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
Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
You're possibly catching on, skippy. Your junk science (pro man-made gw) scientist is trying to argue against a theory that hasn't been proven yet (but has a lot of sources backing it). Why do you not see how ridiculous your junk science scientist seems beating his man-made gw bongos?

Let's try this again. Quote from the author of that Arctic volcanoes "hypothesis."
Quote:
Am I seeing things? Who knows - again I donít have the data to do any analysis, donít have any seismic recordings to compare to the annual sea ice thickness, donít have current maps. Hopefully some real scientists will have the money and time to work this all out. Seems it would be prudent before we make todayís energy prices a fond memory as we embark on a foolís errand to cut CO2 emissions to no effect.
Not only has this "not been proven," he OPENLY ADMITS that he has done NO ANALYSIS. It is a speculative idea, and that's it.

On the issue of "junk science," you clearly just label anything that could possibly support GW as "junk," without any consideration for scientific merit. Sohn (the guy who discovered the volcanoes and says they can't be melting the ice) is not a "Pro man made GW" scientist. He's a scientist. His paper in Nature doesn't mention a single thing about man made global warming. It simply refutes the idea, used by partisan hack anti-GW advocates, that the volcanoes are melting the ice.

If the anti-GW crowd had half a scientific brain between them, instead of trying to bash Sohn, they'd realize that he said the volcanoes are belching out tons of CO2 and use THAT as an argument against man-made GW.
Old 07-08-2008, 04:07 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#601  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
What part of THE OCEAN IS A NET CARBON SINK do you not understand?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
That would make the oceans a NET absorber of CO2.

Uh Oh. QED much? Activate the grant-funded-global-warming-conspiracy escape pod.
__________________
http://charizardevolves.ytmnd.com/
Old 07-09-2008, 12:06 AM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#602  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Maybe you should call your retarded brother TheMorlock and ask for guidance.
Too soon man... too soon.

edit:
__________________
http://charizardevolves.ytmnd.com/

Last edited by leo; 07-09-2008 at 12:12 AM..
Old 07-09-2008, 12:08 AM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#603  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
What part of THE OCEAN IS A NET CARBON SINK[/SIZE] do you not understand? Is it the word "sink"? If so, let me explain it to you:

Ocean
Gives off: 90 billion tons of carbon
Takes in: 91 billion tons of carbon

Gives off < Takes in = SINK

Any questions shit-for-brains? Maybe you should call your retarded brother TheMorlock and ask for guidance.

Hey you're finally back! I must say that I'm surprised, given you ran off with your tail between your legs back on page 30. You must have rounded up these couple of Gore zombies (that are riding the "man-made gw" bandwagon with you) to mount a whining party.

Anyway, back to your bitchslapping....... Your source for your , er, I mean quote of 91 billion tons of carbon going into the oceans is where exactly? Hmmm, shit-for-brains?

Hint: The oceans are a carbon chimney, not a sink.
Old 07-09-2008, 10:31 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#604  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Now I know you have trouble accepting anything that could conceivably support GW but here we go:

The ocean gives off 90 billion tons of carbon a year.
The ocean absorbs 500,000,000,000,000 tons of carbon a year (or 500,000 billion tons).

I think 500,000 billion is a bigger number than 90 billion. That would make the oceans a NET absorber of CO2. And yes, it can absorb CO2 and emit CO2 at the same time.

The only sentence that holds any truth in that post is the last one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius
And yes, it can absorb CO2 and emit CO2 at the same time.
Fortunately, as has been shown, the oceans give off much more than it absorbs. Thanks for playing though, Gibby.
Old 07-09-2008, 10:37 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#605  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Let's try this again.
Yes, let's, since have failed to understand commonsense so far (or you're playing stupid).

Quote:
On the issue of "junk science," you clearly just label anything that could possibly support GW as "junk," without any consideration for scientific merit.
No, I labeled the action of your goofy scientist's failed "man-made" gw fad arguement, which he tried to use to shoot down a theory that hasn't been proven yet. Now, do you finally see how stupid your goofy scientist seems? Or are you going to pretend to play stupid yet?
Old 07-09-2008, 10:44 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#606  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Fortunately, as has been shown, the oceans give off much more than it absorbs. Thanks for playing though, Gibby.

You're just making up shit. I provided three sources that state unequivocally that the oceans absorb BILLIONS more tons of CO2 than they emit. You have......."UR RONG!"
Old 07-09-2008, 10:48 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#607  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
No, I labeled the action of your goofy scientist's failed "man-made" gw fad arguement, which he tried to use to shoot down a theory that hasn't been proven yet. Now, do you finally see how stupid your goofy scientist seems? Or are you going to pretend to play stupid yet?

Are you seriously saying that it's impossible to shoot down an incorrect idea until it's been proven right first? That's obviously absurd.


