About 4 weeks ago I bought a Wii. It is my first console since the N64/PS1 days. I've always been a PC gamer, but lately I've just wanted something else and something that I can play with other people locally. I have been LOVING it. I've used the Xbox 360 before with my friends, but I couldn't justify myself getting a 360 because there is NOTHING that comes out for the 360 that also doesn't come out for the PC and frankly the PC version always blows the 360 version out of the water. I still h
[quote who="numerarius5988am" reply="342" id="2573963"]Would orbital bombardment cause temporary global warming? [/quote] Orbital bombardment from what?
[quote who="psychoak" reply="340" id="2573152"]When you get tired of living in your own little world, let me know. Try not to suffocate in the meantime. [/quote] Here is a good image I found that matches up several natural variations alongside anthropogenic variations next to a graph showing a temperature change timeline. On that temperature change timeline, it shows the actual temperature variation alongside what the computer models conclude taking into account all th
[quote who="psychoak" reply="306" id="2568725"] Since you completely ignored it, I'll point out, again, that nearly all of the recent warming is from the polar ice sheet reduction. Open water has a 93% absorbtion rate, snow covered icepack is under 20%, bare ice under 40%. Once you take out the Arctic circle, warming has been negligible. [/quote] You are right about the absorbtion rates...but wait...hmmmm, what is making the ice and snow melt in the polar circles
[quote who="djcityscapes" reply="297" id="2568185"]I wonder if Numers realizes yet that he stuck his head into a wood chipper. [/quote] lmao, now that's funny.
I don't get why people are so freaked out just by a few simple questions. I received my census in the mail and I'll be filling it out, especially the important ones that SIN-Imperium mentioned. Some people are just so paranoid. Seriously, most of the questions are pretty impersonal. If they want to know how much I make, who cares. The IRS already does. When you think about it, the questions they are asking if they really wanted to know those things, they could find them out anyway. If so
[quote who="psychoak" reply="271" id="2566891"] Not accounting for orbit decay and modifying, demonstrably without cause, surface station data made by on site physical measurements, to reverse a cooling trend and turn it into a warming trend are two entirely different things. That 40% increase still puts them 20% shy of the needed warming level to validate the AGW theory as well. Manipulating the station data to fit the theory has it's drawbacks, RSS and UAH just wont agree w
One thing I recently found on one of my favorite climate change websites is that skepticalscience.com has opened up their arguements database to allow anyone to post up a specific arguement against AGW and the supportive information for it. Their database currently has 242 skeptic arguements. Regardless of how insane some of the arguements may be, you can post them up now yourself. http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php</a
[quote who="djcityscapes" reply="263" id="2566611"] Btw, of all the AGW lapdogs posting in this thread, Mumbles is the only one with even a hint of credibility. I have to admit he puts a lot of work into this subject; as compared to the worthless rantings coming from everyone else on his side of the table. [/quote] woof, woof! Most people aren't putting "work" into this thread because there was already a AGW thread that consisted of over 1000 posts in it that drained
[quote who="djcityscapes" reply="256" id="2565736"] If it could be proven that we are in the warmest period in the past 100,000 years and all natural causes are ruled out.[/quote] See even your "required proof" to believe in AGW has holes in it and doesn't really make sense. This is why it is so hard to convince people like you of AGW because their "required proof" of AGW is shady and can always change regardless of what proof is presented to them. Why is it that we have
[quote who="psychoak" reply="214" id="2564345"] While you're getting excited over a few million spread over a decade to multiple organizations with hundreds of members, try thinking about it in context. MIT gets nearly half a billion a year specifically in research funding from Uncle. Meanwhile Exxon pisses into the wind, wishing they had even a tenth of that in profits. [/quote] Are you serious? That just shows how delusional you are. In 2008 Exxon set a record
[quote who="psychoak" reply="204" id="2563042"] OMG, and here I was thinking that a person is only able to ever work one job! Silly me. Forget the fact that he makes over $2,500 dollars a day working for oil and coal interests. It's going to take major surgery to remove your head from your ass at this rate. One day. Not $2500 a day for some indeterminate length of time, one bleeding day. Bullshit like this is why I fact check every detail of your posts.
