What section and paragraph have I missed please. I have the SAR, TAR, and AR4 at my fingerprints saved on my HD.
Example please.
What section and paragraph have I missed please. I have the SAR, TAR, and AR4 at my fingerprints saved on my HD.
I've not met bigger loser in my life, even in Kazakhstan. You try and break record for most stupid man?
You play on internet all days. Find a woman, you can use my sister.
After reading the wiki article, I do not think Alfred Wegener was a pseudoscientist.
That you are attempting to link the denial of AGW to the "downtrodden", but valid, ideas of the past is also a hallmark of pseudoscientists as given in the OP.
In the end, new data arrived showing that Mr. Wegener's theory was correct in most respects.
We will similarly gather data year after year on our climate.
What will you do/think if/when that data continues to support AGW?
How big will you have to posit the conspiracy to advance this theory and discredit denial to be, before it collapses under the weight of implausibility?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-13-2010 at 09:58 AM.
Don't you find the weighting odd for the different areas measured on page 677?
LOL @ Manny that he thinks anyone denies this.
Oh, and by the way, science does not progress by consensus. It progresses by shattering consensus.
Those who keep saying that when we agree start sounding like idiots. Nobody denies that the planet has warmed. Will you stop making statements we agree with as if we don't? It also proves you are not listening to us. As long as you are not open to other views, and fail to hear what others actually say, the truth will always elude you.
no. How much of the earth's surface does the southern hemisphere cover?
No , that is true. If we never challenged popular beliefs in sciences, we could still be living like Neanderthals.
You deny the hockey stick which is the graphic representation of the warming. Science progresses by coming to a consensus. Sometimes its expected, other times not. If you can provide scientific proof to shatter this consensus then please do so.
Challenge them - with scientific proof. Not with "I don't believe" "I don't trust".
Problem is the assignment makes it appear they are using only one dataset. How many data points from the SH are they using? Did the cherry pick the one that makes their point or not?
Too much surrounding the AGW dogma is closed to the facts. Too many unanswered questions.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-13-2010 at 10:10 AM.
I don't trust the temperature readings since they apply a formula to change the raw data, use ones that are in temperature islands, and discard the ones that are still in true natural setting.
Should I find all those "oh my god its snowing, look how silly those global warming alarmists are" threads?
I also seem to remember you specifically attempting to argue just that.
Do you want to dare me to find those posts too?
Why isn't it enough to say "show me your evidence?" And I mean the at the root level.
Didn't have to change too many words there to illustrate the common MO, did I?
9-11 truthers, not unlike OV and yourself, want everything perfectly, 100% explained, while ignoring the fact that there will be ambiguities and even contradicting evidence while studying complex systems and events.
That is the way I have come to view many in the "denier" movement, and I am not alone in that observation.
Well, I noticed I wrote "close" instead of "closed" as intended. I edited that. As for the 9/11 debate, first off that's a different thread, and the science is on the side that the buildings did fall from structural weakening and heat combined. There is nothing scientifically that can show these in error. We continually find scientific flaws with the AGW work.
There you go again, laughing instead of addressing the point.
Yes, scientific theory's logical end is not wide acceptance.
I post anecdotal evidence to make fun of AGW alarmists, who constantly use anecdotal evidence to support their cause.
That said, there hasn't been statistically significant warming in the last 15 years. , even Phil Jones admits that.
Has the Earth warmed in the past century? Yes.
Is that warmth unprecedented? I don't think so.
Given the hundreds of factors that affect climate, is human-produced CO2 the PRIMARY cause of this warming? I don't think so.
Oh I'm sorry, you had a point? One day you'll understand my point: I don't care what you don't trust, I care what you can prove.
I'm ready to call this a win for us Darrin. We keep asking questions they are unable to respond to in any meaningful way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
