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
TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
clap your hands if you want tinkerbell to live.
__________________
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 05-02-2008, 10:33 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#391  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
clap your hands if you want tinkerbell to live.

Put up or shut up, boy.

You claim something you better have proof.
Old 05-02-2008, 10:36 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#392  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
How is that five degree C treating you



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
clap your hands if you want tinkerbell to live.
__________________
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 05-02-2008, 10:51 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#393  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
How is that five degree C treating you

If the best you can come up with is me misreading a post of yours and then acknowledging that I misread it, you're in a heap of trouble.

How's that ignoring my point about solar radiation going? Still going to claim that cloud cover interfered while ignoring that a) it was factored out b) even if it hadn't been factored out, cloud cover is not significantly different at the equator and at northern latitudes.

(Let me guess, you're going to harp on about me making the lower/higher typo earlier, then you're gonna quote some article that's already been posted and dealt with)



Oh, and from the FAQ:
Quote:
Burden Of Proof

If you post something, the burden of proof is on you to prove authenticity, if challenged. Source is not necessarily an admission of proof.
So yeah. Prove your mythical ice core claims, your fabricated sea temperature omissions, and any other garbage you've spewed in this thread or go back to the crack rock you crawled out of.

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 05-02-2008 at 11:02 PM..
Old 05-02-2008, 10:57 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#394  

Gibonius
 
Sweet, the same three people are just repeating the same lines over and over again!

Old 05-03-2008, 06:12 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#395  

las Vegas
I miss Ronny
 
las Vegas's Avatar
 
[IMG]ht
__________________
las Vegas loves you.

Last edited by Vendetta; 05-03-2008 at 12:46 PM..
Old 05-03-2008, 12:35 PM las Vegas is offline  
Reply With Quote
#396  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Sadly, it's either boiled down to:

1) They say something like, "the 400 scientists from the Senate report all reject human caused global warming"

I quote the report itself showing this isn't true.

They then repeat "400 scientists reject human caused global warming", as if unaware of what was posted previously.

What else can I do but remind them?

2) They say "blah blah some data set somewhere proves that human have had ZERO impact on all global warming ever"

I ask them for the data set.

They respond with "do it urself noob", apparently unaware of pit etiquette.
Old 05-03-2008, 12:54 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#397  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
To prove something like the IPCC conceding that data is contaminated you actually need to provide a statement by the IPCC that says "our data is significantly contaminated". If there's something on page 12 like that, quote it. The words of some economist in an opinion piece does not equal proof that the IPCC conceded anything.



And:
Quote:
In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12

And this from the guy that got the IPCC to concede their data was contaminated:

Quote:
In response to criticisms of our paper, I began assembling a more complete database, covering all available land areas and a more extensive set of climatological and economic indicators. Meantime, in 2005, I was asked to serve as an external reviewer for the IPCC report, which was released earlier this year. I accepted, in part to address the data-contamination problem.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=145245



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 the other IPCC fudged numbers links:
And: http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12

And still:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
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 05-05-2008, 08:49 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#398  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Either you provide a quote where I say current climate change has nothing to do with humans or you stop trolling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
You can pretend to not have change your view all you want. We both know that I got you to start accepting climate change.
Old 05-05-2008, 08:51 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#399  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Sadly, it's either boiled down to:

1) They say
(actually provide proof: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport )
Quote:
something like, "the 400 scientists from the Senate report all reject human caused global warming"
Fuckyouformakingmeregister plugs his ears and yells "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.


Quote:
They then repeat "400 scientists reject human caused global warming", as if unaware of
Fuckyouformakingmeregister having plugged his ears and yelled "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.
Fuckyouformakingmeregister again plugs his ears and yells "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.


Quote:
2) They say "blah blah some data set somewhere proves that human have had ZERO impact on all global warming ever"
Fuckyouformakingmeregister plugs his ears and yells "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.

Quote:
They respond with "do it urself noob",
after having posted all the proof multiple times....

Fuckyouformakingmeregister plugs his ears and yells "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.
Old 05-05-2008, 09:02 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#400  

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


And:

http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12

And this from the guy that got the IPCC to concede their data was contaminated:


http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=145245





And the other IPCC fudged numbers links:
And: http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12

And still:



Right. So again we see you posting people other than the IPCC saying their numbers are contaminated. Some guy saying the IPCC has contaminated data is not the same as the IPCC saying they have contaminated data.

Just so you know.

EDIT: Because you apparently have difficulty reading and understanding posts, I'll summarize the links for you:

National post article - by an economist, who still believes warming is human caused.

Other articles - blog posts or articles talking about Nils-Axel Morner, the crazy guy I've already talked about.

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 05-05-2008 at 11:42 AM..
Old 05-05-2008, 11:29 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#401  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
You can pretend to not have change your view all you want. We both know that I got you to start accepting climate change

So your proof that I said all climate change at any time has only been caused by human activity doesn't exist. Good to know.
Old 05-05-2008, 11:30 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#402  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
(actually provide proof: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport )

Fuckyouformakingmeregister plugs his ears and yells "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.


Fuckyouformakingmeregister having plugged his ears and yelled "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.
Fuckyouformakingmeregister again plugs his ears and yells "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.

Again, you're confusing the title and summary of the report with the actual text of the report.

Here is a different quote from the ACTUAL SENATE REPORT:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senate Report
Meteorologist Gary Shore, agreed with Waldenberger. "There's definitely global warming," Shore said on April 11, 2007. "No question about that. And it seems very likely that what we're doing has some part of that

So yeah, not all scientists in that report reject man-made global warming. But hey, why should that stop you from claiming the report supports your position?


Quote:
after having posted all the proof multiple times....
Kindly direct me to the page about Antarctic ice cores, omitted ocean data, etc.
Old 05-05-2008, 11:37 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#403  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=145245

Read this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister
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

And respond to the points.
Old 05-05-2008, 11:45 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#404  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
And this from the guy that got the IPCC to concede their data was contaminated:

Quote:
In response to criticisms of our paper, I began assembling a more complete database, covering all available land areas and a more extensive set of climatological and economic indicators. Meantime, in 2005, I was asked to serve as an external reviewer for the IPCC report, which was released earlier this year. I accepted, in part to address the data-contamination problem.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=145245



And still:
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 still the other IPCC fudged numbers links:
And: http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12

And still:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
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.


And still, we're done with this until you provide something new.
Old 05-06-2008, 09:04 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#405  

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 12:27 PM.



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