Quote :

"Boone: You, hooksaw, and TreeTwista10 are depleting the world's rolly eyes supply."

2 posts from the same page:

Quote :

"Boone: So you make an appeal to your authority and claim I'm trolling. "

Quote :

"Boone: OH THATS RIGHT, all of science is a big honkin' conspiracy to aid government in the largest power grab in American history. "

typical boonedoggle retardation

6/7/2008 5:40:54 PM

you mean like the hockey-stick's creator accounted for anomalies in the data by ignoring them and making them better fit into the hockey-stick? sure

6/7/2008 5:54:57 PM

^^ It's no wonder you're so impossible to argue with. You consistently fail at basic reading comprehension.

What I was saying was-- you all, through your retarded drivel, are necessitating the use of so many rolly eyes, that they will someday soon go extinct.

Basic context-- do you grasp it?

6/7/2008 10:30:55 PM

he certainly grasps it better than you grasp the concept of science

6/7/2008 10:32:32 PM

If I were worse at science than he was at reading comprehension, I wouldn't be able to spell the word "atom."

6/7/2008 10:35:28 PM

science is about more than spelling. but I wouldn't expect a history teacher to understand that.

6/7/2008 10:46:53 PM

Beach bonfires may be banned
They fuel global warming, parks department says

Quote :

"Even with the skies overcast and threatening rain, Khang Nguyen, 18, and Joel Juan, 19, kicked back after school at Alki Beach. 'It's just a relaxing way to hang out with friends,' Nguyen said of the bonfire crackling in front of them one evening earlier this week. But Seattle Parks and Recreation might do what even this week's chilly weather couldn't -- douse the long tradition of beach bonfires at Alki and at Golden Gardens. Park department staff is recommending reducing bonfires at the two beaches this summer and possibly banning them altogether next year. The park board will hear the recommendation Thursday, and the city plans to run public-service announcements and hand out brochures later this month about the effects of bonfires on global warming. According to a memo to the park board from the staff released Thursday, 'The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon ... emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming.'"

Quote :

"At Alki on Wednesday night, Linda Garcia, a 56-year- old West Seattle resident, walked her dog and made a slightly rose-colored argument for preserving her beloved bonfires. 'It's so windy around here it probably doesn't pollute that much. 'They have to try to take everything away,' she said. Sara Russell, 34, who also was walking her dog, rolled her eyes at the idea of banning bonfires to stave off global warming. 'If they really wanted to do something, they could enforce the no-cruising law, because in the summer you see so many cars cruising around here,' she said."

Quote :

"As a sliver of silvery sky shrank under the growing clouds, Nguyen played a guitar, and maybe for the last year, the flames licked the salt air."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366025_bonfire06.html

This is an example of the kind of shit that many of us have been and are objecting to--bans, increased fees, and so on. And there are numerous examples of this type of foolishness resulting from alarmists' Chicken Little cries.

6/9/2008 7:50:52 PM

YEAH, THOSE FUCKERS ON THE SEATTLE PARKS DEPARTMENT, I'VE ABOUT HAD IT WITH THEIR NANNY STATE SHENANIGANS.

:grr:

seriously, i go to bonfires on the beach here A LOT. it's an awesome time for everyone ... young, old, whoever.

I need to get active on this. this is BULLSHIT.



(okay Hooksaw, you got me now. you happy?)






[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 8:13 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2008 8:08:55 PM

That is pretty ridiculous, and yes thats the type of thing that a lot of us are worried about.

6/9/2008 11:31:01 PM

...so you deny the science.

good call.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 7:46 AM. Reason : ]

6/10/2008 7:46:19 AM

Every time Boone posts I get closer and closer to sending my kids to private school

6/10/2008 9:19:25 AM

you got kids?

6/10/2008 5:06:25 PM

yeah i just dropped them off in your throne...call the plumber

6/10/2008 5:07:26 PM

nice mixing metaphors

6/10/2008 5:08:03 PM

I don't even think private school science teachers would deny global warming.

Maybe Jerry Falwell's university will open up a K-12 campus?

6/10/2008 5:09:34 PM

i think we should get some scientists in here to school boone about some history

6/10/2008 5:11:26 PM

I doubt that would be a very good idea.

See, history is not their field.



