User Profile: blinknight


Member Since: January 17, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • September 27, 2016 at 9:42pm


    ‘I know better than the scientists do because I read some stuff on the internet!’

    No actually you don’t.

    Your link is to a well known climate change denialist group and not, you know, a scientific organization that is actually responsible for studying things and publishing results.

    Want to know what every source, including yours, misrepresents about that whole 97% thing?

    In their attempt to overlook the fact that scientific papers on the subject overwhelmingly support the science behind climate change they’ve basically decided to pick on a number instead.

    They can’t attack the science itself so they try to attack the messenger.

    Because whether or not the number is ’97%’ or not?

    Science overwhelmingly supports the concept of man made climate change. There is no disputing that.

    Basically here’s what they did.

    The 97% figure comes from the fact that out of nearly 14,000 papers on this subject, they only found 24 papers that outright reject climate change, compared to thousands that confirm it and thousands more than don’t address.

    So what your “geniuses” did is ignore that and try to play their own silly games with the numbers, they ignore the fact that it’s ’24 vs many thousands’ and try to point out that out of the 14,000 papers surveyed, many thousands of them don’t even address the topic, and this somehow invalidates the reality of ’24 vs many thousands’

  • September 27, 2016 at 9:26pm


    it works.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 27, 2016 at 9:25pm

    “I know better than the scientists who actually spent decades working on this!”

  • September 27, 2016 at 9:24pm


    Oh have you been reading nonsense on the internet again? That’s a shame.

    In the meantime the actual experts are here again to remind you that if you think you know better than they do…

    Prove it.

  • September 27, 2016 at 8:25pm


    You have no been informed that the “used to be global cooling” talking point is a lie.

    There were about 40 papers in the 70s that talked about cooling and hundreds that talked about warming.

  • [-1] September 27, 2016 at 8:24pm

    No actually that’s not how they figured it out. We figured it out because we can actually measure the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere and because we understand these things you might have heard of called “Chemistry” and “Physics” we know what that does to our atmosphere. We know what it has done in the past and we know what it’s doing now.

    Please go learn something about ice ages as a side note.

  • [-3] September 27, 2016 at 7:49pm

    Actual Experts would like a word with you.

    You’re wrong.

    The Actual Experts are done now.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-1] September 27, 2016 at 7:48pm


    One of us needs to read, and it’s not me.

    Here’s your contention however: Actual scientists who have spent decades studying this problem are either all lying or they’re too stupid to actually look into natural sources.

    The main way we know that our atmosphere is warming due to human caused factors is the distribution of heat within the atmosphere itself. The heating is happening within the lower atmosphere where as volcanic eruptions more adversely affect the upper atmosphere.

    The heat is being trapped lower rather than higher.

  • [2] September 27, 2016 at 7:05pm

    And we care what Howard Dean thinks for what…

    Oh right, this is the Blaze and Glenn hates Trump enough to promote Howard Dean’s wild accusations.

    As I say, Glenn lost his mind over the primary and wants Hillary to win so badly now just so he can scream I told you so and he has a few equally deranged followers here that are doing the same thing.

  • [-3] September 27, 2016 at 7:03pm

    You have now been informed that the “used to be global cooling” talking point is a lie.

    You will be a liar the next time you try to use it.

    Have fun with that.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-1] September 27, 2016 at 7:01pm

    “It is a question that Climate change believers hate”

    No actually that’s not a question we have a problem with, and people who accept science are not generally referred to as “believers” as if they accept something out of faith.

    What you are doing is the typical ‘it changed in the past’ argument.

    Indeed, the climate has changed at various times and for various reasons.

    And you know what? An increase in CO2 has led to an increase in temperature multiple times in the past.

    We’ve ruled out natural sources for CO2 which might, dare we say it, suggest that the source just could be human beings.

    Responses (5) +
  • [-2] September 27, 2016 at 6:55pm

    ‘Scientists who understand how and why the environment changed in the past can’t possibly know what they’re talking about now’

    We know CO2 levels affect temperature and we know they have affected temperature in the past and we know that natural sources for CO2 cannot account for the levels in our atmosphere.

    Would you like to offer another explanation? Wait, you’ll need to actually go to school and study this first like the people who say you’re wrong did.

  • [-1] September 27, 2016 at 6:53pm

    Science is a conspiracy! The internet and the guy on the radio told me so!

  • [-1] September 27, 2016 at 6:53pm

    Actual Experts on this subject would like a word with you.

    You’re wrong.

    They’re done now.

  • [-1] September 27, 2016 at 6:52pm

    Yes, science is a conspiracy, really.

    Just ask the people who tell me the world is flat or that homeopathy works, they will tell me it’s a big conspiracy against them.

    But it’s different when you do it.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 27, 2016 at 3:17pm

    And Beck continues to run around looking for vindication.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 27, 2016 at 2:25pm


    The god of the Bible is an abhorrent monster incapable of love and fortunately not real.

    If a being, any being, is all knowing or all powerful, there is no free will. Everything from the start of time to the end of time is decided already because that is the only way a being could know everything.

    The standards I use about good and evil are the same as yours.

    Society and education.

    If you’re going to claim your standard is ‘absolute’ and ‘comes from god’ then you have centuries worth of explaining to do as followers of your god certainly had less morals than you do.

  • September 27, 2016 at 2:23pm


    I have the same one you have.

    Society and education.

  • September 27, 2016 at 2:21pm

    Oh and here he comes with the glittering generalities about the “Constitution”

    What was Cruz going to do that was radically different?

    Specifics please and show me where he said he’d do them.

    By the way, you’re one of the ‘defenders of what you imagine the Constitution to be’, so even if he were going to defend it, you wouldn’t be happy.

  • [-2] September 27, 2016 at 4:15am

    Michelle Bachman is an absolute idiot, she’s the rights version of Elizabeth Warren.

123 To page: Go