DC Tom Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) invariably, anyone i've ever met that ever uses the names skippy or chief have been total douch@bags. still looking for an exception... Whatever you say, slick... Edited June 9, 2015 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Whatever you say, slick... do you ever write anything unpredictable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Whatever you say, slick... nice comment Ace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Well - get out of the country - other people in the world may want to leave their kids a better place and prioritize that - maybe Obama is in that boat - seems like conservative America feels the greatest threats to the Republic are same sex marriage, the assault on the Duggars, Obamacare, voter fraud, gun laws, welfare - when you say everyone - make sure you specify "everyone" is your circle of friends.... I suggest some of the left on the board should consider relocation to China's ghost cities. New developments almost unpopulated. A authoritarian political system more in tune to their sensibilities. Mandatory abortions is a hi light for any prospective transplant leftists. You might be let down a bit on the environmental angle though. Maybe you guys could get them in line on that. Anyway, I bet there are some nice condo's available cheap. http://www.thebohemianblog.com/2014/02/welcome-to-ordos-world-largest-ghost-city-china.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I suggest some of the left on the board should consider relocation to China's ghost cities. New developments almost unpopulated. A authoritarian political system more in tune to their sensibilities. Mandatory abortions is a hi light for any prospective transplant leftists. You might be let down a bit on the environmental angle though. Maybe you guys could get them in line on that. Anyway, I bet there are some nice condo's available cheap. http://www.thebohemianblog.com/2014/02/welcome-to-ordos-world-largest-ghost-city-china.html now there's a solid argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 now there's a solid argument... The climate thing is a lost cause. Evidence it brought up to disprove it and it is ignored. Can't make those who don't want to see, see. I'm bored with it. I just found the "get out of the country" if you don't like it angle the most interesting thing to comment on that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 http://mashable.com/2015/06/09/nasa-climate-model-data-city-level/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 http://mashable.com/2015/06/09/nasa-climate-model-data-city-level/ That's odd. I thought NASA's stated goal since 2008 was Muslim outreach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Well, you know, if you can't explain the 18 year "hiatus"(apparently we've moved on from "pause"), there's always denying it exists! Then, you can get clowns to say this: “[This] points out just how small and fragile a notion that was,” Peter Frumhoff, director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists , told FoxNews.com. Asked about the contradiction with satellite data, he said he trusted the new paper. “I trust the process of legitimate scientific peer review that this paper has undergone, as well as the care that its authors bring to their respected work,” he said, adding that, “the faux debate over a so-called ‘hiatus’ has been an unfortunate diversion from meaningful dialogue about how best to address the broadly recognized serious problem of climate change.” Now this is odd, isn't it? In this very thread we have link after link, including a trusted Buffalo weatherman's efforts, that EXPLAIN the 18-year pause. Again I ask: why the need for an explanation for something...that doesn't exist? These leftist Global Warming clowns obviously don't have their head and ass wired together. Half are trying to deny the pause, the other half are trying to explain it as a pause, and NONE are entertaining the simplest explanation: they overestimated CO2 sensitivity. However, we do have relief! From the last link we have this: The ARGO buoy data do not show much warming in surface temperature since they were introduced in 2003. But Karl’s team left them out of their analysis(of course ), saying that they have multiple issues, including lack of measurements near the Arctic. In an email, Karl told FoxNews.com that the ARGO buoy readings may be added to his data “if scientific methods can be found to line up these two types of temperatures together … (of course after correcting the systematic offsets) … This is part of the cumulative and progressive scientific process.” [ This translates to "Load. Of. Schit." in analytics, and many other languages.] Karl’s study also clashes with satellite measurements. Since 1979, NOAA satellites have estimated the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere. They show almost no warming in recent years and closely match the surface data before Karl’s adjustments. Wait a minute. Hold on. So NOAA scientists are now telling us that the data from THEIR own satellites is wrong? And, it has been, since 1979? Well, the WTF are the doing with them then? How many bad satellites has NOAA put into space, and what is the cost, if NONE of them can produce reliable surface temperatures. Again I ask WTF is going on here? Weren't NOAA's satellites used in part at least, to create the UN models? Aren't they the thing that brought us Global Warming in the first damn place? Now, they are suddenly wrong? WTF? What I bet will be DC_Tom's favorite part of this post, and it is mine: “[Karl's} study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for,” Spencer told FoxNews.com. Hmm. I just got done saying a very similar thing on the football board wrt QB data. And, of course there's the runner up from the same link: Skeptics say there are yet more measurements, including those coming from balloon data, that line up with existing data more than with Karl’s newly adjusted data. They also note that even with Karl’s adjustments, the warming trend he finds over the last 17 years is below what U.N. models had predicted. Ok then, what the F are we even talking about? Even the most blatant data massaging cannot save the failed UN models. What else is there to say? IF anyone needed any more evidence that the UN models are garbage, here it is: even Karl's concerted and obviously wishful effort to save the entire Global Warming ship...STILL leaves