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 TheMorlock View Post
no it was not you fucking moron. As I mentioned they found out recently that cloud cover effects extend far beyond the visible cloud and has NOT been accounted for in the junk science you get spoonfed

Exactly how are you qualified to decide what is and is not "junk science?"
Old 04-19-2008, 08:40 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#331  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Exactly how are you qualified to decide what is and is not "junk science?"

It's called critical thinking. When you watch a group make the same claims no matter how many things show that they don't have a fucking clue, when data is discarded or altered when it does not fit the model. When people who challenge your results or methods gets funding cut or gets fired. It's a sure sign of a belief cult. When someone in high school can point out things that were not taken into consideration
etc etc

Cold fusion

Warm blooded T-Rex

Global warming

Second had smoke is more dangerous than primary smoke

It does not get any more junk science than that.

It's not that I don't think that global warming is possible or that humans could contribute to it. It's that the science is junk.

When branch after branch of science, without trying, continues to show that co2 is a minor factor and the global warming crowd continue to push it as the only meaningful factor. It's a big clue the science is junk.
__________________
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 04-19-2008, 01:48 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#332  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Supposing it wasn't, account for the lack of significant difference between cloud covers at different altitudes - as per the graph i just posted and as per the graph I posted previously (the one you didn't address, remember?).

Unless recently is 2 months ago, then cloud cover WAS accounted for. Check the god damn IPCC source I posted originally and note the date. If you really want to come back and say "it was recently discovered blah blah blah" provide a link or shove it.

You keep ignoring valid points and grasping onto obvious typos as your proof that there's no global warming.

you are too stupid to be funny anymore.
__________________
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 04-19-2008, 01:51 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#333  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock, Mayor of Fail City View Post
I am unable to rebutt your points.

Good to see you admitting defeat.
Old 04-19-2008, 03:18 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#334  

Xayd
 
Old 04-19-2008, 05:13 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#335  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock, Mayor of Fail City View Post
It's not that I don't think that global warming is possible or that humans could contribute to it. It's that the science is junk.

You have thus far not been able to show that the science is junk. You've certainly gone around claiming it is, with your rehashed "but some guy threw out ocean data 12 years ago (forgetting that the models I have posted are more recent than that and show no indication of using the thrown out data set)" and "but 400 scientists think there is no global warming (even though most of them do and simply disagree with specific conclusions of the IPCC) and "but a 10 year ocean data chart that shows cooling is better than a 50 year data chart that shows warming" and "but today's climate models suck" and "cooling + high CO2 in the past = CO2 CAN"T POSSIBILY BE A CAUSE OF WARMING NOW UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES" and "the oceans aren't part of the earth...duuuurrrrr" and my personal favorite "but the earth getting warmer by 0.5 C means the earth didn't get warmer".

Quote:
When branch after branch of science, without trying, continues to show that co2 is a minor factor and the global warming crowd continue to push it as the only meaningful factor. It's a big clue the science is junk.
Looks like someone agrees with me after all.
Old 04-19-2008, 07:39 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#336  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
What part of you're not getting the last word no matter how irrational you get did you not understand?

As you're well aware (yet you're acting dumb to), technically I did "get the last word" (which you're childishly getting all huffy about), as I proved my points while disproving your points, and you haven't brought any new arguments to the topic.

While your dunce cap grows with every post you make (with nothing new), you're becoming increasingly boring.
Old 04-21-2008, 12:15 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#337  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly, Deputy Mayor of Fail City View Post
As you're well aware (yet you're acting dumb to), technically I did "get the last word" (which you're childishly getting all huffy about), as I proved my points while disproving your points, and you haven't brought any new arguments to the topic.

While your dunce cap grows with every post you make (with nothing new), you're becoming increasingly boring.

