Why Did The Ice Sheets Melt 10,000 Years Ago?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then don't read it dumbass. Its your choice buy into the AGW BS or don't. You asked why I posted a conspiracy theory, I showed that it was just as credible as oldsocks and company's greenblogs.

What do oldsocks have to do with anything? if you want to read science try google scholar.

Don't agree because you don't want to read the sources, fine just don't be a hypocrite later when oldsocks and pals posts greenblog articles.

Blogs aren't sources.

 

[Cuyo]

Care to explain why you didn't read the article? If you had you could follow the links for yourself. But since you didn't want to here are more links on it...

Satellite-gate - Your News - Inner West Courier

Climate Change Dispatch - Satellite-gate

Others are finally starting to get Satellitegate | Co2 Insanity

Why is it if it co,es from a green blog supporting AGW its perfectly fine, but if it comes from someplace not supporting AGW its a conspiracy site or something else....

Anything with 'gate' at the end isn't to be trusted. It's just a trick used to make the site appear more important than it really is by stealing the fame from of a totally different incident. Anyone who's really interested should be reading mainstream scientific sites, NOT the those that are the equivalent of "Alien Baby!!!" tabloid stories.

LOL kornhole you are too idiotic for words man...

I suppose watergate was made up too then?

Do you have any clue how dumb you make yourself look?

 

[whitehall]

What I am asking is why it happened. I understand the Earth warmed but why did it warm. Was it because the sun’s output went up or something else? Since there is a great debate now about the climate and its changing, I want to know why it warmed up and why it cooled down to form the ice sheets in the first palce?

It's a deadly serious question bart and it deserves more serious discussion than sarcasm or stupidity. A better question is why the earth froze in the first place. So-called "scientists" tend to ignore real hard evidence in ice core samples that indicate the big nuclear reactor in the sky that gives us life is prone to geological era fluctuations that make our industrial revolution look like a day in the park. Libs flock around former vice president Al Gore who has no background in science not because they want to change America's depencence on fossil fuel but because they want to change America's dependence on capitalism.

 

[code1211]

Sooooo.....The earth is warming up what should we do about it? Its scary to know that we are warming up. Something needs to be done and the only people that can do something about it is us human beings. I mean we do live on this earth.

Take a lesson from the Big 0 "doing something" about the economy. He didn't know what the cause was, didn't understand the dynamics of the economy, has not the first clue about the interrelations of how money moves, is working against those who might be able to help, has blown about 4 Trillion failing so far and things just get worse.

Want to have the same thing happen with the whole planet?

Then, by all means, exhort those who have no clue to "do something" about that which they know nothing.

 

[yidnar]

Lil' bitty particles w-a-y up inna air slowin' down human-induced global warming...

Study: Upper-Atmosphere Particles Slow Pace of Global Warming
August 09, 2011 : A recent study finds tiny particles suspended high in Earth’s atmosphere are having a greater impact on global climate than previously believed. The airborne particles, known as aerosols, are blocking radiation from the sun, and that’s cooling the Earth's surface. According to an international team of climate researchers, this cooling has been significant enough over the past decade to slow human-induced global warming.

Predicting future weather events has always been an uncertain affair, but for climate scientists today, one thing is certain: the earth’s atmosphere is getting hotter. Global average temperatures have risen steadily during the past century, due largely to the rising concentration of CO2 and other industrial greenhouse gas emissions. But John Daniel, climate scientist at the federal government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Colorado, says a closer look at the data over the past decade revealed an anomaly. “Since about 2001, it appears that the globally-averaged temperature has stopped going up as fast as it was going up in the decades before,” Daniel said.

Meaning that the Earth is still warming, but at a slower-than-expected-pace. Daniel says neither climate scientists nor computer climate models predicted the slowdown. So Daniel, along with his U.S. and French collaborators, began to study systems that are not typically considered in atmospheric models, processes that could explain the slowing of the temperature increase. “We also noticed that if you look at satellite observations, and you can also look at ground based observations from [the Hawaiian mountaintop observatory at] Mauna Loa, you see that stratospheric aerosols have been going up over this period. A lot of people in their models, after about the year 2000, neglected the impact of stratospheric aerosols,” Daniel said.

Most of us are familiar with low-altitude aerosols: soot and other fine particulates from factories and vehicles that make up city smog. But Daniel says that unlike global-warming culprits such as atmospheric carbon dioxide, high-altitude aerosols actually cool the planet. “The reason that these aerosols exert a cooling influence is because they reflect sunlight back to space that would have made it to the ground. Our understanding that stratospheric aerosols cool is not new. We've known that for a long time,” Daniel said.

So why weren’t climate scientists accounting for the stratospheric aerosols in the first place? Although they are common closer to Earth, they are less abundant in the stratosphere. Terry Deshler, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Wyoming, explains. "So a volcano such as [Mount] Pinatubo [in the Phillipines] threw a lot of aerosol particles up into the stratosphere and those probably were gone in about one year. But it also threw up a lot of sulfur gas. And all the sulfur in the stratosphere gets converted into sulfuric acid droplets. These particles are so small that gravity has a very slow [small] role so that the aerosol from the Pinatubo eruption persisted in the stratosphere for about 5 or 6 years,” Deshler said.

MORE

unless the muslim ****** has aids

 

[yidnar]

the earth goes through changes.

 

[gslack]

OK, we've established that there has been warming since 1998, as you did not challenge that.

As to your MessiahRushie's climatologist, the awards were from the 1990s long before he this "expert" and his partner Christy got caught using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. Imagine that, these two "experts" in satellite data didn't know what sign to use to correct for one of the most basic and necessary calculations needed to use satellite data. All during this period of using the opposite sign, deniers cited the UAH data as the ONLY accurate data and proof that Hansen and every other temp data collection group were fudging the data. It was based on the UAH cooked data that the deniers like Lord Monkton's claim of global cooling was based.
Funny thing though, when Christy and Spencer got caught making a mistake no amateur would make, there was not a peep about it on any of the denier blogs. The same denier blogs that report any and all made up charges of data manipulation to discredit global warming didn't "report" the only actual scientists who got caught fudging the data, thus your complete ignorance of the fact that the only data that showed global warming had stopped in the late 1990s came from phony data manufactured by Spencer and Christy. Deniers STILL say global warming stopped after 1998 even though after using the correct sign for diurnal satellite drift, even the UAH data now matches the other satellite data and the ground station data almost EXACTLY!!!! That's right, the ground data that you deniers habitually claim has been manipulated to show warming matches the UAH data from the two foremost denier's data!!!!!!

No douchebag all we have established is you are a liar and a fraud...

Please produce evidence that they fudged data..... Still waiting on that...

You keep right on lying about who I listen to or like and show your maturity punk... And every time you do we can see how much of a lying weasel you are.

So lets see that evidence they fudged the data... BTW, they work for NASA yes or no? LOL

Again we see the CON$ervative dumb act that a simple google search could cure.
christy spencer wrong sign diurnal - Google Search

In a GOP congressional hearing on energy and commerce, Christy admitted Mears and Wentz were right citing his paper with Spencer published in 2005 in "Science"!

Using the wrong sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift was only one of many "errors" Christy and Spencer made.

RealClimate: How to cook a graph in three easy lessons
Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the mis-analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide.

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).
Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data. The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days.


The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."​

And no, they work for the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).

Spencer works for NASA as well retard, he did so before and does so now. He also works as a professor at the University of Alabama huntsville... LOL

Now again your claim was he deliberately messed up data to give the appearance of cooling. Correct? Good lets fix your bullshit here and now ....

1. According to your link you cited Only ONE report showed cooling... Thats right only ONE report showed a cooling and that ONE report from 1995 was what got other scientists to check the way they (themselves as well as christy and spencer) reconstruct the data. This led to Mears et al. in 2003 and 2005 to figure out the error was in the established methods used due to a complex problem involving satelite drift, degradation and so on. AND it took em 13 years to figure it out themselves..

2. You go ahead and try to make some kind of implication that he did it intentionally moron but the fact is it was the system used. Your own citation said this, and you posted the part saying it above you retard...

3. Thanks for the link to google moron you did it again.. WOW! Look google wannabe master, don't hotlink from a google search page directly retard it screws up too often if google is busy or some site decides it doesn't like it they cut it. Just go to the dam site and link to it from there lazy ass....

4. Spencer is on the NASA Global hydrology and Climate center project right now...http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/AMSR/science_team.html Matter of fact he is the AMSR-E science team head.