them to drown. And of course, there's a strong counter to this paper by a real climate scientist(who, sorry leftists, doesn't "work for the oil companies"). Anyone who is familiar with advanced statistical analysis or "analytics" can see plain as day that Curry blows up Karl's paper completely: The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth. This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. Well, now honey, you're just a scientist, you can't be expected to understand why this short paper bastardizes the raw data. See, it has to, because this is the required political outcome that is being demanded. Karl's study is operating as designed. The WH custom ordered this from NOAA, and they are just doing the job they...Wait! Perhaps you do understand: So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on. Game. Set. Match. Edited June 11, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 http://mashable.com/2015/06/09/nasa-climate-model-data-city-level/ I didn't buy into all the commie global warming hype but your link shows Earth has turned a creepy glowing red color. That is downright scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) The climate thing is a lost cause. Evidence it brought up to disprove it and it is ignored. Can't make those who don't want to see, see. I'm bored with it. I just found the "get out of the country" if you don't like it angle the most interesting thing to comment on that's all. Even China recognizes GW is happening - you need to get out of the country to see your view on GW is of a very small minority that is basically contained (quarantined?) to the right wing conservatives in our country... Bumping this because my mobile version is going back to November 2014... This is the fast way to skip to the last page. BUT... We are leaving our children a worse world by doing what we are doing! NIMBYism is not helping. I am anything but conservative. I do realize the harm we are doing w/this liberal agenda (Climate Change). What harm are we doing specifically? You want to leave the world a better place for the kids and think spending trillions of taxpayer dollars based on faulty science is the answer? Genius plan, there, Skippy. But hey...nice job trying to change the subject to justify the absolute moronic nature of your grand plan to make the world a better place. Where are we spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on faulty science? You write things like this and they have no basis in fact...at all....whatsoever.... where have i ever - or has the government said that trillions of dollars of taxpayers should be spent... Edited June 12, 2015 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/11/cclimate-sceptic-researcher-willie-soon-investigated-funding-fossil-fuel-firms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 If only we could just solve the worlds energy needs with buttered toast and a cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/world/europe/pope-to-explore-climates-effect-on-worlds-poor.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 The Pope is really getting involved in the issue here. On Thursday, Francis will release his first major teaching letter, known as an encyclical, on the theme of the environment and the poor. Given the pope’s widespread popularity, and his penchant for speaking out on major global issues, the encyclical is being treated as a milestone that could place the Roman Catholic Church at the forefront of a new coalition of religion and science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/world/europe/pope-to-explore-climates-effect-on-worlds-poor.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 The Pope is really getting involved in the issue here. yep. and both inhofe and sweater vest joker are making fools of themselves over it. he has a stronger science background than either of them and climate is everyones concern and business not just talking head right wing legislators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 yep. and both inhofe and sweater vest joker are making fools of themselves over it. he has a stronger science background than either of them and climate is everyones concern and business not just talking head right wing legislators. Which is why the best answer that liberals can come up with is carbon credits, right? Al Gore and the environmental elite are probably scheduling yet another summit to discuss the Nuclear Winter of our Discontent. Hillary will be there as long as the money is right. Private planes and megamansions for all! STFU, hippie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Which is why the best answer that liberals can come up with is carbon credits, right? Al Gore and the environmental elite are probably scheduling yet another summit to discuss the Nuclear Winter of our Discontent. Hillary will be there as long as the money is right. Private planes and megamansions for all! STFU, hippie. do you have any evidence to back up these claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 do you have any evidence to back up these claims? http://bfy.tw/MQV http://bfy.tw/MQ8 http://bfy.tw/MQb You see hippie, where there is smoke there is fire. Gore is a liberal. Clinton is a liberal. You are an idiot because you can't see them for what they are and continue to blindly worship every single piece of crap they shovel at you. But hey everyone, the Pope is on board! Even though we think religion is a gigantic load we're going to cite him because he agrees with us! Forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 i don't understand why this is such a partisan issue. if it were really about the science, then one would expect that conservatives and liberals would be similarly divided on the issue (discounting the fact that so many conservatives are scientific illiterates). but they clearly are not. i wish someone could tell me why conservatives lean so strongly towards instinctively denying this. do they really like being controlled by unelected industtrialists with no concern for their well being or anyone elses? doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 It became a partisan issue once the bright ideas of taxation and wealth distribution were introduced into the scheme as a panacea for Global warming/Climate Change. I guarantee you that if these "solutions" hadn't been put out there, the belief that the earth is warming would be much greater than it is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts