I can't believe I am even making this Thread... 

 

But, it seems to have taken over the politics Thread so I figured we can hash this out here (though the way the conversation was heading about AGW, maybe it should have stayed in the Politics thread...

 

 

So here we go, let's have at it!

 

 

I believe there is overwhelming evidence in AGW and it is a vocal, self-serving minority of the scientific community that derail and muddy up the issue so we can not act in a constructive manner to curtail this global thread.

Edited January 2, 20233 yr by Wanna-B-Fanboy

39 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

So much don't know what the hell you are talking about. "Heavily subsidized "? Let me guess, now you will point me to some fake study conducted by people paid to lie to show ne that because oil companies can deduct their expenses this qualified as "subsidies". I have seen these bogus reports before and they are complete bogus nonsense. 

Now I remember why I blocked you.  Personal attack, followed by "fake news", followed by conspiracy to defraud, followed by linguistic gymnastics, followed by bogus bogus.

Really, how can scientists compete?

Over $3B annually seems like pretty significant subsidization to me.

The flare-ups in this thread every now and then are pretty hilarious. It always seems like the same two playing dildo's advocate and then getting their man-diapers all twisted up, too.

42 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Now I remember why I blocked you.  Personal attack, followed by "fake news", followed by conspiracy to defraud, followed by linguistic gymnastics, followed by bogus bogus.

Really, how can scientists compete?

Thanks for giving me the useless response I expected. Of course you blocked me. You just want to hear what conforms to your bias, and run away screaming from anyone who questions your unsupprtable statements. Syria. Really?

20 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Over $3B annually seems like pretty significant subsidization to me.

The flare-ups in this thread every now and then are pretty hilarious. It always seems like the same two playing dildo's advocate and then getting their man-diapers all twisted up, too.

Yeah I don't get it. I question a pretty silly statement about oil subsidies and I get twisted man-diapers in response. If you are going to make statements that are absurd, be prepared to lose the man-diapers and give some reasoned explanations. 

Edited January 31, 20197 yr by kelownabomberfan

43 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Now I remember why I blocked you.  Personal attack, followed by "fake news", followed by conspiracy to defraud, followed by linguistic gymnastics, followed by bogus bogus.

Really, how can scientists compete?

There are several hundred billion dollars of cleanup costs for abandoned oil wells in Alberta.  There are no deposits when the company goes out of business to cover these. The Provincial and Federal government will be paying these.

That's a subsidy. A big one.

The idea that it isn't cause it doesn't show up on a financial statement is laughable.

There are numerous examples of this. Poisoned rivers, and lakes, increased cancer (see Indians that live near tar sands projects)  lung disease..... the people that live near refinery operations in Texas have a much higher rate of cancer and birth defects. some people don't call those subsidies.

But that's what they are.

yeah, the insults are obnoxious, as is the superior attituode.

The other guy starts a post "I'll keep this simple" They are incapable of posting with being insulting.

Probably  messaging each other about "triggering the libtards"

blocking is good.

 

Edited January 31, 20197 yr by Mark F

Just now, kelownabomberfan said:

Yeah I don't get it.

 

Let's keep on topic please  

 

I always liked Trenberth, for a warmist, at least he tells it like it is,

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/30/media-global-warming-polar-vortex/

The NYT, Chicago Times, Washington Post, should be ashamed of themselves for outright lying to the public to push their political agenda. 

Yeah, I'm sure The Daily Caller has no political agenda whatsoever. Tucker Carlson surely has no political axe to grind.

2 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Yeah, I'm sure The Daily Caller has no political agenda whatsoever. Tucker Carlson surely has no political axe to grind.

Let's just agree that neither side should be politicizing science, or do you disagree with that too?

17 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Over $3B annually seems like pretty significant subsidization to me.

The flare-ups in this thread every now and then are pretty hilarious. It always seems like the same two playing dildo's advocate and then getting their man-diapers all twisted up, too.

