- 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: Nearly ALL current global warming is fabricated: peer reviewed study finds
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:27 pm to Pocket Kingz
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:27 pm to Pocket Kingz
quote:
its become clear to me that the deniers have no respect for facts or objectivity.
Indeed. They wait around to hear gotcha questions and biased unfounded sites to come up with something obscure that really has no fact behind it, then they bring it to this board. And of course this board will just read the title of the thread and immediately upvote and support of climate change being a hoax. Dale will ask questions back to your questions in circles until backed into a corner and says "youre confused" and bounces to another poster.
1
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:27 pm to Iosh
quote:While I don't really agree with your analogy, I think this is a good time to present the hilarity of the example.
I've "taken my shot" in just about every single AGW thread we have both posted in. At this point you're basically the Black Knight from Monty Python.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:31 pm to Iosh
quote:Goodness. One of our memories is failing. The question is what is the cause of the regular pattern of atmospheric CO2 flux during this ice age.
At this point you're basically the Black Knight from Monty Python.
Now you can attempt to help your brethren out, or you can continue to bob and weave. But the question remains.
Your answer?
Sudden emergence ~5Mya of a remarkably cyclical pattern of volcanic eruptions and cessation?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:33 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I think this is a good time to present the hilarity of the example.
So is the question at hand a knight or a rabbit . . .
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:46 pm to Errerrerrwere
I love that this is your impression of how things have gone for you.
Read the room, bro. Read the room.
Read the room, bro. Read the room.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:58 pm to Iosh
quote:You play cricket?
I've "taken my shot"
. . . . . . .
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:58 pm to Errerrerrwere
The original article isn't peer reviewed either. Those people who "reviewed" it are all heavily biased climate deniers. It's like only letting the Russian judges judge the Olympics. THe article only uses cherry pick data.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 5:12 pm to Tyrusrex
quote:Technically not true
The original article isn't peer reviewed either.
quote:That is absolutely true, and diminishing of their contribution.
Those people who "reviewed" it are all heavily biased climate deniers.
However, unfortunately the same is true of warmist publications. Worse yet, challengers have been aggressively blackballed. Pains me to say that because it goes against everything good science should stand for.
But your point re: the OP is accurate
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 7/10/17 at 5:14 pm to olddawg26
quote:
Dale will ask questions back to your questions in circles until backed into a corner and says "youre confused" and bounces to another poster.
You're confused...well actually, you're closer to brainwashed. Most all AGW Chicken Little's are.
What are you people so very scared of?? It seem irrational at best.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 5:23 pm to Iosh
quote:
I've "taken my shot"
quote:Damn dude . . . you came with such big talk.
Iosh
At this stage I guess it's appropriate to keep your Monty Python analogies going
Posted on 7/10/17 at 6:27 pm to NC_Tigah
Maybe I wasn't making myself clear. We have had roughly umpteen million different conversations about glaciation. Exemplars here, here, and here. In this very thread I made an (as yet unanswered) point regarding your "but the glaciers" stance expressed in the third linked thread. Maybe I should've followed it with a bunch of taunting GIFs?
I have zero remaining interest in dumbass cross-examination that Gish gallops all over the place and never leads anywhere. If you want to make a substantive point, make it. Preferably with references. But this is not a Socratic dialogue and I am not Glaucon. Make your point without the aid of a Q&A where the As are just me rephrasing the shite you refuse to read.
I have zero remaining interest in dumbass cross-examination that Gish gallops all over the place and never leads anywhere. If you want to make a substantive point, make it. Preferably with references. But this is not a Socratic dialogue and I am not Glaucon. Make your point without the aid of a Q&A where the As are just me rephrasing the shite you refuse to read.
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 7/10/17 at 7:14 pm to NC_Tigah
i love this thread now
Posted on 7/10/17 at 7:20 pm to Iosh
quote:Wow.
Exemplars here, here, and here.
Those are your offerings? Seriously?
Each of those "exemplars" you lost.
I'll link them for others in case you decide to take them down at some point.
LINK 1
LINK 2
LINK 3
In each you habitually issue idiotic derisions to initiate (exactly as here), yet ultimately end up losing the argument.
Again, the links are here. Folks can look for themselves.
You're a bright guy. I don't mind discussing these things with you. I don't even mind you mischaracterizing the discussions. But you do yourself a disservice in overpromising your own delivery, exactly as you did again here where in the end you duck-and-dodge. Simply carry on your argument, then let the results speak for themselves.
=======
Anyway to be clear, as far as I can tell, none of the threads you linked, dating back over two years, address the question at hand in this thread.
So, as you know well where this is going, I will pose it again for you.
A graph was posted demonstrating coincident cyclical CO2-Temp flux. The claim was temp lagged CO2 changes.
Do you agree that preanthropocene temps lagged CO2?
If so,
what is the cause of regular 110K-yr cyclical CO2 variance in the ice age?
You already know my answer and explanation. I've posted it many times. What is yours?
This post was edited on 7/11/17 at 4:38 am
Page 13 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News