Kingfish Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 The petition project has a list of 31,000 doctors against man-made global warming:http://www.oism.org/pproject/ I'd be impressed if 2,600 scientists didn't also sign a petition claiming that HIV didn't cause AIDS. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Secondly, if you were on this board just 3 or 4 months ago someone how climate temperatures have been going down this decade, which scientists blamed global warming on the earth's cooling. Actually, Stupid, that was me. And I said that I'd read a report that a team of climatologists published a paper predicting that the world was entering a cooling trend for the next few decades, and blamed the predicted cooling trend on global warming. Again, unscientific. If you can blame global cooling on global warming, you just made global warming unfalsifiable. The petition project has a list of 31,000 doctors against man-made global warming:http://www.oism.org/pproject/ You !@#$ing moron. No it doesn't. It has a list of 31000 people who printed, filled out, and sent in a form where they could check "I have a PhD" (and "I have a master's" and "I have a bachelor's degree"). They accept signatures from anyone. How the hell can you be skeptical about global warming but be enough of a !@#$wit to accept that bull sh-- site at face value?
UBinVA Posted February 12, 2009 Author Posted February 12, 2009 Read this (and read it all) and then tell me we know everything about Global Warming and that we humans are the cause. The fact is, the earth is too complex to even think about modeling, and even if we did understand all of the inter-relationships (which we don') there isn't enough computing power on this earth today that could crunch those simulations and give a reasonable result of climate prediction. Sure, we'll spend trillions to stop CO2 emissions, only to find out it was all for nothing. Such fools the masses are. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Adam Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 I took a drive around Earth a few days ago and all I can tell you it looked pretty nasty out- I mean real dark clouds
Dante Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 You don't accept even the possibility that global warming might be a bit of a scam to raise taxes and make the sudden billionaire Al Gore even richer? Why didn't he run for president? Do you think he would have won? Meanwhile, he got the Nobel Peace Prize instead of her. Thanks for posting that. Never heard of her and thats a shame. Fuggin everything is political.
Wacka Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Thanks for posting that. Never heard of her and thats a shame. Fuggin everything is political. And Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously, so she will never get one. Friggin' idiot Gore.
finknottle Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Your point is valid - the Little Ice Age shouldn't even be considered in the global warning debate. Now feel free to explain why the IPCC themselves establish the "current warming trend" in comparison to the Little Ice Age. I'm not sure what you mean. I thought the only thing they had to say about that was a parenthetical debunking (that's too strong a word - new argument maybe?) of the assumption that it was a global phenomona. Whether they are correct or not, it shouldn't make any difference to the climate change debate. Did they say otherwise?
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 And Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously, so she will never get one. Friggin' idiot Gore. Well it isn't HIS fault. I don't think Al Gore gets to decide who wins the prize.
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 I'm not sure what you mean. I thought the only thing they had to say about that was a parenthetical debunking (that's too strong a word - new argument maybe?) of the assumption that it was a global phenomona. Whether they are correct or not, it shouldn't make any difference to the climate change debate. Did they say otherwise? Actually, the IPCC has made statements establishing the past 400 years of warming as abnormal compared to the 400 years prior. It's a pretty retarded argument, and I've complained before about establishing "abnormal" warming by comparing it to "abnormal" cooling...but you can hardly blame Ramius for introducing it in to the discussion when the IPCC is dumb enough to introduce it themselves.
finknottle Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Actually, the IPCC has made statements establishing the past 400 years of warming as abnormal compared to the 400 years prior. It's a pretty retarded argument, and I've complained before about establishing "abnormal" warming by comparing it to "abnormal" cooling...but you can hardly blame Ramius for introducing it in to the discussion when the IPCC is dumb enough to introduce it themselves. I actually went to the IIPC website looking for the most recent whatever, not wanting to rely on the press takes, and was surprised at how difficult it was to find anything. 99% of the available content is specialized research, and it is difficult to see what their official overall position/conclusion is unless you read the Annual Report on Climate Change. But unless I'm being numb-skulled, it appears that that is the only document you can't download unless you are an institution.
Ramius Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Actually, the IPCC has made statements establishing the past 400 years of warming as abnormal compared to the 400 years prior. It's a pretty retarded argument, and I've complained before about establishing "abnormal" warming by comparing it to "abnormal" cooling...but you can hardly blame Ramius for introducing it in to the discussion when the IPCC is dumb enough to introduce it themselves. I only brought that in as an example for natural climate cycles/swings. I didn't mean to apply any of it as to the argument of what can be considered "normal" or "abnormal."
EC-Bills Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 I only brought that in as an example for natural climate cycles/swings. I didn't mean to apply any of it as to the argument of what can be considered "normal" or "abnormal." Don't worry, it all regresses towards the mean anyway
StupidNation Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 Actually, Stupid, that was me. And I said that I'd read a report that a team of climatologists published a paper predicting that the world was entering a cooling trend for the next few decades, and blamed the predicted cooling trend on global warming. Again, unscientific. If you can blame global cooling on global warming, you just made global warming unfalsifiable. Actually that's not what it said. The article said it was going to cool until 2015 then go into hyper-drive of warming. You think very highly of yourself, and for someone so consistently wrong it's hard for me to fathom. You !@#$ing moron. No it doesn't. It has a list of 31000 people who printed, filled out, and sent in a form where they could check "I have a PhD" (and "I have a master's" and "I have a bachelor's degree"). They accept signatures from anyone. How the hell can you be skeptical about global warming but be enough of a !@#$wit to accept that bull sh-- site at face value? Ummm... you avoided the wiki page of scientists, and secondly you haven't proved that the people listed as doctors aren't doctors, you assume that it must be wrong by a sheer question of quantity and ease of application. Have you verified they aren't all doctors? Do they screen people who say they have PhDs even if they lie? Could one assume that a mere 10% of those people could have PhDs and would therefore put that number in the thousands for safety's sake? My guess is you don't have an answer but you want to appear like you do... as always. Never said I accepted the site, I just posted a contrarian view that everyone accepts it who's a scientist. If you think I have time to nurse your sorry ass with giving my own stamp of approval of what I really believe about "X" website than you forget I don't take this board that seriously. It's not as if most of you could follow a logical argument, let alone a valid debate. I still find it odd you avoided the wiki page as well. If you want to impress people by insulting them, remember this, look in the mirror, you'll find a whole lot of stupidity in one showing.
Recommended Posts