Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

the supreme court rules ...


zmanzzzz
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 346
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:D

 

 

And despite your googling, as you said, you have yet to produce one fact contradicting any of what was put forth in the article I posted. Furthermore, the article clearly points out even to the most elementary reader that the data used for CO2 emissions to prove man-made global warming were obviously and blatantly fudged to acommodate the theory.

 

 

:D

 

im still googling got tons of stuff just wait

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BB is actually really proud of himself that he can search the innernets and cherry pick articles from an vast minority of scientists. :D

 

 

I said it before, I'll say it again - disprove the claims being made.

 

And funny that you'd use the words "cherry picking" when that's exactly what's being done with the CO2 numbers to scare uneducated weakminded people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said it before, I'll say it again - disprove the claims being made.

 

And funny that you'd use the words "cherry picking" when that's exactly what's being done with the CO2 numbers to scare uneducated weakminded people.

 

like republicans ???

 

oh i have some ill post it soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

current scientific consensus opinion is on the antrhopogenic effects on global warming? :D

 

 

 

I don't think using this consensus argument is a very good way to go about proving your point. There are plenty of examples where consensus scientific opinion was later proved to be absolutely wrong.

Edited by The Irish Doggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would that include people who can't comprehend a simple graph and have no clue what the current scientific consensus opinion is on the antrhopogenic effects on global warming? :D

 

 

Did you even look at the article showing how the data was cherry picked - or even the graph showing which values were included & which were excluded? Did you see the CO2 levels that were measured from years as recent as 2 decades ago up to millions of years ago were much higher than that 330 ppm standard you want to hold as proof of your assertions?

 

That graph you want to use has no value - it has been badly skewed by intentionally omitted data left out to prove that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming, even if studies show CO2 is a lagging factor to warming temperatures, and not a leading factor.

 

The graph (and its "amazingly" high 1 point - :D ) that you want to hold as your standard of proof for your entire argument has no relevance whatsoever.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think using this consensus argument is a very good way to go about proving your point. There are plenty of examples where consensus scientific opinion was later proved to be absolutely wrong.

 

 

Shhhhhh! Using facts isn't allowed here. Science by consensus is okay as long as it backs a ridiculous lib position that can't be proven through scientific facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think using this consensus argument is a very good way to go about proving your point. There are plenty of examples where consensus scientific opinion was later proved to be absolutely wrong.

 

 

I'm not sure you get my point. I think the scientific consensus has to be factored heavily in a weight of evidence approach, the BB's of the world, fail to acknowledge the overwhelming majority opinion exists.

 

And to address your post directly, there are many more examples of the consensus scientific opinion later proving to be accurate than absolutely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the scientific consensus has to be factored heavily in a weight of evidence approach,

 

 

And of course, when the consensus opinion is directly contradicted by scientific facts, the scientific facts always take a back seat to opinion, don't they?

 

Geez, that's incredible to think that any rational adult would think that opinion has any weight in science when compared to fact.

 

Sounds like you're a good candidate to join the Flat Earth Society. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course, when the consensus opinion is directly contradicted by scientific facts, the scientific facts always take a back seat to opinion, don't they?

 

Geez, that's incredible to think that any rational adult would think that opinion has any weight in science when compared to fact.

 

Sounds like you're a good candidate to join the Flat Earth Society. :D

 

 

A professional scientific opinion is based on science goofball. :tup: The evidence collected thus far leads the overwhelming majority of climatologists to conclude that it is almost certain the humans have an effect on global warming.

 

BB talking science = Blitz talking bout dead horses. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A professional scientific opinion is based on science goofball. :D The evidence collected thus far leads the overwhelming majority of climatologists to conclude that it is almost certain the humans have an effect on global warming.

 

BB talking science = Blitz talking bout dead horses. :D

 

 

And at what point does an opinion supercede a fact in science?

 

Geez, having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a fungo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and

2) the crass way this demagoguery is employed in furtherance of a specific political agenda that, in realtity, predates and supercedes any concern over anthropogenic global warming.

 

 

Related to the sole issue of CO2 = Global Warming and a failure to incorporate ALL factors in one's argument... This pretty much sums it up.

 

Thanx :D

Edited by McBoog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

McBoog, BB...we won. We pwnd them. We humbled them. They are begging for mercy from whatever God they worship. Our arrows blotted out the sun saving the planet from global warming. Ursa is now a Minoris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McBoog, BB...we won. We pwnd them. We humbled them. They are begging for mercy from whatever God they worship. Our arrows blotted out the sun saving the planet from global warming. Ursa is now a Minoris.

 

Nah, doing this :D became too wearisome. It's nice when it stops.

Edited by Ursa Majoris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Using a simple outdoor thermometer I have come to the conclusion that it gets warmerEVERY YEAR during the summer months. Coincidence? Hmmm. I think not.

 

06 was the hottest year every recorded. 2nd is 1998. this year is record breaking.

 

nuff said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information