Global Warming, Mathematically Irrefutable

Discussion in 'Environment' started by konradv, Jun 17, 2010.

  1. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,574
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,676
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    The silly notion that man is the cause: Mathematically incalculable and unquantifiable.
     
  3. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
  4. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Ah Doug's blog.... Well then it MUST be scientific...... LOL, so who is Doug Craig anyway?

    Nice work genius you just found the evidence of a lifetime... maybe you should work for NASA?

    In all of that nonsense, the writer states about the laws of averages and how the more times you roll dice or flip a coin, the closer to the projected average it should be... But then he tries to claim that using temps only since 1880 we can not only determine what current climate is in regards to change, but we can also determine what it Will be in the future as well as how it happens....

    The mans own analogy negates his own claim... Wow, way to get the smart guy to tell us....

    Damn man that was just retarded....:lol:

    here is what I am talking about from your cited article...

    Then the author says this....

    He just told us that the more temperatures we have, the more accurate and close to the theoretical average we will have.. Then he tried to make that apply to 130 years of measured temps, compared to billions of years of the planet total and hundreds of millions of years with a proper climate and several tens of million years of very similar ecosystems, and millions of years of mammals....

    That is a deliberate logical fallacy.... And kornhole here calls it evidence.... WOW!!!!!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

    Please keep posting this guys shit, hes too easy to show for a fraud...:lol:
     
  5. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,269
    Thanks Received:
    14,920
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,076
    Sighhhhhhh...what's the use?
     
  6. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,574
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,676
    The billions of years not measured are irrelevant, if underlying conditions have changed, e.g, humans emitting more CO2 in a day than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. Wide swings in earth's climate aren't the issue, it's the time course.
     
  7. Gremlin-USA
    Offline

    Gremlin-USA <<< Me in 1970

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,306
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Gremlinville, USA
    Ratings:
    +186
    If I make a Blog and use some fancy Calculus or Trig Equations and throw in some in some Scientific Formula's I can get everyone to believe that if we do not change our ways, we could all Com-bust and go up in flames?

    Environmental changes have been going on for 1,000 of years, I do not adhere to Al Gore's self serving ideals of Global Warming.......



    .
     
  8. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,574
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,676
    LOL!!! How about reading up on the subject before commenting? Those that know the subject, discuss it. Those that don't talk about Gore. This is a purely scientific question, but, per usual, the deniers want to make it a political one.
     
  9. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    What science?

    The dreck on that blog was a bunch of logically erroneous statistical smoke blowing, as was already pointed out.
     
  10. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    How about you respond to my post where I pointed the problems with the link and article?

    That is one of the main reasons I treat you the way I do... You pop in and say one line and insult people or state some already covered nonsense, all the while avoiding all the real posts which dispute your claim or the AGW claims... And usually all you do is badger anyone who argues with you daddy oldsocks....

    Thats why you get no respect from me kornhole... Now man up and face my previous post or continue to earn my disdain....
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page