Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Sceptics conclude Earth has warmedFollow

#127 Oct 26 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet, despite several requests to do so, you failed to show that the group of scientists used for the IPCC consensus was any less filled with the scientific equivalent of watch repairmen.

Funny. I did your homework on your petition, go find out exactly how many in the IPCC and let me know. I think I told you this last time as well but I guess you've been too lazy since then. I personally haven't bothered because, just as I said then, my arguments have never rested exclusively on the IPCC.

Quote:
The point you seem to keep missing is that I'm treating both the same.

Yeah. That's why no one takes you seriously Smiley: smile

Quote:
To be honest, I didn't even click the links

I know. I'd have been shocked if you had. Hell, after three years you haven't even bothered looking into the IPCC yet despite it being so "important" to you. Your idea of "science" is whatever the GOP told you to think that day.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128 Oct 26 2011 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Why can we not have any conservatives that are true conservatives and not just trolls??
#129 Oct 26 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Psst! Joph. You're the one claiming that one groups consensus is important while the other's isn't. It's up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#130 Oct 26 2011 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Only Gbaji would celebrate his posting a completely discredited petition from 1998. wow.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#131 Oct 26 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Only Gbaji would celebrate his posting a completely discredited petition from 1998. wow.


You're a decade off I think. And I love how you apply the "completely discredited" label so selectively. What have you done to check the verification of the IPCC consensus? Anything? Isn't that the point here? Why accept one and dismiss the other if you can't be bothered to apply the same criteria to both?


You're also missing the point (still!). The point of the petition was not to create some credible argument that ACC wasn't happening, but to draw attention to the flawed method of using a "scientific consensus" to drive public policy. It was not intended to be credible. It was intended to make you realize that the first consensus isn't credible either.

How do you still fail to get this? I've only explained it like 5 times so far (and an equal number of times in the older thread). No amount of debunking the petition or those who signed it affects the issue at hand. All it does do is show the hypocrisy in those who go out of their way to attack one set of scientists while blindly accepting the word of another. Fortunately, Joph fell right into that perfectly, but through the miracle of "cause before logic" thinking, he and most other posters are unwilling or unable to admit it.


If your first response upon hearing about that petition was to question its findings and the people who made it, but you didn't do this when hearing about the IPCC consensus, you are acting in a hypocritical manner. Can't be more simple and straightforward than that. Joph has freely admitted that he has not and will not check on the people who signed the IPCC consensus and apply the same standards to them. Thus, he proves his hypocrisy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#132 Oct 26 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Only Gbaji would celebrate his posting a completely discredited petition from 1998. wow.


You're a decade off I think. And I love how you apply the "completely discredited" label so selectively. What have you done to check the verification of the IPCC consensus? Anything? Isn't that the point here? Why accept one and dismiss the other if you can't be bothered to apply the same criteria to both?
Doesn't look like it You posted it in 2008, but it certainly doesn't date from them. I get it, you didn't actually read the thread the first time, why would you read it now. It was just a test to make us think remember? The fact that the petition and most of the people in it were garbage doesn't actually matter remember? That was your point. Somehow the fact that your link was complete rubbish reflects badly on people who disagree with it. Magical.

Edited, Oct 26th 2011 9:01pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#133 Oct 26 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Psst! Joph. You're the one claiming that one groups consensus is important while the other's isn't. It's up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

Yeah, I'll leave it for you to find the flaws in that Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Oct 26 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Well look at it logically Jophiel. His consensus was complete garbage, therefore all consensuses are complete garbage.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#135 Oct 26 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Even that's avoiding the larger issue: the whole IPCC thing was his strawman from the start.

When you fail to knock down your own strawman, you've seriously failed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#136 Oct 26 2011 at 9:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Jophiel wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
What this chart does show is that over the last several thousand years the cooling has slowed somewhat from previous cycles, this can be attributed to green house gases, but we aren't warming, we are stabilizing if anything and slowing the cycle down.

Except that we are indeed warming. Your graph just isn't detailed enough in the short terms to reflect it.

You may find these articles interesting.
Previous cooling patterns
Empirical evidence for CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect
-and-
Less detailed but directly related to your link, How do we know an ice age isn't just around the corner, discussing the Vostok data.



Because the short term is irrelevant that is the point, are we warmer then we were 200 years ago, sure we are, can we attribute that to the increase in CO2 levels caused by the industrial era we live in, of course we can. But short term comparison is minimalistic at best when discussing the human influence on climate change currently we are still about 2 degrees cooler than we were 300,000 years ago at its peak, and the trend over the last 10,000-20,000 years is relative stability in the climate. The earth has been warming for the past 5 million years, humans have been around for about 140,000 of those years.

Again thank you for the links but they are not really related to what I am talking about, well at least the first two are not (I am not disputing the CO2 levels compared to the past I am disputing the impact of them on the climate), the last one (I read the more indepth version via the link at the end) is. Again all this shows is that we have entered an age of relative stability, the last age of similar effect lasted for 30,000 years, currently we are about halfway through that in the present stabilization of the climate. Does this mean we are delaying the cooling process or are we simply experiencing this extended length of temperature stability like we saw in ice cores from 400,000 years ago.

The overall data shows that for the last 5 million years the earth has been gradually warming, 300,000 years ago the earth was warmer than it is today, 400,000 years ago there was a 30,000 year period where temperature was more or less stable. Currently our temperature is more or less stable just as it was 400,000 years ago, for around 30,000 years.

