ru·in (ro̅o̅′ĭn) n. 1. Total destruction or disintegration, either physical, moral, social, or economic. 2. A cause of total destruction. 3. a. The act of destroying totally. b. A destroyed person, object, or building. 4. The remains of something destroyed, disintegrated, or decayed. Often used in the plural: studied the ruins of ancient Greece. v. ru·ined, ru·in·ing, ru·ins v.tr. 1. To destroy completely; demolish. 2. To harm irreparably. 3. To reduce to poverty or bankruptcy. 4. To deprive of chastity. v.intr. To fall into ruin. [Middle English ruine, from Old French, from Latin ruīna, from ruere, to rush, collapse.] Noun 1. ruining - destruction achieved by causing something to be wrecked or ruined ruining - destruction achieved by causing something to be wrecked or ruined laying waste, wrecking, ruination, ruin destruction, devastation - the termination of something by causing so much damage to it that it cannot be repaired or no longer exists
Facts need to be introduced into this discussion. Again, I repeat: The IPCC models have been proven false. Global warming has not occurred in 17 years. The global warming movement has been corrupt and deceitful and has abandoned being a scientific movement. The global warming argument has been completely discredited and debunked, yet people still passionately support it. When presented with the facts, they will resort to name-calling and insults. The facts are presented below. 1. The earth goes through natural warming and cooling periods, and has been doing so for tens of thousands of years. In the medieval period, temperatures were warmer than today – well before man put CO2 into the atmosphere. 2. CO2 levels rise in response to higher temperatures. The change in CO2 lags temperature increases, it does not cause them. 3. The solar-orbital influence on the earth’s climate has driven rhythmically similar cyclical changes in temperatures for 400,000 years. CO2 emissions do not impact the behavior of the sun. 4. There are many precedents for the warming rate experienced from 1975-2000 – including recent precedents in 1870-1890 and from 1920-1940. CO2 emissions did not cause these similar periods of increased temperatures. 5. Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph from 2001 that allegedly showed temperatures skyrocketing in 2000 and beyond has been proved to be flawed, falsified, and completely incorrect. This graph really started the movement and was quoted heavily by Al Gore. 6. Storms are no more intense or frequent than they have been in 200 years. Hurricane activity is at a 30-year low. 7. Global warming does not cause more droughts or floods. Cold periods were drier and windier than warm periods in the earth’s history. 8. Earth’s temperatures have trended down for the last 8 years while levels of CO2 ascended at a steep pace. Explain that, warmists. You can't.
Not like it's worth reasoning with this clown, but it has always been illustrative when GW denialists like to mix "The earth is just warming on it's own" arguments (1-4) with "The earth isn't warming at all!" arguments in the same argument. 1 +1 = 4, and also -3 ! Also, Solar flares! Explain that warmists!
<script height="603px" width="1072px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#ec=BycjFtNzoNqDj6MomRzoRGsY7DQWue4W&pbid=MGQxZGQ1N2VlMDRjNGJmNmFmN2QwY2U2"></script>
Actually I address the point you criticize with reference to the 1975-2000 warming period, then the lack of warming since then. As I predicted the first response to my post was name-calling and mockery. Not a single fact dealt was with in the response. This is the left's strategy when they have no defensible position -- insults, name-calling, condescension. Those who are confident in their arguments do not resort to these low measures.
See if the person has a huge ego. Sociopaths often have delusions of grandeur and think they are the greatest people in the world. They will be completely unresponsive to criticism and have an extremely inflated sense of self. They will also have a huge sense of entitlement, thinking that they deserve to have amazing things to happen to them, even after little effort.[4] They may also have a completely unrealistic view of their own abilities; for example, they may think that they are extremely talented at singing or dancing, when in reality, they possess almost no skills in these fields. The person may also think he or she is better than everyone around him or her, without evidence that he or she is superior. The person may also be completely narcissistic. Thus, the person is far more interested in talking about him or herself than hearing what others have to say. Also, the person spends an a great deal of time staring in the mirror than observing others in the world. The person, in general, doesn't want to hear what anyone else has to say.
^^ The more facts I introduce, the weirder the responses that I receive. Tells you everything you need to know about the left's hollow position on their completely discredited argument. How many times must they be proven wrong before they quit clinging to their flawed arguments? How much damage will they inflict on the global economy -- particularly on impoverished SE Asian economies -- before they realize that the costs do not outweigh the (erroneously perceived) benefits? How can they look a Bangladeshi child in the eye and tell them that they don't deserve the higher standard of living that electricity affords them? It's despicable. They simply can not present a legitimate response to the points I made. If the science is settled, you'd think they could respond. But it looks like they can not respond, other than insults. Heck, make it easy and just respond to the last point. In the last 8 years, temperatures have declined in the face of steep increases in CO2 emissions. This alone completely annihilates their argument. Forget about the other 7 points I raised. It's inexplicable how people can still support global warming. We're supposed to pay more taxes to the government and pay exorbitantly higher electricity rates to support this nonsense? No chance.
See if the person makes uninterrupted eye contact. Sociopaths are known for giving intense uninterrupted eye contact. The person stares because he or she is completely comfortable staring at people to make them uncomfortable. Staring at others intently is a way to further his or her own means. In her memoir, Confessions of a Sociopath, M. E. Thomas talks about her frequent tactic of giving people long, uninterrupted stares to get what she wants.[5]
FV, most of your "facts" are myths, some of them make the TOP 10 most used climate myths. You might want to try your hand at debating them here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Oh, I know the definition, however since it doesn't apply to the situation I was questioning if the OP knew what it meant.
Even if climate change caused by greenhouse gases was completely bunk, I'm not saying it is, the strategies for addressing it are things like developing new technology and practices that improve energy efficiency, develop renewable sources of energy and also since there are other emissions and waste products from fossil fuels besides CO2 developing energy sources that don't create those pollutants. Those things alone would be worth reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
I'm quoting this from an article I posted in another thread. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=254721 [rquoter]But the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world have done a great job convincing Americans that climatologists have entered into this massive, incomprehensible conspiracy to fool the world that there’s a problem. The reason, they say, is that climatologists are doing it for the money, so they can continue to live in their climatologist mansions and drive their climatologist Ferraris. (For the 26 percent who might not get it, that was sarcasm.) Meanwhile, the people who selflessly fight for Americans—the billionaire industrialists and oil-industry magnates—speak only truth because, you know, they have no financial reason to suggest climate change is a fraud. After all, they have dedicated themselves to a modest life so they can advance the truth, residing in their tumble-down, billionaire shacks and driving their billionaire 1994 Chevys. (Once again—sarcasm.)[/rquoter]
I was joking for the most part, even if climate change isn't driven by man made factors, and I personally believe that it is not, all of those things that you just listed are intrinsically good ideas. I just get tired of the fear mongering related to the topic.
No, Sam is trying to help Dr. Santiago come to grips with his condition. Self-awareness is the first step toward treatment.
I have to spread rep before giving you more rep. Nice job pointing out the myths that FV was masquerading as facts. Again the sad thing is that FV was lied to, and he believed those lies. He then repeated the lies in public, and was shown that they weren't true. I predict that even after that, he will continue to deny science, and side with those that lied to him.
I stopped reading after the first so called myth: Climate's changed before. That is not myth. Also, the "myth" is very generic, giving no indication of time scale, magnitude or other measures of climate change.
If you think the myth is "climate changed before" then yes, you should stop reading immediately. The myth is not that climate changed before (do we have to state this?) but that because climate changed before, climate changing now is normal and nothing to do with human or increased CO2 emission by human. There is a short summary there that you can read in 5 seconds and a long full explanation followed by a comments section that have real scientists debating and q/a.
Chance that Rojo will even spend 5 seconds looking at actual facts: somewhere between little and none.
