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
Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
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 05-06-2008, 09:07 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#406  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Again, you're confusing the title and summary of the report with the actual text of the report.

So yeah, not all scientists in that report reject man-made global warming.

400 scientists reporting to the Senate dispute the man-made gw consensus. Nice attempt, again, of trying to spin out of the point you failed to disprove.

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.

Quote:
Kindly direct me to the page about Antarctic ice cores, omitted ocean data, etc.
Page 17 has a nice summary to that simpleton Gibby. Anything extra you can dig for yourself.

It's funny how even back there on page 17 I was saying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
Sadly though, this thread has become quite boring, given the lack of any new arguments from Fuckyouformakingmeregister.

And nothing has changed on your part since.
Old 05-06-2008, 09:24 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#407  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
It's funny how you've been claiming the same things since page 2 (?) and still haven't proven them.

Your proof that the IPCC has contaminated data is:
- an opinion piece by an economist who still believes warming is human caused
- an article reporting the opinion of Nils-Axel Morner, a quack (water-witching for the win!) who only has a problem with sea level data

Your proof that the 400 scientists all think global warming has nothing to do with humans:
- an inaccurate summary of the Senate report

Regarding the latter, do you deny that the report says this:
Quote:
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
Well?

I also await evidence that I've ever said all global warming ever has only been caused by humans.

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 05-06-2008 at 09:43 AM..
Old 05-06-2008, 09:35 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#408  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Page 17 has a nice summary to that simpleton Gibby. Anything extra you can dig for yourself.

Page 17 has a few links to icecap.us, whose authors believe this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by icecap.us 'about us' page
It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather

It also has some hastily written and hugely inaccurate blog post by a nobody from the coal mining industry.

And of course it has that article the OP linked about sea temperatures in the past 10 years. I guess you've forgotten my graph that looks at sea temperatures of the past 50 years. Either that or you somehow believe that a 10 year trend is more important than a 50 year trend.
Old 05-06-2008, 09:43 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#409  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
It's funny how you've been claiming the same things since page 2 (?) and still haven't proven them.
Proof on pages 3, 7, 8, and summarized on 17. And of course your response, since you've failed to disprove any of it, always is and will be:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
Fuckyouformakingmeregister having plugged his ears and yelled "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.

Quote:
Your proof that the IPCC has contaminated data is:
First post page 12 http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=779295&page=12
And:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
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 for fun:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ipcc+false+data

Quote:
Your proof that the 400 scientists all think there is no consensus on man-made global warming
Fixed to subtract your attempt at spin, and:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
400 scientists reporting to the Senate dispute the man-made gw consensus. Nice attempt, again, of trying to spin out of the point you failed to disprove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
Fuckyouformakingmeregister plugs his ears and yells "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.


Quote:
I also await evidence that I've ever said all global warming ever has only been caused by humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
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 05-07-2008, 11:36 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#410  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
I guess you've forgotten my graph that looks at sea temperatures of the past 50 years. Either that or you somehow believe that a 10 year trend is more important than a 50 year trend.
Given the proof is that the oceans have cooled in the last 10 years, of course your graph is outdated.
Old 05-07-2008, 11:43 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#411  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
The same shit as before

Look buddy, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself before you realize how wrong you are.

The words of Nils-Axel Morner and some economist do not equal proof that the IPCC conceded that they had contaminated data. I suppose if I wrote an opinion piece and said "Badger_sly admitted he was wrong about global warming" that would equal proof that you did so, under your broken logic? You can quote that paragraph all you want but until you address why I should believe an economist over the IPCC and why he - believing that humans have STILL CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING - supports your "it's all nature" position, you've just making yourself look silly.

Your claims about the Senate Report are also silly, because if you had read the actual report you'd know that the 400 scientists don't all think man-made global warming is wrong. How many times do I have to point out sections in the actual report which disagree with your position? Is it really that difficult for you to admit defeat?
Old 05-07-2008, 03:25 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#412  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Given the proof is that the oceans have cooled in the last 10 years, of course your graph is outdated.

So cooling in the past 10 years completely invalidates the fact that the oceans have warmed over the past 50 years?

And remember, it's not 50 year OLD data, it's data from the past 50 years.

