Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Global Warming is over.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
well herbie, the rate of change has been zero to negative for the last 12 years
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...882984274.htmlsigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by herbivor View PostActually that's not true. But who am I to argue with a prestigious WSJ editorial. I'm going to go plant my tomatoe plants now, a month earlier than normal. Should be a good year for vegetables.
i purposely quoted the Princeton Professor since he's not funded by oil
but he must be a "faux" scientist also
not only is it true that there has been no warming for over ten years from actual atmospheric data, you're scientists have been caught in email exchanges wondering how to hide/explain the data since it conflicts with their warming models
as the professor said, when your postulations are not supported, or are contradicted in this case, by the data, you have FAIL“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
So basically herb tries to support this by science but when science doesn't support his claims then it's bullocks. Righteous.
"Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
John F. Kennedy
Comment
-
Originally posted by HarryPotter View PostSo basically herb tries to support this by science but when science doesn't support his claims then it's bullocks. Righteous.sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by herbivor View PostNot at all. It's just that what they are presenting as science, isn't really science, though it's being sold to them as science. Just compare the link Farbin provided to the actual science journal I linked a few posts above. Can you spot the differences?
there is no science that supports AGW, it is theory
and unfortunately for your side, almost no data that supports the theory
but apparently the theory is emough to convince you and others, but not everyone
when atmospheric scientists argue against AGW, they're deniers
deniers of what exactly? and unproven theory? conjecture by scientists sucking off the teat of taxpayers?“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
It snowed in Portland last week...in March. The sky is falling Liberals are getting more and more fun to laugh at.Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack Obama
Comment
-
Originally posted by herbivor View PostJust out of curiosity how much and what kind of evidence is required to convince you that GW is anthropogenic? Because you are at least admitting that GW is occurring (which your side was completely denying only a few years ago). But now what do you require to convince its man-made.
and I'll round up on numbers
anthro CO2 is 4% of annual CO2 emissions
IPCC et al want 20% reduction in anthro CO2
so if we gag and follow IPCC, wreck global economies etc, we get a net reduction of less than 1% in total annual CO2 emissions
and you're telling me that this is the answer
even though your models have not, so far, predicted anything accurately
as for a theory vs data, your models seek to predict the future based on a theory
no one will know until the future comes. eh?
so far yor side is batting 0.00
but you could still be right and we need to act now, correct?
but what if you're not correct?“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postthere is no science that supports AGW
And you a layman cannot argue that less than 1% of a change will not be significant. In a lot of ecological systems, a 1% spike is monumental and reflects so in the species present. What puts you in a position to attempt to discredit real scientists who in fact say that small of a change would indeed have a serious impact, your unaccredited guess? Bold, real fucking bold.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cale View PostNot sure if serious.
And you a layman cannot argue that less than 1% of a change will not be significant. In a lot of ecological systems, a 1% spike is monumental and reflects so in the species present. What puts you in a position to attempt to discredit real scientists who in fact say that small of a change would indeed have a serious impact, your unaccredited guess? Bold, real fucking bold.“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postlet's start here
and I'll round up on numbers
anthro CO2 is 4% of annual CO2 emissions
IPCC et al want 20% reduction in anthro CO2
so if we gag and follow IPCC, wreck global economies etc, we get a net reduction of less than 1% in total annual CO2 emissions
and you're telling me that this is the answer
even though your models have not, so far, predicted anything accurately
as for a theory vs data, your models seek to predict the future based on a theory
no one will know until the future comes. eh?
so far yor side is batting 0.00
but you could still be right and we need to act now, correct?
but what if you're not correct?sigpic
Comment
Comment