more on the global warming front

The chronology of the posts proves you've been pwned again......by me again.....

Poor AssWipe3
 
Rune said:
I guess you didn't read the links either, moron. The links Tom provided actually prove that not only is it debatable
it is simply untrue.

Additionally, myopic man, it was Tin Foil Hat that attacked, not me, but then, the truth never matters to you anyway, does it Bravo?
Poor Blabo.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I had already been sending emails to a friend of mine who is an environmental scientist at Oxford University and I posted the wrong links on here. I much prefer to discuss these matters with him as although he is very much into the consensus he is at least open to discourse and has a logical brain. You however are driven by dogma and politics which should have no place in this debate. I would have thought that a man of the left would be highly suspicious of moves to justify carbon trading which are being heavily backed by the likes of Goldman Sachs, this has the makings of a big a scam as sub prime mortgages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/...ehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Funnily enough I had already been sending emails to a friend of mine who is an environmental scientist at Oxford University and I posted the wrong links on here. I much prefer to discuss these matters with him as although he is very much into the consensus he is at least open to discourse and has a logical brain. You however are driven by dogma and politics which should have no place in this debate. I would have thought that a man of the left would be highly suspicious of moves to justify carbon trading which are being heavily backed by the likes of Goldman Sachs, this has the makings of a big a scam as sub prime mortgages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm
Click to expand...

By Goldman-Sachs, Al Gore and Democrats in general.....

Only gullible morons accept the DNC version of the world without question, even in the face of proof they're shown.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
You however are driven by dogma and politics which should have no place in this debate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/...ehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me right now? The only thing "left" about me is that I support the opposition party to the 1% ruling class of fascists running this country.

Goldman Sachs is part and parcel of the enemy's side.

I hate to break it to you Tom, but the debate, which I am sure is more enjoyable in the lofty halls and ideals of academia, is political.

If it is so tenuous, so unprovable, how can you even take a stance one way or the other?
 
Rune said:
Are you kidding me right now? The only thing "left" about me is that I support the opposition party to the 1% ruling class of fascists running this country.

Goldman Sachs is part and parcel of the enemy's side.

I hate to break it to you Tom, but the debate, which I am sure is more enjoyable in the lofty halls and ideals of academia, is political.

If it is so tenuous, so unprovable, how can you even take a stance one way or the other?
Click to expand...

The science is not political only the interpretation by politicians and businesses using it to their own ends. The scientific method is always about being sceptical and continually testing theories. Anybody who tells you the science is settled is either a fool or a charlatan and most likely both.
 
Rune said:
Are you kidding me right now? The only thing "left" about me is that I support the opposition party to the 1% ruling class of fascists running this country.

Goldman Sachs is part and parcel of the enemy's side.

I hate to break it to you Tom, but the debate, which I am sure is more enjoyable in the lofty halls and ideals of academia, is political.

If it is so tenuous, so unprovable, how can you even take a stance one way or the other?
Click to expand...

And Tom, I'm sure will deduce from your own words, as I have.....

"If it is so tenuous, so unprovable, how can you even take a stance one way or the other"

Obviously, the only thing that is undeniable is the proof of what have happened historically with the earths climate....

and what we imagine might happen is the unprovable part......so why the hell would one blame man for anything ?

Man certainly wasn't the cause of earths climate change in the past....

Pwned by your own words......gotta live that.
 
bravo said:
And yes, fool.....its was Tinfoil that attacked DQ, while you choose to attack ME.....

I don't know if the truth escapes your attention or you're just too fuckin dumb to read and understand who is posting what.

Poor AssWipe3
Click to expand...

Note that I defended DQ.

Poor Blabo
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The science is not political only the interpretation by politicians and businesses using it to their own ends. The scientific method is always about being sceptical and continually testing theories. Anybody who tells you the science is settled is either a fool or a charlatan and most likely both.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
One would think that the fact that 99% of climatologists accept mankind's role in global warming would be sufficient for even the most feeble of minds. I guess not. This will be a losing issue for them, however, because the results are tangible. I just hope people wake up before it's too late.
 
