[quote who="Daiwa" reply="941" id="2508819"] I tire of the argument that "nothing has been published in the peer-reviewed literature that proves AGW wrong" - limiting that literature to "climatology" literature, of course. Homeopathy has literature, too - it's total crap, but it's "peer-reviewed". And I assure you nothing, absolutely nothing, has been published in the "peer-reviewed homeopathy literature" which proves homeopathy wrong. [/quote] I agree there
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="939" id="2508805"] The real value of using a deviation scale rather than an absolute scale is to increase the perceived relevance of the change. [/quote] I know that. If you quoted me entirely, you would've read this... [quote who="clonmac" reply="934" id="2508731"] Deviations are fine, but not in this context when they are changing the timelines like they are. [/quote] But, instead you decided to misquote me and take
[quote who="psychoak" reply="935" id="2508751"]You being stupid is definitely a valid argument. If a temperature swing of 3 degrees doesn't matter because it's barely movement on the 400k year plot, niether is a .5 degree shift over the last century. So, you've just been manipulated by all those graphs that show temperatures rising over the last century... After all this information, I still can't think dumb enough to see how you
[quote who="psychoak" reply="933" id="2508649"]You are really bad at this. The least you could do is spout that nonsense before pasting the two thousand year stretch invalidating your claim. You can't cherry pick time periods by showing the entire timeline, it's a preposterous claim. No, NASA isn't a credible source. They're using the same numbers everyone else is, ignoring the satellite data and running with the manipulated surface station data
[quote who="psychoak" reply="930" id="2508594"]Clonmac, did you take lessons to get this fucked in the head? There's nothing misleading about that graph, it's the standard for displaying temperature history. [/quote] Dude, you're just a plain jerk, that's all I have to say. Not once did I insult you personally. OK, so clearly you aren't understanding what I am pointing out. The point the website you linked to was trying to make was that there is no correlation betwe
[quote who="psychoak" reply="920" id="2508479"]I don't believe it, you've said something even more retarded than you started with. How dumb can you possibly be? My brain hurts, I can't think stupid enough to come up with an explanation for this. This is going to give me nightmares. The end is nigh, the stupocalypse approaches! [/quote] If you can't see how these graphs aren't misinforming readers, then that isn't my problem.
psychoak , in an effort to be more "worth" your time, I will attempt to help answer your question, despite the fact that you source completely misleading websites in your claim. You claim that because temperature after ice ages go up first followed by CO2 climbs, then CO2 does not cause temperature to go up. This is false. Rea
[quote who="psychoak" reply="914" id="2508439"] Huh? I was expecting something other than a realization of the obvious, but you've blown away any expectations with this one... I'm speechless, what a rare event. Mumbles, I appologize for deciding he was more worth my time. I have gravely insulted you. Wow. [/quote] Your response to this shows that you clearly don't get it. Do you know what a deviation is? OK, so then why sh
So I had this long post typed out, then I lost it all...Lovely!... [quote who="Dr Guy" reply="908" id="2508239"] Very nice rebuttal to Burton. But some feel the number of errors in An Inconvenient Truth is much higher and that Burton kept his to the most overt. Indeed the following article lists 35: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html [/quote] Ok, I am not one
Here is a great article that I was reading that actually shows the scientific work that goes into some of the research that scientists do. It also goes into explain how just because there are variations in interdecadal data doesn't change the overall larger trend that is occurring. Scientists make mistakes for sure. But, one of the quotes that I especially thought was good was at the very end where it quoted: “Models are not perfect,” says Syd Levitus. “Data are
[quote who="-RAISTLIN-" reply="893" id="2508034"] look champ, im not really here to receive a poor ideological lesson any first-year fanatic could give me. i understand the nature of capitalism blah blah blah. ideological platitudes have no place when we're talking about specific examples in specific situations. not many people here, including myself, would disagree with your assessment as a general principle; but only blind adherents to esoteric rhetoric would claim that exception
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="891" id="2507990"]ClonMac: Thank you Clonmac! I do appreciate the viewership. No, Greenland is an island, not a continent. [/quote] You're welcome. ...and yes, I know. Simple mistype on my part, lol. [e digicons]:blush:[/e] [quote who="Timmaigh" reply="885" id="2507881"] You know Al Gore does not need to say something straightforward to mislead. Maybe he doesn´t say directly that and th
[quote who="psychoak" reply="879" id="2507656"] Only ice over land can raise sea levels, any ice over water is already built into it. The ice that's disappearing in Antarctica is almost entirely over water, thus negligible, same deal with the Arctic. We get six meters out of Greenland if it melts off entirely with no gains elsewhere.[/quote] I know that. Do you know that Antarctica is a continent? So is Greenland. I know, right? Crazy! Antarctica is actually
