liars gonna lie
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Global Warming is over.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postthis is really an amazing statement, even for you cale. if it were rwh (disagree with gwb) i'd let it go and then yank his chain again.
so when credible climates scientists disagree with the AGW camp and it's assertions/postulations/hypotheses, the very fact they disagree means they're not credible, is that it? or do you disagree with the science, if you understand it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by cale View PostThere are a small number of climate scientists who disagree with AGW yes, but you don't push their research. You push the shit companies like Heartland put out there, weak ass false science. You push whatever is in the headlines, not what is most credible. You don't know the science so you push what is popular amongst the naysayers, and then you're shocked when people call out your bullshit?
i've posted links to numerous scientists, non of which muster up to your (collective your) definition of credible
so shoot the messenger
and actually i'll pass a compliment to rwh
he at least takes the time to post one of his endless charts that tries to argue the science once in a whileLast edited by gwb72tii; 11-29-2012, 05:57 PM.“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
I predicted you would have predicted a response, seeing as you've predicted three already on this page...you must be a fortune teller.
Pretty sure the very last time you posted a source of information both rwh and myself replied with references which explained why your ignorance is unfounded. What a shock, your choice to ignore proper science trancends into ignoring responses as well. Multi-faceted in your ineptness, congrats.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cale View PostI predicted you would have predicted a response, seeing as you've predicted three already on this page...you must be a fortune teller.
Pretty sure the very last time you posted a source of information both rwh and myself replied with references which explained why your ignorance is unfounded. What a shock, your choice to ignore proper science trancends into ignoring responses as well. Multi-faceted in your ineptness, congrats.“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 BraveUlysses View Postpredicts internet posts; can't predict anything else
and actually i predicted exactly what cale did, attack the messenger and ignore the message.
exactly like the messiah's "presidential" campaignLast edited by gwb72tii; 11-29-2012, 09:32 PM.“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Excuse me for my bluntness, but when the fuck have I ever ignored your message? I'm constantly attacking your arguments, be it your logic, resources or the information you provide as evidence. Rarely do I simply put up a trolling post towards you, i enjoy poking holes in your thinking so of course I add substance. That is the exact opposite of ignoring your message, I'm replying to specifics of the message!
"Presidential" eh? Not presidential, has to be written with quotation marks so as to let your dissatisfaction with him be known, which thus CLEARLY translates into him not being a legitimate pres. Speaking of predictable behaviour…Last edited by cale; 11-29-2012, 11:07 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postnever mind i'm not going down to your level
and actually i predicted exactly what cale did, attack the messenger and ignore the message.
exactly like the messiah's "presidential" campaign
"down to your level"? Are you kidding? The only person who is below your level is joshh. Maybe you should join people in the realm of intelligent discussion instead of your ridiculous fallacies all the time.
You ignored my questions about why you thought that ICEsat's made GRACE's data irrelevant. In addition, with your deep understanding of science and models, could you explain how exactly it is "assbackwards" to revise a model with new data?
Comment
-
wow, just in time
cale, rwh etc please do your best to discredit the signers of this letter
quote
"The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion."
“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 Postwow, just in time
cale, rwh etc please do your best to discredit the signers of this letter
quote
"The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion."
http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...25-scientists/
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postits on subject you dolt, and i'm not here to answer your questions
It's on the subject of the thread yes but instead of responding to questions about your post involving ICEsat and GRACE, you abandoned it and moved onto the next shot in the dark.
While also attacking all models ignorantly and making judgments of science when while you admit you don't deal with data or numbers ever.Last edited by rwh11385; 11-30-2012, 01:54 PM.
Comment
Comment