Personally I find the geological study of this stuff to be fascinating, and if it turns out that some study comes along and shows we have seriously @#%^ed sh*t up, I think it would be an awesome read. But presently everything we have unearthed shows the same relative trends as other points in history. Thanks again for the read Joph good links were good.


(i noticed Gbaji has hi-jacked this thread in the name of redundancy so this will be my last post that is relative to the original discussion.)


Edited, Oct 26th 2011 11:58pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#137 Oct 26 2011 at 10:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
Because the short term is irrelevant that is the point

That's... exactly the opposite of the point.

Quote:
Again thank you for the links but they are not really related to what I am talking about, well at least the first two are not (I am not disputing the CO2 levels compared to the past I am disputing the impact of them on the climate)

The link was directly about the impact of CO2 on the climate. You can measure not only the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but also the effect that CO2 explicitly is having on the outgoing radiative energy (it's decreasing it, meaning that more radiative energy is trapped). Then a bunch of math to back up the effects of this trapped heat. Honestly, they couldn't make it much clearer.

Quote:
this will be my last post that is relative to the original discussion

Fair enough. I'd invite you to continue reading about the topic.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Oct 26 2011 at 10:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
You really have to wonder how much heat the processors of these global warming modeling computers gives off. I bet we'd be in a new ice age if they would stop rendering climate data all the time!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#139 Oct 26 2011 at 11:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Quote:
Fair enough. I'd invite you to continue reading about the topic.


Nice selective quoting, I was enjoying the discussion, but I am not going to argue over knucklehead gbaji arguing over some sh*t that happened three years ago. (nice troll though whomever it was). But I see you just took the opportunity to slam someone who doesn't agree with you.

I don't agree with what you think so what, go @#%^ yourself.


(also it was hotter 300'000 years ago with much much less CO2, in the link you gave the last chart in it shows we must increase our current CO2 emissions by some 20X to match the temperature from 300'000 years ago. @#%^ your CO2 heating bullsh*t, the CO2 isn't heating, the CO2 is keeping the heat in, this is from your crushing links. Again, Go @#%^ yourself.)



Edited, Oct 27th 2011 1:38am by rdmcandie

Edited, Oct 27th 2011 1:39am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#140 Oct 26 2011 at 11:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
I don't agree with what you think so what, go @#%^ yourself

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141 Oct 26 2011 at 11:51 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Jophiel wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
I don't agree with what you think so what, go @#%^ yourself

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Smiley: thumbsup


Look if you want to have a discussion send me pm, you can even put it in here in quotes if you want to lulz with your friends I don't give a sh*t. I am just not going to try and discuss over the idiot arguing over some stupid petition that means @#%^ all with his stupidly long posts beating around the bush about said ****. I was enjoying or exchange and I invite you to continue it in pm's, at least until ****** boy stops ******** about sh*t that means sh*t.

Or you can sit there with your **** in your hand celebrating your sweet burn on me, doesn't matter me.


Edited, Oct 27th 2011 1:53am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#142 Oct 27 2011 at 12:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I have no idea what set you off ape irate. You said you were done and I said that's cool and suggested you might want to continue reading about it (since you had read the links).

Then the rage-quit. Rock on.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#143 Oct 27 2011 at 12:10 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Oh well I took it as a douchebag way of saying you don't know anything, considering you said as much earlier. I don't know why I would take it that way Smiley: rolleyes.

Look Im all for good discussion but I can only read/post here between sleep-work-life ****, I don't want to have to skim through a page of posts to see who replied to me, and with what. When needle **** starts spinning his top I have to, like I did tonight. Mostly it is because he is arguing about **** that happened a while ago, that really has no bearing on the discussion that was taking place. Now im not complaining about the topic shift thats cool, I don't care, but I was having a good time spit balling ****, and don't feel like having to sift through stuff.

I suppose I could have misread your post as a snipe but considering the subtext of your arguments, and pretty much saying I don't knowing what I am talking about makes me think not.

So either PM me, or see you on the weekend when gibberish boy is off for a few days.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#144 Oct 27 2011 at 3:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Joph wins, rage-quit-ality.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#145 Oct 27 2011 at 4:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Holy ****, nice meltdown, rdm Smiley: laugh Smiley: laugh
#146 Oct 27 2011 at 6:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Wow. I've re-read Joph's post twice now and failed to find the slam.

Losing arguments must really hurt. I, of course, wouldn't know.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#147 Oct 27 2011 at 6:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Losing arguments must really hurt. I, of course, wouldn't know.

'Cause you never post Smiley: madSmiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#148 Oct 27 2011 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Samira wrote:
Losing arguments must really hurt. I, of course, wouldn't know.
That sounds like a line from a Dos Equis commercial.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#149 Oct 27 2011 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
It's been a long time since we had a quality meltdown.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#150 Oct 27 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
Losing arguments must really hurt. I, of course, wouldn't know.

'Cause you never post Smiley: madSmiley: frown


I can only post in the evenings now, and it's lonely in here. Smiley: frown

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#151 Oct 27 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Samira wrote:
Losing arguments must really hurt. I, of course, wouldn't know.
That sounds like a line from a Dos Equis commercial.



I don't always argue on the Internet. But when I do, I prefer batShit insanity.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 316 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (316)