Problems With Scientific Models For GW

[RetiredGySgt]

Here we go, a quote from Bali.....

The biggest obstacle at the talks had been on how ambitious to be on slashing carbon gas emissions, which are blamed for heating up the globe's surface and disrupting its delicate climate system.

Nobel-winning UN scientists this year warned the "greenhouse effect" could intensify natural disasters, with potentially catastrophic consequences decades from now for millions of people.

Both paragraphs are unproven and total guess work.

There is no real evidence CO2 causes th effects they claim. And there is NO EVIDENCE that runaway effects are or will occur or that in fact bigger and nastier storms, hurricanes et al are coming.

Fear mongering heaped on an unproven theory.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071214/sc_afp/unclimatewarming

Remind us again how the models they use do NOT even work, yet they insist on making these outlandish claims.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And there we have Larkinn playing his games again. NO ONE is saying warming is not occurring you loser, we are saying it is not proven that MAN is causing it in a appreciable way.

Provide some actual facts that MAN is the cause.

Still waiting Mr Einstein, did you miss this one?

 

[Larkinn]

The difference, of course, is that my comments are true. Your comments are simply outright lies perpetuated by angry little people with control issues.

You have some perspective issues, kid.

 

[Larkinn]

Still waiting Mr Einstein, did you miss this one?

I will respond to you when I feel like it, asshat. You can wait since you don't feel the need to back up anything you say, ever.

Ever going to retract what you said in that thread when Shogun ripped you a new one? Or the 6-3 debacle? No? What a surprise.

 

[AllieBaba]

That was certainly a rational response. Thoughtfully worded, intelligent....

 

[Larkinn]

That was certainly a rational response. Thoughtfully worded, intelligent....

Why thank you.

 

[Bern80]

Please explain exactly how they aren't.

Singer has an agenda, but of course the notoriously liberal rag that is the San Francisco gate doesn't.

Liberals are about scaring people to depend on them? What an idiotic and asinine generalization. That has nothing to do with liberal beliefs. And this is exactly why the rest of the world thinks your views on global warming are fucking retarded. Because you think global warming is believed because of some leftist global conspiracy designed to control the world. Go and join the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and those who think that the Masons are running the world and leave us to actual serious discussion.

It may not be what they want but it will be the end result of their agenda if unimpeded. Again of course you are very quick to misinterpret myself and RGS. i don't beleive their is a global liberal conspiracy a foot. I do believe they would love to take care of us cradle to grave. In liberalism as it is practiced currently in the U.S. their propposed policies are basically attempts to rid the world of all unfairness and pesonal responsibiltiy. Baby you didn't plan on? How unfair we'ill get you an abortion. Can't afford to provide for your own health care? No sweat we'll get teh government to pay for that too?

You have 58% of scientists backing you up on that claim? Oh wait, no you don't. What was it again? I think it was something like 6%.

That 58% aren't sold on the notion? yes that 58%.

 

[Larkinn]

Singer has an agenda, but of course the notoriously liberal rag that is the San Francisco gate doesn't.

Singer is being paid by people who will be hurt by emission controls. Thats more than an "agenda".

It may not be what they want but it will be the end result of their agenda if unimpeded.

Ah and the wonderful circularity of your argument.

Again of course you are very quick to misinterpret myself and RGS. i don't beleive their is a global liberal conspiracy a foot.

RGS said that global warming is about scaring people to depend on liberals. I really don't see how that can be the case without a massive conspiracy. So no, I don't think I am misinterpreting him or you if you continue to support his claims.

I do believe they would love to take care of us cradle to grave. In liberalism as it is practiced currently in the U.S. their propposed policies are basically attempts to rid the world of all unfairness and pesonal responsibiltiy. Baby you didn't plan on? How unfair we'ill get you an abortion. Can't afford to provide for your own health care? No sweat we'll get teh government to pay for that too?

Well I know...instead of getting rid of inequality lets embrace it! We can remove problems? Naah, that would be making peoples lives better! Why not get rid of penicillin, computers, medicine, and other annoying things that help people out, right Bern?

That 58% aren't sold on the notion? yes that 58%.

Or how bout the 90+% who don't think global warming is NOT man-made ?

That undecided group can easily be twisted to fall into either category. But its me who always plays word games, right?

 

[Bern80]

RGS said that global warming is about scaring people to depend on liberals. I really don't see how that can be the case without a massive conspiracy. So no, I don't think I am misinterpreting him or you if you continue to support his claims.

Just because i believe threre is a group of people with a similar mindset and advocate for the same things doesn't mean I think they're in cahoots with each other.

Well I know...instead of getting rid of inequality lets embrace it! We can remove problems? Naah, that would be making peoples lives better! Why not get rid of penicillin, computers, medicine, and other annoying things that help people out, right Bern?

It simply amazes me how you think makeing people more the same is better for society. No that is not an assumption. Since your first sentence there is in sarcasm you must than believe it should be a goal to reduce inequality, thus make people more the same. What is inherently bad about inequality? Why should someone who has worked hard be taken down a peg to accomodate the lifestyle of someone who doesn't want to work hard?

Or how bout the 90+% who don't think global warming is NOT man-made ?

That undecided group can easily be twisted to fall into either category. But its me who always plays word games, right?