Suppose the oceans had warmed 10,000 C in the past 50 years but in the past 10 years they fell 1 C. Would that be proof that the oceans haven't experienced a warming trend? OBVIOUSLY it would be proof that the oceans hadn't warmed in the past 10 years but it sure as shit doesn't disprove a general, MORE LONG-TERM, warming trend.
Old 05-07-2008, 03:30 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#413  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
You really don't understand this shit do you?
__________________
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 05-07-2008, 11:07 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#414  

BigFuzzyArchon
 
 
as farm as im concerned all we know is the temperature can change throughout history, everything beyond this is guessing and "analyzing data"
Old 05-07-2008, 11:17 PM BigFuzzyArchon is offline  
Reply With Quote
#415  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Look buddy, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself

The number of times you repeat yourself is irrelavent simply because you've been proven wrong, and you've failed to disprove what I (and others) have provided. You've provided nothing new, and, regarless of your thoughts, your opinion does not disprove the work and statements of scientists. You know this, but you're just pretending and being a dumbass, since page 15 on, actually. I'll keep this up, and proving you wrong, as long as you keep trying to pass off your fad.

Oh, and:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
Proof on pages 3, 7, 8, and summarized on 17. And of course your response, since you've failed to disprove any of it, always is and will be:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
Fuckyouformakingmeregister having plugged his ears and yelled "la la la la la" to avoid the facts.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
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.
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.
Quote:
Your proof that the 400 scientists all think there is no consensus on man-made global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
Fixed to subtract your attempt at spin, and:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
(actually provide proof: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport )

....
400 scientists reporting to the Senate dispute the man-made gw consensus. Nice attempt, again, of trying to spin out of the point you failed to disprove.

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

You can pretend to not have change your view all you want. We both know that I got you to start accepting climate change.

And:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
So cooling in the past 10 years completely invalidates the fact that the oceans have warmed over the past 50 years?
It proves that natural climate change has shifted and has been cooling the oceans for the last 10 years.
Old 05-08-2008, 03:03 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#416  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
You really don't understand this shit do you?

Your inane arguments aside, I'm puzzled as to why you're supporting Badger. Have you actually read his arguments?

He thinks an op ed piece by an economist is proof that the IPCC admitted to serious data contamination. Moreover, he fails to acknowledge, in the face of direct quotes from the Senate Report, that not all 400 scientists in that report are against human induced global warming.

I mean maybe you have a reason for supporting him other than the fact that he believes in your "omg science conspiracy" argument; in which case, please enlighten us, because all Badger can seem to do is repeat and ignore.
Old 05-08-2008, 03:21 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#417  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Your inane arguments aside, I'm puzzled as to why you're supporting Badger. Have you actually read his arguments?

He thinks an op ed piece by an economist is proof that the IPCC admitted to serious data contamination. Moreover, he fails to acknowledge, in the face of direct quotes from the Senate Report, that not all 400 scientists in that report are against human induced global warming.

I mean maybe you have a reason for supporting him other than the fact that he believes in your "omg science conspiracy" argument; in which case, please enlighten us, because all Badger can seem to do is repeat and ignore.

You don't really need to read people's arguments when you already made up your mind.
Old 05-08-2008, 05:19 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#418  

Bradd
I THOUGHT GOOGLE IS WHAT MY FATHER DOES TO ME EVERY NIGHT!
 
Bradd's Avatar
 
LOL @ its all nature. Imagine what the world looked like before man. Imagine what the world would look like in a few hundred years if we all disappeared today; nature would take over once again.
Old 05-08-2008, 11:17 PM Bradd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#419  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Your inane arguments aside, I'm puzzled as to why you're supporting Badger. Have you actually read his arguments?

He thinks an op ed piece by an economist is proof that the IPCC admitted to serious data contamination. Moreover, he fails to acknowledge, in the face of direct quotes from the Senate Report, that not all 400 scientists in that report are against human induced global warming.

I mean maybe you have a reason for supporting him other than the fact that he believes in your "omg science conspiracy" argument; in which case, please enlighten us, because all Badger can seem to do is repeat and ignore.

You really don't understand this shit do you?
__________________
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 05-09-2008, 05:52 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#420  

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 04:05 AM.



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