[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
I think you put way too much faith in global warming scientists coop. They’ve been getting paid to say the same fucking shit for years now.[/quote]
Thanks for the Scientific FACTS 
[/quote]
Oh don’t worry I was just getting warmed up. I’m quite interested to hear any “science” you may want to toss my way. Any time is good
And before I really get into any science; I would just like to say that humanity as a whole really needs to get the fuck over themselves. We’re not that big of a deal. Planet Earth is much more robust than she gets credit for. The amount of climate change elicited by massive volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts ridiculously dwarfs anything humanity has ever done and probably ever will do. In all likelihood the Earth will outlive us and be just fucking fine for ages after we’re gone until the sun comes to swallow it up. We are cosmically insignificant.
DBCooper cites an article from a left-wing propagandist rag, and has the audacity to question the validity of an article cited from Forbes?
No hypocrisy here, folks. Nope. Not even a little.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
I think you put way too much faith in global warming scientists coop. They’ve been getting paid to say the same fucking shit for years now.[/quote]
Thanks for the Scientific FACTS
[/quote]
Oh don’t worry I was just getting warmed up. I’m quite interested to hear any “science” you may want to toss my way. Any time is good :)[/quote]
I am no more qualified than you to speak
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
DBCooper cites an article from a left-wing propagandist rag, and has the audacity to question the validity of an article cited from Forbes?
No hypocrisy here, folks. Nope. Not even a little. 0
[/quote]
You should consult Psychology Today for all your plumbing facts
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
I think you put way too much faith in global warming scientists coop. They’ve been getting paid to say the same fucking shit for years now.[/quote]
Thanks for the Scientific FACTS
[/quote]
Oh don’t worry I was just getting warmed up. I’m quite interested to hear any “science” you may want to toss my way. Any time is good :)[/quote]
I am no more qualified than you to speak
[/quote]
You’re as qualified as any thinking adult. Do you know anything about global warming or do you just trust whatever you hear?
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
I think you put way too much faith in global warming scientists coop. They’ve been getting paid to say the same fucking shit for years now.[/quote]
Thanks for the Scientific FACTS
[/quote]
Oh don’t worry I was just getting warmed up. I’m quite interested to hear any “science” you may want to toss my way. Any time is good :)[/quote]
I am no more qualified than you to speak
[/quote]
You’re as qualified as any thinking adult. Do you know anything about global warming or do you just trust whatever you hear?[/quote]
I know most Scientists claim it is man made . I have more important things to do rather than occupy all my free time researching every minutiae of life
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
DBCooper cites an article from a left-wing propagandist rag, and has the audacity to question the validity of an article cited from Forbes?
No hypocrisy here, folks. Nope. Not even a little.
[/quote]
How fucking stupid are you? It wasn’t a study funded or conducted by that website. That site was just reporting the results of the study. If you search around on Google for, oh, I don’t know, about 5 seconds, you can find literally page after page of links to articles simply reporting the results of the study. The study’s results are being reported in everything from the Wall Street Journal to Rolling Stone and everything in between.
More about the reality of the Forbes piece…even his ‘source material’ provider says he is lying.
Dr. Pieter Tans, the scientist who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has rebuked the claims in your editorial. Dr. Tans writes:
?Taylor is factually wrong about the global temperature. According to the NASA GISS web site the year 1995 was 0.16 deg.C cooler than 2012. He could have compared to 1994 or 1996, in which case the difference from 2012 would have been 0.31 and 0.25 C cooler respectively. Therefore it makes sense to not compare individual years, but to take a 10-year smoothed average. In that case 1995 was cooler than 2012 by about 0.28 C. The second decimal depends a little on your smoothing technique.?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
More about the reality of the Forbes piece…even his ‘source material’ provider says he is lying.
Dr. Pieter Tans, the scientist who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has rebuked the claims in your editorial. Dr. Tans writes:
?Taylor is factually wrong about the global temperature. According to the NASA GISS web site the year 1995 was 0.16 deg.C cooler than 2012. He could have compared to 1994 or 1996, in which case the difference from 2012 would have been 0.31 and 0.25 C cooler respectively. Therefore it makes sense to not compare individual years, but to take a 10-year smoothed average. In that case 1995 was cooler than 2012 by about 0.28 C. The second decimal depends a little on your smoothing technique.?[/quote]
If 10 years makes sense, then wouldn’t 100 years make better sense?