Beyond that, Sohn is not advocating man-made GW in any way (as I've said..repeatedly). He is saying "the volcanoes are not melting the ice." If I propose that Martian heat guns are responsible for melting Arctic ice and someone says I'm obviously wrong, that doesn't make them a man-made GW junk scientist. It is simply eliminating an incorrect idea. It's up to others to fill in the correct cause.

Last edited by Gibonius; 07-09-2008 at 11:13 AM..
Old 07-09-2008, 11:09 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#608  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Are you seriously saying that it's impossible to shoot down an incorrect idea until it's been proven right first? That's obviously absurd.

Your goofy scientist was trying to argue down a theory that has not been proven yet, with his theory that has been proven. And you're trying to use that to back your about the "man-made gw" fad. It's not that hard, kiddo. Well, obviously it is for you.
Old 07-09-2008, 12:01 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#609  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Oh! I love this technique! The partial quote defense. He quotes and responds to one little piece of a post and then ignores any INCONTINENT TRUTHS () that are too glaringly damning to merit refutation. Classic.
__________________
http://charizardevolves.ytmnd.com/
Old 07-09-2008, 12:23 PM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#610  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Your goofy scientist was trying to argue down a theory that has not been proven yet, with his theory that has been proven. And you're trying to use that to back your about the "man-made gw" fad. It's not that hard, kiddo. Well, obviously it is for you.

I'm not even arguing for man-made GW you brainless inbred. I'm arguing AGAINST an unsupported hypothesis your fellow brainless inbreds were pretending was an actual scientific theory.
Old 07-09-2008, 12:36 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#611  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Common sense argument in favor of GW in a nutshell:

1. I do not have the knowledge or resources to make any definitive conclusions about global warming.

2. Such is the case with most complex scientific topics, so I accept the MAJORITY CONSENSUS of peer reviewed scientists when I lack the ability to investigate myself.

3. I reject the idea that scientists are conspiring to fool the public about the truth of global warming, because that idea is contradictory to my experience with peer reviewed scientists in ALL other scientific fields.

4. I understand that science is constantly revising its own conclusions, so I accept nothing as an absolute truth. With that stated...

5. Even though I accept the majority position, whether the scientific community is absolutely correct about global warming or completely off base is totally irrelevant. Reduced emissions, smart energy policy, and clean, renewable energy are all important goals that we should strive for, regardless of political alignment.

Unless you oppose a transition from fossil fuels or you're a scientist with vested interest in a competing theory, there is literally NO reason to argue against global warming. Additionally, the topic is pretty much moot since both party candidates, as well as the sitting president, have accepted global warming and the need for a change in energy policy.

So for a more relevant debate, who opposes a transition from fossil fuels and why?
__________________
http://charizardevolves.ytmnd.com/
Old 07-09-2008, 01:18 PM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#612  

Bradd
I THOUGHT GOOGLE IS WHAT MY FATHER DOES TO ME EVERY NIGHT!
 
Bradd's Avatar
 
Wow, Badger_sly, holy crap man, back away from the keyboard.
Old 07-09-2008, 09:42 PM Bradd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#613  

jkrowling
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo View Post
Common sense argument in favor of GW in a nutshell:

1. I do not have the knowledge or resources to make any definitive conclusions about global warming.

2. Such is the case with most complex scientific topics, so I accept the MAJORITY CONSENSUS of peer reviewed scientists when I lack the ability to investigate myself.

3. I reject the idea that scientists are conspiring to fool the public about the truth of global warming, because that idea is contradictory to my experience with peer reviewed scientists in ALL other scientific fields.

4. I understand that science is constantly revising its own conclusions, so I accept nothing as an absolute truth. With that stated...

5. Even though I accept the majority position, whether the scientific community is absolutely correct about global warming or completely off base is totally irrelevant. Reduced emissions, smart energy policy, and clean, renewable energy are all important goals that we should strive for, regardless of political alignment.

Unless you oppose a transition from fossil fuels or you're a scientist with vested interest in a competing theory, there is literally NO reason to argue against global warming. Additionally, the topic is pretty much moot since both party candidates, as well as the sitting president, have accepted global warming and the need for a change in energy policy.

So for a more relevant debate, who opposes a transition from fossil fuels and why?

I'm shocked. Just shocked. Absolutely shocked. Petrified. Terrified. Shitting myself with disbelief.
__________________
imagen a nuke hope it never come to that
Old 07-09-2008, 11:14 PM jkrowling is offline  
Reply With Quote
#614  

CRasch
A Righteous Infliction of Retribution
 
CRasch's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Your goofy scientist was trying to argue down a theory that has not been proven yet, with his theory that has been proven. And you're trying to use that to back your about the "man-made gw" fad. It's not that hard, kiddo. Well, obviously it is for you.
Do you even know what a theory is in a scientific context?
__________________
http://www.crasch.net/
Self-realization. I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, when he said, "I drank what?"
Old 07-10-2008, 02:36 AM CRasch is offline  
Reply With Quote
#615  

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 10:06 AM.



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