General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
What's obvious is that you're unable to grasp basic logic and are continuing to spew out drivel that's already been addressed.



Hopefully you'll realize when to cut your losses and stop making yourself look like more of an idiot.

EDIT: And did it really take you that long to come up with such a lame rebuttal?
I admire your persistence man, but it's a truly futile battle with him. When you point out the fallacies in his argument, he literally just ignores them. Valiant effort though.
Old 04-09-2008, 12:42 PM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#241  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
What's obvious is that you're unable to grasp basic logic and are continuing to spew out drivel that's already been addressed.
Hopefully you'll realize when to cut your losses and stop making yourself look like more of an idiot.

So still no new argument, huh? No point in rewording what you already have been taught:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Since it's obvious you are unable to produce any new arguments within this thread, and given that you have failed to prove global warming / global cooling is anything other than natural climate change, I'm glad you have finally given up.

Hopefully, though, you've learned a bit of reality (in comparison to Gore's bandwagon fad).
Old 04-14-2008, 09:43 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#242  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo View Post
I admire your persistence man, but it's a truly futile battle with him. When you point out the fallacies in his argument, he literally just ignores them. Valiant effort though.
At least you're outright admitting how you failed with any pro-global warming argument in this thread or any other against me.
Old 04-14-2008, 09:46 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#243  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
At least you're outright admitting how you failed with any pro-global warming argument in this thread or any other against me.
No point in debating with someone who refuses to rebut or even acknowledge counterarguments. It's pretty obvious to everyone that you're mentally deficient though.

In b4 NO YOU'RE THE DEFICIENT ONE!!!
Old 04-14-2008, 10:04 AM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#244  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo View Post
No point in debating with someone who refuses to rebut or even acknowledge counterarguments.
I agree, and that sums up debating with Fuckyouformakingmeregister exactly. After being proven wrong, he seems to have given up posting anything new. The last few pages he's just been bitching and whining like leo... er, I mean like a spoiled kid.
Old 04-15-2008, 09:48 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#245  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
You're not going to get the last word Badger, no matter how hard you want it. You need to learn to let things go.

I've disproved all your supposed refutations, and all you seem to be doing is continuing to post some drivel about me not having anything new. Of fucking course I have nothing new, you haven't addressed anything I've said, including:

- the operators of icecap.us - your favourite source - believe CO2 has some effect on global warming (has the super-secret science conspiracy gotten to them too?!?)

- the director of UAH - the source of your satelitte data (which by the way, measured CO2 in only one location) - believes CO2 has an effect on global warming

- the oceans have warmed over the past 50 years, so any data about a 10 year cooling trend does not disprove a warming trend (especially when the 50 year data set includes every year in your 10 year set except 2008 - and no, there aren't any "new" interpretations of that particular data set)

- a drop in temperature with high CO2 levels does not automatically preclude the possibility that CO2 can have a warming effect

- your list of 38 deniers includes people who believe CO2 has an effect on warming (read the link)

- your list of 400 deniers aren't actually deniers, as most of them simply disagree with some of the more specific theories about the implications of climate change

If you feel like posting a true rebuttal to any of these points, rather than just claiming to have disproven something (you haven't), perhaps this thread can continue on a productive course. Otherwise I suggest you go back to trolling up other threads.

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 04-15-2008 at 04:19 PM..
Old 04-15-2008, 04:16 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#246  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
You're not going to get the last word Badger, no matter how hard you want it. You need to learn to let things go.

I've disproved all your supposed refutations, and all you seem to be doing is continuing to post some drivel about me not having anything new. Of fucking course I have nothing new, you haven't addressed anything I've said, including:

- the operators of icecap.us - your favourite source - believe CO2 has some effect on global warming (has the super-secret science conspiracy gotten to them too?!?)

