Global Warming

[drnykterstein]

Well Conner, I have to give you some credit for effort. However, offering this up as evidence is equivalent to the libs who point to FDR as an example of Keynesian success.

 

The first link read like a first year college students paper. A few stats and a molecular breakdown was better than the nothing, but not by much.

 

The second link doesn't really support your theory, but whatever.

 

The third was the real doozy. You're citing IPCC? Really? Isn't that kind of like citing Jayson Blair?

And the last link? The letter.

Edited September 3, 2010 by conner

[Rob's House]

And the last link? The letter.

Just as I discounted Al Gore upon learning he used a Mercator projection to demonstrate proportionality, I stopped reading your links when I got to IPCC.

[drnykterstein]

Just as I discounted Al Gore upon learning he used a Mercator projection to demonstrate proportionality, I stopped reading your links when I got to IPCC.

Ok, well if I had to make you read just one of those, it would be the letter.

[Booster4324]

Does anyone actually believe that Conner fully reads much less understands what he links?

 

 

 

Jesus Maria Cristo at least post a supportive link

 

This plays to my theory that Connor is a master troll. No one can be that !@#$ing stupid.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

So intelligent people are infallible, non-corruptible or cannot be influenced? And because they are intelligent we should believe everything they say ane follow them to the ends of the earth even on subjects they know very little about i.e. Bill Gates on global warming? I guess when you're an idiot you worship intelligent people.

 

not the point moron, you are trying to argue that the great Bill Gates is involved in a massive conspiracy to trick you little fools, and his co conspirators are the the brilliant scientist doing the research. That's insane. You deniers are the ones being led around by the nose

[KD in CA]

1. The world is flat and there are monsters at the edges.

2. The sun revolves around the earth.

3. Etc.

 

Science isn't infallible, despite your desperate need to worship those you somehow deem smarter than you (as if that isn't just about everyone).

 

*Sigh*

 

Of course the science of the day was all wrong back then! But NOW we have kewl technology that gives us all the answers.

500 years from now they will no doubt marvel at the collective brilliance of this age.

Edited September 3, 2010 by KD in CT

[Gary M]

not the point moron, you are trying to argue that the great Bill Gates is involved in a massive conspiracy to trick you little fools, and his co conspirators are the the brilliant scientist doing the research. That's insane. You deniers are the ones being led around by the nose

 

No, what is insane is a

 

A man writes an article for a climbing magazine that gives his opinion on how much ice is on a glacier,

A "scientist" reads said article and writes another article that the glaciers are melting (with no data),

Another "scientist" quotes the dataless article in his article,

You and Connor come to twobillsdrive and claim that there is a consensus that the glaciers will be gone by 2035 and that it is all mans fault.

 

 

[Frit0 Bandit0]

Global warming moonbats need to work on something real

 

GLOBAL PLASTIC

 

Massive North Atlantic Garbage Patch Mapped

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

No, what is insane is a

 

A man writes an article for a climbing magazine that gives his opinion on how much ice is on a glacier,

A "scientist" reads said article and writes another article that the glaciers are melting (with no data),

Another "scientist" quotes the dataless article in his article,

You and Connor come to twobillsdrive and claim that there is a consensus that the glaciers will be gone by 2035 and that it is all mans fault.

 

 

Oh,now they are not even scientist,but "scientists." Real science men like Newt Gingrich know the truth

 

BTW,cigareets do not cause lung cancer, that was another liberal"scientific" conspiracy to enslave us

[3rdnlng]

Oh,now they are not even scientist,but "scientists." Real science men like Newt Gingrich know the truth

 

BTW,cigareets do not cause lung cancer, that was another liberal"scientific" conspiracy to enslave us

 

You really need to somehow find a way to put some clarity into your thoughts. You are all over the board and should be ashamed to write something so void of thought.

[DC Tom]

Well Conner, I have to give you some credit for effort. However, offering this up as evidence is equivalent to the libs who point to FDR as an example of Keynesian success.

 

The first link read like a first year college students paper. A few stats and a molecular breakdown was better than the nothing, but not by much.

 

The second link doesn't really support your theory, but whatever.

 

The third was the real doozy. You're citing IPCC? Really? Isn't that kind of like citing Jayson Blair?

 

The first was the real doozy. Using C12/C13 ratios to establish CO2 levels over a time baseline established by carbon dating using C12/C13 ratios?

