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
300,000+ years of data says no.

Bitch!

Saying bitch doesn't make what you say right. That's called junk debating.
Old 03-24-2008, 02:03 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#136  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Escaped Gorilla Genitals
Jim Morrison
Hey, Jim <3 ules, You didn't deserve this because you can't guess numbers but anyways BREAK ON TH
 
Escaped Gorilla Genitals's Avatar
 
Internet detectives prove the analysis of peer reviewed studies by internationally renowned scientists wrong using googled links to third rate news sources and cherry picking data, world is shocked!
Old 03-24-2008, 02:42 PM Escaped Gorilla Genitals is offline  
Reply With Quote
#137  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Morrison View Post
Internet detectives prove the analysis of peer reviewed studies by internationally renowned scientists wrong using googled links to third rate news sources and cherry picking data, world is shocked!

Can't you see that global warming is just a liberal myth perpetrated so that scientists can collect grant money. I mean shit, Al Gore made an entire documentary about global warming, and we all know he's a liberal. Al Gore!!!! Thus global warming is false. QED.
Old 03-24-2008, 03:07 PM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#138  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
because some people take grant money to do basic science research
Others take it to do specific research to PROVE a particular theory regardless of its merit

Real science TESTS a theory

Junk science sets out to confirm a theory at all costs.

even a dumbho should know this

well that was pretty basic, but I should have understood you're not getting it
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 03-24-2008, 03:48 PM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#139  

d_brow
 
did you know......water vapour is a major greenhouse gas??
bet ya didnt!
Old 03-26-2008, 09:35 PM d_brow is offline  
Reply With Quote
#140  

Gibonius
 
Another neat factoid:

CFCs are incredibly potent greenhouse gases (crazy high oscillator strengths). The Montreal Protocol, which started the process of banning CFCs, did more to prevent greenhouse warming from human sources than even the most optimistic estimates of Kyoto would have accounted for.
Old 03-26-2008, 10:12 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#141  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post

Anyway, the ocean's have warmed. Your link, borrowed from the OP, considers data from 2003 and on. The graph, below, which I have now posted twice in this thread, considers data over a much longer time period.


Source: ipcc.ch

53 years compared to 5 years does NOT = 'much' longer within a geological/climatological context. That is like the different between a 1/2 inch and a centimeter in relation to a marathon.
__________________
.
Old 03-27-2008, 08:48 AM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#142  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renork View Post
53 years compared to 5 years does NOT = 'much' longer within a geological/climatological context. That is like the different between a 1/2 inch and a centimeter in relation to a marathon.

I would consider an order of magnitude to fall into the category of "much".

Regardless, the point of that graph, initially, was merely to point out the stupidity of using 5 years worth of data to support the idea that the globe isn't warming.

Various trolls then asked if the earth had warmed in the past 50 years. Since that graph had ocean temperature data for the past 50 years and since the ocean is a significant part of the earth, I then used that graph to support my contention that the earth had warmed.

The reality is if you want to continue this debate, you're much better off starting from the position that the earth is warming, as even the most delusional scientists will agree to that point. Even still, you'd be hard press to go against the wealth of data that supports the idea that CO2 is contributing to global warming.
Old 03-27-2008, 11:37 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#143  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
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?

In one case I used a display of thousands of years to prove you wrong. In another case I only needed 10 years to prove you wrong.

Old 03-27-2008, 02:40 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#144  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
The reality is if you want to continue this debate, you're much better off starting from the position that the earth is warming, as even the most delusional scientists will agree to that point. Even still, you'd be hard press to go against the wealth of data that supports the idea that CO2 is contributing to global warming.

Seriously now, you've been proven wrong on both your points (warming / CO2 = warming). If you want to continue this debate, you need to find a new angle to come from. You're boring us until you do.
Old 03-27-2008, 02:46 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#145  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo View Post
Up to your usual hypocrisies huh badger?
I like how you attempt to strike at the credibility of the IPCC with terribly unreliable sources.

Aww poor leo, did someone pee in your Cheerios this morning?

I don't strike at all of the IPCC's data. I actually use some of their data to show that warming and cooling trends are natural and not man-made (unless all those little tribes back then had massive industrial polluting factories):



So......... yeah. Anyone going to help you pull your dirty foot out of your mouth, you ?

Quote:
Cue your grant money conspiracy theory.
Who was the in that other gw thread that was pushing the conspiracies?..... Was that your dupe account by chance? I shot him down there quite easily. Yet all it takes is for one of you simpleton s to watch Gore's movie, and you fire up another thread.
Old 03-27-2008, 03:05 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#146  

d_brow
 
CFC's are the majpr cause here.
Its the fact that CFC's have a higher Global warming potential which mean....they stay in the atmosphere way longer than CO2. And by long i mean up to a thousand times longer.
Old 03-27-2008, 10:29 PM d_brow is offline  
Reply With Quote
#147  

ceejamon
Ignore this post
 
ceejamon's Avatar
 
I'm on the fence on what the facts are, but I say that it's better safe than sorry. It can't be a BAD thing to improve the environment, decrease our carbon footprints, recycle, and develop green energies. So why we're waiting for definitive proof, might as well go that route. If it's bunk, we have cleaner air. If its not, we may save the planet.
__________________
You see the glass as half empty. I see it as the perfect level for blowing milk bubbles!
Old 03-28-2008, 08:36 AM ceejamon is offline  
Reply With Quote
#148  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
In one case I used a display of thousands of years to prove you wrong. In another case I only needed 10 years to prove you wrong.


Your first graph, showing temperature change over thousands of years does not disprove a) that the earth is warming now b) that CO2 isn't having an effect on the warming. All it shows is that temperatures have varied over the years.

Your 10 year graph also proves nothing.
Old 03-28-2008, 10:31 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#149  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Seriously now, you've been proven wrong on both your points (warming / CO2 = warming). If you want to continue this debate, you need to find a new angle to come from. You're boring us until you do.

Again, just because you want me to be wrong doesn't actually make me wrong.

You have yet to show that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming or actually come up with a ready natural warming mechanism consistent with the available data. I brought up the theory that its an increase in solar radiation which is causing the warming and showed IPCC data that disproved it. Do you want to come up with any other "natural warming" theories I can disprove?
Old 03-28-2008, 10:40 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#150  

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 12:09 AM.



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