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
More about the reality of the Forbes piece…even his ‘source material’ provider says he is lying.
Dr. Pieter Tans, the scientist who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has rebuked the claims in your editorial. Dr. Tans writes:
?Taylor is factually wrong about the global temperature. According to the NASA GISS web site the year 1995 was 0.16 deg.C cooler than 2012. He could have compared to 1994 or 1996, in which case the difference from 2012 would have been 0.31 and 0.25 C cooler respectively. Therefore it makes sense to not compare individual years, but to take a 10-year smoothed average. In that case 1995 was cooler than 2012 by about 0.28 C. The second decimal depends a little on your smoothing technique.?[/quote]
If 10 years makes sense, then wouldn’t 100 years make better sense? [/quote]
In the article, that is the timeframe he uses. What he wrote is a blatant, bald faced lie. That’s what I’m getting at.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
More about the reality of the Forbes piece…even his ‘source material’ provider says he is lying.
Dr. Pieter Tans, the scientist who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has rebuked the claims in your editorial. Dr. Tans writes:
?Taylor is factually wrong about the global temperature. According to the NASA GISS web site the year 1995 was 0.16 deg.C cooler than 2012. He could have compared to 1994 or 1996, in which case the difference from 2012 would have been 0.31 and 0.25 C cooler respectively. Therefore it makes sense to not compare individual years, but to take a 10-year smoothed average. In that case 1995 was cooler than 2012 by about 0.28 C. The second decimal depends a little on your smoothing technique.?[/quote]
If 10 years makes sense, then wouldn’t 100 years make better sense? [/quote]
In the article, that is the timeframe he uses. What he wrote is a blatant, bald faced lie. That’s what I’m getting at.
[/quote]
As am I.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I thought this article had a pretty interesting little chart in it. I found it right after I read an article somewhere about a study showing that 97% of scientific studies into climate change argue that climate change is indeed occurring and man is the force acting upon the climate and provoking this change. I always hear the argument that there isn’t a consensus within the science community about this issue, and sure, there isn’t. ONLY 97% of the scientific community agrees that the rapid acceleration of climate change that we are witnessing is man-made. There’s still a stubborn 3% out there clinging to other theories. I’m sure those 3 percenters are probably funded by the oil industry.
We that lift iron know nothing comes easy. It is not measured in weeks & months but in years and decades. Why would it come easy educating yourself in media headlines? Do the hard work, learn to look deeper for what is going on for the sake of your family and friends.
I always want to grab the neck of liberals & say look you f___in idiot it’s time you understood this country has been under attack from within for a long time. Half of the voting public is lazy enough to allow this internal destruction & doom all of us. Then I realize I have to share the workplace, the streets, public events and forums like this with those of a differing opinion so I forget about the neck grabbing.
Let me explain things in a simple manner.
Liberals believe most written or visual media stories that go against their opinion is supported by A.) evil corporate greed such as from an oil company bent on selling oil & even the air we breathe B.) Loons that live by an archaic belief in a higher power that want to stop you from all fun with what you do with your genitals. C.) well that’s basically it.
Liberals also believe that most anything written or played by media that agrees with them A.) despise the rich B.)want nothing but for all liberals to be equal & live free from hate C.) save your mother earth, so like the Native American you can utilize resources unselfishly shit and shave in streams and ponds and do whatever it is you think Native Americans gracefully did all day.
There has been a long ongoing effort to undermine and hamstring this country financially in order to cause it’s collapse. With a financial collapse who would rescue our traditional American culture with it’s freedoms? None.
But there are many in this new world order of today that would rescue it in order to wipe out it’s constitutional guarantees & begin building another empire with less freedom & rape our natural resources. China or Russia come to mind. There may be another that I will not mention now.
We have been deceived. America has been infiltrated. Enough to influence the education of our people & many in it’s labor forces. Our government representatives throughout each state certainly squanders our resources.
