- 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
re: Some ????'s for lefties/greenies/GW supporters
Posted on 6/17/14 at 6:44 am to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 6/17/14 at 6:44 am to SpidermanTUba
Only studies from AGW supporters are acceptable to people like spidey here. They are the only people on the entire planet above reproach. It's a neat little circle jerk of religious fundamentalism.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 7:02 am to petar
quote:
that might be true... or i just don't worry about the problems i cannot fix or affect any change.
Well why don't you all just say so
Posted on 6/17/14 at 7:04 am to The Calvin
Nebraska agrees with this thread.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 7:57 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Only studies from AGW supporters are acceptable to people like spidey here
Sure. Because I just debunked another denialist article - that must be true.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 8:41 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Economists aren't qualified to speak as experts on climate scientists any more than the guy who takes your order at McDonald's.
Actually, the type of modeling economists do is the type that's most-closely related to the type climatologists do. Their input on the theory, assumptions, data quality, and forecast performance & uncertainty of mainstream-consensus climate models should all be very valuable.
Not that Economics Bulletin or whatever is anything close to a prestigious journal.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 10:17 am to SpidermanTUba
how about
Also as far as the Singer/Idso thing goes, it would be nice if you could link some of their work so we could actually see what the hell you are talking about. You say they are paid by industry (tobacco companies, smoking, etc) but you haven't provided any info to support your claim
Why should we not believe Idso or Singer because they offer a different opinion (please link some of singers studies on second hand smoke I really want to read them and ACTUALLY LOOK AT HIS DATA), but believe the IPCC that admits their models were off and exaggerated?
ETA: sorry for the earlier links in this post. I meant to hit quote not links, didn't have my coffee this morning it was rough.
quote:
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp. 2765-2776, March 2010)
- T. Bondo, M. B. Enghoff, H. Svensmark
quote:
Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion
(Physics Reports, Volume 487, Issue 5, pp. 141-167, February 2010)
- Qing-Bin Lu
quote:
The impact of cosmic dust on the Earth’s climate
(Moscow University Physics Bulletin, Volume 64, Number 2, pp. 214-217, April 2009)
- V. I. Ermakov et al.
quote:
A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, Volume 55, Issue 7, pp. 1094-111, October 2010)
- G. G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis
quote:
Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected? (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp. 2453–2464, May 2010)
- Stephen E. Schwartz et al.
Also as far as the Singer/Idso thing goes, it would be nice if you could link some of their work so we could actually see what the hell you are talking about. You say they are paid by industry (tobacco companies, smoking, etc) but you haven't provided any info to support your claim
quote:LINK
That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that. [...]
Why should we not believe Idso or Singer because they offer a different opinion (please link some of singers studies on second hand smoke I really want to read them and ACTUALLY LOOK AT HIS DATA), but believe the IPCC that admits their models were off and exaggerated?
ETA: sorry for the earlier links in this post. I meant to hit quote not links, didn't have my coffee this morning it was rough.
This post was edited on 6/17/14 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 6/17/14 at 2:25 pm to WeeWee
Bump for spidey to actually tell me what Singer and Isdo are wrong on not just tel me they are hacks without any links or anything to back up his claim.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 2:26 pm to WeeWee
and I though GW was President Bush
Posted on 6/17/14 at 2:28 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
and I though GW was President Bush
that is GWB or just W or dubya
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News