[Chef Jim]

not the point moron, you are trying to argue that the great Bill Gates is involved in a massive conspiracy to trick you little fools, and his co conspirators are the the brilliant scientist doing the research. That's insane. You deniers are the ones being led around by the nose

 

No what I'm arguing is why are we listening to Bill Gates talk about global warming? What's his background, knowledge, expertise on the subject matter? Oh he's smart and rich so he has to know what he's talking about. I think I'll email him with my football picks.

[drnykterstein]

No, what is insane is a

 

A man writes an article for a climbing magazine that gives his opinion on how much ice is on a glacier,

A "scientist" reads said article and writes another article that the glaciers are melting (with no data),

Another "scientist" quotes the dataless article in his article,

You and Connor come to twobillsdrive and claim that there is a consensus that the glaciers will be gone by 2035 and that it is all mans fault.

 

 

 

There are two kinds of global warming deniers. There are the types who can at least understand that world is warming, and will disagree on the cause, and it's almost a reasonable discussion. Then there there are batshit insane fact-deniers like yourself who just make complete fabrications and tout them as truth. The fact that the average temperature of the earth is at record highs in measurable history just cannot be argued. We have tangible measurable data going back a few hundred thousand years. By "on record" we are talking at least since 1880. Given how accurate data gathered from ice cores is, very likely we are talking about more than 200,000 years of data.

 

The 2000's were the warmest decade on record.

2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

14 of the warmest 15 years on record have been experienced between 1995 and 2009.

There is a 0.8 degrees C warming since mid-19th century.

 

You cannot deny these any more than you can claim (to steal from AD) the earth is flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Glaciers are melting, you cannot claim otherwise and consider yourself educated at the same time.

 

DC Tom your lack of faith the scientific process itself is astounding given how much you espouse to know about science.

We conclude that the IPCC procedures are transparent and thorough, even though they are not infallible. Nonetheless, we are confident that no single scholar or small group of scholars can manipulate the process to include or to exclude a specific line of research; authors of that research can (and are fully encouraged to) participate in the review process. Moreover, the work of every scientist, regardless of whether it supports or rejects the premise of human-induced climate change, is subject to inclusion in the reports. The work is included or rejected for consideration based on its scientific merit.

 

 

Now read the !@#$ing letter, as it is way more elegant and accurate than I could ever be.

http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/

 

I should hate to have any of you tards keep on believing your denier religion due to !@#$ ups on my part. Yes I've made plenty of errors in my arguments. Al Gore is a cocksucking profiteer, Nancy Pelosi is as ugly as a warthog, yes. Global warming is real though and back up by extremely strong and sound science.

Edited September 4, 2010 by conner

[Booster4324]

There are two kinds of global warming deniers. There are the types who can at least understand that world is warming, and will disagree on the cause, and it's almost a reasonable discussion. Then there there are batshit insane fact-deniers like yourself who just make complete fabrications and tout them as truth. The fact that the average temperature of the earth is at record highs in measurable history just cannot be argued. We have tangible measurable data going back a few hundred thousand years. By "on record" we are talking at least since 1880. Given how accurate data gathered from ice cores is, very likely we are talking about more than 200,000 years of data.

 

The 2000's were the warmest decade on record.

2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

14 of the warmest 15 years on record have been experienced between 1995 and 2009.

There is a 0.8 degrees C warming since mid-19th century.

 

You cannot deny these any more than you can claim (to steal from AD) the earth is flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Glaciers are melting, you cannot claim otherwise and consider yourself educated at the same time.

 

DC Tom your lack of faith the scientific process itself is astounding given how much you espouse to know about science.

 

 

 

Now read the !@#$ing letter, as it is way more elegant and accurate than I could ever be.

http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/

 

I should hate to have any of you tards keep on believing your denier religion due to !@#$ ups on my part. Yes I've made plenty of errors in my arguments. Al Gore is a cocksucking profiteer, Nancy Pelosi is as ugly as a warthog, yes. Global warming is real though and back up by extremely strong and sound science.

 

Can you refute these findings?

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[Jim in Anchorage]

Can you refute these findings?

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Conner will claim there is more water vapor in the air because the oceans are warmer due to man made climate change. The acticle makes sense though, cloudy nights are aways warmer then clear ones.

[Rob's House]

 

Now read the !@#$ing letter, as it is way more elegant and accurate than I could ever be.

http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/

 

I should hate to have any of you tards keep on believing your denier religion due to !@#$ ups on my part. Yes I've made plenty of errors in my arguments. Al Gore is a cocksucking profiteer, Nancy Pelosi is as ugly as a warthog, yes. Global warming is real though and back up by extremely strong and sound science.

