I mean, seriously, it’s even got cute pictures and graphs for the linguistically and mathematically challenged . . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Bold prediction: If the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase, the planet will continue to warm.
Bold prediction 2. The amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase because we arent currently changing anything.
[/quote]
Again - total BS - no causal link between rise in co2 and a rise in temperature EXCEPT for the undisputible fact that a rise in temperature causes a rise in atmospheric co2 - so you have it back-ass-wards - just reading the data.
Also see my ealier link where the british dude totally busts the entire concept altogther form a scientific and mathematic certainty.
You need to catch up on the real science and quit reading all of the garbage pseudo-science the AGW crowd has been polluting the air with . . .[/quote]
I read as much as I could of your junk science link. I found it utterly incomprehensible. Without disputing the claims, what are your qualifications for understanding the complicated mathematical formulas and advanced chemistry and physics presented on that site?[/quote]
What does my qualifications have to do with the veracity of the data, formulae, equations and conclusions on that site? NADA - that’s what. Argue the data.
What, do you need it explained to you in simple english to comprehend it?[/quote]
So I’ll take it that you have no qualifications to interpret the data presented or to evaluate its veracity. Neither do I. Im going to take the word of the worlds leading scientists and not some fringe website that provides 3 citations for pages and pages of dense text.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I mean, seriously, it’s even got cute pictures and graphs for the linguistically and mathematically challenged . . . .[/quote]
This thread is what I call the climate change circle jerk, I doubt they have even looked at your links.
They called me a Right wing nutjob and we even had one person say he doesn’t see conservatives entering into office anytime soon. These people live in there own reality, facts and logic do not apply to them.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
).[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
Why would it have to massive, [/quote]
Well, what most scientists in literally dozens of fields have realized is that the environment is changing rapidly in many ways as a response to an increase in temperature. For instance, we know that birds are migrating later in the fall and sooner in the winter each year. Hundreds of species populations and migratory patterns all show that the earth is warming. Therefore it’s not as simple as paying off a few climatologists to create some data, someone would literally be paying off thousands and thousands of scientists (including almost every major university in this country) to create data. It’s just practically unimaginable.
Short answer is that there is an abundance of data to support that GW is real. That doesn’t mean we know why though.[/quote]
Birds and Animals that are migratory depend on the length of day, not how hot it is.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I mean, seriously, it’s even got cute pictures and graphs for the linguistically and mathematically challenged . . . .[/quote]
This thread is what I call the climate change circle jerk, I doubt they have even looked at your links.
They called me a Right wing nutjob and we even had one person say he doesn’t see conservatives entering into office anytime soon. These people live in there own reality, facts and logic do not apply to them.[/quote]
You are a right wing nutjob.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I mean, seriously, it’s even got cute pictures and graphs for the linguistically and mathematically challenged . . . .[/quote]
This thread is what I call the climate change circle jerk, I doubt they have even looked at your links.
They called me a Right wing nutjob and we even had one person say he doesn’t see conservatives entering into office anytime soon. These people live in there own reality, facts and logic do not apply to them.[/quote]
You are a right wing nutjob.[/quote]
Libertarians are right wing nujobs?
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I mean, seriously, it’s even got cute pictures and graphs for the linguistically and mathematically challenged . . . .[/quote]
This thread is what I call the climate change circle jerk, I doubt they have even looked at your links.
They called me a Right wing nutjob and we even had one person say he doesn’t see conservatives entering into office anytime soon. These people live in there own reality, facts and logic do not apply to them.[/quote]
You are a right wing nutjob.[/quote]
Libertarians are right wing nujobs?[/quote]
You hardly classify as a Libertarian. But then again, I wouldn’t classify you as a Republican either.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
So I’ll take it that you have no qualifications to interpret the data presented or to evaluate its veracity. Neither do I. Im going to take the word of the worlds leading scientists and not some fringe website that provides 3 citations for pages and pages of dense text.
[/quote]
LMAO - just keep dodging the data, good luck with that
If you can’t understand this, you obviously wouldn’t be able to the “adjusted” data used by your “experts” but you still accept the veracity of that data- nice. Just randomly choose which data sounds nicest to you and go with that - you’ll go far on that kind of logic . . . . no, really . . .
