Still no proof of Global Warming

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by RuHo

works both ways, but the mere instigation of saying thousands of scientists are churning out studies that say this-and-that to fund their asses is downright fucking retarded. It's a thing only badger_sly would think is a brilliant argument.

Yeah that never happens with junk science. Say like anti smoking groups Proving that second hand smoke was more damaging than first hand smoke back in the late 90's.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

Yeah that never happens with junk science. Say like anti smoking groups Proving that second hand smoke was more damaging than first hand smoke back in the late 90's.

Yeah, those anti-smoking groups were certainly made up of the same caliber of people as the IPCC and dozens of other science organizations which support the idea that human induced CO2 is contributing to climate change.

And of course, if a few members of a group lie that means you can't trust anyone in the group....

[Straw Man]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

Yeah that never happens with junk science. Say like anti smoking groups Proving that second hand smoke was more damaging than first hand smoke back in the late 90's.

Ah yes, let's consider the tobacco industry. You are the equivalent of the guy who says cigarettes do not help a person get himself a fucking lung cancer, because it's the evil health nazi grant scientist who said otherwise. Here you are posting what philip morris told you to fight the endless waves of hippie socialists.

I'm glad you saw the light, have a nice day

[DivineStorm]

Good read on the true consequences of CO2:

http://www.wired.com/science/planete...urrentPage=all

Easy to read in interview-style, but factual nonetheless.

[rollinondubz]

Originally Posted by DivineStorm

Good read on the true consequences of CO2:

http://www.wired.com/science/planete...urrentPage=all

Easy to read in interview-style, but factual nonetheless.

I read that earlier today and he is postulating a proper inference in this. Thanks for bringing finding this article bovine

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by DivineStorm

Good read on the true consequences of CO2:

http://www.wired.com/science/planete...urrentPage=all

Easy to read in interview-style, but factual nonetheless.

Interesting.

what basis is there for warming causing ocean currents to cease?

[TheMorlock]

Oh nevermind

"- the reason they were able to do the neurological stuff they did on him was because they were able to cool him [until they could treat him]. In a situation like that, you're buying time.

He is like th3 40 MPH T-Rex guy

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

Yeah, those anti-smoking groups were certainly made up of the same caliber of people as the IPCC and dozens of other science organizations which support the idea that human induced CO2 is contributing to climate change.

And of course, if a few members of a group lie that means you can't trust anyone in the group....

Thats exactly the point

Or did you forget that people who compiled the reports RESIGNED when the reports were misused?(well the lead researcher did, guess you cant trust that turncoat)

You pathetic fucking bitch.
the arguments made by the c02 is the cause rule out that co2 can be the cause when matched against GASP actual data.

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by RuHo

Ah yes, let's consider the tobacco industry. You are the equivalent of the guy who says cigarettes do not help a person get himself a fucking lung cancer, because it's the evil health nazi grant scientist who said otherwise. Here you are posting what philip morris told you to fight the endless waves of hippie socialists.

I'm glad you saw the light, have a nice day

Are you braindead?

the second hand smoke is worse than smoking was a joke. the first laughs at it shows it indicates that Smoking would have to give you an undisclosed % immunity to lung cancer.

the 33% increase in chance of getting lung cancer from Smoking raises your Actual % chance of getting lung cancer by a single digit. Using the wrong perfume outweighs that

What smoking Does is raise the chance of getting significant levels of emphysema to ~60%(not increase it BY 60%)

and some level of peripheral neuropathy is a certainty due to the direct effect of constriction of capillaries in the extremities

Thanks for playing.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

Thats exactly the point

Or did you forget that people who compiled the reports RESIGNED when the reports were misused?(well the lead researcher did, guess you cant trust that turncoat)

He resigned because he didn't agree with the conclusions about hurricane activity, not because he thinks CO2 does nothing.

You pathetic fucking bitch.
the arguments made by the c02 is the cause rule out that co2 can be the cause when matched against GASP actual data.

No, it doesn't. As I've already told you twice now, just because the earth may have cooled in the past despite high CO2 levels doesn't rule out the possibility that CO2 can cause warming now. For all you know the sun might have been further away from the earth back then and the earth would have gotten even colder without the high CO2 levels. Or there might have been significant volcanic activity, sending ash into the atmosphere and blocking solar radiation.

But you can't argue the same thing for what's happening today because, GASP, scientists have ruled out the other possibilities.

[TheMorlock]

hahhahahah

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Static Vision

There is no global warming here. No, none at all. Since there is not enough data to prove or disprove the fact we should just wait it out.

LOL LETS NOT BE PROACTIVE

There is no global cooling here No None at all Since there is not enough data to prove or disprove the fact we should just wait it out.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

hahhahahah

Good counter.

EDIT: Lol, someone actually paid to give me a title? Sweet.

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

Good counter.

EDIT: Lol, someone actually paid to give me a title? Sweet.

You are welcome. the least I can do for my new bitch is buy a nice leash

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

You are welcome. the least I can do for my new bitch is buy a nice leash

I'll remind you for the 3rd time in this thread, saying you're "beating me" doesn't actually make it true. So far I've handled every "argument" you sent my way.

For instance, your argument that the IPCC can't be trusted because one of the guys left and spoke out against the group was totally refuted when I revealed why he left - to refresh your memory, because you seem to be a little slow, he left because he didn't like how people were interpreting the hurricane data NOT because he disagreed with their overall conclusions. But, as usual, you just won't respond to my counter and hope everyone else in the thread doesn't notice.

I should also point out that if I can annoy someone enough that they actually spend real money to give me a barely visible and totally ineffective title, I've won regardless of how the argument goes.

P.S. You should spring for an avatar if you really want to make your point.