- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Some ????'s for lefties/greenies/GW supporters
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:14 am
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:14 am
Why do yall not acknowledge that there are positive outcomes to GW? LINK
How do you explain that COo2 levels were "safe" during the medieval warm period but the earth was warmer than today? LINK
If I am reading this graph right, global temp rose about 1/2 of that was predicted, how do you explain that and doesn't that make you sketical of the politicans solutions? LINK
How do you explain that COo2 levels were "safe" during the medieval warm period but the earth was warmer than today? LINK
If I am reading this graph right, global temp rose about 1/2 of that was predicted, how do you explain that and doesn't that make you sketical of the politicans solutions? LINK
2
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:32 am to WeeWee
guess the lefties are being sissies today
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:44 am to WeeWee
quote:
guess the lefties are being sissies today
They tend to scurry when dear leader is having a bad week.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:56 am to WeeWee
quote:
Why do yall not acknowledge that there are positive outcomes to GW?
I do. So your question is fricking stupid.
quote:
How do you explain that COo2 levels were "safe" during the medieval warm period but the earth was warmer than today? LINK
The Earth wasn't warmer in the medieval warm period than it was today. The paper you cite refers only to Australia and New Zeeland medieval temperatures. Drawing conclusions about the global temperature based solely on records from Australia and New Zeeland is stupid.
The "review paper" you cite was not subject to the peer review process and is self-published by its authors and their donors (Exxon). It has the same value as tobacco company scientists claiming tobacco doesn't cause cancer. In fact, the founder of the source website "Co2Science" - Craig Idso - has co-authored publications with tobacco company shill Fred Singer. The big corporations are actually hiring the same people to promote disinformation in vastly different scientific arenas (climate science vs.human biology) - and you guys are sucking it all up just the same.
quote:
If I am reading this graph right, global temp rose about 1/2 of that was predicted, how do you explain that and doesn't that make you sketical of the politicans solutions? LINK
1/2 of that was predicted over what period using what method?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:09 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I do. So your question is fricking stupid.
link to your posts supporting that argument
quote:
he paper you cite refers only to Australia and New Zeeland medieval temperatures. Drawing conclusions about the global temperature based solely on records from Australia and New Zeeland is stupid.
the paper provides evidence challenging the notion that the MWP was only a european or northen hemisphere event.
quote:
The "review paper" you cite was not subject to the peer review process and is self-published by its authors and their donors (Exxon). It has the same value as tobacco company scientists claiming tobacco doesn't cause cancer. In fact, the founder of the source website "Co2Science" - Craig Idso - has co-authored publications with tobacco company shill Fred Singer. The big corporations are actually hiring the same people to promote disinformation in vastly different scientific arenas (climate science vs.human biology) - and you guys are sucking it all up just the same.
when you can't attack the info attack the source.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:23 am to WeeWee
If Miami and/or New Orleans goes under water for human or non human related reasons... Ill be pissed.
that is all.
all other benefits or problems i don't really care about.
that is all.
all other benefits or problems i don't really care about.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:58 am to petar
quote:Most of NOLA would already be underwater if not for levees and pumps. Warmists tend to forget that man has the power to adapt.
If Miami and/or New Orleans goes under water for human or non human related reasons... Ill be pissed.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 12:37 pm to WeeWee
quote:
the paper provides evidence challenging the notion that the MWP was only a european or northen hemisphere event.
Great. It does nothing to establish the MWP was globally warmer. And it was written by complete shills doing fake science.
quote:
when you can't attack the info attack the source.
The authors of the paper didn't see fit to expose it to criticism by the peer review process, so why should I bother? If the very people who wrote it didn't think it would withstand anonymous peer review, clearly it isn't worth spit.
I'm sure you read every word of it yourself. You find a blog saying something you like to hear, it has a link to a paper - and you eagerly click over to read over every word, checking its references, even, right?
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 12:40 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Most of NOLA would already be underwater if not for levees and pumps.
Really?
quote:
Warmists tend to forget that man has the power to adapt.
Levees and pumps are free, right?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 12:40 pm to petar
quote:
If Miami and/or New Orleans goes under water for human or non human related reasons... Ill be pissed.
that is all.
all other benefits or problems i don't really care about.
That's because you're a selfish narrow sighted individual.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 12:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Drawing conclusions about the global temperature based solely on records from Australia and New Zeeland is stupid.
Do you want to go down this road? Really?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 1:00 pm to WeeWee
Nope. It just gets old having to respond to every agenda based article that 'disproves' global warming.
The vast amount of science professionals and the vast amount of data support the GW trend. That includes scientists who aren't getting grants to color their opinion.
Why waste time arguing about it?
The vast amount of science professionals and the vast amount of data support the GW trend. That includes scientists who aren't getting grants to color their opinion.
Why waste time arguing about it?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 1:09 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
That's because you're a selfish narrow sighted individual.
that might be true... or i just don't worry about the problems i cannot fix or affect any change.
I recycle as much as possible, and turn off lights, and do the conservation thing as much as possible.
But really... what are you doing to solve this problem?
What are you doing to not be selfish, narrow-sighted individual?
Like actually doing. not just talking about it because talk is cheap.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 1:10 pm to BayouBlitz
quote:
That includes scientists who aren't getting grants to color their opinion.
What about the skeptical scientists who get fired?
Are any AGW activist scientists getting fired for their positions?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 1:12 pm to WeeWee
quote:
guess the lefties are being sissies today
Obama's trying to get them talking 'climate change' today in order to distract from his scandals.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 1:14 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
What about the skeptical scientists who get fired?
You mean what about blog posts that claim scientists get fired for being skeptical?
What about them?
quote:
Are any AGW activist scientists getting fired for their positions?
You seem to think scientists should be insulated from being fired for their positions - yet I wouldn't doubt you oppose tenure in any form.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 1:15 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
What about the skeptical scientists who get fired?
short answer:
if they have legitimate scientific opinions as to why they don't believe that is messed up. If there is a financial, political, or stubborn reason, then it is not as messed up. That goes to both sides of this debate and basically any debate.
(Not saying that they don't have a legitimate reason to not believe as I have no idea since i have done zero scientific research into the matter)
Posted on 6/16/14 at 1:24 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
SpidermanTUba
i want to know what you are doing to not be a
quote:
That's because you're a selfish narrow sighted individual.
when it come to global warming?
I think most people on this board conserve energy and gas (maybe only for cost reasons).
and i would imagine if given the chance they would recycle as well(especially if they lived in an area that rewarded recycling by reducing water and sewage bill as some areas do).
What all else do you do to help alleviate this problem and not be selfish?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 1:40 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
you oppose tenure in any form.
I oppose tenure, generally. It is a good idea, in theory (as are many), but we see the net effect of it.
Universities have devolved into little more than propoganda machines - and AGW research is only one small piece of that.
quote:
You seem to think scientists should be insulated from being fired for their positions
I don't agree with scientists being fired for engaging in science - ALL science should be subject to skepticism and scrutiny.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 2:22 pm to constant cough
quote:
Obama's trying to get them talking 'climate change' today in order to distract from his scandals.
I thought it was more about negative GDP and the huge foreign policy shite sandwich. The scandal-a-day barely raises an eyebrow anymore with Nero fiddling away on the links.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News