223504 Bullies, 3673 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 121 to 130 of 343
Page 13 of 35 FirstFirst ... 3910111213 1415161723 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,030

    Posted On:
    12/08/2012 8:38pm

    supporting member
     Style: (Hung Ga+BJJ+MT+JKD) ^ Qi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Trying to argue with AWG deniers nowadays is like trying to convince Birthers that Hawaii is a US state.

    Yes, I'm joking. You can't argue with AWG deniers.

    /thread
  2. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,899

    Posted On:
    12/08/2012 8:41pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    OOPS I should have said completely and utterly fallacious and ridiculous.
  3. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/08/2012 9:08pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    Whether you were being metaphorical or literal, you're still wrong and hyperbolic to refer to Judith's positions as "public rape" of Muller's work, especially since she's not even a denier.

    You're the problem with AWG debate...you read a few blogs and some energy lobby garbage and you think you see all the chinks in the armor of AWG theory. Wrong.



    I have it bookmarked. How else would I know you were full of ****? I've been following this debate for over twenty years, knucklehead. A quick review of the thread will show you I've been following Muller's work for years too.



    So it's fine for you to call Judith's comments "public rape", but don't even cite the "sources" because you know it makes your comment look stupid?

    No thanks, not playing.



    It's sad someone who claims to support science keeps hounding on the non-issue of Climagegate.



    Neither are you, yet here you are in the bully pulpit, misrepresenting the work of others.

    You should read more of Judith's blog...at least then I could take you seriously when you comment about her.
    You're too lazy to read the sources in the climategate affair so your opinion has no value.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  4. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    4,989

    Posted On:
    12/08/2012 9:12pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    OOPS I should have said completely and utterly fallacious and ridiculous.
    Pie chart is from
    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

    Methodology used for making the chart can be found here
    http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

    While being far from perfect, I am fine with being hyperbole in this case as to the lopsidedness of where the scientific consensus is.
  5. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/08/2012 9:12pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    Do you REALLY believe the "average temperature of the entire world" matters at all compared to devastating local effects of AWG which are already being identified around the world (by actual scientists)???
    I believe that average global temperature absolutely is the parameter that matters when you're trying to evaluate a hypothesis which claims that rising atmospheric CO2 will lead to rising global average temperatures.

    Have you abandoned this hypothesis ? Yes or no ?

    Before you claim I posted no sources, you need to first learn to read, and then re-read the Nature article I posted. Then attempt to dissect the science there, instead of my humble posts. No, Nature is not "pop science", jerkoff.
    I read it before you posted it. I have already refuted it's conclusions by pointing you at the NSIDC graph of antarctic ice cover for the last 4 decades. Up, and to the right.

    I think it's best if you focus on the simple things, to begin with.

    Oh wait I forgot you don't care about scientists unless they are in the public eye or openly disagreeing with mainstream AWG models and so become easy targets for hit pieces, like the ones I'm sure you are immersed in.

    You don't care about the thousands of scientists who are beyond convinced, nor do you care about Nature article I posted which shows why "Climagegate" emails are such a poor place to spend your time.

    LOL And to think YOU accused ME of "not keeping up with relevant literature" but you think Climategate is still relevant.

    Turkey. Thanksgiving is over.
    So that's a 'no, I still haven't bothered looking at the primary sources I keep huffing about being irrelevant', then.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  6. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/08/2012 9:15pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    Pie chart is from
    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

    Methodology used for making the chart can be found here
    http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

    While being far from perfect, I am fine with being hyperbole in this case as to the lopsidedness of where the scientific consensus is.
    Consensus is irrelevant. Science is not a democracy. It rests on testable hypotheses. I doesn't matter how many scientists tell you something, if what they predict simply doesn't happen, then there is a problem with the theory they are using to make the prediction.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  7. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,899

    Posted On:
    12/08/2012 9:19pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    Pie chart is from
    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

    Methodology used for making the chart can be found here
    http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

    While being far from perfect, I am fine with being hyperbole in this case as to the lopsidedness of where the scientific consensus is.
    Then you are ridiculous and part of the problem. You make the debate ridiculous just like the deniers.
  8. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,030

    Posted On:
    12/08/2012 9:21pm

    supporting member
     Style: (Hung Ga+BJJ+MT+JKD) ^ Qi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    I have already refuted it's conclusions
    Quick then, call Nature, and be sure to let them know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    You're too lazy to read the sources in the climategate affair so your opinion has no value.
    OK then no more opinions, just facts.

