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
spleeny
 
spleeny's Avatar
 
Shit, if it was good enough for Iraq, it should be good enough here:

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a melting glacier."
Old 04-29-2008, 08:43 AM spleeny is offline  
Reply With Quote
#361  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spleeny View Post
Shit, if it was good enough for Iraq, it should be good enough here:

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a melting glacier."
Wow! Hopefully encouraging energy conservation and seeking clean/renewable fuel alternatives don't turn out like invading and occupying an entire country plagued by sectarian conflict.

Yes! Stellar analogy!
Old 04-29-2008, 09:04 AM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#362  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Yeah, I read that. He can claim they conceded significant data contamination all he wants..
He proved their data was wrong/contaminated. Which goes along with the previous links that proved the IPCC fudged their numbers and tried to cover it up.

Here, read it again, since your opinion still didn't change the facts :


Quote:
Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.So there are two points to note here. First, the IPCC concedes the existence of a correlation pattern that shows its main data set is contaminated, and it has no coherent counterargument.
So, yeah. You still have nothing new to entertain us? Remember, you're still boring.
Old 04-29-2008, 02:24 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#363  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
.....So are these two quotes supposed to convince us that there is no human induced global warming? Because they don't.

And you probably already know that.

Chart on page 3 supports your theory of billions of tribesmen driving SUVs and running huge factories.....

Old 04-29-2008, 02:30 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#364  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
He proved their data was wrong/contaminated. Which goes along with the previous links that proved the IPCC fudged their numbers and tried to cover it up.

Here, read it again, since your opinion still didn't change the facts :


So, yeah. You still have nothing new to entertain us? Remember, you're still boring.

I've already said that's what the author of the OPINION piece said.

Address the following:
- author is an economist
- it is an opinion piece
- the IPCC acknowledged his report but said other factors nullified it
- the author still believes warming is human caused
- the author only has a problem with 1980 and on surface temperature data
- 1980 and on surface temperature is not the be-all-and-end-all data set underlying all of the IPCC's conclusions (despite what the author of the OPINION piece says)

But hey, go ahead and post the same paragraph and maybe those points will go away.
Old 04-29-2008, 03:32 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#365  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Chart on page 3 supports your theory of billions of tribesmen driving SUVs and running huge factories.....


What chart?

What page 3?

When did I say tribesmen were driving SUVs and running huge factories?

Just how retarded are you?
Old 04-29-2008, 03:33 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#366  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
I've already said that's what the author of the OPINION piece said.

Quote:
Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.So there are two points to note here. First, the IPCC concedes the existence of a correlation pattern that shows its main data set is contaminated, and it has no coherent counterargument.
And: http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12

It's still there, and it's still proof. And still, your opinion doesn't change the facts.
You've failed at disproving this point. It's time for you to try some new argument(s) (as we've been waiting for you to do for, oh, 8+ pages now).
Old 04-30-2008, 01:25 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#367  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
What chart?

What page 3?

When did I say tribesmen were driving SUVs and running huge factories?

Just how retarded are you?

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

What else could all of those tribesmen been doing 7k - 4.5k years ago that caused gw to temps higher than today.... based on your goofy theory?
Old 04-30-2008, 01:32 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#368  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
And: http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12

It's still there, and it's still proof.

No, it really isn't. Just as if you wrote an opinion piece that said "Global warming is not caused by human induced CO2" and then linked it. He is misrepresenting the IPCC's position. They never conceded that their data was contaminated in any significant way and merely stated that certain objections about their data had been raised (objections which were met with data supporting the IPCC's position).

Are you going to continue to ignore the following:
- author is an economist
- it is an opinion piece
- the IPCC acknowledged his report but said other factors nullified it
- the author still believes warming is human caused
- the author only has a problem with 1980 and on surface temperature data
- 1980 and on surface temperature is not the be-all-and-end-all data set underlying all of the IPCC's conclusions

Yeah, I thought so.

Quote:
And still, your opinion doesn't change the facts.
Just like the author's opinion doesn't change the fact that human induced CO2 is having a warming effect on our climate.

Quote:
You've failed at disproving this point. It's time for you to try some new argument(s) (as we've been waiting for you to do for, oh, 8+ pages now).
No I haven't failed. Your article does not advance your position and neither do the articles linked. I've already outlined why the articles prove nothing. Now go and read through the points I raised and if you have a problem with one, bring it up. Failure to do so equals you conceding my position.

And if you really believed that I needed new arguments, you wouldn't be continuing to come up with opinion pieces and blogs to disprove my supposedly already disproved points.
Old 04-30-2008, 08:14 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#369  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=3

What else could all of those tribesmen been doing 7k - 4.5k years ago that caused gw to temps higher than today.... based on your goofy theory?

Why would it have to be the tribesmen that raised the global temperature? You seem to be very confused here. The argument isn't that all sorts of global warming is caused only by humans, its that current warming trends can be partly attributed to human activity (e.g.: CO2, landscape changes, etc.).

As to your question about how it is that temperatures were higher in the past: many believe it has to do with Milankovitch cycles.
Old 04-30-2008, 08:23 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#370  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Why would it have to be the tribesmen that raised the global temperature? You seem to be very confused here. The argument isn't that all sorts of global warming is caused only by humans, its that current warming trends can be partly attributed to human activity (e.g.: CO2, landscape changes, etc.).

As to your question about how it is that temperatures were higher in the past: many believe it has to do with Milankovitch cycles.

WRONG
__________________
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 05-01-2008, 01:19 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#371  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
No, it really isn't. Just as if you wrote an opinion ..


Quote:
Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.So there are two points to note here. First, the IPCC concedes the existence of a correlation pattern that shows its main data set is contaminated, and it has no coherent counterargument.
And: http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12

The IPCC was given proof of their errors. The IPCC agreed their data was contaminated. That actually happened. Your opinion cannot change that. You have failed to disprove that the IPCC used erroneous data, and you have failed to disprove that the IPCC fudged it's data. We're done with this point.
Old 05-01-2008, 11:01 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#372  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Why would it have to be the tribesmen that raised the global temperature? You seem to be very confused here. The argument isn't that all sorts of global warming is caused only by humans..

Ahh, finally! I've finally gotten you to change your view (somewhat), and start admitting temperature fluctuations are a result of natural climate change!

I'm glad that I was able to finally get one as dumb and thoroughly brainwashed as you to start to see a bit of reality.
Old 05-01-2008, 11:10 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#373  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
WRONG

WRONG

See what I did there?
Old 05-01-2008, 11:24 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#374  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
And: http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12

The IPCC was given proof of their errors. The IPCC agreed their data was contaminated. That actually happened. Your opinion cannot change that. You have failed to disprove that the IPCC used erroneous data, and you have failed to disprove that the IPCC fudged it's data. We're done with this point.

The text from the opinion piece and the articles on page 12 do not prove the IPCC admitted that they have significantly contaminated data. We are done on this point: you're wrong.
Old 05-01-2008, 11:25 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#375  

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 02:03 AM.



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