T1B

FLW Buckeye wrote:88, you had your chance to unclog his vaporlocked mind last week and passed... wanna borrow the DeLorean?

We must have spent too much of our time together talking about how stupid you are.

Moving Sale wrote:Does it really matter if global warming is real if you are ready to conced that gas is dirty shit when it is not completely burned and therefor it would be nice to stop using it?

Just the kind of ethics that has made lawyers such a trusted profession.

"Scientists have PROVEN (by 97.whatever% concensus) that if you steal, it causes terminal cancer!"

If a large group of people could sell that to the planet, the world would be a better place, right?

So, there's nothing wrong with misrepresenting "science" (AKA "lying") as long as you believe the end result would have a positive outcome?

I assume you apply this to your profession, and if an accused client is obviously innocent of a crime, but overall is obviously a bad person with a long record, you intentionally tank the case to get him convicted, because him being locked up would make the world a better place. Right?

Oh, I see. Ethics are dynamic.

You are right that it is not cool to tell people to stop stealing because it causes cancer* when it doesn't, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm telling 88 to not steal because it is wrong to take people's stuff which is true.

* and I'm not conceding that burning C8H12 doesn't cause GW. I am just taking it off the table for now.

88 wrote: They say it will get hot, it does not get hot.

so you say you've studied it eh? jeezus, even climate change denialists admit the temperature is warming and has been for the last 150 years (which coincides with the industrial revolution) but apparently you know something that climatologists don't so by all means enlighten me......

They say storms will be more frequent, we have quiet periods.

I've never heard anyone say that climate change will create more storms.....I've heard the intensity of the storms will be increasing and they have been

They say the polar ice caps will go away, and they grow.

the antarctic ice cap is growing, but the arctic cap is declining.....what you're not getting is that the VOLUME of ice is decreasing....what was formally 20 foot thick ice sheets are now 10 foot thick ice sheets.....the arctic ice sheet was the fifth smallest since 1979....

And every time someone with some scientific horsepower happens to note that another of their proposed theories just took an iceberg to the hull Titanic-style, they brand them as "deniers" or "in the pocket of big-oil" or "flat earthers" or people who don't join "consensus" or, more recently, people who have not accepted that the debate is over. I'm sorry, but the debate is never over. At least until the predictions start nailing things right 100% of the time. And they are batting .000 right now.

link? and I'd like to see something by SCIENTISTS, not alarmists.....

I'd have to search for the link on this, but I think it was the IPCC that said since these results were being tabulated on the rising CO2 there has been a 14% increase in plant coverage across the globe. All-in-all, a very good thing I'd imagine if true.

88 wrote: You cannot simply announce that is such without explaining a basis for such a conclusion.

A human life, even mine, is so much more valuable than a car that your comparasion doesn't and can't follow from what I wrote. Bad Analogy probably would have been the better way to go.

So, it would be great if we would not have to burn fossil fuels to propel ourselves, and could blink ourselves to the next destination or get their by clicking our heels or wiggling our noses. But until you figure out how to do that, we have to do what makes the most sense.

A) Well there you go again. Why add the BS about blinking and magic? You are like a fallacy machine.
B) So dipite your ligitamate concerns about electric cars (not the only alternative I might add) you basically agree that it would be great not to use FF if/when it is possible. So we are on the same page it sounds like and we are back to the same place I started. If it would be great not to use FF, why you all up in arms about [dins] the gw grift[/dins]?

I get paid more for the nonFF energy I produce than I pay for FF so I guess that means my CF is less than zero*.

*softball

How is that hypocritical? Name one thing I said other people should do that I don't do?

Papa Willie wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:How is that hypocritical? Name one thing I said other people should do that I don't do?

Since you retain any internal-combustion items, aren't 100% total solar energy, and fly on planes (which leave a tremendous carbon footprint), then you aren't at all practicing what you preach. The only people who have any right to argue this situation are those who live by what they say.

Why don't you quote what you think I'm preaching.

Moving Sale wrote:So dipite your ligitamate concerns about electric cars

There is no way in hell you ever saw the inside of a college classroom.

Felix wrote:solyndra borrowed money not donated it you stupid fuckwit

They donated to Oshitskin's campaign and were rewarded with a gift not loan of taxpayer money for a scam. They failed even with a subsidy.

i've said numerous times I don't care that I pay a few dollars more if I know those dollars are going to technological research on stemming global climate change....yeah I know I'm probably a dreamer,

You're not a dreamer. You're a mark. A sucker.

why should we be subsidizing an industry that is clearly making huge profits?

Exxon doesn't get subsidies, idiot. They get tax credits. Yeah, there is a difference. I pay for subsidies. I don't pay for tax credits.

...added carbon dioxide creates warming,

Except that it doesn't or what part of no warming for the last 17 and a half years are you struggling to comprehend?

Still waiting on you to break out some of this "Science 101" and clearly distinguish natural variability from human contribution.

Once you do that, we can begin to have a conversation on what, if anything, we can or should do to mitigate this alleged anthropogenic impact.