[quote who="psychoak" reply="186" id="2561227"] Where did I say home property? What is it with you commies? OMG!!! It's a business instead of a home, kill the owner! If I own a restaurant, it's my property. Who the hell gives you the right to tell me what I can and can't do simply because you're allowed to enter my property, of your own volition, and barter for the services I'm offering, also of your own volition? You choose to shop/eat/whatever a
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="182" id="2561154"]Part of the problem, and a major reason skepticism is persistent, is that data & analyses from other scientific disciplines with a bearing on climate research but which are not 'climatology' are pretty much rejected out of hand, if they in any way disagree with the AGW narrative that is. [/quote] It isn't that they're rejected because of their conclusions, it is that they're rejected because of poor science. Once it is rej
[quote who="djcityscapes" reply="178" id="2561114"]I do not believe there is enough scientific data to support AGW. "No statistcially significant global warming in the past 15 yeas" is a very damning set of scientific data against AGW. [/quote] The fact that you've thrown that quote around numerous times just shows how you have that quote just saved in your clipboard ready for pasting in any post, yet you haven't put any effort into actually understanding what was meant by it ot
[quote who="djcityscapes" reply="176" id="2561091"] Well, I agree there is certainly a good amount of spin on both sides: "Lindzen decried what he sees as the intellectual corruption that global warming alarmism has brought to climatology. He noted that many climatologists are happy to issue ambiguous statements that are then spun by activists into alarms. The result is increased funding for climate research, so no one publicly complains about the spinning. Most of the f
[quote who="psychoak" reply="168" id="2560722"] I'll explain why you look like an idiot, along with most of the adult population. Non-smokers have a 1.4%(males)-1.3%(females) chance of developing lung cancer before they kick the bucket. How do you feel about that 20-30% increase now? Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about(which should include congress and other legislative bodies when debating a subject and writing laws in regards to
[quote who="Stanley Tarrant" reply="119" id="2558238"] The same people say that you cant use the year 2009, with its cold and snowy winters and mild hurricane season to say global warming doesn't exist. [/quote] The reason why people say this is because winter is a season and regional and does not account for the temperatures over an annual period and global respect. 2009 was still a very warm year overall. Depending on how the 2010 summer goes, then that it c
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="111" id="2558027"]Clonmac Check the links again idiot. That was one of them. I did not post them all this time, as I was posting them in line and PICKED ONE. You admitted you did not read them. Now who is the idiot? Idiot. And I used the term this time of eugenics because it is simpler to use that. The last time, I was responding to someone else's statement, so I did not use the term, instead said that some wanted that.&
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="102" id="2557723"] Then I guess Warmists are a bunch of eugenicists. Death to people is their motto. (Check the Comments, Clonmac cant find them) [/quote] You get dumber by the post. You're talking about eugenics here, yet you're previous tirade in the other post about killing ALL humans to solve the problem has nothing t
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="5" id="2556424"] I think the mistake was allowing them to bring the child into the control tower. [/quote] Ya, I agree. An air traffic controller is known as being one of the most stressful jobs out there. The reason for that is that the job requires constant attention and awareness of everything that is going on at all times. While nothing bad came of it, that doesn't mean that if you allow something like that to happen again that it will ha
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="85" id="2555420"] The sad part is you do not even reallize how stupid you sound when you use the word denier. You take yourself out of the science category and put yourself squarely in the propaganda category. Clearly you do not even understand what the term means, just that it is a perjorative meant to instill fear in the skeptics, so that you do not have to use facts and logic to prove your point, just scare and emotion. really sad now that
[quote]"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."[/quote] Ugh, can we say out of context? Why do you think that out of that entire email thread, that is the one single line that gets printed in the press? It has already been stated what was said in those emails on these forums and how that statement was taken out of context to make it seem like they can't come up with a way to play a hoax on ev
[quote who="psychoak" reply="76" id="2554964"]Except 1 is proveably false, thus 2 is irrelevant... [/quote] The arguments out there that say #1 is proveably false also by its very means make it not possible to prove it false no more than you could prove it true. It is the denialist argument by nature...breeding doubt.
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="56" id="2553486"] How about the University of Illinois? British Antarctic Survey? Roger Pielke? Norwegian Polar Institute? NSIDC? Are these your "Rush Limbaughs"? Well to some they may be, but to most cognizant people, they represent truth, not fiction. And they all say the ice aint melting away. [/quote] Oh, here we go again, lol. You said the same thing in the last post. You've still yet to link to any credible s
Sins Forums