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> Why would he avoid debating non-scientists? LOL. Fear?
Cahill, answer the question you evasive jackass.
> On Apr 7, 6:44 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://goo.gl/YJtEY
>
> > > CD
> > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> Why would he avoid debating non-scientists? LOL. Fear?
Tunderbar
Apr 8, 2013, 4:54:34 PM4/8/13
to
scientist. With all the "robust" and "settled" "science" that 50
billion dollars can buy. With the worldwide consensus. With the
backing of the Greenpeace/Sierra Club/IPCC alliance behind me. And
with all the universities and all the scientific organisations and all
of the scientists in the universe behind me..... and some small group
of anti-science deniers were pissing me off and messing up the
"consensus"... well I'd find the most prominent and highly regarded of
these crackpots, and I'd put him or her on prime time TV and proceed
to shove my robust and confirmed and undeniable science right down his
throat in an open and clear debate, so that everyone on the planet can
see him gag and sputter his nonsense and for once and for all shut
them down entirely.
That is, if I had the science, I could do that.
If I didn't, then the last thing I'd want is to debate in an open
forum where the world can see that my science is bullshit.
Just saying....
Desertphile
Apr 22, 2013, 7:03:16 PM4/22/13
to
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:30:24 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Maher admits "humility" not knowledge is the reason he believes in
> global warming
Anyone who believes in an observed phenomena is an idiot.
--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"Let me put it this way, ['lord' Monckton is] the type of guy that masturbates
while looking at himself in the mirror." -- voicubogdan84
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Maher admits "humility" not knowledge is the reason he believes in
> global warming
Anyone who believes in an observed phenomena is an idiot.
--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"Let me put it this way, ['lord' Monckton is] the type of guy that masturbates
while looking at himself in the mirror." -- voicubogdan84
Bret Cahill
Apr 22, 2013, 6:43:18 PM4/22/13
to
> > >http://goo.gl/YJtEY
>
> > > CD
> > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> Why would he avoid debating non-scientists?
The same reason anyone might avoid debating squirrels.
>
> > > CD
> > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> Why would he avoid debating non-scientists?
It's a waste of time.
Desertphile
Apr 23, 2013, 12:09:02 PM4/23/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:43:18 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
... when there is still a debate. Regarding human-caused climate
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
change, the debate ended many decades ago.
> > > . . . . debate other scientists.
> > Why would he avoid debating non-scientists?
> The same reason anyone might avoid debating squirrels.
>
> It's a waste of time.
>
--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of
Nemo me impune lacessit.
scientific truth." --Prof. Richard Feynman, 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics
Claudius Denk
Apr 23, 2013, 11:16:45 AM4/23/13
to
On Apr 23, 8:08 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:43:18 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:43:18 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>
> <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> ... when there is still a debate. Regarding human-caused climate
> change, the debate ended many decades ago.
Phoney excuse.
> > > > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> ... when there is still a debate. Regarding human-caused climate
> change, the debate ended many decades ago.
You got nothing!!!
Bret Cahill
Apr 23, 2013, 1:20:13 PM4/23/13
to
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Apr 23, 2013, 1:21:26 PM4/23/13
to
> > But a debate about science isn't what deniers really want.
>
> It always amazes me how often the global warming loons present
> arguments based on their impression of their opponents state of
> mind.
Is there any reason to think there's any "mind" to denierism?
>
> It always amazes me how often the global warming loons present
> arguments based on their impression of their opponents state of
> mind.
Bret Cahill
Desertphile
Apr 23, 2013, 6:46:10 PM4/23/13
to
emoneyjoe
Apr 23, 2013, 7:26:22 PM4/23/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:09:02 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:43:18 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
><Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
>... when there is still a debate. Regarding human-caused climate
>change, the debate ended many decades ago.
>
>> > > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
>> > Why would he avoid debating non-scientists?
>
>> The same reason anyone might avoid debating squirrels.
>>
>> It's a waste of time.
The debate ended because too many
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:43:18 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
><Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
>... when there is still a debate. Regarding human-caused climate
>change, the debate ended many decades ago.
>
>> > > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
>> > Why would he avoid debating non-scientists?
>
>> The same reason anyone might avoid debating squirrels.
>>
>> It's a waste of time.
people laughed, CEE OH TWO will fry you.
Ha
Desertphile
Apr 24, 2013, 12:36:39 PM4/24/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:26:22 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:
The debate regarding human-caused climate change having happened and
currently happening ended decades ago because of the evidence.
wrote:
currently happening ended decades ago because of the evidence.
Claudius Denk
Apr 24, 2013, 12:48:57 PM4/24/13
to
On Apr 24, 8:36 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:26:22 -0400, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>
us the details and data from any such experiments presented thereof,
or is it your special secret?
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:26:22 -0400, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:09:02 -0700, Desertphile
> > <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:43:18 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> > ><Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > >... when there is still a debate. Regarding human-caused climate
> > >change, the debate ended many decades ago.
>
> > >> > > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> > >> > Why would he avoid debating non-scientists?
>
> > >> The same reason anyone might avoid debating squirrels.
>
> > >> It's a waste of time.
> > The debate ended because too many
>
> The debate regarding human-caused climate change having happened and
> currently happening ended decades ago because of the evidence.
Was this alleged debate done in secrecy? Did nobody take notes? Show
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:09:02 -0700, Desertphile
> > <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:43:18 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> > ><Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > >... when there is still a debate. Regarding human-caused climate
> > >change, the debate ended many decades ago.
>
> > >> > > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> > >> > Why would he avoid debating non-scientists?
>
> > >> The same reason anyone might avoid debating squirrels.
>
> > >> It's a waste of time.
> > The debate ended because too many
>
> The debate regarding human-caused climate change having happened and
> currently happening ended decades ago because of the evidence.
us the details and data from any such experiments presented thereof,
or is it your special secret?
Bret Cahill
Apr 24, 2013, 1:38:18 PM4/24/13
to
> > > >> > > > Never believe a scientist that isn't eager to debate
>
> > > >... when there is still a debate. Regarding human-caused climate
> > > >change, the debate ended many decades ago.
>
> > > >> > > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> > > >> > Why would he avoid debating non-scientists?
>
> > > >> The same reason anyone might avoid debating squirrels.
>
> > > >> It's a waste of time.
> > > The debate ended because too many
>
> > The debate regarding human-caused climate change having happened and
> > currently happening ended decades ago because of the evidence.
>
> Was this alleged debate done in secrecy?
By definition everything is "done in secrecy" from the conspiracy
>
> > > >... when there is still a debate. Regarding human-caused climate
> > > >change, the debate ended many decades ago.
>
> > > >> > > . . . . debate other scientists.
>
> > > >> > Why would he avoid debating non-scientists?
>
> > > >> The same reason anyone might avoid debating squirrels.
>
> > > >> It's a waste of time.
> > > The debate ended because too many
>
> > The debate regarding human-caused climate change having happened and
> > currently happening ended decades ago because of the evidence.
>
> Was this alleged debate done in secrecy?
minded winger dinger POV.
After all, science has been quantitative since Galileo yet deniers
somehow missed the boat on that as well.
Bret Cahill
Claudius Denk
Apr 25, 2013, 4:22:11 AM4/25/13
to
emoneyjoe
Apr 25, 2013, 4:24:37 AM4/25/13
to
that demeans honorable people.
0 new messages