Frankly, you haven't even established that a little warming would be a net negative. It has been substantially warmer in the distant past and life of all kind flourished. It has also been substantially colder with CO2 levels more than twice what they are today. It's pretty clear from the facts that CO2's contribution to climate warming has been wildly overstated.

Intellectually honest individuals would reexamine their conclusions under the circumstances. Facts don't seem to phase warming cultists such as yourself, though. That's because you understand nothing of science nor do you even care to. You are a religious fundamentalist nothing more nothing less.

schmick wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote: You cannot simply announce that is such without explaining a basis for such a conclusion.

A human life, even mine, is so much more valuable than a car that your comparasion doesn't and can't follow from what I wrote. Bad Analogy probably would have been the better way to go.

Bull shit, I would gladly end the life of 1,000 welfare recipients if it meant I was given a Bugatti Veyron

I'd gladly end the life of one midget lawyer if it meant I was given a rusty '73 Vega with a bad tranny (not that bad tranny).

Or best offer.

mvscal wrote: Except that it doesn't or what part of no warming for the last 17 and a half years are you struggling to comprehend?

Can't you read fatties chart? It clearly has most of the data points above the zero line. What the fuck do you think that means you stupid racist cunt?

Dinsdale wrote: I'd gladly end the life of one midget lawyer if it meant I was given a rusty '73 Vega with a bad tranny (not that bad tranny).

Or best offer.

Take your best shot ditch digger.

Moving Sale wrote:Can't you read fatties chart? It clearly has most of the data points above the zero line. What the fuck do you think that means you stupid racist cunt?

Yes, It shows that there hasn't been any warming for the last 17 and half years despite rising CO2 levels. What it means is that there isn't a clear correlation between warming temperatures atmospheric CO2 levels. That fact can be further deduced by the wildly inaccurate computer models which are predicated on the assumption that atmospheric CO2 drives warming.

Any other questions?

You can lie about it all you want but 50 or so of the 60 or so data points are above the line. Funny how you are a vapid racist piece of Ofailure Nebraska shit AND you can't read a simple chart. Go suck a dick asshat.

The numbers don't lie. It's right there in black and grey. No warming for over 17 years. Your stupidity is a personal problem.

You can lie all you want, but 50 or so of the 60 or so data points are above the line which means that 50 out of 60 times it's been recorded that the tempeture is warmer. Now you can be your normal vapid self and say ""it's in B&W" that there is no warming but fatties chart says different. Now bring and actual take or STFU Ofailurecal.

Moving Sale wrote:Funny how you are a vapid racist piece of Ofailure Nebraska shit AND you can't read a simple chart. Go suck a dick asshat.

Just when I begin to think you might be a decent enough sort IRL you prove once again that you're an irredeemable piece of landfill fodder, at least as far as message board banter is concerned.

Your act is so ridiculous, even Jsc must cringe when he reads it and he'll accept damn near anything.

Note to self: Return to never clicking on a thread where Moving Bowel has had the last word.

Moving Sale wrote:50 or so of the 60 or so data points are above the line which means that 50 out of 60 times it's been recorded that the tempeture is warmer.

If I interpret this correctly, the 0-degree line was established in 1979 (> 17 yrs ago), so any data points above that line are relative to when it was established. If you go back only 17 yrs, any increases are negligible, maybe .1 to .2 degrees C. In fact, the increase is negligible for the whole chart, especially relative to the predictions, which is really the message being conveyed here. The regression line through the data points is essentially horizontal, maybe slightly upsloping, but nowhere near what was predicted. The mere presence of data points above the line is inconsequential given their proximity to the line and the lack of a pronounced upward trend.

WW,
Nice post you stupid drama queen. Go blow a cow you pissant vaginista.

50 of the 60 are a above the line so 50/60 times they measured it was hotter. You can call it insignificant if you want but that is only an opinion. As for any trend the last colder than 1979 year was many years ago so the trend is for years that are hotter. So there is GW relative to the base year. Those are all the facts if the chart is right. This means that ofailurecal says there is no warming is incorrect. That make what I said correct.

Moving Sale wrote:the last colder than 1979 year was many years ago so the trend is for years that are hotter.

So if the last time a year was colder than 1979 was many years prior to that and it hasn't been colder since then, would you agree that 1979 represents something of an anomaly and shouldn't have been used as the baseline? If you pick the coldest year in recent history as the 0-degree line, of course all or most data points on the chart will be above it. The legend doesn't provide an explanation as to why the 0-line was chosen to be where it appears, so I'm not sure what the rationale was for putting it there - could be arbitrary for all I know. Is a .1 to .2 degree increase over the time range significant? I don't know. Is it anywhere near what was predicted? That I DO know, and the answer is no. Is any upward trend, regardless of the fact that it is close to horizontal, something to get shook up about? Again, I don't know, but I doubt it. And the fact remains that the increase, if indeed there is one, cannot be attributed with certainty to human activity.

So there is GW relative to the base year. Those are all the facts if the chart is right. This means that ofailurecal says there is no warming is incorrect. That make what I said correct.

