Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
181
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

181 Views
Message 71 of 94

I think it is the lack of scrutiny on the part of the RW NJs that really bothers me.  I look at "Scientific Papers" which are nothing more than opinion pieces.  No studies done just a review of the work other people have done and trying to find an inconsistency in the language. 

 

In this case, the fact that the winter in Cleveland did not match the global temperature increase is really not a valid climate study. It is a footnote in the almanac. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
181
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
197
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

197 Views
Message 72 of 94

@Richva wrote:

@sp362 wrote:
One of the personality traits of conspiracy theorists is that they want to believe in a conspiracy theory so they make themselves feel smarter and more important than they actually are.  Not saying that applies to aruzinsky, just pointing out the trait.

All the different studies, climate change, pollution, physics, etc. and they all point to the same conclusions backed up by real world outcomes. 

 

Heck of a conspiracy theory. Well, at least enough to get 4 hours of video on Youtube. 


The same reasoning holds true for why some believe this garbage from pseudo-scientists.  It is because if they know something that the average person does not, that must mean they are smarter than average.  Rather sad when you think about it.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
197
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
186
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

186 Views
Message 73 of 94

@sp362 wrote:
One of the personality traits of conspiracy theorists is that they want to believe in a conspiracy theory so they make themselves feel smarter and more important than they actually are.  Not saying that applies to aruzinsky, just pointing out the trait.

All the different studies, climate change, pollution, physics, etc. and they all point to the same conclusions backed up by real world outcomes. 

 

Heck of a conspiracy theory. Well, at least enough to get 4 hours of video on Youtube. 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
186
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
185
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

185 Views
Message 74 of 94

@Richva wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

aruzinsky:   NASA and others have been committing fraud by changing the history of temperature data, i.e., lying.

 

 

Amazing how some Average Joe on AARP managed to singlehandedly bust NASA for lying. Odd how no one else has caught on to them though. Smiley Happy

 


And........without doing any climate studies at all. Really amazing work. 


One of the personality traits of conspiracy theorists is that they want to believe in a conspiracy theory so they make themselves feel smarter and more important than they actually are.  Not saying that applies to aruzinsky, just pointing out the trait.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
185
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
179
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

179 Views
Message 75 of 94

Richva:  And........without doing any climate studies at all. Really amazing work. 

 

 

Exactly. It takes some chutzpa to claim NASA is lying without the qualifications to do so.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
179
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
176
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

176 Views
Message 76 of 94

@Panjandrum wrote:

aruzinsky:   NASA and others have been committing fraud by changing the history of temperature data, i.e., lying.

 

 

Amazing how some Average Joe on AARP managed to singlehandedly bust NASA for lying. Odd how no one else has caught on to them though. Smiley Happy

 


And........without doing any climate studies at all. Really amazing work. 

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
176
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
177
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

177 Views
Message 77 of 94

aruzinsky:   NASA and others have been committing fraud by changing the history of temperature data, i.e., lying.

 

 

Amazing how some Average Joe on AARP managed to singlehandedly bust NASA for lying. Odd how no one else has caught on to them though. Smiley Happy

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
177
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
179
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

179 Views
Message 78 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


Since it is your premise and you are trying to read something into "Expressed no opinion" that is not there, it is UP TO YOU to provide the proof.  Again, where is the figure for the number that say it is ALL NATURAL?  I believe that would 0.00%  It is not an old liberal mind trick (I am a Conservative), but trying to state that something implies something it does not could be interpreted as an uneducated mind trick.  Illogical logic is the same thing as alternative facts. If the best you can do is the "Expressed no opinion" must mean they disbelieve it, you are very thin ice (no pun intended). 

Since I don't want to be accused by you of simply cherry picking facts to refute out of 4 hours of lecture (I am sure there are some points that are actually valid), you can choose.  


Eliminating those who expressed no opinion from the calculation leads to 1% of those expressing an opinion stating that we caused most global warming.  If you think I am going to quibble about 1% versus 0.3%, you are out of your mind.  Nobody says it's all natural, just that man made global warming is not enough to worry about.


You do realize that the only difference between some, most and all would the speed of change? 

Also, since some and most are adverbs it is up to each individuals interpretation of their meaning on where they classify their position on the issue.  Since they looked at papers as early as 1991 and real scientists are very conservative and do not want to state what may not be happening, the very fact that there are that many saying man is contributing is eye opening.  Again, the number who say man is not the cause is 0.00%  The natural carbon cycle had kept at the carbon level at 280 PPM for 10,000 years until the Industrial Age.  Why don't you educate us how the cycle has suddenly changed and has risen at an unprecedented rate.


Your first sentence makes no sense and it is too difficult to decipher the rest. 


While I left out the word "be", I think the average person could understand what I meant.  Whenever you cannot or don't want to respond to something, you play a pseudo intellectual.  As I have said before, you need to quit playing an intellectual because it is obvious to most on here that you are not.  I am sorry if you don't understand something as basic as a carbon cycle.  I think anybody with a high school education could easily decipher what I wrote.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
179
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
192
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

192 Views
Message 79 of 94

NASA and others have been committing fraud by changing the history of temperature data, i.e., lying.

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
192
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
206
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

206 Views
Message 80 of 94

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


Since it is your premise and you are trying to read something into "Expressed no opinion" that is not there, it is UP TO YOU to provide the proof.  Again, where is the figure for the number that say it is ALL NATURAL?  I believe that would 0.00%  It is not an old liberal mind trick (I am a Conservative), but trying to state that something implies something it does not could be interpreted as an uneducated mind trick.  Illogical logic is the same thing as alternative facts. If the best you can do is the "Expressed no opinion" must mean they disbelieve it, you are very thin ice (no pun intended). 

Since I don't want to be accused by you of simply cherry picking facts to refute out of 4 hours of lecture (I am sure there are some points that are actually valid), you can choose.  


Eliminating those who expressed no opinion from the calculation leads to 1% of those expressing an opinion stating that we caused most global warming.  If you think I am going to quibble about 1% versus 0.3%, you are out of your mind.  Nobody says it's all natural, just that man made global warming is not enough to worry about.


You do realize that the only difference between some, most and all would the speed of change? 

Also, since some and most are adverbs it is up to each individuals interpretation of their meaning on where they classify their position on the issue.  Since they looked at papers as early as 1991 and real scientists are very conservative and do not want to state what may not be happening, the very fact that there are that many saying man is contributing is eye opening.  Again, the number who say man is not the cause is 0.00%  The natural carbon cycle had kept at the carbon level at 280 PPM for 10,000 years until the Industrial Age.  Why don't you educate us how the cycle has suddenly changed and has risen at an unprecedented rate.


Your first sentence makes no sense and it is too difficult to decipher the rest. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
206
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

This AARP gamer plays to get back her art and identity after a health scare. Read Regan C.’s story, available now.


gamer Regan C.

Top Authors