Still no proof of Global Warming

[Tom Kazansky]

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's what I'm saying.

[Straw Man]

Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

I know
I just meant it's not convincing either way it goes or something.

[Tom Kazansky]

Originally Posted by RuHo

I know
I just meant it's not convincing either way it goes or something.

Oh lol.

[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

[wingedbuttmonkey]

Let's just stop buying oil. That will fuck up the mideast more than bombing it ever would.

[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

since all observed data shows the models that say there is global warming is crap we should all wait it out

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky

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.

Tom

Stop

Global warming junk science CLAIMS (as my new bitch has pointed out) that ONLY co2 can be to blame.(look at his posts)

Since co2 Lags increase in temp by 800 years and continues to increase for 400 years AFTER the temp starts dropping

It Can Not Fucking Be What Is Driving The Temp Increase. And has dick all to do with any significant moderation of temps. No Matter What some Dickhead Says.

Apply the same reasoning skills you used to spank Postal Goatchode.

The morons are claiming R42 for co2 when it is R point 005

They have been claiming this for thirty fucking years but cant plug numbers into their models from 1960 and get within hand grenade range of the Actual results for 1970 or 70 to 80 or 80 to 90
even while using fudge factors that they REFUSE to document.

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

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?

I am sure you will be happy to know that the models used by the imbeciles you venerate can not correctly model climate variations from any known 10 year period to another. Yet claim their next ten years in the future are accurately modeled

this is not called science


lick it up bitch

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

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?

sorry dipshit cloud cover was NOT accounted for. see other posts

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by RuHo

the grant money thing is pretty fucking ridiculous, I don't understand why you people even bother talking about that to these two fucking clowns. I wonder who'd benefit the most from biased articles (hint=not scientists).

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

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by leo

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?

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


Looks like the president seems to think global warming is noteworthy.



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

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.

Now how many of them resigned when the IPCC misused the report

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

You may be right that there's nothing that can be done but even if warming were a natural cycle, don't you think CO2 could makes things worse?

300,000+ years of data says no.

Bitch!

[DivineStorm]

Didn't knew we had this many scientists in the Pit!

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

I am sure you will be happy to know that the models used by the imbeciles you venerate can not correctly model climate variations from any known 10 year period to another. Yet claim their next ten years in the future are accurately modeled

this is not called science


lick it up bitch

Since they make no claims about the future in a graph about past ocean temperature changes, what you're saying makes no sense.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

sorry dipshit cloud cover was NOT accounted for. see other posts

Since it was accounted for, you're wrong again.