Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
.

And my instincts continue to be proven correct.

That is called confirmation bias.

So far, are you aware that you haven't shown an iota of proof against a global warming process of mainly anthropogenic origin going on? Your posts pretty boil down to a primitive epistemology with personal compromise: people who say A are morons, indecent or whatever -your strawmen- and you give credit to whatever confirms your prejudices -confirmation bias- and there's a lot of evil people there promoting the contrary to your notions -membership agreement prevents me from qualifying the last-

Again, be simpler, land your chopper and just try to convince us.
 
.
I will try to keep it simple for those brilliant minds who still feel my gas tank is the cause of Global Warming

We had global cooling from about 1400 to about 1800 and then a warming period began ... so much warming that Roald Amundsen was able to navigate the Northwest Passage in 1903–1906 in wooden sailing ships .... then we had cooling until the 1970's .... then began another warming trend which again allowed regular marine shipping through the Arctic passage

Why do some scientists refuse to acknowledge the warming in the late 1800's was not the result of burning fossil fuels ??

And why do all the graphs begin after the 1800's warming period

Got something to hide ??

The graphs that include the previous warming periods show the 2003 temperatures are not alarming when compared to 1903 temps.

Why do the "scientists" of IPCC avoid these scientific truth's ??

Is it because it screws up their agenda ?
 
.
I will try to keep it simple for those brilliant minds who still feel my gas tank is the cause of Global Warming

We had global cooling from about 1400 to about 1800 and then a warming period began ... so much warming that Roald Amundsen was able to navigate the Northwest Passage in 1903–1906 in wooden sailing ships .... then we had cooling until the 1970's .... then began another warming trend which again allowed regular marine shipping through the Arctic passage

Why do some scientists refuse to acknowledge the warming in the late 1800's was not the result of burning fossil fuels ??

And why do all the graphs begin after the 1800's warming period

Got something to hide ??

The graphs that include the previous warming periods show the 2003 temperatures are not alarming when compared to 1903 temps.

Why do the "scientists" of IPCC avoid these scientific truth's ??

Is it because it screws up their agenda ?

Could you point out where on this graph, which doesn't begin after the "1800's warming period" the "1800's warming period" that scientists refuse to admit isn't a result of burning fossil fuels is?

jbj6.png


Feel free to show where the cooling until the 1970's occurred.

Also, could you explain why you say the IPCC are hiding scientific "truths" when this graph is one of the most famous graphs in all of science, and isn't hiding anything you claim scientists are hiding?
 
Last edited:
.
I will try to keep it simple for those brilliant minds who still feel my gas tank is the cause of Global Warming

It's a tiny part of its cause

We had global cooling from about 1400 to about 1800 and then a warming period began ... so much warming that Roald Amundsen was able to navigate the Northwest Passage in 1903–1906 in wooden sailing ships .... then we had cooling until the 1970's .... then began another warming trend which again allowed regular marine shipping through the Arctic passage

Where's your evidence? I think you're making this up. Show me your evidence.

Why do some scientists refuse to acknowledge the warming in the late 1800's was not the result of burning fossil fuels ??

Where's your evidence? I think you're making this up. Show me your evidence.

And why do all the graphs begin after the 1800's warming period

That's simply false. You have even been shown graphics that contradict your present assertion (for instance #798). I don't need to show you another one because you said "all the graphs". If you care to deceive us well, say "most of", so we have to show you 3 or 4, and then you'll have to show a dozen where not.

Got something to hide ??

I don't think so.

The graphs that include the previous warming periods show the 2003 temperatures are not alarming when compared to 1903 temps.

That's an opinion. Show the values and state the criterion to use to judge them alarming or whatever.

Why do the "scientists" of IPCC avoid these scientific truth's ??

Is it because it screws up their agenda ?
Just because they're not truths nor scientific? I'm open to read what evidence of concealment of scientific truth you have. That doesn't include anything you hold to be true but it's not reflected in IPCC papers. Evidence of concealment is how the concealment is made.
 
.
No but a lot of Morons read and believed the Global Warming propaganda just because evangelists Gore and Suzuki suggested it

And a lot of otherwise decent people read and believed Mein Kampf when AH & the boys recommended it

Same thing as Global warming .... it has all the tenants of religion for the non-religious
The temperature is the Devil , the IPCC is the Savior , and you are the evangelist

And it requires a lot of faith because science cannot substantiate it.

Amen

not at all.
but the deniers and their long debunked myths are indeed reminding me of religious people. holding beliefs that are contradicted by reality.
 
'
Any math experts here ?

Does ... 2009 + 5 = 2014 ....

Albeit it was just a "mild" warning from the evangelist Gore but at the (failed) Copenhagen tent meeting he said there was a 75% chance that all the polar ice would be gone by 2014

Can some brilliant mathematicians also confirm that we are just 9 days away from that dreaded year 2014 ??

I did the calculations with my frozen fingers in a snowbank on Hudson's Bay and that is what I came up with.

I was unable to double check my math because there are thousands of hungry Polar Bears eating Seals like crazy outside my helicopter .... had to jump back in quick ... please dont tell PETA about the seal slaughter ... they hate hearing about animals who treat other animals unethically .

Don't take my word for it .... listen to the evangelist speak the word of prophetic warming himself below in the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI



And pray for my salvation please .... those bears are wild and crazy hungry ... they even try to eat Lexan when there is a human behind it.



.
 

Attachments

  • I love the taste of lexan in the morning 3.JPG
    I love the taste of lexan in the morning 3.JPG
    56.1 KB · Views: 2
  • I love the taste of lexan in the morning 1.JPG
    I love the taste of lexan in the morning 1.JPG
    42.4 KB · Views: 1
'
Any math experts here ?