It'd be like a PDA technician lecturing people about science.


ridiculous

6/10/2008 5:13:07 PM

it'd be like a high school teacher talking about adult things

props to boone though...since i called him out a few pages ago for not posting anything climate change related, he STILL hasnt posted anything in this climate change thread that has to do with climate change...now thats hard to do...i mean we're talking some skill...like broken clock monkeys with typewriters type of odds defying

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 5:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 5:14:00 PM

Thanks for mentioning that, Tree.

Because you never really responded to these two charts:





Both published in Scientific American.

Very convincing, if you ask me.

But that's only a measly teacher's opinion. I want to know what the all powerful PDA tech thinks of this.

6/10/2008 5:28:12 PM

those are some pretty pictures

hey didnt you get fired from your teaching position?

6/10/2008 5:29:16 PM

Yeah, very pretty. I was expecting a little more, though.

And I didn't get fired. Why would you think that?

6/10/2008 5:30:53 PM

oh i guess you're just on your 3 month vacation from your gubment job

6/10/2008 5:32:21 PM

I understand your jealously.

Unlike children, PDA's never go on vacation.



But I was really hoping you'd live up to all your bluster and discuss those graphs

6/10/2008 5:33:34 PM

with you? why do you want to talk about the climate all of a sudden? thats not been your MO at all in this thread...your MO is talking shit about people and proving how fucking ignorant you are to science every single time you make a post...your MO is attacking anybody with a shred of skeptcism about anthro climate change, like some kind of retarded puppet

and now finally you want to talk climate change? prove that you're a mature adult first...why don't YOU post anything relevant about the pictures you linked...then I'll consider it

6/10/2008 5:34:56 PM

Yeah, well you called me out for it. Guilty as charged.

Now I'm the one waiting for you to get serious.

6/10/2008 5:36:03 PM

i just figured this was the thread to talk about climate change, but based on all your posts, its not

6/10/2008 5:36:48 PM

Quote :

"i just figured this was the thread to talk about climate change"

You're absolutely correct on that account-- go ahead:

6/10/2008 5:38:37 PM

you posted the pictures, why dont you comment on them? prove to all of us that you actually have a clue what the hell you're talking about...don't just post a link...say something...come on, i know you don't know shit, but give it a try

6/10/2008 5:39:19 PM

This one demonstrates two major points:

1) That our current climate models are fairly accurate.
2) That our current climate models show us that humans are in fact warming the climate.




This one demonstrates that scientists have accounted for a wide assortment of factors (if you recall, you were claiming the didn't account for all those "ropes on the car," or whatever awful analogy that was). Then after accounting for all that, human activity is having a net warming effect.


So what do you think.

Will Tree resort to the "how can we really know anything, maaaaaan" argument? Tune in to see!

6/10/2008 5:44:56 PM

Quote :

"1) That our current climate models are fairly accurate. 2) That our current climate models show us that humans are in fact warming the climate."

i don't know how you came up with those 2 conclusions...please elaborate

6/10/2008 5:53:01 PM

See that black line?

That represents observations.

See that pink line?

That represents computer models.


Notice how they follow the same path?

6/10/2008 5:57:27 PM

i notice that some of them appear to have roughly the same function...but how does that show that our models are accurate and that humans are warming the climate? also, and only if you want to, feel free to speak in scientific terms

Quote :

""ropes on the car," or whatever awful analogy that was"

i like how you say that analogy was awful, when the graph pretty much looks at the system as the exact same thing... "a tug of war between positive forcing and negative forcings"...i can only assume you didn't understand the analogy when I made it...or are you saying the title of the 2nd graph that YOU posted is an awful title? thats neither here nor there though, i'd rather have your reasoning for your conclusions you drew from the first graph

6/10/2008 5:58:35 PM

It demonstrates that their predictions were correct.

Therefore validating their hypothesis.


But you're a man on science, you should already know that. Why don't you explain to me where it's wrong?

6/10/2008 6:03:23 PM

sounds to me like you're basically saying "just because"...I'm asking you to explain yourself which you are not doing

put a little effort into it...everyone in this thread would appreciate it, since we all view you as being completely ignorant to not only climate change, but science in general

6/10/2008 6:04:46 PM

Quote :

"everyone in this thread would appreciate it"

It's only the two of us.

Because everyone knows to just ignore threads that look like this:

Tree
User
Tree
User
Tree
User

And most people know not to be that User. I failed at that, but I won't keep making the same mistake.

If you want to discuss it, go ahead.