Voltaire said:
One would think that the fact that 99% of climatologists accept mankind's role in global warming would be sufficient for even the most feeble of minds. I guess not. This will be a losing issue for them, however, because the results are tangible. I just hope people wake up before it's too late.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that is one of those canards that is bandied around without being subjected to analysis by many.
 
Voltaire said:
One would think that the fact that 99% of climatologists accept mankind's role in global warming would be sufficient for even the most feeble of minds. I guess not. This will be a losing issue for them, however, because the results are tangible. I just hope people wake up before it's too late.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are saying here, are you claiming 99% of climate scientists (climatologists) have made some kind of definitive determination on mankind's role in global warming? That would seem odd, given the basic fundamentals of the scientific method. Why haven't I heard this? Could it be, maybe you have misconstrued some information you read? I mean, it's real easy to do here... 99% of climatologists believe man MIGHT have SOME effect on climate.... that's a far cry from; 99% of climatologists accept mankind's role.

Here's the bottom line, we don't know what man's effect is, IF ANY, on the climate. It could be, man really is effecting the climate, perhaps man is contributing but mother nature is mitigating the contribution, or it could be that we are misinterpreting the data, or it could be the data is inconclusive? Right now, it can't be said with certainty, that man is causing global warming. Pinheads running around pointing out the earth is getting warmer, is NOT PROOF that it is caused by man!
 
Dixie said:
I don't understand what you are saying here, are you claiming 99% of climate scientists (climatologists) have made some kind of definitive determination on mankind's role in global warming? That would seem odd, given the basic fundamentals of the scientific method. Why haven't I heard this? Could it be, maybe you have misconstrued some information you read? I mean, it's real easy to do here... 99% of climatologists believe man MIGHT have SOME effect on climate.... that's a far cry from; 99% of climatologists accept mankind's role.

Here's the bottom line, we don't know what man's effect is, IF ANY, on the climate. It could be, man really is effecting the climate, perhaps man is contributing but mother nature is mitigating the contribution, or it could be that we are misinterpreting the data, or it could be the data is inconclusive? Right now, it can't be said with certainty, that man is causing global warming. Pinheads running around pointing out the earth is getting warmer, is NOT PROOF that it is caused by man!
Click to expand...

Good grief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

"The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009 that: 'Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.'

The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says: 'Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.'"

Furthermore,

"In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment: 'Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus
 
Voltaire said:
One would think that the fact that 99% of climatologists accept mankind's role in global warming would be sufficient for even the most feeble of minds. I guess not. This will be a losing issue for them, however, because the results are tangible. I just hope people wake up before it's too late.
Click to expand...

99% once said the earth was flat.....
 
Voltaire said:
Good grief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

"The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009 that: 'Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.'

The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says: 'Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.'"

Furthermore,

"In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment: 'Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus
Click to expand...

There are at least 1000 that don't agree with the "consensus".

http://real-agenda.com/2010/12/10/1000-scientists-dissent-over-anthropogenic-warming/
 
bravo said:
The chronology of the posts proves you've been pwned again......by me again.....

Poor AssWipe3
Click to expand...

Bravo, you retard, you have never pwned me even once. WTF are you talking about?
To prove how stupid you are, you thanked Tom's post, where he admitted posting the wrong links, the ones that prove MY case.

Poor Blabo.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The science is not political only the interpretation by politicians and businesses using it to their own ends. The scientific method is always about being sceptical and continually testing theories. Anybody who tells you the science is settled is either a fool or a charlatan and most likely both.
Click to expand...

This debate, at this political debate forum, certainly is political.
 
bravo said:
And Tom, I'm sure will deduce from your own words, as I have.....

"If it is so tenuous, so unprovable, how can you even take a stance one way or the other"

Obviously, the only thing that is undeniable is the proof of what have happened historically with the earths climate....

and what we imagine might happen is the unprovable part......so why the hell would one blame man for anything ?

Man certainly wasn't the cause of earths climate change in the past....

Pwned by your own words......gotta live that.
Click to expand...

Tom is incorrect, there are indeed known facts. The link he provided contains charts of the historical data you refered to.
The data is clear, not only has the temperature been increasing, but it has been doing so continuously despite the mis-inflormation to the contrary currently making the rounds. The earth has continued to warm in the last decade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top