Man made carbon emission causes AGW?

[Doer]

do you even smoke?

I do. I do.

 

[Doer]

ArcticGranite, it is not cool to deceptively edit another's post like that in your quote, and unacceptable in a sig. cn

Well, no one asked me. It is not cool and it actually is harassment. This brings what meaning by harassing someone in forum? Your own entertainment, is all, right? In public, it's not allow. And on this forum, harassment is not allow, either, btw.

And do you really want to stoop to the level of the retarded Newz-joke, by mis-quoting someone and using that as a .sig, as harassment.

Not cool. Have you noticed how the politicians have to tip toe their sentences to not create out of context, distracting sound bites, to be used against them. Why bring that here?

Now, H, I haven't seen cn engage in outright harassment. IAC, we can have a better forum if we knock this shit off. And I know the moderators won't put up with it past a point. It makes for a bad vibe forum.

We don't want that. Peace.

 

[Harrekin]

Well, no one asked me. It is not cool and it actually is harassment. This brings what meaning by harassing someone in forum? Your own entertainment, is all, right? In public, it's not allow. And on this forum, harassment is not allow, either, btw.And do you really want to stoop to the level of the retarded Newz-joke, by mis-quoting someone and using that as a .sig, as harassment.Not cool. Have you noticed how the politicians have to tip toe their sentences to not create out of context, distracting sound bites, to be used against them. Why bring that here? Now, H, I haven't seen cn engage in outright harassment. IAC, we can have a better forum if we knock this shit off. And I know the moderators won't put up with it past a point. It makes for a bad vibe forum.We don't want that. Peace.

Cn knows what I'm talking about.

Before he ascended to a higher plain of existence he was THE master of "lightly edited" quotes, the rules of his powers won't let him do that now tho.

My best guess? He misses the "under the bridge" life.

 

[poptech]

It is amusing to note that the AGW proponents I corrected here have conceded all their arguments to me.

 

[UncleBuck]

 

[Harrekin]

It is amusing to note that the AGW proponents I corrected here have conceded all their arguments to me.

Nobody conceded shit, they're just ignoring you, retard.

 

[poptech]

Ignoring is the same as conceding defeat when you cannot debate the facts. You are of course free to try to prove me wrong on anything I presented here but that would be like trying to prove reality wrong and you would fail.

 

[poptech]

ginjawarrior, put me on ignore after getting embarrassed trying to debate something he clearly had no remote idea about. I understand the embarrassment as I would not submit myself to further punishment as he was receiving.

UncleBuck, can't debate anything and appears to not understand science at all. Which is why he chooses to spam pictures like a child.

 

[UncleBuck]

UncleBuck, can't debate anything and appears to not understand science at all. Which is why he chooses to spam pictures like a child.

you still haven't explained to me what property it is about cannabis that makes people want to smoke crack, poptart.

 

[poptech]

Poor UncleBuck, stuck in his strawman, red herring world. I take it you don't understand climate science? Why are you so scared of me?

 

[UncleBuck]

Poor UncleBuck, stuck in his strawman, red herring world. I take it you don't understand climate science? Why are you so scared?

i defer to the vast majority of peer reviewed, publishing climatologists who have formed overwhelming consensus on the issue.

the climate science is settled, poptarts everywhere can cry in their cornflakes.

what i want to hear now is for you to explain to all of us the retarded process you went through that ended with you concluding that cannabis has a magical physical property such that it leaves the user wanting to smoke crack.

thank you very much, poptart.

 

[poptech]

There is no vast majority of peer-reviewed literature that forms any such overwhelming consensus.

Could you please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist"?

I've already explained to you many times that you have stated a strawman argument that is a red herring to the topic of climate change. Why are you so desperate to not discuss climate change? Could it be that you don't actually understand anything about the science?

Why the ad hominem? Are you that afraid of me?

 

[UncleBuck]

There is no vast majority of peer-reviewed literature that forms any such overwhelming consensus.

Could you please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist"?

I've already explained to you many times that you have stated a strawman argument that is a red herring to the topic of climate change. Why are you so desperate to not discuss climate change? Could it be that you don't actually understand anything about the science?

Why the ad hominem? Are you that afraid of me?

climate science is more than settled. not a single scientific body of any repute says otherwise.

the debate is dead. deader than fried chicken.

so go ahead now and please tell me what specific physical property of cannabis makes people want to smoke crack. that is another theory you stand behind, and i am more than interested in the process that led you to such a retarded conclusion.

 

[poptech]

It is not remotely settled.

Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Failure to do so discredits your ability to use them as justification of proof of consensus.

I've already explained to you many times that you have stated a strawman argument and a red herring to the topic of climate change. Please stay on topic.

 

[UncleBuck]

It is not remotely settled.

Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Failure to do so discredits your ability to use them as justification of proof of consensus.

I've already explained to you many times that you have stated a strawman argument and a red herring to the topic of climate change. Please stay on topic.

sorry, poptart. something is not discredited simply because it doesn't meet the request of an internet gaylord such as yourself.

there's as much excitement in debating climate change as there is in the flat earth hypothesis. there are exactly as many scientific bodies of international repute that dispute climate change as there are that support flat earth.

again, it is deader than ronald reagan.

but thanks for letting us know that you are too much of an inflamed vagina to take us through the indubitably comical pathway of unscience that ended with you concluding that cannabis has a physical property such that it will make you do crack.

you just discredited yourself.

 

[poptech]

Continued ad hominem, strawman arguments and red herrings. Yet you failed to provide the following,

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

2. Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Surely you can find one?

Why are you so uneducated on this topic?

 

[UncleBuck]

Continued ad hominem, strawman arguments and red herrings. Yet you failed to provide the following,

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

2. Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Surely you can find one?

i am certain i can find one. as i said, i'm not going to.*

i'd have more interest in debating a flat earther as i would a climate change denier, as there is about equal science for each hypothesis.

what you don't seem to get is that beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in the human mind.

and so when you advertise on your (incredibly shitty and amateur) website the theory that cannabis is a gateway drug, you are advertising your own inability to deal in fact and science.

the best part is that instead of taking your unscience to people that matter, you take it to a bunch of stoners on a pot website.

fuck off, poptart. you are out of your element.

 

[poptech]

You continue to argue a topic and position that you are clearly uneducated on.

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

2. Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Surely you can find one?

You made nonsensical statements that you cannot back up. Why?

 

[UncleBuck]

You continue to argue a topic and position that you are clearly uneducated on.

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

2. Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Surely you can find one?

You made nonsensical statements that you cannot back up. Why?

now you're just being stupid, poptart.

FACT: there is as much scientific support for the flat earth theory as there is for climate change denial.

disprove it. or try, because you can't disprove that.

climate change has been settled for a long time now. the debate is deader than richard nixon.

 

[poptech]

Fact: you cannot debate the facts and instead resort to ad hominem, strawman and red herring arguments.

Now,

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

2. Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Surely you can find one?

You made nonsensical statements that you cannot back up. Why would you do such things?