You may be correct in the most literal and by-the-letter sense, but there's no meaningfulness in it.

Smackie Chan wrote: The legend doesn't provide an explanation as to why the 0-line was chosen to be where it appears, so I'm not sure what the rationale was for putting it there - could be arbitrary for all I know.

Since the contrast is between actuals and models, I'd guess that 1979 is as far back as the predictive models they used go.

The trend is as flat as the midget's head. Evidently, he's too stupid to locate a data set from 17 years ago and compare it to last year. No doubt this is very difficult "sciencey" stuff that's way over his head.

Smackie Chan wrote:If you pick the coldest year in recent history as the 0-degree line, of course all or most data points on the chart will be above it. The legend doesn't provide an explanation as to why the 0-line was chosen to be where it appears, so I'm not sure what the rationale was for putting it there

Welcome to the world of government/political driven science.

Cherry-pick, alter data, do whatever it takes to keep the grants flowing.

Smackie Chan wrote: You may be correct in the most literal and by-the-letter sense, but there's no meaningfulness in it.

It's a shit chart, posted by a shit poster, in a shit thread and pimped by another shit poster to say that there is no warming, there is no denying that. What you can't say about the chart is what Ofailurecal said about, it namely that it doesn't show warming.
Ofailurecal,
You can lie about it all you want, just like you lie to yourself about how hetero you are, but it clearly shows 85% of the last 35 years have been hotter and 100% of the 10 have been hotter and at no time in the last 20 has it been cooler. That is what the chart shows. You wouldn't know science if it fucked you in the ass.

Dinsdale wrote:
Cherry-pick, alter data, do whatever it takes to keep the grants flowing.

since you don't cherry pick data you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas right?

Moving Sale wrote: since you don't cherry pick data you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas right?

Without question. A minor one, which seems to have little effect beyond concentrations of ~300PPM. Water vapor accounts for the overwhelming majority of Earth's heat retention.

Dinsdale wrote:
Without question. A minor one, which seems to have little effect beyond concentrations of ~300PPM. Water vapor accounts for the overwhelming majority of Earth's heat retention.

And you were here for the science lesson on the burning of isooctane right? So you think burning isooctane produces a major and a minor greenhouse gas. So where is the grift?

Fatty,
If you could read you would know that I believe your chart which shows warming.

If the other chart sucked so bad why did you start a thread about it?

My heroes? Why do you have to lie fat man? You don't like the truth?

Nice IKYABWAI fatman.

SS,
WTF are you talking about?

I answered the question. Don't bitch at me because you don't like the answer.

Why would I want to get rid of my car?

Wtf are you talking about fatty?

What hypocrisy? We are talking about burning fossil fuels. Fuels with locked in Carbon. We are not taking about fuels using Carbon that was recently in the air. Way to pop off without knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

Show where I asked one person to give up their car?

I have answered the question and now this is the second time I have told you that. Why is that not good enough for you fatty?

mvscal wrote: Exxon doesn't get subsidies, idiot. They get tax credits. Yeah, there is a difference. I pay for subsidies. I don't pay for tax credits.

yes you do.....we all pay for subsidies no matter what form they take.....but why should Exxon be receiving tax credits from the government?

Except that it doesn't or what part of no warming for the last 17 and a half years are you struggling to comprehend?

again, even climate change denialists admit the temperature on the earth is warming.....here's an excerpt from a study funded by the Koch Brothers

“The decadal land-surface average temperature using a 10-year moving average of surface temperatures over land. Anomalies are relative to the Jan 1950 – December 1979 mean. The grey band indicates 95% statistical and spatial uncertainty interval.” A Koch-funded reanalysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports finds that “essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

insofar as evidence that human activity is driving the warming, it's out there

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/10853_o ... happening/

Intellectually honest individuals would reexamine their conclusions under the circumstances. Facts don't seem to phase warming cultists such as yourself, though. That's because you understand nothing of science nor do you even care to. You are a religious fundamentalist nothing more nothing less.

okay, so here is the number of articles published in 2013 on climate change and global warming.....in total, there were two articles published that argue against anthropomorphic causation of climate change.....the articles don't dispute the FACT that earth temperatures are rising (which you continue to deny), they simply opine that mans activity is not a driver of this warming.....

and scientific research doesn't seem to phase your misguided assertions that there is no global warming.....but you obviously have some keen insight that the 10,883 peer reviewed scientific articles that indicate human activity is one of the drivers of climate change are wrong so where did you get your climatological degree from? and please hook me up to all the scientific peer reviewed articles you've written demonstrating that there is no global warming......the reality of it is is that your not an expert and neither am I....but I've read enough scientific studies produced by experts to come to the conclusion that man's activities are driving climate change......you on the other hand get your information from, well I don't know, where do you get your information from? and if you post some climate change denialist website, you're not basing your opinions on scientific studies, you're basing it on the opinions (notice I said opinions, not scientific research) of climate change denialists......

Felix wrote:climate change denialists

Why did global warming change into... climate change?