What's the matter? Can't respond to my proof that the 400 scientists in the Senate report actually believe in human induced warming?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And you still apparently don't understand what the "last word" means, yogurt-for-brains.
Old 04-21-2008, 12:29 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#338  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Anyway, you keep saying the new models are based on old models but that doesn't make it true. The Xie and Arkin (1997) model is new, as is the Uppala et al.(2005) model and they all play a role in the IPCC's evaluation of climate change.
And newer proof posted by ephekt shows the "man-made gw" ters fudged their data and destroyed evidence, all of which is dated June and December 2007.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclu...level_data.htm
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

Sucks for you when the ters get caught.

Quote:
Remember that wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.
Heed your own words. Neither you nor Gore make junk science true.
Old 04-21-2008, 12:34 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#339  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
What's the matter? Can't respond to my proof that the 400 scientists in the Senate report actually believe in human induced warming?

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.
Old 04-21-2008, 12:37 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#340  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
And newer proof posted by ephekt shows the "man-made gw" ters fudged their data and destroyed evidence, all of which is dated June and December 2007.

This would appear to be a tacit admission that you were wrong about the Senate report. If you don't comment on it, I'll assume you're conceded that point.

Your first link doesn't work and your second link is about the same douche you talked about before, Nils-Axel Morner. First of all, this guy disagrees with SEA LEVEL CHANGES, not with warming. Secondly, this is the same guy who believes in water-witching and has been denounced by climatology organizations. Thirdly, it's one guy.

Quote:
Sucks for you when the ters get caught.
It sucks for you when all your "proof" doesn't actually support your view.
Old 04-21-2008, 12:41 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#341  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly, Deputy Mayor of Fail City View Post
Wrong again. All 400 denied it to the US Senate. Go back and read it.

Oh, and of course, still:

Learn to read, boy. I posted the comments of three scientists who were part of the report (there are more, but I only need 1 to disprove your "all" claim) who believe in human induced global warming but disagree with other specific conclusions in the IPCC reports.

Here is one:
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.
This is directly from the report, linked here.

I suggest you read the details before claiming they support your position.
Old 04-21-2008, 12:48 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#342  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Learn to read, boy. I posted the comments of three scientists who were part of the report (there are more, but I only need 1 to disprove your "all" claim) who believe in human induced global warming but disagree with other specific conclusions in the IPCC reports....
"Probably, partly responsible"...
That's the best you have?

Good thing I have 400 scientists that debunk the gw consensus. Well, 400 and growing every day as more fall off the man-made gw bandwagon.


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

Quote:
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Quote:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Quote:
I suggest you read the details before claiming they support your position.
Go back and read it again. Or not. My point has been proven. Either way, you and I both know that you know there is no consensus. You're just pretending to be a dumbass.

So, we're still at:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
As I've proven, there is no "consensus". If you don't provide something new on this point, we'll assume you've given up on this also.

Old 04-23-2008, 11:31 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#343  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
This would appear to be a tacit admission that you were wrong about the Senate report. If you don't comment on it, I'll assume you're conceded that point.
You've already given up on that, since you provide nothing new. So we'll move on.


Quote:
Your first link doesn't work and your second link is about the same douche you talked about before
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclu...level_data.htm
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698
Quote:
According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their point.
Quote:
It sucks for you when all your "proof" doesn't actually support your view.
And it still
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
Sucks for you when the ters get caught.


Sometimes poking the village idiot (Fuckyouformakingmeregister) is fun.
Old 04-23-2008, 11:40 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#344  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
"Probably, partly responsible"...
That's the best you have?

Good thing I have 400 scientists that debunk the gw consensus. Well, 400 and growing every day as more fall off the man-made gw bandwagon.


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport



Go back and read it again. Or not. My point has been proven. Either way, you and I both know that you know there is no consensus. You're just pretending to be a dumbass.

So, we're still at:



That would be you reading the summary and not the detailed report. I read the report and pointed out how the report itself - not the people involved in the report - says that the signees don't disagree with human induced global warming but rather disagree with specific IPCC conclusions. So I say again, go back and read the actual report, not the summary and don't let people spoon-feed you faulty info.
Old 04-23-2008, 01:38 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#345  

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 03:00 AM.



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