- the director of UAH - the source of your satelitte data (which by the way, measured CO2 in only one location) - believes CO2 has an effect on global warming

- the oceans have warmed over the past 50 years, so any data about a 10 year cooling trend does not disprove a warming trend (especially when the 50 year data set includes every year in your 10 year set except 2008 - and no, there aren't any "new" interpretations of that particular data set)

- a drop in temperature with high CO2 levels does not automatically preclude the possibility that CO2 can have a warming effect

- your list of 38 deniers includes people who believe CO2 has an effect on warming (read the link)

- your list of 400 deniers aren't actually deniers, as most of them simply disagree with some of the more specific theories about the implications of climate change

If you feel like posting a true rebuttal to any of these points, rather than just claiming to have disproven something (you haven't), perhaps this thread can continue on a productive course. Otherwise I suggest you go back to trolling up other threads.

Prediction: He'll partially requote your thread but neglect to include any arguments he cannot counter.
Old 04-16-2008, 10:34 AM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#247  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
You're not going to get the last word Badger, no matter how hard you want it.
I have gotten the last word, simply enough, because you do not provide any new arguments after your previous arguments were proven wrong.

Quote:
- the operators of icecap.us - your favourite source - believe CO2 has some effect on global warming (has the super-secret science conspiracy gotten to them too?!?)[
And they have proven the oceans are cooling, and the temp trends are natural.


Quote:
- the director of UAH - the source of your satelitte data (which by the way, measured CO2 in only one location)
The satellite data was "global" as I've shown you already. Go back and read it.

Quote:
- the oceans have warmed over the past 50 years
As I've proven, the oceans have cooled over the last 10 years. Go back and read it. And see above.

Quote:
- a drop in temperature with high CO2 levels does not automatically preclude the possibility that CO2 can have a warming effect
You made up that notion, yet have not proven it. I have proven that CO2 doesn't affect temps. Go back and read it.

Quote:
- your list of 38 deniers includes people who believe CO2 has an effect on warming (read the link)
Negative, as I've proven. Go back and read it.

Quote:
- your list of 400 deniers aren't actually deniers, as most of them simply disagree with some of the more specific theories about the implications of climate change
Wrong again. All 400 denied it to the US Senate. Go back and read it.

Oh, and of course, still:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
Since it's obvious you are unable to produce any new arguments within this thread, and given that you have failed to prove global warming / global cooling is anything other than natural climate change, I'm glad you have finally given up.

Hopefully, though, you've learned a bit of reality (in comparison to Gore's bandwagon fad).
Old 04-16-2008, 04:05 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#248  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly, Deputy Mayor of Fail City View Post
I have gotten the last word, simply enough, because you do not provide any new arguments after your previous arguments were proven wrong.

You obviously don't know what the last word means or what proof actually is.

Quote:
And they have proven the oceans are cooling, and the temp trends are natural.
How does a 10 year cooling trend prove the oceans are cooling and that temperature trends are natural when you consider the fact that over the past 50 years, ocean temperatures have risen? (More on this later)

Quote:
The satellite data was "global" as I've shown you already. Go back and read it.
For the last fucking time, the temperature data was global but the CO2 data was not. YOU go back and read. In any case, the director of the institute that produced this data interprets it to mean that CO2 still has an effect on climate change.

Quote:
As I've proven, the oceans have cooled over the last 10 years. Go back and read it. And see above.
I don't think anyone has ever disagreed that the oceans have cooled in the past 10 years. I fail to see how that fact alone disproves a general warming trend when the oceans have in fact warmed in the past 50 years. Do you think that warming over 50 years is insigificant because that seems natural? If so, you've already assumed that global warming is caused entirely by natural factors - which begs the question: why even look at data?

Quote:
You made up that notion, yet have not proven it. I have proven that CO2 doesn't affect temps. Go back and read it.
I've made up nothing. In a multi-factor system, like the environment, a rise in one factor and a drop in another does NOT mean that the rising factor has no effect on the falling factor. WHY? Because there are a million other fucking factors (including: solar radiation, SO2, volcanic activity) that could have masked the effects of the rising factor.

This has gotta be the 5th time I've broken it down for you. How about this: you explain to me what part of my logic is false otherwise shut the hell up.