I lol'd too hard at this... I hope to god that isn't your autocorrect! lol

30 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Thanks for giving me the useless response I expected. Of course you blocked me. You just want to hear what conforms to your bias, and run away screaming from anyone who questions your unsupprtable statements. Syria. Really?

first off, let's check out your post : personal attack, unsubstantiate hyperbolic assumption, twisted man-diapers.

Syria. Really.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hastened-the-syrian-war/

 

34 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Yeah I don't get it. I question a pretty silly statement about oil subsidies and I get twisted man-diapers in response. If you are going to make statements that are absurd, be prepared to lose the man-diapers and give some reasoned explanations. 

I think he was implying that you were wearing the man-diapers.  

8 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Let's just agree that neither side should be politicizing science, or do you disagree with that too?

Then why the **** would you post that ****? Do one thing, then do the exact opposite... ******* troll. 

19 hours ago, pigseye said:

 Tsonis flipped sides because he couldn't stomach the tactics scientists were using to get this done. 

You got some facts to back this up or just pulling **** from your ass?

Edited January 31, 20197 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

4 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Let's just agree that neither side should be politicizing science, or do you disagree with that too?

No need to be snide. While I do agree nobody should politicize science, I'm not the one posting a link to the far-right, hardcore conservative equivalent of The Huffington Post.

Just now, blue_gold_84 said:

No need to be snide. While I do agree nobody should politicize science, I'm not the one posting a link to the far-right, hardcore conservative equivalent of The Huffington Post.

It's his schtick.  

1 minute ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Then why the **** would you post that ****? Do one thing, then do the exact opposite... ******* troll. 

And you still haven't addressed this below and where did you get that information? Unless you produce some fact- you're just pulling **** outta your ass. 

 

I have to congratulate you, you just broke every forum rule in that single post, bravo.

How did I actually politicize it, by showing you an example of it being done and having one of their own calling them out on it. 

I still haven't decided if I'm going to reply to your Tsonis request since you are just flaming and being generally rude. 

 

4 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

No need to be snide. While I do agree nobody should politicize science, I'm not the one posting a link to the far-right, hardcore conservative equivalent of The Huffington Post.

Ah yes, the attack the source and not the content play, gotcha ya. 

4 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I have to congratulate you, you just broke every forum rule in that single post, bravo.

 

4 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I still haven't decided if I'm going to reply to your Tsonis request since you are just flaming and being generally rude. 

gifs.....how old are you? 

3 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Ah yes, the attack the source and not the content play, gotcha ya. 

Seriously, why post a link like that and then get defensive when you get called out on it? Keep playing the victim card, though. You seem to have an endless stack of them.

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

gifs.....how old are you? 

 

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Ah yes, the attack the source and not the content play, gotcha ya. 

Oops...

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Seriously, why post a link like that and then get defensive when you get called out on it? Keep playing the victim card, though. You seem to have an endless stack of them.

Trenberth calling bullshit on the NYT, Chicago Times and Washington Post is satisfaction enough for me, watching your heads explode over it is just icing on the cake. 

11 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Ah yes, the attack the source and not the content play, gotcha ya. 

 

7 minutes ago, pigseye said:

gifs.....how old are you? 

7 minutes ago, pigseye said:

gifs....? 

Locking this thread for a day.  Perhaps everyone can take that time to cool off and actually try to have a discussion without insults, gifs, whining, and name calling.  Reflect if you all want to have an actual discussion here or I should just split this into two threads so each side can have their bubbles.

Thread is unlocked, but I am going to start handing out suspensions to people who can't behave civilly in this discussion and in politics.  Seems to be the usual suspects in both.

You guys don't have to agree with each other, but you do have to respect each other and contribute to a discussion, if this is too sensitive of a topic for you to do that, then don't post.

On 2019-01-31 at 3:27 PM, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

I think he was implying that you were wearing the man-diapers.  

Not sure why it would be me. I wasnt the one blocking people for calling into question highly questionable statements. The Syria thing really threw me for a loop. Don't get that at all.

Edited February 2, 20197 yr by kelownabomberfan