Does ... 2009 + 5 = 2014 ....

Albeit it was just a "mild" warning from the evangelist Gore but at the (failed) Copenhagen tent meeting he said there was a 75% chance that all the polar ice would be gone by 2014

Can some brilliant mathematicians also confirm that we are just 9 days away from that dreaded year 2014 ??

I did the calculations with my frozen fingers in a snowbank on Hudson's Bay and that is what I came up with.

I was unable to double check my math because there are thousands of hungry Polar Bears eating Seals like crazy outside my helicopter .... had to jump back in quick ... please dont tell PETA about the seal slaughter ... they hate hearing about animals who treat other animals unethically .

Don't take my word for it .... listen to the evangelist speak the word of prophetic warming himself below in the video

http://
www
.youtube.
com/
watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI



And pray for my salvation please .... those bears are wild and crazy hungry ... they even try to eat Lexan when there is a human behind it.



.

You're starting to flail. Do you have problems following an argument? What part of "provide evidence of that" didn't you understand? I reckon you're abandoning the debate.
 
My "hatred" is propaganda (untruths) used to frighten the masses and manipulate society. There is always a nefarious motive .

love the irony.....

http://video.pbs.org/video/2295533310/

FRONTLINE investigates the disinformation campaign on climate change. "Climate of Doubt describes the individuals and groups behind an organized effort to attack science by undermining scientists, and to unseat politicians who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity." [UPDATE: see also our October 25 post on this program, "Climate of Doubt" -- Money Buys Skepticism]

Even as the United States has suffered under severe drought, massive wildfires, and record-breaking heat, this year neither presidential candidate talks meaningfully about climate change and climate change disappeared from the presidential debates for the first time in nearly 25 years. Only four short years ago both presidential candidates agreed that climate change was a problem worth discussing and solving. In 2008 President-elect Obama called climate change a matter of urgency and national security. Today, discussion of climate change and its implications has been stifled by political ‘leaders.’ The parties use the issue to define polarized positions, with one party typically denying climate science and the other in retreat on dealing with the problem.

How did it get this way in just four years? What triggered the significant negative movement in public opinion, from which we are only now recovering?

In a well-orchestrated counterattack on climate change legislative, diplomatic, and regulatory initiatives , fossil fuel companies and wealthy ideologue donors have funded organizations to wage war against climate science and climate scientists, undermining public understanding and efforts to develop meaningful climate policy.

I do hope our helicopter pilot is getting well paid for his soap boxing on behalf of Koch and Co.
 
'
Any math experts here ?

Does ... 2009 + 5 = 2014 ....

Albeit it was just a "mild" warning from the evangelist Gore but at the (failed) Copenhagen tent meeting he said there was a 75% chance that all the polar ice would be gone by 2014

Can some brilliant mathematicians also confirm that we are just 9 days away from that dreaded year 2014 ??

Did you miss my earlier post that Australia has just experienced it's hottest year ever?
 
and how are these images any relevant to the topic of global warming? (that is, what would have changed if you wrote the same but didn't attach those images)

I believe their inclusion is offered as evidence against AGW since polar bears and polar ice still exist.
 
A Godwin...my my ...raris avis.....of course then too are deeply ingrained climate change deniers....I hear they teamed up with the anti-evolutionist lately.



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...anti-islam-anti-abortion-creationist-pastor/#

:boggled:

Well...Lord Monckton and his ilk occasionally use dishonest arguments - and there are a lot of people who use dishonest arguments against AGW - spouting all kind of ridiculous things. Nevertheless, they have pretty-much shut down the AGW people.

Really, I think it is sad to see the AGW argument shut down in this manner even though I think their conclusions are without merit until more and better data is obtained. Nevertheless, sometimes I do take a secret delight in watching some redneck politico launch a crazy argument that absolutely broadsides an AGW advocate. I mean, it does effectively shut up the worst AGW advocates. It is sad that it has come to this. Funny...but sad.
 
Nevertheless, sometimes I do take a secret delight in watching some redneck politico launch a crazy argument that absolutely broadsides an AGW advocate. I mean, it does effectively shut up the worst AGW advocates.

Examples please.
 
You're starting to flail. Do you have problems following an argument? What part of "provide evidence of that" didn't you understand? I reckon you're abandoning the debate.

Not at all sir .... and by the way part of the title of this thread is ... "heated Conversation" ... and all I am trying to do is cool it down a bit ..... but I plead guilty to having a blend of tongue in cheek while being completely serious.

We could bury ourselves in back and forth statistics from both sides (and I am capable) but I have reverted to simple brutal truths that undermine the Warming agenda.

I have been a member of this forum for a year but just began posting yesterday

My motive is thus .... I am on Hudson Bay solid Ice watching Polar bears eat seals earlier in the season than normal.

..... Ice that is not supposed to be there (according to the warmists) and bears who were all going to drown (according to the warmists)

Why do CNN & CBC & The Sierra Club not plaster that all over the news (as good news)

Because they continue to deny that the deniers were correct and they want to save themselves the embarrassment

And speaking of embarrassment , notice how a majority of the "Important Warmists" from days gone by have gone silent because the weather did not cooperate with what they prophesied ??

I urge everyone here not to set themselves up for further embarrassment .

It is not a bad thing to admit you have been suckered. Besides you can blame it on the 3 tactics of a brainwash that was used to start this whole effort to control world energy (by controlling the worlds exhaust pipes)
 
We could bury ourselves in back and forth statistics from both sides (and I am capable) but I have reverted to simple brutal truths that undermine the Warming agenda.

If you are capable, how about backing up your arguments with some of these statistics, and any other evidence you have? So far all you have is anecdotes and slogans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom