It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven
Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?
Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?
If so, who did them and what controls were used?
It is like asking an evangelical apologist why their are 578 different versions of the Bible and the crickets that ensue...
Faith is all that is required for them that the texts the leadership send them are correct, it does not matter how many times they changed them or altered the equipment or terminologies...it must ALWAYS be followed to find the promised land.
After all, science does not lie.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven
Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?
Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?
If so, who did them and what controls were used?
It is like asking an evangelical apologist why their are 578 different versions of the Bible and the crickets that ensue...
Faith is all that is required for them that the texts the leadership send them are correct, it does not matter how many times they changed them or altered the equipment or terminologies...it must ALWAYS be followed to find the promised land.
After all, science does not lie.
No, it's like claiming there is a hotdog in orbit between the Earth and the Moon.
You can't prove it's not there.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven
Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?
Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?
If so, who did them and what controls were used?
It is like asking an evangelical apologist why their are 578 different versions of the Bible and the crickets that ensue...
Faith is all that is required for them that the texts the leadership send them are correct, it does not matter how many times they changed them or altered the equipment or terminologies...it must ALWAYS be followed to find the promised land.
After all, science does not lie.
No, it's like claiming there is a hotdog in orbit between the Earth and the Moon.
You can't prove it's not there.
That is exactly what the AGW racket is. Good analogy. They've gotten enough folks onto the power, control, and more taxes bandwagon and since they can't prove a damn thing, they've turned to shaming and shouting down anyone who questions the narrative with "Denier! Denier!!!" Why that works on anyone, I don't know... but sadly it quiets down some folks.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven
I have read.
Show me, post me, answer my questions.
Google is your friend.
Little hint, you won't be able to answer my questions.
originally posted by: neo96
So global warming isn't a thing ?
Nope it's not.
It's doom porn to get you to vote for the church of climatology and create taxes, and credits so they can have more money to blow.
Not exactly breaking news it gets hot during summer.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Greven
Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:
You and I both know how shaky it is to base your argument on DBCowboy's confirmation or refutement of points. My previous statement stands, tall, proud, slightly rightward curving.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Greven
Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:
You and I both know how shaky it is to base your argument on DBCowboy's confirmation or refutement of points. My previous statement stands, tall, proud, slightly rightward curving.
And yet your previous statement doesn't refute the very simple argument I've put forth outlining human-induced climate change.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Greven
Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:
You and I both know how shaky it is to base your argument on DBCowboy's confirmation or refutement of points. My previous statement stands, tall, proud, slightly rightward curving.
And yet your previous statement doesn't refute the very simple argument I've put forth outlining human-induced climate change.
Your position is wrong. Is that refutation enough for you? I'm not going to reinvent the wheel when the simple fact is that both sides have talked until they're blue in the face and nothing has changed. The simplest answer is usually the correct one and, frankly, when I see one side making huge amounts of money off of Global Warming fear mongering and politicians claiming vastly greater amounts of control over the population also in the name of Global Warming, while the other side is not sitting there making any money or claiming any additional power with basic refutations of "the planet's climate has never been static, the planet has been much hotter and much colder in multiple periods through history, etc) well, the simplest answer is to look at who stands to gain the most and then question their position. "Holding firm" isn't gaining anything, it's simply holding firm... that's what the *ahem* "denier" side has looking at them as a best case scenario, meanwhile the alarmist side stands to waltz out with mad amounts of money and power.
So please, enjoy being scammed... I'm not that gulible.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven
Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?
Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?
If so, who did them and what controls were used?
It is like asking an evangelical apologist why their are 578 different versions of the Bible and the crickets that ensue...
Faith is all that is required for them that the texts the leadership send them are correct, it does not matter how many times they changed them or altered the equipment or terminologies...it must ALWAYS be followed to find the promised land.
After all, science does not lie.
No, it's like claiming there is a hotdog in orbit between the Earth and the Moon.
You can't prove it's not there.
That is exactly what the AGW racket is. Good analogy. They've gotten enough folks onto the power, control, and more taxes bandwagon and since they can't prove a damn thing, they've turned to shaming and shouting down anyone who questions the narrative with "Denier! Denier!!!" Why that works on anyone, I don't know... but sadly it quiets down some folks.
Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven
I have read.
Show me, post me, answer my questions.
Google is your friend.
Little hint, you won't be able to answer my questions.
This member is trolling, insulting, and demeaning in this thread. Go look.
On the other hand, proving human-induced climate change is pretty simple:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven
Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?
Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?
If so, who did them and what controls were used?
It is like asking an evangelical apologist why their are 578 different versions of the Bible and the crickets that ensue...
Faith is all that is required for them that the texts the leadership send them are correct, it does not matter how many times they changed them or altered the equipment or terminologies...it must ALWAYS be followed to find the promised land.
After all, science does not lie.
No, it's like claiming there is a hotdog in orbit between the Earth and the Moon.
You can't prove it's not there.
That is exactly what the AGW racket is. Good analogy. They've gotten enough folks onto the power, control, and more taxes bandwagon and since they can't prove a damn thing, they've turned to shaming and shouting down anyone who questions the narrative with "Denier! Denier!!!" Why that works on anyone, I don't know... but sadly it quiets down some folks.
Not so much. DBCowboy fully admits it:
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven
I have read.
Show me, post me, answer my questions.
Google is your friend.
Little hint, you won't be able to answer my questions.
This member is trolling, insulting, and demeaning in this thread. Go look.
On the other hand, proving human-induced climate change is pretty simple:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change
I ask legitimate science based questions on the validity of the numbers and you have a fit.
I think I know which one of us is actually "trolling".
It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven
Ah, the "evil fossil fuel" company argument. *yawn* how many reruns have we seen of that worn out old chestnut?
As I said, enjoy being scammed, I'll pass.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.
“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”