RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
The material I quoted there was not copyrighted. Idiot.
Meet the green who doubts The Science
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
The material I quoted there was not copyrighted. Idiot.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
Bravo, doodles. You couldn't handle having any factual information appear that demolishes your source (in his own words) so you managed to get it removed. That is so typical of you denier cultist and righwingretards in general. Can't handle the facts so cover them up and go on denying reality. LOLOLOLOLOL. I notice the editing you or your mod friend did managed to only excerpt the fairly irrelevant bits and removed the damning parts including everything about the guy's second book on global warming. You are such a flaming retard, doodles, and an intellectual coward to boot.I guess I'll have to keep posting the link so people don't forget what an incompetent fool your source is.
Reviews of Peter Taylors Shivas Rainbow and Chill
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Ol' Doooodeeee...... does not take kindly to being shown for the fool that he is.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
- Thread starter
- #25
Uh-huh...
One dweeb posts the copy-n-pasted opinion from the blog of another dweeb, who freely admits that he doesn't have the credentials of the author of the book he's "reviewing", subsequently is resorting to an appeal to authority to feebly attempt to fill in the blanks of his lack of both knowledge and common sense, and I'm the fool.
Whatever!
One dweeb posts the copy-n-pasted opinion from the blog of another dweeb, who freely admits that he doesn't have the credentials of the author of the book he's "reviewing", subsequently is resorting to an appeal to authority to feebly attempt to fill in the blanks of his lack of both knowledge and common sense, and I'm the fool.
Whatever!
Old Rocks,
Virtually anyone who disagree's with you or any of your ilk is referred to as retard, f***ing idiot, moron, etc. To believe that you and yours are not intolerant is laughable.
And to take it just a wee bit further, if there is record heat anywhere---global warming.
Record cold--global warming.
Unusual drought--global warming.
Above average rainfall--global warming.
If it snows--global warming.
If it doesn't snow--global warming.
If there are hurricanes--global warming.
No hurricanes--global warming.
Lots of sunspots--the sun is not a factor in global warming.
Few sunspots--that explains why global warming is currently stalled.
A gazillion scientists support global warming despite the fact that the closest some are to being a scientist is they once typed up a weather report.
Thousands of scientists who doubt significant or catastophic global warming--all work for oil companies or are otherwise irrelevant.
Somebody who once plugged some data into a computer to product a pretty graph is a climate scientist.
A physicist or geologist who notes certain Earth phenomena are unqualified to comment.
Any source supporting any reason to dispute catastrophic global warming, most especailly anthropological global warming is bogus, biased, or otherwise unsuitable as a source.
All sources supporting anthropological global warming are the real deal, perfectly competent, and beyond any refutation or contestation.
Outbreak of tornados--global warming.
Unusually calm weather--global warming.
Climate models unable to arrive at current conditions using data that we have are perfectly capable to produce accurate projections based on data we can only guess about.
All climate models unable to produce 'evidence' of catastrophic global warming are bogus.
All advocates of anthropological global warming are dedicated environmentalist and have only the welfare and preservation of humankind in mind.
Anybody who challenges such advocates are selfish, greedy bastards interested only in the profit motive.
Etc.
Who said it's too complicated? You're taking what should be a conclusion and making it your premise. The complications sometimes mean scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and parse out the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers see this as "fudging the data" and created a Climategate Hoax out of that alone, knowing they'd be able to fool the unsophisticated.
Got some cites for this? It looks like a few facts mixed in with a bunch of made up shit.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,202
- 78,446
- 2,645
Pretend I'm unsophisticated.
Also pretend for a moment that we're talking about real science here. How would you state your hypothesis? I'll even forget that you've avoided stating it ever other time I asked you to do so (I'm unsophisticated, remember?
Yeah. I'll just refer you to all the dozens of global warming threads on USMB and you'll find it all there.
Oh and I left out the El Ninos and especially La Ninas that are often cited by the warmers as the reason the cycle isn't fitting the projections.
And never mind that almost nothing they have projected thus far has come to pass despite the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. The warmers are adament that this is just a blip and anthropological global warming will resume any time with disatrous results if we don't hand over our choices, options, opportunities, and freedoms to the government to manage for us.
Last edited:
You're lying. I've stated it repeatedly. I guess you like to pretend it's not out there, since you or anyone else have been unable to refute it.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,202
- 78,446
- 2,645
Repeatedly? So why can't you just post it up here for me?
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
From Jethro DUD's article...
The role of water vapour in planetary warming is also open to questioning. While it is presented as being a heat amplifier, in fact because it can turn into cloud it could actually regulate temperature instead. As it turned out, at the very beginning of the UN discussions, Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and a leading expert appointed to the committee because of his meteorological expertise, was saying precisely that: the amplification effect asserted cannot be relied upon to increase warming because the vapour could turn into cloud. This needed to be proved before basing assumptions on it. But Lindzen was overruled. Despite still being a key part of the IPPC process, he is now vilified by the press and by the environmental movement. So even on the most basic science of the atmospherics, there is doubt.
Bullshit!
Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments
An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry[13].
In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."
However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."[14]
In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."
The role of water vapour in planetary warming is also open to questioning. While it is presented as being a heat amplifier, in fact because it can turn into cloud it could actually regulate temperature instead. As it turned out, at the very beginning of the UN discussions, Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and a leading expert appointed to the committee because of his meteorological expertise, was saying precisely that: the amplification effect asserted cannot be relied upon to increase warming because the vapour could turn into cloud. This needed to be proved before basing assumptions on it. But Lindzen was overruled. Despite still being a key part of the IPPC process, he is now vilified by the press and by the environmental movement. So even on the most basic science of the atmospherics, there is doubt.
Bullshit!
Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments
An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry[13].
In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."
However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."[14]
In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
- Thread starter
- #35
...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.
Hoax indeed.
...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.
Hoax indeed.
A half century ago, 'peer review' was honorable and held an integral role in the advancement of science. These days it has become so corrupted as to be laughable and worthy of suspicion every time it is brought up. These days 'peer review' too often means nothing more than that it has been handed to two or three others that can be expected to agree with it. Even the IPCC limits their reports to those who will beat their drum while disingenuously citing a much larger body, and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is even more dishonest.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
- Thread starter
- #37
What do you want from someone who has already admitted that there is no evidence, short of the AGW fundamentalists coming out and admitting it's all a hoax (and I doubt that even that would be enough), which he would accept to disprove that man is to blame?
Check out this gem:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1365297-post56.html
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.
Hoax indeed.
A half century ago, 'peer review' was honorable and held an integral role in the advancement of science. These days it has become so corrupted as to be laughable and worthy of suspicion every time it is brought up. These days 'peer review' too often means nothing more than that it has been handed to two or three others that can be expected to agree with it. Even the IPCC limits their reports to those who will beat their drum while disingenuously citing a much larger body, and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is even more dishonest.
WHERE do you come up with this shit? Is this residual balls of toilet paper you ingested licking rodeo clown Glenn Beck's ass?
Here is Glenn Beck's 'resurch' teem...
...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.
Hoax indeed.
A half century ago, 'peer review' was honorable and held an integral role in the advancement of science. These days it has become so corrupted as to be laughable and worthy of suspicion every time it is brought up. These days 'peer review' too often means nothing more than that it has been handed to two or three others that can be expected to agree with it. Even the IPCC limits their reports to those who will beat their drum while disingenuously citing a much larger body, and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is even more dishonest.
WHERE do you come up with this shit? Is this residual balls of toilet paper you ingested licking rodeo clown Glenn Beck's ass?
Here is Glenn Beck's 'resurch' teem...
Yep that looks like them!
Here's Al Gores research team...Doing what they normally do...
Attachments
...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.
Hoax indeed.
A half century ago, 'peer review' was honorable and held an integral role in the advancement of science. These days it has become so corrupted as to be laughable and worthy of suspicion every time it is brought up. These days 'peer review' too often means nothing more than that it has been handed to two or three others that can be expected to agree with it. Even the IPCC limits their reports to those who will beat their drum while disingenuously citing a much larger body, and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is even more dishonest.
WHERE do you come up with this shit? Is this residual balls of toilet paper you ingested licking rodeo clown Glenn Beck's ass?
Here is Glenn Beck's 'resurch' teem...
I get 'this shit' from those who are doing serious analysis of the stuff being put out there. I have posted quite a bit of it, but since you didn't read it then, I'm not going to waste my time posting any of it again. But those of us who actually read all the 'shit' available, and there is a LOT available, aren't coming up with the conclusions you seem to be reaching.
When you complete your remedial reading course, you'll probably understand a lot more than you understand now.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Burger King to defend Whopper ads in federal court after customers sue for fraud- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
