lzw

4 ms·

1.
by lzw 16y ago
You're being snide, but you're actually correct. Governments have spent billions upon billions to rationalize this political movement. Energy companies are not the only ones under attack, but they are some of the few with enough money to a
2.
by lzw 16y ago
Yes, when you model the past, that makes sense. What AGW proponents use are models to project the future. But they are inconsistent with the data of the past. They don't fit it. They are simply fantasies to try and lend "scientific" justi
3.
by lzw 16y ago
You link to a place where you confused me with someone else, as justification for making personal attacks? See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867917 So, you refuse to respond to arguments, you admit it, and you demand that peo
4.
by lzw 16y ago
First off, you've confused me with codefisher. Codefisher made his point by providing a link to support his argument, which you said couldn't be done because you said there was no science supporting his argument. Now you're changing the s
5.
by lzw 16y ago
The projections are based completely on the temperature record, and changing the temperature record would produce different projections. The projections are essentially fudged to get the result that is desired for political reasons. I'm gu
6.
by lzw 16y ago
This is another form of insult. You lie about what I have said in order to characterize me in a negative way. Ad hominem. Reality is, I have responded to your "Arguments" such that they are, and you have simply ignored my responses. If sc
7.
by lzw 16y ago
I sure wish you would actually respond to the arguments, maybe make salient points. Instead of simply snidely characterizing everyone who doesn't agree with your ideology. Also: It reflects on the nature of hacker news that the snotty resp
8.
by lzw 16y ago
You're saying that the only way to debate you is to go to some blog, do a bunch of research, construct arguments against that blog post, and then post them here? Must be nice to not have to do any thinking at all- you just link to some prop
9.
by lzw 16y ago
Aw, gee, a snotty insult with no actual substantive response. Stay classy, hacker news! Sure, the snotty insult gets upvoted and the response pointing out that it is not useful or adding to the conversation gets downvoted. Votes are driv
10.
by lzw 16y ago
I never used the word moron. It takes a lot of gall to use the insult you used against someone else and attempt to tar me with it. Your lack of class is why having a reasonable discussion on this site is impossible.
11.
by lzw 16y ago
You are expressing your bigotry towards me. When I disagree, I actually disagree, and it is this disagreement that you are responding to. You can't downvote a response you disagree to (or at least hacker news doesn't let me) and I don't d
12.
by lzw 16y ago
I think that you are sincere and so I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of your response for the answer to your question. On one hand, you linked to a blog that links to "plenty of papers" and you think this is more relevant than a
13.
by lzw 16y ago
If the planet were actually getting warmer, as CO2 goes up, over the last decade, that would go a long way towards making your theory worth listening to. You did not provide any evidence at all. You just linked to propaganda from an advoca
14.
by lzw 16y ago
Zeolots spamming random paper citations that they've never read to people whose arguments they've never read is not supporting science. It is actually, attempting to stifle science by stifling critical thinking in favor of rote repetition
15.
by lzw 16y ago
You are being anti-science because you don't know or understand the science, you're just giving them citations that are completely irrelevant to the question at hand. This has been my experience with global warming advocates- they believe
16.
by lzw 16y ago
Linking to a blog written by scientifically ignorant proponetns of a religion who make inaccurate in dishonest links to random scientific papers is not making an argument. Just like you are unwilling or unable to engage in debate here.
17.
by lzw 16y ago
Don't let the term "fossil fuel" confuse you. In the early days of drilling they found fossils in the oil that came up, and this led to the common hypothesis. But people don't really know the mechanism by which oil is created (possibly th
18.
by lzw 16y ago
It is a myth. It is an ideology that rejects science. And the proof that hacker news is full of ignorant college students who choose ideology over science (and capitalism, for that matter) is the fact that any failure to blindly advocate
19.
by lzw 16y ago
Actually all of them are because it is just linking to random papers without any understanding of context-- it can't have understanding because it is a bot. This is actually a very accurate simulation of attempting to debate with a global w
20.
by lzw 16y ago
The brilliant thing about the global warming debate for proponents is that because they are not even aware of the science inovlved, but firmly convinced that they are on the side of "science" they can say whatever they want. You think some
21.
by lzw 16y ago
You lost the argument at "notorious denier hack", which is ironic given that you're just re-asserting the same assertions, sans evidence, that every religious adherent to global warming always asserts. By the way, props for having the bal
22.
by lzw 16y ago
This is the problem you global warming proponents have. You demand a response or citations, yet you never povide them yourselves. You didn't provide an argument worth debating, you just claimed there was no basis for the opposing viewpoint
23.
by lzw 16y ago
You're misunderstanding the purpose of the solution by taking it at face value. I think it is important to step back and think about why the global warming movement is being perpetrated. The real "problem" is the lack of a world governme
24.
by lzw 16y ago
You realize that you're defending a bot which provides random citations base on key phrases found in twitter posts on the claim that "most people's ... nonsense isn't ...skepticism, It's noise"? Here is someone providing no thought and addi
25.
by lzw 16y ago
Except that the weight of scientific evidence is not on his side. The science clearly points against the global warming hypothesis. It is merely that there is a political/religious/ideological movement to claim that "global warming is set
26.
by lzw 16y ago
I love how you just made up a term and then claimed that using the word wrong is justified because you made up a different term for the correct definiton. Of course, you've never opened an economic texbook in your life. I also love how you
27.
by lzw 16y ago
I never said the only motivation people have is personal greed. Taxation is literally a mugging. And you are in error to assume that governments cannot exist without mugging. Businesses provide services and charge for them. A government
28.
by lzw 16y ago
Yeah, this was a page about a product. A product that leftists have an opinion about, but are generally pretty ignorant about.
29.
by lzw 16y ago
If you ask them to write code on a whiteboard you are testing their ability to work while nervous without their common tools handy... when left with someone staring at them silently and expectantly. I have had great success determining the
30.
by lzw 16y ago
Maybe, but they were smart enough to tell me to forget that they had told me, so I think I am an original snowflake and completely unique. This brain programming is good!

More ›