6/10/2008 6:08:03 PM

that was fast...back to your standard procedure of clogging up the climate change thread with drivel that has nothing to do with climate change

typical boone idiocy...i just asked for clarification and how you came up with your lofty conclusions, yet you apparently arent willing to answer (or perhaps you're just incapable)

you couldve just admitted you have no clue what you're talking about, at least that way you might get a shred of respect

6/10/2008 6:08:55 PM

Quote :

"(okay Hooksaw, you got me now. you happy?)"

joe_schmoe

It's about fucking time--now put down today's Seattle P-I and go out there and be somebody! Go on!

More lunacy:

Sheep flatulence inoculation developed
New Zealand scientists claim to have developed a "flatulence inoculation" aimed at cutting down on the massive amount of methane produced by its sheep and cows.

Quote :

"Such animals are believed to be responsible for more than half of the country's greenhouse gases, causing huge environmental problems. 'Our agricultural research organisation just last week was able to map the genome ... that causes methane in ruminant animals and we believe we can vaccinate against' flatulent emissions, Mr Goff said. Scientists in New Zealand have been working around-the-clock to reduce emissions from agriculture, such as changing the way fertilisers are used on pasture land, Mr Goff added. Sheep, cattle, goats and deer produce large quantities of gas through belching and flatulence, as their multiple stomachs digest grass. Ruminants are responsible for about 25 per cent of the methane produced in Britain, but in countries with a large agricultural sector, the proportion is much higher. The 45 million sheep and 10 million cattle in New Zealand burped and farted about 90 percent of that country's methane emissions, according to government figures. In comparison, livestock are responsible for about two per cent of the United States's greenhouse gas emissions, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Under the Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming, New Zealand must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. In the past New Zealand's farmers have showed their disgust at government plans to impose an animal 'flatulence tax' by sending parcels of manure to members of parliament. The OECD conference is discussing climate change, trade and the global economy."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2076607/Sheep-flatulence-inoculation-developed.html

Somehow there are always more taxes, fees, government control, and so on. A fucking "flatulence tax"? Are they and you fucking insane?!

6/10/2008 6:36:16 PM

For the love of God, what happened to this thread?

Increasing Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the Earth by extremely verifiable processes, and I mean the magnitude, not just the 'general idea'. We put 500 billion tons of this more than what there was before, equal to 0.0003 parts of the atmosphere. That means the temperature of the Earth will rise.

That Scientific American printed graphs that show agreement is great. Unfortunately, what would have been more convincing would be if those were printed 5 years ago with the last 5 year data printed on top. As it stands, that's all after-the-fact data, and a variety of models have been available at any time in question.

While a page in a popular magazine presented no new information and holds no great weight, one's own diagnosis of the situation should be more than sufficient to replicate troublesome predictions about the world in a few decades.

6/10/2008 8:21:58 PM

I'm honestly not surprised.

6/10/2008 11:20:46 PM

You guys remind me of my roommate who said the drought was a myth

6/10/2008 11:29:37 PM

Global Warming skeptics are, just like their anti-Evolution counterparts, afraid of and hostile towards science except inasmuch as their own misunderstanding and/or dishonesty allows them to twist select bits of evidence to support their own belief systems.

here are some more of their kind:

Quote :

"Origins of the conteporary "Flat Earth" movement Contemporary theory supporting a flat Earth originated with an English inventor, Samuel Rowbotham ... According to Rowbotham's system, which he called "Zetetic Astronomy", the earth is a flat disk centered at the North Pole and bounded along its perimeter by a wall of ice, with the sun and moon 3000 miles and the "cosmos" 3100 miles above earth. -- Source: Wikipedia"

from their own forums:

Quote :

"THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY Frequently Asked Questions Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?" A: It's a conspiracy Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?" A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked. Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?" A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture. Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?" A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead Q: "What is the motive behind this conspiracy?" A: The motive is unknown although it is probably money Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?" A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the governments must be lying when they say it isn't. Q: "The government could not pull off the conspiracy successfully" A: Actually, they could. Q: "How are the world governments organized enough to carry out this conspiracy?" A: They only appear to be disorganized to make the conspiracy seem implausible. Q: Why hasn’t this site been shut down by the government? A: Doing so would prove that the government is hiding something. --http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ "

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 12:47 AM. Reason : ]

6/11/2008 12:44:45 AM

Quote :

"YEAH, THOSE FUCKERS ON THE SEATTLE PARKS DEPARTMENT, I'VE ABOUT HAD IT WITH THEIR NANNY STATE SHENANIGANS. :grr: seriously, i go to bonfires on the beach here A LOT. it's an awesome time for everyone ... young, old, whoever. I need to get active on this. this is BULLSHIT."

