Paris Accord Died, American Pride

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Is this munchie, speedy, or wtf?

You want to take a bet as to who looks better in cycling pants, you or me? I'll put $100 on me.

[LexusLover]

That's why he's called "Speedo"!

Tight, spandex pants on a guy in Austin is acceptably fashionable!!!!

Speedo must troll down on 6th Street showing off his ass in tight pants!

$100 a show!

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Ignore the facts ignorant redneck hillbilly. Bury your head in the sand and continue to say that you won't be around when global warming really heats up so why worry?

.....

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."



- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

That's funny. I refuted NASA and the NOAA's credibility by conveying how not only were they caught manipulating weather data, but they also refused a judge's order. You, Speedie, responded by saying that wasn't you bringing up NASA. Well, you are bringing up NASA now.

But then again, you really don't have any credibility as you are bringing up the IPCC and their hockeystick graph.

[LexusLover]

^^^ That's what happens when want-a-bes cling to the notion that "Man" is responsible for "everything" and there are no natural or supernatural forces driving the Universe. In other words ... "climate changes" on Earth before Man inhabited the Earth are "fictions," just like they have to believe that "climate changes" on other planets on which there is no evidence of Man being there are simply the figments of someone's imagination. Speedo also believes Hillary won and he's smarter than Trump!

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again -- it's your OPINION against the opinion of thousands of scientists who study climate change for a living.
....

Remember how all you aGWers (aka nut jobs) used to use "peer review" as some type of scientific holy grail until it was proven that a leading IPCC scientist used that argument about a glacier that was melting but was later found out it was not...in his peer reviewed article?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...blundere2809d/

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Remember how all you aGWer used to use "peer review" as some type of scientific holy grail ....

There were probably many "scientists" who observed Columbus taking off on his first voyage exclaiming how he would sail off the edge and they'd never see him again!

And then there is Sheila Jackson who saw the U.S. flag planted by the astronauts on Mars .... how fortunate Speedo is that he can shroud himself in fantasies ... and delusions ... in order to justify his voting patterns...like the folks do who keep sending "Sheila" back to D.C.!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's why he's called "Speedo"!

Tight, spandex pants on a guy in Austin is acceptably fashionable!!!!

Speedo must troll down on 6th Street showing off his ass in tight pants!

$100 a show!

Wrong yet again!!! At least you are consistent.

Yes, on any given day and especially on weekends, you will see hundreds, if not thousands, of people, men and women, in tight, short pants cycling on 360, Parmer Lane, the Circle C velodrome, and countless other streets in the Austin area.

It's called EXERCISE, something you know little about since you are not only a bigoted ignorant redneck hillbilly but an out-of-shape bigoted redneck hillbilly.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

That's funny. I refuted NASA and the NOAA's credibility by conveying how not only were they caught manipulating weather data, but they also refused a judge's order. You, Speedie, responded by saying that wasn't you bringing up NASA. Well, you are bringing up NASA now.

But then again, you really don't have any credibility as you are bringing up the IPCC and their hockeystick graph.

Once again -- the opinion 1200 scientists vs. the opinion a few people on a hooker board.

Let's review. LexusLoser, you, and a few others believe that the heating that earth has been undergoing in recent decades is cyclical and at some point in time it will start getting cooler again. Might take 1,000 years though. Impossible to estimate when that cooling will begin. So we can all do nothing and HOPE you are right or we can continue investigating the possibility that the increase in temperature is man-made and we can do something to control it. Very little downside to the 2nd option if wrong and huge upside if right.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1059607457]Earlier today you made a post accusing someone for putting words in your mouth that you never said yet this is the second (and third) times in 2 days you've done the same to me. I never said Hillary Clinton would win the election. I never said Hillary Clinton won the election. And I never said I was smarter than Donald Trump.

Please stop lying.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

That's funny. I refuted NASA and the NOAA's credibility by conveying how not only were they caught manipulating weather data, but they also refused a judge's order. You, Speedie, responded by saying that wasn't you bringing up NASA. Well, you are bringing up NASA now.

But then again, you really don't have any credibility as you are bringing up the IPCC and their hockeystick graph.

Wrong and right. Iiffy originally brought up a NASA report in post #67 in this thread that stated "more ice than ever" to support his POV that global warming is a myth. All I did at that time was say that if one read the WHOLE NASA article, it went on to say that the ice growth had slowed decade to decade and in the next 20 or 30 years there will be a DECREASE in the amount of ice in Antarctica.

Then I brought up a different meme from NASA. Caught manipulating data? Snopes found that allegation to be false, it being based on an article in the British tabloid "Mail" written by a David Rose.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noa...e-change-data/

And here are several more articles on whether or not the data was manipulated. If you can find another source of disagreement please post a link. I would not be surprised in the least if there were other dissenters.

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...records#page-2

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/s...tudy-data.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/noaa-...t-faked-2017-2

People are going to choose the data that supports their POV and look to discredit the data that goes contrary to their POV. Especially on this forum.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Remember how all you aGWers (aka nut jobs) used to use "peer review" as some type of scientific holy grail until it was proven that a leading IPCC scientist used that argument about a glacier that was melting but was later found out it was not...in his peer reviewed article?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...blundere2809d/

So, no confirmation of discredit from Speedy. Just "people chose the sources they like" truism.

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...-is-fake-data/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/...use-continues/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...-data-scandal/

[dilbert firestorm]

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Wrong and right. Iiffy originally brought up a NASA report in post #67 in this thread that stated "more ice than ever" to support his POV that global warming is a myth. All I did at that time was say that if one read the WHOLE NASA article, it went on to say that the ice growth had slowed decade to decade and in the next 20 or 30 years there will be a DECREASE in the amount of ice in Antarctica.

Then I brought up a different meme from NASA. Caught manipulating data? Snopes found that allegation to be false, it being based on an article in the British tabloid "Mail" written by a David Rose.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noa...e-change-data/

And here are several more articles on whether or not the data was manipulated. If you can find another source of disagreement please post a link. I would not be surprised in the least if there were other dissenters.

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...records#page-2

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/s...tudy-data.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/noaa-...t-faked-2017-2

People are going to choose the data that supports their POV and look to discredit the data that goes contrary to their POV. Especially on this forum.

[IIFFOFRDB]

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

China is, from what I've read, cutting back on coal and shutting down coal power plants which is the cause of much of their air pollution problems.