User Profile: blinknight


Member Since: January 17, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • May 30, 2015 at 6:29pm


    Yes, thank you for providing the definition that shows me to be right, or perhaps you don’t know what a ‘long period is’, from the wikipedia article, which gives a more in depth explanation of the definition.

    Climate (from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period.[4] The standard averaging period is 30 years,[5] but other periods may be used depending on the purpose. Climate also includes statistics other than the average, such as the magnitudes of day-to-day or year-to-year variations.

    The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization

    Now sit down and shut up.

  • May 30, 2015 at 6:22pm


    Oh wait, right of course, I forgot about the myth of scientists being paid by the government to make things up… i tend to forget about things thare are total fantasy and the stuff of paranoid conspiracy BS.

  • May 30, 2015 at 6:21pm


    You want to try again moron?

    If by ‘concise’ you mean ‘bogus’ and ‘basically worthless’? Okay.


    Oh one of my coward posters shows up now. Hello coward. You’re going to explain how I’m a liberal right? Of course you’re not, you’re a coward.

    It’s been so debunked that you’re providing data right? Like my above link, to NASA, who of course are all part of the conspiracy. I could also link to Consensus Project, or any number of other things.

    But you be sure and provide some sources, provided of course you’re not too cowardly to do that either.

  • May 30, 2015 at 6:15pm


    Yes yes, all a conspiracy, except that it is a statement of fact that 97% of climate scientists support the idea of man made climate change, why is that again?


    I continue to find it funny that the ‘counter’ to Bill Nye is that he’s ‘not a scientist!’

    What, you are? I am? The talking heads on the radio are? Why is it that only time we hear the ‘not a scientist!’ BS line is when people like you are trying to talk about people who say things, supported by science, that you don’t like?

  • May 30, 2015 at 6:12pm

    97% of climate scientists link humans to cimate change. If you are trying to say that a “majority” of scientists don’t support climate change, you are completely delusional.

  • May 30, 2015 at 4:36pm

    ‘Chem trails’

    Oh wow, there is somebody here crazier than the deniers.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 30, 2015 at 4:36pm

    Google. What is that?

  • May 30, 2015 at 4:35pm

    ‘Coldest several years in decades’

    Based on what data?

  • [2] May 30, 2015 at 4:34pm

    Al Gore is an exploitive moron who doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about.

  • May 30, 2015 at 4:33pm

    Yes, there’s a feedback loop, an increase in temperature can also contribute to an increase in CO2 levels, just as an increase in CO2 levels can contribute to an increase in temperature.

    Except we’ve figured out that this is not part of the feedback loop, due the rate at which CO2 levels are increasing vs temperature vs sun activity, the last of which is actually down, meaning we should be getting cooler, but we’re not, we continue to gain energy, and our CO2 levels are now at 400ppm.

  • [-1] May 30, 2015 at 4:24pm

    He hasn’t worked for PBS in years to the best of my knowledge.

  • [-3] May 30, 2015 at 4:23pm

    What caused the last ice age?

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] May 30, 2015 at 4:23pm

    Nah, just ‘believe as we do or be tortured and you deserve it’

  • [-4] May 30, 2015 at 4:22pm

    Seasons are not climate.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-5] May 30, 2015 at 4:21pm

    Today on ‘why is this stupid’

    Is it a fact or not a fact that we have linked cigarette smoking to cancer? Yes, it is a fact that we have linked cigarette smoking to cancer. Whether it’s the tobacco or the other components in the cigarettes is completely and utterly meaningless. Smoking cigarettes causes cancer, and other health problems, this is a fact.

    Nobody even brought up the fact that it might be X component vs Y component of the cigarettes, what they brought up was the undeniable, confirmed, and emperically supported facts that cigarettes are linked to an increased risk of cancer.

    Okay, now that your entire talking point has been crushed with relative ease, you can try addressing what he actually said.

    If a politician adamantly insisted that smoking cigarettes was not linked to cancer…

    And again, it doesn’t matter one whit what component causes said cancer…

    …And insisted that scientists were all wrong, lying, and that the studies they produced were bogus…

    How seriously could you take that politician?

    Monk Manuver in 3…2…1!

  • [-3] May 30, 2015 at 4:12pm

    It’s amusing as hell to me that we constantly hear about how ‘He’s just making money!’

    Yeah, the celebrity deniers? Totally not making buck off this.

  • [-4] May 30, 2015 at 4:11pm

    Oh? Can you name any of them? Wait, let me guess, the Oregon Petition?

    ‘Not all’, I suppose that’s technically correct. just 97% of the actual experts in the field.

    Responses (4) +
  • [-4] May 30, 2015 at 4:05pm

    And you base this profound conclusion on what?

  • [-3] May 30, 2015 at 4:04pm

    So tell me, what’s the difference between a scientist and an engineer?

  • [2] May 30, 2015 at 1:41pm

    I think it has more to do with tried and true methods of group controll.

    It’s easy to keep people united and distracted if you give them a ‘common enemy’. It’s how the various Islamic despots in the Middle East don’t get overthrown, by keeping people whipped up in to an irrational hate against ‘the enemy’.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love