Quote:
Negative, as I've proven. Go back and read it.
You can claim to have proven whatever you want. If you read the detailed descriptions beside the various names, you'll find quite a few that actually believe CO2 has an effect.

Quote:
Wrong again. All 400 denied it to the US Senate. Go back and read it.
Since I'd rather not fill up this thread with full quotes of the 400 scientists, and since all I need to disprove your "all" claim is one, I'll leave a few for you to read:

Quote:
Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural," Kukla explained.
Quote:
One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "There is some evidence to show that our planet Earth is becoming warmer and that human action is probably partly responsible, especially in the matter of greenhouse gas emissions. What is in doubt, however, is whether the steps that are proposed to be taken to reduce carbon emission will really bring down the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and whether such attempts, even carried out on a global scale, will produce the desired effect," Radhakrishna wrote in an August 23, 2007 essay.
Quote:
Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers, questioned man-made global warming fears. According to an April 27, 2007 article at Zenit.org, Zichichi "pointed out that human activity has less than 10% impact on the environment."
These blurbs are from the report itself and all of them say that human induced greenhouse gases are having SOME effect on warming. So when I said your 400 scientists don't all believe humans have no effect I was right and when you said they all didn't believe it had an effect, you were wrong.

Any questions?

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 04-16-2008 at 08:29 PM..
Old 04-16-2008, 08:09 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#249  

Gibonius
 
Just gotta chime in: Badger hasn't proven a fucking thing
Old 04-16-2008, 08:52 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#250  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Just gotta chime in: Badger hasn't proven a fucking thing

Glad to see you "chime in" and show that you haven't read all of the thread.

As we've seen, I've more than proven my point throughout the thread.

http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=3
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=7
http://www.icecap.us/

http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=8
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025

http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=10

http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=11

http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=14
Pointing out pages 3, 7, and 8 again. And http://www.icecap.us/ proving the oceans are cooling.
And, "U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus""

http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=15
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Corr...ast_Decade.pdf
"This is the latest decadal plo_t from February 1998 to February 2008 of global temperatures from Satellite..."

And, ephekt added proof of the "man-made gw" ters fudging their data.
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12

And the remaining pages were just me harassing Fuckyouformakingmeregister that he has come up with nothing new since his previous material was proven wrong. Oh and belittling leo and his cheerios that someone keeps pissing in.

Your little posts are quite sad, similar to all of leo's posts. Sadly though, this thread has become quite boring, given the lack of any new arguments from Fuckyouformakingmeregister.
Old 04-17-2008, 10:12 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#251  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
You obviously don't know what the last word means or what proof actually is.
Proof is facts that I provided that proved your argument wrong.

And to everything else you're trying to regurgitate, again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
Since it's obvious you are unable to produce any new arguments within this thread, and given that you have failed to prove global warming / global cooling is anything other than natural climate change, I'm glad you have finally given up.
Hopefully, though, you've learned a bit of reality (in comparison to Gore's bandwagon fad).

Old 04-17-2008, 10:16 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#252  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Nice job dismissing fuckyou's entire last post! . It's like you didn't even read it. He pointed out the flaws in your reasoning and you just re-post the same shit over again without addressing any of his arguments. Nice job.

Last edited by leo; 04-17-2008 at 10:37 AM..
Old 04-17-2008, 10:34 AM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#253  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Proof is facts that I provided that proved your argument wrong.

And to everything else you're trying to regurgitate, again:



You obviously don't know how to define words because your definition includes the word you're trying to define.

Continue quoting your grossly inaccurate drivel and I'll continuing challenging you to actually disprove anything that's been said because so far you're just making yourself look like a beligerent idiot.
Old 04-17-2008, 12:09 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#254  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Sea colder Check

Upper atmosphere colder Check

Antarctic Ice mass that had been retreating for a thousand years started advancing 10-15 years ago. Check and Mate
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 04-17-2008, 11:53 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#255  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:15 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.