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Oh its going to be rough to switch to wind, tide, solar, carbon capture, nuclear and all that. But it has to be done.[/quote]
Well because you say so that must make it need to happen… Nutjob.[/quote]
Remember this John S. This was the first time nutjob was introduced into the equation…by you. So much for facts etc. You also called me a dumbass. How is it you are trying to claim a moral highground now?
Oh right, because you have lost touch with reality.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You hardly classify as a Libertarian. But then again, I wouldn’t classify you as a Republican either.[/quote]
Not sure how you couldn’t classify me as a Libertarian.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Oh its going to be rough to switch to wind, tide, solar, carbon capture, nuclear and all that. But it has to be done.[/quote]
Well because you say so that must make it need to happen… Nutjob.[/quote]
Remember this John S. This was the first time nutjob was introduced into the equation…by you. So much for facts etc. You also called me a dumbass. How is it you are trying to claim a moral highground now?
Oh right, because you have lost touch with reality.[/quote]
I explained to you why you are in the wrong with your question, and Irishsteel has provided the facts back on page 1 I believe.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
So I’ll take it that you have no qualifications to interpret the data presented or to evaluate its veracity. Neither do I. Im going to take the word of the worlds leading scientists and not some fringe website that provides 3 citations for pages and pages of dense text.
[/quote]
LMAO - just keep dodging the data, good luck with that
If you can’t understand this, you obviously wouldn’t be able to the “adjusted” data used by your “experts” but you still accept the veracity of that data- nice. Just randomly choose which data sounds nicest to you and go with that - you’ll go far on that kind of logic . . . . no, really . . .[/quote]
You have yet to show me that you have any kind of understanding of this data either. I freely admit that I don’t and I don’t have time to look up comparisons of the earths atmosphere to convection and induction ovens. I leave a lot of complicated analysis to experts. Again, I’m not randomly choosing data. I’m trusting scientific experts and being skeptical of some website linked to me on a muscle building website where even the few citations provided are improperly cited making it all but impossible to efficiently evaluate the veracity of any of it.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Oh its going to be rough to switch to wind, tide, solar, carbon capture, nuclear and all that. But it has to be done.[/quote]
Well because you say so that must make it need to happen… Nutjob.[/quote]
Remember this John S. This was the first time nutjob was introduced into the equation…by you. So much for facts etc. You also called me a dumbass. How is it you are trying to claim a moral highground now?
Oh right, because you have lost touch with reality.[/quote]
I explained to you why you are in the wrong with your question, and Irishsteel has provided the facts back on page 1 I believe.[/quote]
I was asking about how you came to your conclusion about global warming. You have done nothing but dodge the question.
Also curious if you read the open letter.
The most important and sensible part to me was their point about the scientific method being inherently adversarial. Theories are proposed, published and then picked apart by the scientific community. Fame, distinction and grant money awaits the scientist that can make a convincing argument that derails conventional wisdom.
If the information you presented were convincing proof that global warming is not taking place I’m sure whoever wrote it would be interested in publishing their data to be reviewed by experts and not body builders.
You know who signed that letter?
Faculty of Stanford, Yale, Princeton, UC davis, UC Berkely, Harvard, Harvard Med, Johns Hopkins, Michigan U, Missouri U, MIT, University of Chicago, Columbia U, National Institute of Health, UCLA, Howard Hughes medical, University of Oregon, Ohio State U, Georgia Tech and basically EVERY other top school in the United states as well as some corporations. I mean seriously like EVERY reputable academic institution. A few websites on the internet just don’t trump that for me.
I eagerly await your reply.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
I was asking about how you came to your conclusion about global warming. You have done nothing but dodge the question.[/quote]
My conclusion is simple, the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods since it was created, it has been much warmer. We are also in a downward trend now which can easily be seen by the graphs.
Not dodging but the man made part is not proven and you are acting like I have to disprove it. It is up to you to prove that the last warming period we had is 1, going to suddenly reverse trends and start warming up again and 2, that it is caused by man.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
I was asking about how you came to your conclusion about global warming. You have done nothing but dodge the question.[/quote]
My conclusion is simple, the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods since it was created, it has been much warmer. We are also in a downward trend now which can easily be seen by the graphs.
