Kickin’ it for my main man Rude Rudi!
Bo!
Word up niggers!
Hip hop love y’all!
Who says we Republicans don’t know what’s fresh?
Yo yo yo! Big Up! In the area!!!!
Ain’t that just the truth? Bo!
“If you ain’t down with Rudi take your broke vote home!”
“Global Warming, it won’t matter,
if we get bombed and all get splattered.”
Ain’t that just the truth? Even black people can understand that!
Kick it!
Yeah! That’s what I’m talking about! Keep it with the Republicans in 2008!
DJ Jazzy Johnston, Fresh Prince of NC.
38 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Loading ...
I quote: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìAll hip-hop and other musical forms that promote and encourage degraded, drug-addicted and murderous black culture?¢‚Ǩ¬ù
You quote… what?
Definetly not a bible verse
Well now you sound like a baby…What I meant was the song is done by a White Girl
“Ain?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t that just the truth? Even black people can understand that!”
Extremely racist.
Fresh Prince of Bel-Air totally kick your ass, Fresh Prince of NC.
“There?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a difference between good blacks and bad just as there is a difference between christians and atheists.”
ANALOGY
Your’e doing it WRONG
Nice song, we need more republican rap.
Who is the whir singer grrl?
“Me no savvy.”
No you are not.
“Temperature and CO2 are correlated…”
So far, so good…
“…but historically temp rises hundreds of years before CO2 shows any variation!”
AAAND the zeppelin burns.
It could also be described as an elastic relation (i.e. CO2 will rise to the same level, but slightly delayed). So CO2 will still go up, even if the temperature starts dropping today.
“Still the FUD conclusion is ?¢‚Ǩ?ìCO2 warms the globe, stop using fuels, become a greenie weenie veggie?¢‚Ǩ¬ù.”
If you want to solve a problem, you have to change something.
“Proof: read a reputable (non-commie) journal.”
i.e. Read an irresponsible pro-fascist journal.
You see best with two eyes.
“This fake curve of historical temperature data from tree rings follows after numerous manipulations and fraudulous transformations of raw data that is kept secret…”
Convenient that you fail to provide proof.
“…although actually we do not need the raw data, reputable scientists have shown that Mann?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s statistical transformations applied to random noise produces hockey sticks 99% of the time!”
I’m sorry… how the Hell does that mean anything? It’s like you’re spouting random scientific phrases to make yourself sound learned… but they’re not… and you sound desperate.
“So as Salokin puts it, we have evidence from the past 30 freakin?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ years to support global warming, that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s historically quite relevant, right?”
Absolutely. A lot can happen in 30 years. After all, three decades ago, we thought the Soviet Union would last forever…
OK, I will spell it out:
(Shelley, sorry I abuse your forum for democ-rat education)
“It could also be described as an elastic relation (i.e. CO2 will rise to the same level, but slightly delayed). So CO2 will still go up, even if the temperature starts dropping today.”
-Haha, you contradict yourself badly. If, as you say, “CO2 will still go up, even if the temperature starts dropping today” that is DIRECT, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that CO2 does not cause warming.
“If you want to solve a problem, you have to change something.”
-But you first have to UNDERSTAND. Always calling for the ‘precautionary principle’ instead of good republican science is like randomly walking in pitch black darkness instead of having VISION, like we republicans do.
“Convenient that you fail to provide proof.”
-read http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
“It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s like you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re spouting random scientific phrases”
-Let me explain this in very simple words:
-There once was a man called Mann
-He counted the rings on trees
-Then wrote a paper about historical temperature
-Saying it was always constant except in the last years it went up
-The curve is now known as ‘hockeystick’
-But tree rings are not Fahrenheits
-So he needed a calculation to make tree rings Fahrenheits
-He designed a calculation, let us call it X
-X converted treering data to Fahrenheits
-So X working on treering data produced a hockeystick
-Scientists read Mann’s paper
-They asked the raw data (treering counts)
-It was kept secret
-After pressure Mann shared details about X
-Scientists applied X to random noise (random treering data)
-And OOPS, there was a hockeystick!
Needless to say, X is a very complicated untransparent calculation produced by junk-science. And X produces hockeysticks whatever happened in the past.
This would be a great topic for “junk science exposed”.
The proof is on the top of page 11 of above mentioned paper.
QED
Ebenezer
“Haha, you contradict yourself badly. If, as you say, ?¢‚Ǩ?ìCO2 will still go up, even if the temperature starts dropping today?¢‚Ǩ¬ù that is DIRECT, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that CO2 does not cause warming.”
How? I’m saying that the relation is not rigidly parallel. 1 degree higher temperature does not equal 100 more parts per million of carbon dioxide, but as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, so does the temperature.
When I say ‘elastic’, I mean- OK, think of this: Two cars sit side-by-side, connected by an elastic band. One has a driver and the other is in neutral. The first car (temperature) starts driving forward. The second car (CO2) remains stationary until the slack is taken up, then it is pulled by the elastic.
At whatever point, the driver applies the brakes and switches to neutral. The first car (temperature) stops. The second car (CO2) continues to travel past the first car by the law of inertia. Two things may now happen:
1) The CO2 car continues its forward motion until the tension in the elastic band pulls it back toward the Temperature car, or
2) The CO2 car continues and begins to pull the Temperature car forward.
Either way the CO2 car does not stop at the same point as the Temperature car. At best, it prolongs the effect; at worst, it continues the process. So, as you see, CO2 does, if not cause, contribute to Global Warming in a significant manner.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
“But you first have to UNDERSTAND. Always calling for the ?¢‚ǨÀúprecautionary principle?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ instead of good republican science is like randomly walking in pitch black darkness instead of having VISION, like we republicans do.”
Haha, you contradict yourself badly. Precaution = Prudence. You claim it’s like walking into a dark room, but a precautionary person would, because they’re precautionary, turn the light on first. As for Republican ’science’, you can claim to have vision, but that doesn’t mean you see in focus.
“There once was a man called Mann…”
I can see where flaws would exist in the experiment. However, it is only one source of data and tree rings can be used to determine climate patterns in other ways. I do commend you for providing credible evidence to support your claims, though, something STR always fails to do.
“Needless to say, X is a very complicated untransparent calculation produced by junk-science.”
It is not junk science; it is an experiment that failed to account for all the variables. There have been a number of such experiments in the past, but just because they are flawed does not make them junk.
QED
sam johnston you have a lot of nerve accusing some people on here of being a racist when you are one yourself. so don’t throw rocks at glass houses . i swear your making republicans look really bad. you have no right of accusing people of being a racist. and i don’t give a damn if you consider me a liberal. caus ei’m damn proud to be one.
from a damn proud liberal biatch