That's not a word game. i think that's a double negative, which is just bad grammar.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That was certainly a rational response. Thoughtfully worded, intelligent....

He has no choice, his whole argument is a house of cards.

 

[Larkinn]

Just because i believe threre is a group of people with a similar mindset and advocate for the same things doesn't mean I think they're in cahoots with each other.

Considering I've never seen a liberal say they want to scare people, I came to the conclusion that there must be a secret conspiracy among all of them. Or do you think these ideas pass from liberal to liberal via ESP?

It simply amazes me how you think makeing people more the same is better for society. No that is not an assumption. Since your first sentence there is in sarcasm you must than believe it should be a goal to reduce inequality, thus make people more the same.

Tell me how having Bill Gates and the bum on the street so inequal is good for society? Tell me how having most of our legislators be of the same race, the same gender, and come from the same socioeconomic background is good for society?

What is inherently bad about inequality? Why should someone who has worked hard be taken down a peg to accomodate the lifestyle of someone who doesn't want to work hard?

Because working hard isn't the be all and end all to life.

That's not a word game. i think that's a double negative, which is just bad grammar.

As is having a lower-case i after a period.

 

[Larkinn]

He has no choice, his whole argument is a house of cards.

Lmao...right. Then why haven't you been able to tear it down, genius? Why are you still fluttering around like a retarded bird with turrets, insulting me all the way?

By the way, ever going to provide any of those links I, and others, asked for? Or respond to shogun or me in those threads? No? Didn't think so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lmao...right. Then why haven't you been able to tear it down, genius? Why are you still fluttering around like a retarded bird with turrets, insulting me all the way?

By the way, ever going to provide any of those links I, and others, asked for? Or respond to shogun or me in those threads? No? Didn't think so.

Nothing to respond to, a 5 year old would already have their answers, you rejects are just to "intelligent" to figure anything out.

Go ahead talk about 6-3 again retard when the fact is IT was 6-3 just as I described. Your a moron.

Wait, whats that bullshit excuse you use when I point out your crap has been answered else where... ohh ya " I never saw it" I guess if retards like you can use it so can I.

 

[Larkinn]

Nothing to respond to, a 5 year old would already have their answers, you rejects are just to "intelligent" to figure anything out.

Yes, I agree a 5 year old would be satisfied with your answers. Unfortunately for you I have slightly higher standards than that.

Go ahead talk about 6-3 again retard when the fact is IT was 6-3 just as I described. Your a moron.

No, it wasn't. Try reading the case.

Wait, whats that bullshit excuse you use when I point out your crap has been answered else where... ohh ya " I never saw it" I guess if retards like you can use it so can I.

So you never saw me ask for a link, but yet you responded to it somehow?

Alrighty then. By the way, would you like me to link you to all those threads where you were talking and then suddenly "didn't see them"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, I agree a 5 year old would be satisfied with your answers. Unfortunately for you I have slightly higher standards than that.



No, it wasn't. Try reading the case.



So you never saw me ask for a link, but yet you responded to it somehow?

Alrighty then. By the way, would you like me to link you to all those threads where you were talking and then suddenly "didn't see them"?

What I want is for you to learn to read. And some common sense migh help too. I have never been "forced" to not respond. But now you, you ran off for several months cause us dumb ignorant rednecks were to much for MENSA boy.

 

[Larkinn]

What I want is for you to learn to read.

No, what you want is for me to learn how to figure out how to interpret words after they go through that complex, inane, idiotic head of yours.

And some common sense migh help too. I have never been "forced" to not respond.

Thats nice. Nobody claimed you were. Guess you shouldn't be telling others to learn how to read, hey?

But now you, you ran off for several months cause us dumb ignorant rednecks were to much for MENSA boy.

Lmfao...honestly? You think I "ran away" because you were too much for me? And you call me arrogant. Lmao...wow you really believe that don't you? My, you are sad.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071216/ts_alt_afp/usclimatewarmingdenial

I guess these guys work for Oil companies right?

I love the line about how their peers are so many more then them, when we already know only 42 percent believe man is causing the problem. No bias in THAT story at all.

 

[Larkinn]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071216/ts_alt_afp/usclimatewarmingdenial

I guess these guys work for Oil companies right?

I love the line about how their peers are so many more then them, when we already know only 42 percent believe man is causing the problem. No bias in THAT story at all.

For Fred Singer, a climatologist at the University of Virginia and another co-author, the current warming "trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep sea sediments and stalagmites . . . and published in hundreds of papers in peer reviewed journals."

Coincidentally, yes at least one of them does. Or I guess its not really coincidentally...

What do you think is the number of scientists who authored the report RGS? And what do you think is the number of 42% of scientists RGS?

Guess which one is staggeringly higher? The bias is in your head, kid.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Coincidentally, yes at least one of them does. Or I guess its not really coincidentally...

What do you think is the number of scientists who authored the report RGS? And what do you think is the number of 42% of scientists RGS?

Guess which one is staggeringly higher? The bias is in your head, kid.

I wonder what is higher? 42 percent or..... 58 percent?

 

[Larkinn]

I wonder what is higher? 42 percent or..... 58 percent?

58% says that global warming isn't man made? Oh wait no it doesn't. Ouch you lose, yet again.