6/11/2008 12:52:25 AM

there's a big fucking difference between doing something that actually DECREASES carbon emissions, and doing something for PURE POLITICAL POSTURING.

bonfires are an insignificant source of carbon compared to the number of inefficient combusion engines in automobiles, and the waste products of factories pumping out 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, in just the US alone.

emissions from bonfires are a grain of sand compared to the desert.

what this is, is political grandstanding by the Seattle Parks, because they despise having to police the beaches at 11pm in the summer, and the extra work having to empty out the fire rings. they're a bunch of antagonistic grouchy fucksticks who think they are entitled to sit around and play cards all day.

Now they're hopping on the Climate Change bandwagon, and making a mockery out of the REAL science, by claiming that they are acting on behalf of it.




[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 1:15 AM. Reason : ]

6/11/2008 1:04:32 AM

Quote :

"Now they're hopping on the Climate Change bandwagon, and making a mockery out of the REAL science, by claiming that they are acting on behalf of it."

Now you have it. Do you think they're the only ones?



And would you hinder this poor baby goat's right to naturally pass gas?

6/11/2008 2:03:16 AM

Quote :

"emissions from bonfires are a grain of sand compared to the desert."

You need to point out the best argument, not this one. Bonfires tend to use wood as fuel. As such, they are not a net-contributor of CO2 because you are just putting back into the air the same CO2 that the tree absorbed. Finally, as the wood decomposes the CO2 will be released anyway.

As such, there is absolutely no justification for banning wood-burning bonfires in the name of global warming.

6/11/2008 8:41:12 AM

someone could argue that you burn an amount of wood fuel in a few hours that would normally take 100 years to decompose.

the REAL argument is this:

The US contributes 6 billion metric TONS of carbon emissions per year.

IF a bonfire was 120 pounds of wood fuel (much less)
IF all of that fuel converted 1:1 into carbon emissions (not even close)
IF there were 30 bonfires burning on Seattle beaches on any given night (theres not that many)
IF they burned all night, 365 nights per year

it STILL wouldn't equal one ten-thousandth of one percent of the US carbon emissions.

the whole bonfire issue is political grandstanding

6/11/2008 9:16:00 AM

Quote :

"...so you deny the science. good call. "

If you are claiming that bitching about the Seattle thing is "denying science," then you are a fool. Beach bonfires contribute absolutely nothing to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And you know why? Because the bonfires are burning WOOD. Yes. WOOD. As in something that is already a part of the natural carbon cycle. So, nothing is added to the cycle. If the bonfires were exclusively petroleum-based, then that would be different. Thank you for proving that you don't know dick about the science.

Quote :

"It demonstrates that their predictions were correct. Therefore validating their hypothesis."

No, it demonstrates that they can predict what the model they programmed will do. And, when you consider the fact that they programmed the model for the purpose of proving themselves correct, then it hardly is worth comparing anything to the model. Their "predictions" could be little more than wild guesses that happened to be right. It is entirely plausible that, when a certain factor is actually changed, their predictions become worthless.

Quote :

"Increasing Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the Earth by extremely verifiable processes, and I mean the magnitude, not just the 'general idea'. We put 500 billion tons of this more than what there was before, equal to 0.0003 parts of the atmosphere. That means the temperature of the Earth will rise."

Ah yes. IF ONLY C02 WERE THE ONLY VARIABLE IN THIS EQUATION, THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT! Now, again, please explain why CO2 increases FUCKING LAG TEMPERATURE INCREASES. That's all we're asking here, dude.

6/11/2008 10:10:01 PM

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM. Reason : ]

6/11/2008 10:27:49 PM

UPDATE:

one day after this story broke, Seattle Parks Commissioner disavowed the whole incident, and said that this proposal has absolutely no backing of the Parks Department.

apparently it was the result of a few unhappy parks workers who put together a proposal and submitted it up their chain to see if it had any possibility of being implemented.

it never would have made it out of Parks and Rec, if it hadnt been leaked to the media.

the original article in the Seattle P-I had liberals and conservatives holding hands and pledging unity. ive not seen anything quite like it.

6/11/2008 11:01:33 PM

^ Yeah, if only more liberals valued freedom over the crisis du jour--and their inevitable government "solution"--we'd get a lot more accomplished and get along much better.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA

6/12/2008 1:03:55 AM