| Political Talk |
| Return to Board • Menu • Bottom |  Page 3 of 3 |
| Message |
re: new data/theory on Antarctic ice shelf meltingquote: out of law school. because you were at the track. But you were in law school before you completed your undergrad...thats why you then went back to finish your undergrad. I have the thread bookmarked for you if you need a refresh on your lies. Reply • Back to Top |
| changing majors six times is not flunking out. grow a pair. find something substantive to whine about. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: law school isn't a major otto. a 188 iq must surely know such details. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: No the real story is that the story is constantly changing. First it was gonna be an ice age. Then it was Global Warming. Now it's "Climate Change". And now since surface and air temperature trends are not suppportive of the narrative it's "water temperature". No what it is, is BS the man's activity is causing it! This post was edited on 4/26 at 4:34 pm Reply • Back to Top |
quote: ^^^^^ Amen Dont forget that 30 years ago we were scared of Global COOLING. They are all theories and not facts as we cannot measure or substantiate the data either way. Global Cooling Reply • Back to Top |
quote: shite. I may have to relearn what I'd forgotten since grad school.  But cherry-picking data to fit the prior conclusion is still bad research. IMO there is something interesting here worthy of investigation but claims of certainty are overdone. That is typical in the history of scientific research, actually. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: agreed. My argument is when scientists forgo being researchers to become activists. That is the problem with many of the "alarmists" Reply • Back to Top |
quote: In order to be successful a researcher in any field simply must actively push the story his research has to tell. Nobody ever made a career out of disproving anything. It is not only possible but not uncommon to have a lifelong career built on work that is wrong or worthless provided nobody disproves it until your retirement. So I don't blame global warming researchers for pushing an agenda. Ultimately their careers depend on doing that. But it doesn't mean they are right. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:Google how Briffa used just a few ring data from just a few trees to come up with a time-temperature series. He simply tossed the ones that didn't agree with his conclusion. But kept the ones that did. Awesome. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: You do understand that the Antarctic ice shelf ALWAYS MELTS, every single year, during the warmer parts of the year. You must also understand, that every fricking year, around the colder times, the ice shelves expand. Also, i'll pose the question that you can never answer, and that usually drives you liberals out of your own global warming thread. Explain the shifting in climate from the little ice age to the medieval warming period, and how that is considered cyclical, yet today's current climate change is considered man made. Explain the shift in climate in europe from mediterranean to a more sub-tropical climate in the 1700's, and how this is natural, yet today's climate is man-made. Explain record highs and lows in the early 1900's, and how those are not man made, yet now any change in temperature is man-made CO2. Explain how, CO2, which is .08% of our climate, is now the driving factor of ambient temperatures, when water vapor consists of more than 20% of our climate. Also, what should the world's thermometer be? This post was edited on 4/27 at 10:17 am Reply • Back to Top |
quote:I agree. When you stop refering to your research as "research" and start referring to it as "the cause" you've jumped the shark and lost your objectivity as a scientist. Yet this is exactly how the leaders in the "climate science" community refer to their "research" throughout the Climategate emails when they thought no one was listening. Is it "a cause" or research. Two very different things. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:Aye. But just listen to the warmists. They constantly talk about how non-biased science is. How it is agenda free, when funded by government. Yet if exxon pays for it... Reply • Back to Top |
| Paging Otto. Will you respond argument? This post was edited on 4/27 at 12:23 pm Reply • Back to Top |
quote:  Reply • Back to Top |
| and it appears otto was run out of his own thread.....again Reply • Back to Top |
| Whether the Earth is warming or not, it's clear that it has been used and exaggerated to advance a specific political agenda and that the science has become less important than the policy. I mean, my gosh, we all want a clean environment...but do we really need the government telling us we have to buy $20 light bulbs? The arrogance of thinking that in about 100 years of automobiles and electricity we have done incomprehensible, irreparable damage to a planet that is four and a half billion years old is staggering. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: The Earth naturally goes through warming and cooling phases. Anyone with a mediocre education knows this. Its all in the geological record that has been studied for quite some time now. Also just to point out to all of the posters who base their argument on small increments of time i.e. 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years... you look like a ignorant frick. The earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old. You are essentially looking at a millisecond of a crime and claiming to know how it all played out. Now, man causing global warming? I doubt it. However, we do have a impact on our environment to some extent. This post was edited on 4/27 at 5:33 pm Reply • Back to Top • Refresh |
| Return to Board | ||
 Page 3 of 3   | ||
on 4/26 at 2:36 pm to 
on 4/26 at 3:10 pm to 
on 4/26 at 4:33 pm to 
on 4/26 at 7:59 pm to 
on 4/27 at 12:47 am to 
on 4/27 at 1:40 pm to