Allow me to paraphrase your letter:

 

As four of the most adament global warming faithfuls that liberal academia has to offer, we conclude that the IPCC information, on which we have staked our credibility and reputations, was only partially bullsht. It's entirely likely that if you ate a 10 strip of really strong acid while compiling your data you would make as boneheaded a mistake as well. Seeing as how not only our reputations but future grants and political agendas could be compromised by this humiliation, we contend that global warming is totally real and extra scientific. We'd give you the evidence but it's too scientific so unless you are designated a "scientist" you wouldn't understand so just have faith in our word. And why would we lie? If global warming is a hoax we've been wasting our time persuing the modern day equivalent of alchemy and are likely to be out of a job. So trust us and our friends, many of whom are part of the goddamn IPCC, who signed this letter.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

"Scientists"

 

P.S. Pay no attention to the internal emails that show we knew our info was bogus and tried to keep it secret.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Rob's House

[DC Tom]

DC Tom your lack of faith the scientific process itself is astounding given how much you espouse to know about science.

 

 

 

Now read the !@#$ing letter, as it is way more elegant and accurate than I could ever be.

http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/

 

I should hate to have any of you tards keep on believing your denier religion due to !@#$ ups on my part. Yes I've made plenty of errors in my arguments. Al Gore is a cocksucking profiteer, Nancy Pelosi is as ugly as a warthog, yes. Global warming is real though and back up by extremely strong and sound science.

 

Conner, you lack of understanding of the scientific process is obvious in how you don't understand that the IPCC is a POLITICAL body, not a scientific one.

 

And furthermore: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/ReportNewsRelease.html

 

The IAC report makes several recommendations to fortify IPCC’s management structure, including establishing an executive committee to act on the Panel’s behalf and ensure that an ongoing decision-making capability is maintained. To enhance its credibility and independence, the executive committee should include individuals from outside the IPCC or even outside the climate science community.

 

The IPCC chair and the proposed executive director, as well as the Working Group co-chairs, should be limited to the term of one assessment in order to maintain a variety of perspectives and fresh approach to each assessment.

 

Given that the IAC report was prompted in part by the revelation of errors in the last assessment, the committee examined IPCC’s review process as well. It concluded that the process is thorough, but stronger enforcement of existing IPCC review procedures could minimize the number of errors. To that end, IPCC should encourage review editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered. Review editors should also ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views. Lead authors should explicitly document that the full range of thoughtful scientific views has been considered.

 

The use of so-called gray literature from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources has been controversial, although often such sources of information and data are relevant and appropriate for inclusion in the assessment reports. Problems occur because authors do not follow IPCC’s guidelines for evaluating such sources and because the guidelines themselves are too vague, the committee said. It recommended that these guidelines be made more specific — including adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable — and strictly enforced to ensure that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged.

 

The committee also called for more consistency in how the Working Groups characterize uncertainty. In the last assessment, each Working Group used a different variation of IPCC’s uncertainty guidelines, and the committee found that the guidance is not always followed. The Working Group II report, for example, contains some statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence.

 

IPCC’s slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment, as well as complaints that its leaders have gone beyond IPCC’s mandate to be “policy relevant, not policy prescriptive” in their public comments, [...]

 

The independent investigation requested by the body that charters the IPCC found EXACTLY THOSE FAILURES I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT: overly political, non-independence, biased, and with significant perversions of the scientific process in a POLICY (not scientific) organization. Now come up with a credible (i.e. not something on the order of "Well, Bill Nye said...") response to that, ****head.

[Booster4324]

Conner will claim there is more water vapor in the air because the oceans are warmer due to man made climate change. The acticle makes sense though, cloudy nights are aways warmer then clear ones.

 

More of a joke actually. He posted that earlier without reading it at a guess.

[OCinBuffalo]

BTW,cigareets do not cause lung cancer, that was another liberal"scientific" conspiracy to enslave us

Moronic.

 

And, another example that these hacks are uneducated. Yes, the Southern Democrats, you know, where tobacco is mostly grown? Yes in the 60s and 70s when this "conspiracy" started, they were all for taxing and labeling tobacco.

 

[OCinBuffalo]

It's hysterical how on one hand:

the rich are all idiots who started on 3rd base and thought they hit a triple...

 

but on the other,

the rich are all intelligent and their word should be taken without question.

 

More confirmation that the only "ideas" these hacks have is the how to gain power by relying on arguments on convenience.

 

That unintentional water vapor link that refutes pretty much the entire anthropogenic argument? Also hysterical.