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
Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
sorry the base premise was proved false a decade ago

i am trying to get you to comiit to a stance where you cant say well "I did not know the data was wrong so I am not at fault"

Once again

Are we warmer NOW than 50 years ago.

You seemed comfortable asking a similar question. whats your problem?

You seem to be trolling at this point. I've already said more than once that since there is evidence for the ocean being warmer now, my answer is yes. Are you looking for me to say something about air temperature or something?

Furthermore, it doesn't actually matter if, RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, the earth is colder than it was at the same moment 50 years ago, as it is trends that are important.
Old 03-20-2008, 11:40 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#91  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
You seem to be trolling at this point. I've already said more than once that since there is evidence for the ocean being warmer now, my answer is yes. Are you looking for me to say something about air temperature or something?

Furthermore, it doesn't actually matter if, RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, the earth is colder than it was at the same moment 50 years ago, as it is trends that are important.

are we warmer now than in 1950

answer the fucking question you shitstain



Yes Or No?
__________________
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 03-20-2008, 11:47 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#92  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
are we warmer now than in 1950

answer the fucking question you shitstain



Yes Or No?

Quote:
You seem to be trolling at this point. I've already said more than once that since there is evidence for the ocean being warmer now, my answer is yes. Are you looking for me to say something about air temperature or something?
Old 03-20-2008, 11:50 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#93  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
loser

the ocean temp change has been debunked over 12 years ago

in fact an ocean area half the size of brazil that had decreased in temps by over a degree c was discluded by one o f the IPCC reports
__________________
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

Last edited by TheMorlock; 03-21-2008 at 12:19 AM..
Old 03-20-2008, 11:52 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#94  

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

the ocean temp change has been debunked over 12 years ago

in fact an ocean area half the size of brazil that had decreased in temps by over a degree c was discluded by one o f the IPCC reports

I'm sure you'll be happy to show me the papers which debunked Levitus et al. (2005), Ishii et al. (2006) and Willis et al. (2004) a decade before they were written. Since those papers, not the IPCC report, are what the graph is based on, your unsubstantiated story about the IPCC removing data is irrelevant.

Shall I give you another 25 minutes to edit your post before I continue?
Old 03-21-2008, 12:32 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#95  

wingedbuttmonkey
 
wingedbuttmonkey's Avatar
 
I'm still going with the sun.


Old 03-21-2008, 03:40 AM wingedbuttmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#96  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
actually you can dispute it. if the gas does not CAUSE global warming then it is not a greenhouse gas.

greenhouse gas
–noun
any of the gases whose absorption of solar radiation is responsible for the greenhouse effect, including carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and the fluorocarbons.

Dude, that doesn't make any sense. If I add insulation to a house, it will insulate heat, but if it's -40 degrees outside and I turn the heater down, my house will get colder. That doesn't mean the insulation isn't doing it's job. I havn't seen a single heat transfer scientist argue that C02 cannot lead to an increase in planet temperature. Anyone who understands radiation can't deny that. You can't isolate certain factors and make conclusions about their performance without looking at the whole picture. You want to talk about bad science, that's exactly what that is.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World

Last edited by Tom Kazansky; 03-21-2008 at 08:09 AM..
Old 03-21-2008, 08:00 AM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#97  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
deja vu on this thread LAWL.
Old 03-21-2008, 08:00 AM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#98  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingedbuttmonkey View Post
I'm still going with the sun.



Those are interesting graphs. What's the source and how was the data about irradiation gathered in earlier times?

Also, how do you explain higher temperature changes in higher latitudes (when cloud cover and water vapor is accounted for) and the increase in the number of warm nights?
Old 03-21-2008, 08:49 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#99  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
You are of the opinion that CO2 is not even a contributing factor to warming?
It's not. And that's not an opinion (nice try at spinning words there).


http://www.icecap.us/
Old 03-21-2008, 09:41 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#100  

wingedbuttmonkey
 
wingedbuttmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Those are interesting graphs. What's the source and how was the data about irradiation gathered in earlier times?

