Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Frank -
Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.
Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.
That's because you clowns don't "debate". You don't know how to. Your scientific ignorance is astounding. Frankly I'm surprised you can wipe yourself.
OK West.....I just spit my late night coffee right onto my monitor screen.....LMAO.....I love this forum!!!
Frank posts on scientific matter all the time.
Frank posts on scientific matter all the time.
Link?
This I can't wait to see....!
Nowhere on this board will you see post and discuss scientific material.
Wailing Wall -
Right - you also know Frank doesn't post and discuss science. Thanks for that.
Very few Fundamentalists are prepared to get into a free and open discussion about any real scientific evidence, because they know they will end up backing positions that are simly untenable. It's as simple as that.
Why do you think SSDD refused to read and comment on the British Antractic Survery data?
Because if he had done, he'd have had to admit that he was wrong - simple as that.
Lordy, lordy. Fucking dumb there, SSDD. Do you have the faintest idea what absorption spectrum means?
AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.
Do you think this might have anythingto do with the fact that posters such as yourself and Skooks can't read, and both SSDD and Westwall have apparently taken a solemn vow not to?
Frank -
Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.
Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.
Wailing Wall -
Right - you also know Frank doesn't post and discuss science. Thanks for that.
Very few Fundamentalists are prepared to get into a free and open discussion about any real scientific evidence, because they know they will end up backing positions that are simly untenable. It's as simple as that.
Why do you think SSDD refused to read and comment on the British Antractic Survery data?
Because if he had done, he'd have had to admit that he was wrong - simple as that.
saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing....especially in light of recent hypotheses, models, and actual confirming experiments that demonstrate pretty convincingly that climate science based on trenberth's model simply is not, and never will be correct.
you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.
what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.
what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
Till I see some actual evidence that points in the direction of my position being wrong, exactly why should I express doubt? The warmist position is nothing but evidence upon evidence upon evidence that their position IS wrong. Their models are wrong, their predictions are wrong, their sciecne is wrong because it is based on a flawed interpretation of physical laws beginning with the very foundation of their claims...that being the trenberth energy budget and model.
Even as a luke warmist you don't believe that model is correct do you?
Frank -
Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.
Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.
There is a whole lot that can and has been determined and none of it has anything to to with beliefs.saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing....especially in light of recent hypotheses, models, and actual confirming experiments that demonstrate pretty convincingly that climate science based on trenberth's model simply is not, and never will be correct.
you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.
what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
About Global Warming, United Nations Doubles Down On Ignorance - ForbesTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
A major deception on 'global warming'
Seitz, Frederick;
Abstract:
Frederick Seitz asserts that the report on global warming released in Jun 1996 by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not the same version that was approved by the contributing body of scientists listed on the title page. Seitz explains how the events that led to the IPCC report are "a disturbing corruption of the peer-review process" and says the deleted passages removed "hints of the skepticism" with which many scientists regard claims about global warming
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version.The scientists were assumingth at the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules --
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to
anthropogenic[m an-made] causes."
-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke « Climate AuditAbout Global Warming, United Nations Doubles Down On Ignorance
Although IPCC claims it only appoints scientists at the very top of their profession to oversee its reports, it appointed several people without Ph.D.s, or even Masters Degrees, as Lead Authors for its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. IPCC also appointed scientists affiliated with environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to steer the direction of the Report. Indeed, Laframboise documented formal connections between at least 78 IPCC scientists and the World Wildlife Fund environmental activist group.
WWF-affiliated scientists helped craft at least two-thirds of the Fourth Assessment chapters, Laframboise reported. WWF-affiliated scientists actually led one-third of the chapters. One chapter was crafted by at least eight WWF-affiliated scientists.
130 leading climate scientists have now joined WWF to work with the activist group, supplementing the 78 IPCC participants in the 2007 Report.
This much we do know for certain and all the above can and has been verified and with very little trouble You can verify that Yourself. Or perhaps You prefer not to..???On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had "complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to international bodies."
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18).
Others have said here already...:but we cannot determine that by the available information.
what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
Ah yes....the "non existent evidence" that has managed to convince the entire world scientific community. LOL. It's really a shame that you're sooooo retarded.
Billions in grant money is what convinced the political heads of scientific organizations....the bodies of those organizations are not onboard the sinking ship AGW and the big rats are positioning themselves for an exit while they still have some credibility left.
what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
