Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It really makes you wonder. Are these guys clueless? Are they so ignorant, so lazy, that they can't even bother to look into the issues they carry a flag for?
Or...
Are they deviants who lie, twist and manipulate anything to try and bolster their position?
Either way, I really have no care to argue with a liar, or an idiot. /shrug
It really makes you wonder. Are these guys clueless? Are they so ignorant, so lazy, that they can't even bother to look into the issues they carry a flag for?
Or...
Are they deviants who lie, twist and manipulate anything to try and bolster their position?
Either way, I really have no care to argue with a liar, or an idiot. /shrug
A. Geologists do not study climate. That is not their field. It does not make sense to question them on what they think. Their opinion has no more credibility than mine or yours on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Hmm...
You know who this guy is right?
Quote:
Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.
Yes it did. Why, how can someone make such a claim above unless they were severely ignorant or being devious?
Care to enlighten us?
Wait... you do know who Mann is right? If not, then well... the irony... very correct.
I never said the earth has or hasn't warmed in the last 150 years. 150 years is hardly a climate changing episode by any means or any reason to start pumping off man made volcanoes or harvesting the ocean with iron to save the planet. If you think it is then your beyond reason. That is what the global warming folks want. Greenland was once green and then froze over and is now melting. The earth is still here. How can that be?
I just wonder how your future offspring will be able to find a suitable planet to populate...
I never said the earth has or hasn't warmed in the last 150 years. 150 years is hardly a climate changing episode by any means or any reason to start pumping off man made volcanoes or harvesting the ocean with iron to save the planet. If you think it is then your beyond reason. That is what the global warming folks want. Greenland was once green and then froze over and is now melting. The earth is still here. How can that be?
and come up with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
I just wonder how your future offspring will be able to find a suitable planet to populate...
Yes it did. Why, how can someone make such a claim above unless they were severely ignorant or being devious?
Care to enlighten us?
Wait... you do know who Mann is right? If not, then well... the irony... very correct.
You misrepresented my post - which had nothing to do with the posts about Mann and was directed only at your arrogant rant below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
It really makes you wonder. Are these guys clueless? Are they so ignorant, so lazy, that they can't even bother to look into the issues they carry a flag for?
Or...
Are they deviants who lie, twist and manipulate anything to try and bolster their position?
Either way, I really have no care to argue with a liar, or an idiot. /shrug
Now how about you get back on topic. Explain why the OP, WUWT and the OP's Forbes article completely misrepresented the original source survey and article published in a business magazine?
Or are you guys "clueless and so ignorant, so lazy, that you can't even bother to look into the issues you carry a flag for" and "deviants who lie, twist and manipulate anything to try and bolster their position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
What is poor about it is that the Forbes piece completely misrepresents the survey and the original peer reviewed article in a Business Journal. Did you not think that anyone would read the actual source?
Even worse, the claim in your thread title is completely at odds with the original source article. So did you not bother to read the original source or are you deliberately lying?
dummy dumb head.. yuse.. a dummy head... yuse not smurt... youse dunt noe nutin... y use a dummy hed!
I think that pretty much sums up the intelligence of your response.
Well other than blindly regurgitating everything you've swallowed from WUWT, that's pretty much all your posts amount to. Calling everyone who disagrees with you 'dumb'.
Every time I see the thread title, I realize how people are misled on a daily basis.
The only true statement that can be made about this study is that a majority of those surveyed are skeptical. That is a very far cry from a majority of scientists.
And, since the sample was limited to a very small sub-set of the scientific population, all that can be said is that their opinions may represent those of the larger population of scientists also working in the two categories sampled.
It says absolutely nothing about any other scientist working in any other field.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