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="877" id="2507388"] By the way, what do you think about him plainly lying about the consequences of global warming in the Inconvenient Truth? http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1 [/quote] I find it funny that you are feeding off of others for sources and you grabbed that abcnews article that Dr Guy posted in the other forums. But, since you've asked me to specifically respond to that I
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="871" id="2506971"] But, you're wrong, because that is exactly what I said. The verb "to say" in my statement refers directly to what he said. indeed, but "people in charge" is all encompassing. You did not differentiate, and hence lead the reader to beleive that all were of immaculate conception. That is a generalization. Clearly in your defense of your original statement you are making clear you do not believe that, and I acc
[quote who="Bellack" reply="25" id="2464533"]I wonder if the dinosaurs drove SUV's? They must have because the earth was much warmer when they were alive than it is now. ummm [/quote] Actually you make a good point that a lot of global warming scientists research on. It is widely known that during the pre-historic era there was much more volcanic activity going on. This accounted for a ton of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So while they didn't drive any SU
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="862" id="2506803"] Here is a little snippet from his work: http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/news_news/133-file/Bjorn%20Lomborg%20in%20Esquire%20July%2015%202009.pdf [/quote] So I just read his article and while I agree with a lot of what he says, I feel he is very narrow-minded and naive. He feels that people like Gore are simply all for carbon capping and that's it. It isn't like that. Anyone who has list
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="862" id="2506803"] Quoting clonmac, reply 858 Sure, sure. We both agree that there are always people on both sides in it for the money. Al Gore? I don't know what to think about him. What I do know is that a lot of people don't realize that he has been at this global warming thing for a very long time long before there was any money to be made. He studied it back in college and before he was even in politics. Is he mak
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="854" id="2506095"] Yes, i did bit of a generalisation and surely there are however reasonable people who believe both in AGW and refuse carbon cap. But when it comes to people who have power to change something (those who met in Copenhagen) all i hear is about reducing carbon emissions, next Kyoto etc... just tell me this is not true. I do not deny that there are people fighting against AGW who have vested interest and are paid by oil c
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="855" id="2506096"] You made a generalization. "to say that people in charge". you did not qualify it by adding "he said" or "some". [/quote] But, you're wrong, because that is exactly what I said. The verb "to say" in my statement refers directly to what he said. (I'm saying this for like the 3rd time...) My statement was NOT: "People in charge do not care more about their personal benefit than of
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="850" id="2506022"] I never went into saying a generalization myself. To say that people in charge care more about their personal benefit than of AGW is very wrong. He was generalizing bad "they are all crooks". You were generalizing good "They are not". Both generalizations are false. Some are crooks, some are bad, some are honest in their beliefs. We can pick out individuals for scorn and ridicul
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="849" id="2505979"] Sometimes it takes putting things into a different perspective for someone to realize something. Essentially it boils down to the fact that skeptics are looking for absolute PROOF that the world is really on the brink of a climate crisis. Who's looking for absolute proof? I'm merely looking for it to move from being an untested hypothesis to one that can bear the scrutiny of a prediction. As has been sa
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="846" id="2505949"] To claim that all global warming proponents To say that people in charge care more about their personal benefit than of AGW is very wrong. You accuse Timmy of a gross generalization, and then make one yourself. The truth is both are wrong. A better qualifier would be "some", "many" or "most" as clearly examples of what you both generalized are abundantly available. [/quote] How is wha
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="843" id="2505887"] Depends on the proposed changes. Because right now unfortunately AGW=carbon cap, yes, we do. Maybe if the people who are in charge cared actually about AGW a not their personal benefit. But they do not, otherwise they will not be so hasty with capping the carbon emissions, which will do more harm to humanity than any temperature rise over next century. Additionaly for people here in the West it is easy to say: " so what, i
Sins Forums