    FACT: There have been eight independent investigations clearing the scientists in "Climategate", which is why clinging to it as a supporting argument is doomed to fail.

    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

    http://www.deccanherald.com/content/...ly-clears.html

    Independent Climate Change Review
    https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/s...08climate.html

    International Science Assessment Panel
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...ontrovers.html

    Pennsylvania State University (first panel)
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...scienti-1.html

    Pennsylvania State University (second panel)
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...d-as-penn.html

    United States Environmental Protection Agency
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538

    Department of Commerce (US)
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...gate-noaa.html

    National Science Foundation
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...g-inquiry.html
    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 12/08/2012 9:27pm at . Reason: Yep I'm a big sucker. SAYONARA
  9. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/08/2012 9:48pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    OK then no more of my opinions, just facts.

    There have been eight independent investigations clearing the scientists in "Climategate", which is why clinging to it as a supporting argument is doomed to fail.
    Ah, a Gish gallop.

    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
    http://www.deccanherald.com/content/...ly-clears.html
    This one refused to investigate any of the scientific claims. You've failed to keep up again, and this time you tried to bluff fake knowledge about the workings of my own government. This last inquiry lasted a single day and didn't involve actual examination of the emails.

    Independent Climate Change Review
    https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/s...08climate.html
    The first inquiry was quickly convened after it was conclusively shown that Muir Russell's inquiry was unsatisfactory because Muir Russell had multiple financial ties to the green-energy industry and MPs found numerous errors of fact in his report after it was delivered.

    International Science Assessment Panel
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...ontrovers.html
    Here is the reply where Oxburgh admits that his International Science Assessment panel did not have actualy study of the science within it's remit

    Dear Dr Mcintyre,
    Thank you for your message. What you report may or may not be the case. But as I have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of our study.
    Yours sincerly,
    Ron Oxburgh
    Scratch another.

    Pennsylvania State University (first panel)
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...scienti-1.html

    Pennsylvania State University (second panel)
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...d-as-penn.html
    This is not an independent investigation, it's a whitewash by an embarrassed institution trying to protect it's own reputation.

    United States Environmental Protection Agency
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538
    Why take word of that short summary in the BBC for it when you could read the sources yourself ? Anybody who actually has can see that summary is bullshit.

    Department of Commerce (US)
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...gate-noaa.html

    The report says it did not find evidence of data manipulation on the same fucking page it admits it did not re-examine any of the data referenced in the climategate emails. It then goes on to say that they are reviewing their funding of UEA. Lol.

    You really ought to read this stuff before you post it.

    National Science Foundation
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...g-inquiry.html
    This inquiry, which focussed on Michael Mann (whose hocky-stick paper has long been refuted), relied entirely on review of material provided to it by Mann's embarrassed employer.

    Your basic problem with trying to do this by Gish Gallup is that

    a) I read the material which you don't read.

    b) It's still not actually getting warmer, which makes everything else you say sound desperate and silly.

    Answer this question:

    I believe that average global temperature absolutely is the parameter that matters when you're trying to evaluate a hypothesis which claims that rising atmospheric CO2 will lead to rising global average temperatures.

    Have you abandoned this hypothesis ? Yes or no ?
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  10. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    4,989

    Posted On:
    12/09/2012 12:13am

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Then you are ridiculous and part of the problem. You make the debate ridiculous just like the deniers.
    What debate?

    He is claiming the very concept behind greenhouse gasses is false despite the fact that we have a clear understanding of how they work.

    He could go and get a bottle of CO2 fill an air tight but clear vessel. Put it out in the sun for the day. Come back the next day and take a temperature reading of the ambient air and the air inside the vessel and notice that the air in the vessel is a bit warmer.
Page 13 of 35 FirstFirst ... 3910111213 1415161723 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.