Not dodging but the man made part is not proven and you are acting like I have to disprove it. It is up to you to prove that the last warming period we had is 1, going to suddenly reverse trends and start warming up again and 2, that it is caused by man.[/quote]
So you know better than the scientists at the above institutions?
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
So I’ll take it that you have no qualifications to interpret the data presented or to evaluate its veracity. Neither do I. Im going to take the word of the worlds leading scientists and not some fringe website that provides 3 citations for pages and pages of dense text.
[/quote]
LMAO - just keep dodging the data, good luck with that
If you can’t understand this, you obviously wouldn’t be able to the “adjusted” data used by your “experts” but you still accept the veracity of that data- nice. Just randomly choose which data sounds nicest to you and go with that - you’ll go far on that kind of logic . . . . no, really . . .[/quote]
You have yet to show me that you have any kind of understanding of this data either. I freely admit that I don’t and I don’t have time to look up comparisons of the earths atmosphere to convection and induction ovens. I leave a lot of complicated analysis to experts. Again, I’m not randomly choosing data. I’m trusting scientific experts and being skeptical of some website linked to me on a muscle building website where even the few citations provided are improperly cited making it all but impossible to efficiently evaluate the veracity of any of it.
[/quote]
Dance on, Dance on . . … If you looked at my post, you’ll see I gave you two links that I found with, what, maybe 30 seconds with google search. In addition, I also provided you with the expert witness of a member of the very climate panel you so admire given before congress just a few days ago, and I also gave you a very basic principle backed up by the data you admire from the panel, something very easy to prove dates of rise in temp compared to dates of rise in co2 - - - now, I have given you some expert witness and a factual principle disproving AGW altogether, and your only reply is asking me what my qualifications are . . . wow - very intellectually stimulating conversation - glad you’d rather discuss me than the data - my ego loves the nice tender massage you are trying to give it, just a little lower, yeah, right there . . . ohhh sweetie, such nice hands . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
So I’ll take it that you have no qualifications to interpret the data presented or to evaluate its veracity. Neither do I. Im going to take the word of the worlds leading scientists and not some fringe website that provides 3 citations for pages and pages of dense text.
[/quote]
LMAO - just keep dodging the data, good luck with that
If you can’t understand this, you obviously wouldn’t be able to the “adjusted” data used by your “experts” but you still accept the veracity of that data- nice. Just randomly choose which data sounds nicest to you and go with that - you’ll go far on that kind of logic . . . . no, really . . .[/quote]
You have yet to show me that you have any kind of understanding of this data either. I freely admit that I don’t and I don’t have time to look up comparisons of the earths atmosphere to convection and induction ovens. I leave a lot of complicated analysis to experts. Again, I’m not randomly choosing data. I’m trusting scientific experts and being skeptical of some website linked to me on a muscle building website where even the few citations provided are improperly cited making it all but impossible to efficiently evaluate the veracity of any of it.
[/quote]
Dance on, Dance on . . … If you looked at my post, you’ll see I gave you two links that I found with, what, maybe 30 seconds with google search. In addition, I also provided you with the expert witness of a member of the very climate panel you so admire given before congress just a few days ago, and I also gave you a very basic principle backed up by the data you admire from the panel, something very easy to prove dates of rise in temp compared to dates of rise in co2 - - - now, I have given you some expert witness and a factual principle disproving AGW altogether, and your only reply is asking me what my qualifications are . . . wow - very intellectually stimulating conversation - glad you’d rather discuss me than the data - my ego loves the nice tender massage you are trying to give it, just a little lower, yeah, right there . . . ohhh sweetie, such nice hands . . . [/quote]
google search is not reliable
That one link, I think the one with the ‘expert witness’ wouldnt work for me.
I am assuming you are reluctant to post any qualifications that would lead me to view your posts as more credible because you have no such credentials.
This further leads me to believe that you are being duped by poor science yourself.
I beleive scientists at harvard, MIT, Yale, Berkeley etc can be wrong but I trust them a whole lot more than I trust you.