You don't even bother to read before you post it once again:
Global Warming Links, sorted by argument
Sort by argument | Peer-Review | Last week | Last month
Number of pro-AGW links are indicated in green, skeptic links in red.
Enjoy your list, Manny.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/data...te-change.html
You don't even bother to read before you post it once again:
Global Warming Links, sorted by argument
Sort by argument | Peer-Review | Last week | Last month
Number of pro-AGW links are indicated in green, skeptic links in red.
That's what the PopTech list claimed?
Is that my list?
I don't think I've ever posted it.
I have journal access and I live with a masters holding librarian. I don't need lists prepared by others as I'm more than capable of finding information on the subject. Pretty damn sure I've read more papers on climate science in the past week than you've read...ever.
Keep telling yourself that I'm at the level you are, Darrin, and that I need others to make lists for me.
Number of pro-AGW links are indicated in green, skeptic links in red.
Internally within some of the papers certainly.
Its a list that shows both sides of the argument.
<in Napolean Dynomite voice> Lucky!
Does she wear those glasses, too?
No, thats how you have used the Poptech list. You in the past have claimed the papers I have posted were bad science while holding those on that list as correct. (An example of your excellent mastery of the science behind the subject)
He just sidesteps it, and insists on a change of topics so he doesn't have to answer some things.
You flat put ignore important questions when they are too tough for you.
You never clarified with me where you were going with the ice cap, ice sheet thing, and seemed completely silent when I reminded you geothermal activity also plays a roll with ice sheets. I think I completely blew away a victory you though you had, and will not admit it.
I ignore your questions because you're an idiot and you don't understand what you're talking about. Tell me again where ice sheets form? On the ocean, right? Tell me again how the ocean is behind the warming? Tell me again how AGW theory says that CO2 is somehow creating new energy.
The list of your idiocies goes on. THATS why I ignore your questions. You're more than welcome to believe you have scored victories on me.
I don't get what the big deal is about with these peer reviewed papers.
I haven't looked at very many yet, but it appears simply as a resource. Not all of them necessarily claim to refute the AGW alarmist viewpoints, but have good studies that can and be used.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-30-2012 at 04:12 PM.
She does. She's pretty hot, TBH. Its very awesome to have a person who's job is to find information willing to help me out when I need it (and I need it quite often).
The argument has been about cherry picking. You just posted a site that supports AGW theory that posts articles that support both positions: skeptic and that of most of the scientific community.
Compare that to PopSophists list: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
Critical thinking skills. All of that.
My God...
I confuse the terminology once, correct myself, and you are locked into believing what I said wrong and later revised.
Ice sheets form on land, and some can flow into the sea. Glaciers.
Now we were talking about sea ice when you brought that up, and never responded back when I asked for clarification of what you were implying.
Why type of ethics do you have to lie, and claim I don't know what it is when I almost immediately corrected my mistake? Yes, I get terminology wrong sometimes.
I see it as a way for you to discontinue a point you are losing.
:facepalm
We really, really need a facepalm emoticon
Yeah, you only messed up one time WC. You constantly display a mastery of well - everything? I am being completely unreasonable here.
I suggest the following:
What part don't you understand?
I never claimed it was behind [the] warming, but plays a large role. That the extra sun has increased in output twice since the 1700's. This last time from about 1900 to about 1950. The oceans get warmer and move, solubility factors change, precipitation changes, everything changes. But it takes time for the effects.
I never said that. It is your failure to understand how the greenhouse effect works. It is your assumption that you turn around, and lie to others of what I say. I used the same modeling you don't dispute from peer reviewed studies, and when I show the number changes with extra solar energy as the source power, and how the greenhouse gasses, as a feedback mechanism respond to extra input, you fail to understand what is going on. You claim I don't understand thermodynamics. It is you who don't understand what is happening.
Energy is not created. It's just like extra greenhouse gasses trap energy making higher temperatures. However, what I was explaining is how extra input to the system also warms, and has the effective amplification by the positive feedback of the greenhouse effect.
Tell me why I'm wrong then.
Am I wrong because I left out a part?
Does leaving out a minimum size make it wrong?
Woot more thermodynamics and solubility! These questions were never addressed the other 5 times just this year you brought them up. Just like the solar output wasn't ever responded to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)