Also, how do you explain higher temperature changes in higher latitudes (when cloud cover and water vapor is accounted for) and the increase in the number of warm nights?

Much more here:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Old 03-21-2008, 10:57 AM wingedbuttmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#101  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Do you folks really believe there is gigantic conspiracy among scientists?

You mean the fabled "consensus"?

Quote:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Quote:
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport


There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/...141890238.html

Quote:
John McLean, a climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia and Tom Harris, the Ottawa, Canada based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, researched the inside story of the IPCC and
wrote about it in the Canada Free Press.

They tell us the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is actually divided into three working groups. Only one of those groups, Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future projections. Within that group they determined how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant
climate change--in other words the key parts of WG I. According to them, in total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
That is a very long way from the "consensus of 2,500 scientists" that is constantly reported.
http://media.kusi.clickability.com/d...l+Warming1.pdf

The proof is obvious, in that, there are many many scientists that say "man-made" global warming is nothing more than natural climate change.
Old 03-21-2008, 11:02 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#102  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
It's not. And that's not an opinion (nice try at spinning words there).

You realize you can have an opinion that is a fact, right? There's no word spinning. The definition of an opinion is: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. Since you have a view about global warming, you therefore have an opinion. You're really grasping at straws here.

So 50 years is too short for you when I cite it but somehow 10 years is a good length when you're trying to prove your point?
Old 03-21-2008, 11:40 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#103  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
You mean the fabled "consensus"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming


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


There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/...141890238.html


http://media.kusi.clickability.com/d...l+Warming1.pdf

The proof is obvious, in that, there are many many scientists that say "man-made" global warming is nothing more than natural climate change.

The kusi article has already been posted and no one has actually explained why I should believe anything John says when he's a geologist, believes he can divine water, has been denounced by the organization he used to head, and is part of an energy lobby group. What makes him more credible than other scientists like Roger Revelle?

You seem to trying to argue that because there isn't unanimous agreement among scientists that CO2 is a leading cause of global warming it means it isn't a cause of global warming. Is the best evidence you have in support of your opinion the "fact" that a few hundred scientists disagree about the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate. Because, let's be honest here, even most of those disagreeing with the general view still agree that CO2 - insofar as it is a greenhouse gas - can make warming worse.

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 03-21-2008 at 12:10 PM.. Reason: noticed a typo
Old 03-21-2008, 11:47 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#104  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
John McLean, a climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia and Tom Harris, the Ottawa, Canada based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, researched the inside story of the IPCC and
wrote about it in the Canada Free Press.

Up to your usual hypocrisies huh badger?
I like how you attempt to strike at the credibility of the IPCC with terribly unreliable sources. Tom Hariss, the former operations director of the High Park Group, a lobbying firm for the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association among others.
SOURCE INVALIDATED.

lol JOHN MCLEAN? Do you mean THIS John Mclean?
Quote:
John McLean has an amateur interest in global warming following 25 years in what he describes as the analysis and logic of IT.
That's from his own fucking webpage. LAWL.
SOURCE INVALIDATED.

Oooh. A .gov source. Funny how the only support you can find on a .gov page is on the republican senate website.

Let's check out what happens when I click over to the majority pages on the same fucking domain.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_...e5a3f6e55
Quote:
President Bush Accepts Chairman Boxer’s Proposal to Convene Summit of Largest emitters
Looks like the president seems to think global warming is noteworthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Ooh nice. A wikipedia list of individual scientists who oppose global warming. Here is a wikipedia list of internationally recognized scientific institutions that accept global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
Quote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Network of African Science Academies
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Meteorological Office of the U.K.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Council for Science
Not to say that those 400 scientists are automatically worth dismissing, but their credentials are no more valid than any of the institutions listed here.
Cue your grant money conspiracy theory.

Last edited by leo; 03-21-2008 at 12:05 PM..
Old 03-21-2008, 12:00 PM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#105  

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 05:31 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.