The global warming scam is designed to cause the U.S. to spend so much in resources to clean our industrial infrastructure & make it run on some yet to be proven reliable energy source that it will fail financially. Not all nations participate but wish to put largest blame on America. Why are some countries not required to participate in this saving of the planet? Why are most of those countries that cheat the “save mother earth” movement Communist or Socialist?
Whether it’s the major media omitting the scientists that think global warming is bullshit (why are we to believe only 3% of scientists do not believe in global warming) or the government intimidating conservative politics through gestapo IRS tactics, the government controlling & manipulating the media/associated press illegal phone recordings or the abortion/live baby murder lies, why should you take global warming & liberal media as truth?
Believing this does not mean I want all to drink brown filth from their kitchen faucets. I wish you all to have pure water in your creatine and breathe fresh air while taking your HGH to countries like Australia:
NASA Scientists Predicted a New Ice Age in 1971. (story link below)
Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world’s first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies. (story link below)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971
Link to the actual paper for those interested:
http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
DBCooper cites an article from a left-wing propagandist rag, and has the audacity to question the validity of an article cited from Forbes?
No hypocrisy here, folks. Nope. Not even a little.
[/quote]
How fucking stupid are you? It wasn’t a study funded or conducted by that website. That site was just reporting the results of the study. If you search around on Google for, oh, I don’t know, about 5 seconds, you can find literally page after page of links to articles simply reporting the results of the study. The study’s results are being reported in everything from the Wall Street Journal to Rolling Stone and everything in between.[/quote]
Ain’t it hilarious when someone in a forum says “How fucking stupid are you?”
Let’s turn that question back on you since you are the original poster of this global warming horse shit. Your study IN REALITY says 66.4% of abstracts expressed NO POSITION on global warming.
It reads… “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” ShieldSquare Captcha
The 97% of the 32.6% that endorsed global warming, is what you should have said. That’s a big difference isn’t it?
You’ve been outed.
P.S. thanks CornSprint for link
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
DBCooper cites an article from a left-wing propagandist rag, and has the audacity to question the validity of an article cited from Forbes?
No hypocrisy here, folks. Nope. Not even a little.
[/quote]
How fucking stupid are you? It wasn’t a study funded or conducted by that website. That site was just reporting the results of the study. If you search around on Google for, oh, I don’t know, about 5 seconds, you can find literally page after page of links to articles simply reporting the results of the study. The study’s results are being reported in everything from the Wall Street Journal to Rolling Stone and everything in between.[/quote]
You have referenced “that site” more than once. So stop playing the “it was just a site that…” crap. Think Progress is a radical left-wing propagandist organization and you are one of its followers.
You had every opportunity to criticize the Forbes piece on it’s merits. You didn’t. You ridiculed its validity because it was published by a business magazine. Hypocrisy? Double standard? Pick one.
Seriously nobody is gonna weigh in on this? I can understand if you need some time since this wasn’t one of the 99 things for which that site gave you a convenient little quip.
Won’t anybody play with me?
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
DBCooper cites an article from a left-wing propagandist rag, and has the audacity to question the validity of an article cited from Forbes?
No hypocrisy here, folks. Nope. Not even a little.
[/quote]
How fucking stupid are you? It wasn’t a study funded or conducted by that website. That site was just reporting the results of the study. If you search around on Google for, oh, I don’t know, about 5 seconds, you can find literally page after page of links to articles simply reporting the results of the study. The study’s results are being reported in everything from the Wall Street Journal to Rolling Stone and everything in between.[/quote]
Ain’t it hilarious when someone in a forum says “How fucking stupid are you?”
Let’s turn that question back on you since you are the original poster of this global warming horse shit. Your study IN REALITY says 66.4% of abstracts expressed NO POSITION on global warming.
It reads… “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” ShieldSquare Captcha
The 97% of the 32.6% that endorsed global warming, is what you should have said. That’s a big difference isn’t it?
You’ve been outed.
P.S. thanks CornSprint for link
[/quote]
So in other words, 97% of those who take a stance one way or another take the stance that climate change is a reality. Maybe you should practice your reading comprehension skills. Saying "97% of the 32.6% that endorsed global warming isn’t quite what was really going on in that article, was it now? Sorry, come back and try again later.