Science Team

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States and the JAXA of Japan each have teams involved in algorithm development and implementation for analysis of data from the AMSR-E. The NASA AMSR-E Team is led by Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH) and the NASDA AMSR / AMSR-E Team is led by Dr. Akira Shibata (NASDA).

Dr. Roy W. Spencer received his B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1980 and 1982. He then continued at the U. of Wisconsin through 1984 in the Space Science and Engineering Center as a research scientist. In his current position at the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville Dr. Spencer serves as Principal Investigator on the Global Precipitation Studies with Nimbus-7 and DMSP SSM/I. He has been a member of several science teams: the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, Science Steering Group for TRMM, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, and NASA HQ Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee. Since 1992 Dr. Spencer has been the U.S. Team Leader for the Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) team and the follow-on AMSR-E team. In 1994 he became the AMSR-E Science Team leader. He received the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal in 1991, the MSFC Center Director's Commendation in 1989, and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award in 1996.

You can apologize to me any time now tool...... You screwed up again....

BTW, I don't know if truth matters to you toad but Christy is an IPCC author as well.... LOL

NOw edtheeunic you have once agains stuck your foot in your mouth all because you are too dam lazy to read something fully before running your mouth...

 

[edthecynic]

No douchebag all we have established is you are a liar and a fraud...

Please produce evidence that they fudged data..... Still waiting on that...

You keep right on lying about who I listen to or like and show your maturity punk... And every time you do we can see how much of a lying weasel you are.

So lets see that evidence they fudged the data... BTW, they work for NASA yes or no? LOL

Again we see the CON$ervative dumb act that a simple google search could cure.
christy spencer wrong sign diurnal - Google Search

In a GOP congressional hearing on energy and commerce, Christy admitted Mears and Wentz were right citing his paper with Spencer published in 2005 in "Science"!

Using the wrong sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift was only one of many "errors" Christy and Spencer made.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the mis-analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide.

And no, they work for the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).

Spencer works for NASA as well retard, he did so before and does so now. He also works as a professor at the University of Alabama huntsville... LOL

Now again your claim was he deliberately messed up data to give the appearance of cooling. Correct? Good lets fix your bullshit here and now ....

1. According to your link you cited Only ONE report showed cooling... Thats right only ONE report showed a cooling and that ONE report from 1995 was what got other scientists to check the way they (themselves as well as christy and spencer) reconstruct the data. This led to Mears et al. in 2003 and 2005 to figure out the error was in the established methods used due to a complex problem involving satelite drift, degradation and so on. AND it took em 13 years to figure it out themselves...

NOw edtheeunic you have once agains stuck your foot in your mouth all because you are too dam lazy to read something fully before running your mouth...

Now the link I provided and you cite did not say it "TOOK 13 years to figure out." In typical CON$ervative fashion, you change the words of the link to manufacture the spin you want. It was actually pointing out that the Christy and Spencer disinformation was in circulation for 13 years before it was debunked.

During those 13 years deniers swore the the cooked UAH data was the only accurate data and the ground stations and the RSS satellite data were cooked by Hansen. Mears and Wentz at RSS had no trouble applying the correct sign for diurnal satellite drift, and only after the repeated denier slurs against them did RSS take the UAH cooked data and analyze it AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE to clear their good name because UAH refused to check their methods themselves when it was pointed out to them that their data was out of line with EVERYONE else. They knew ecxactly what they were doing wrong and they knew that it would take significant TIME and EXPENSE to go over their data and methods and find their manipulations. They figured no one would make the investment in time and money needed for checking them, but the never ending deniers' slanders prompted RSS to make the sacrifice and defend themselves.

It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

Try following your own advice, hypocrite!

 

[westwall]

I don't know, but it was surely the fault of humans...and of course cow farts.

LOL!!! Can't even get the units right!!! 1,000 is 'kilo' and 1,000,000 is 'mega'. Any wonder we don't give much credence to the opinion of the deniers? Anyone with the least bit of knowledge or attention to detail should be able to pick that up right away. The fact that the poster didn't just goes to show that their objection is political and they'll post anything that "proves" their point, even if it doesn't make any sense at all. They're really speaking to the choir, which will swallow just about anything that feeds their prejudices. Anyone who points it out or has a different view usually doesn't get a cogent answer, only accussations of being an acolyte of the Goracle

Thanks for once again showing that GW cultists lack a sense of humor as well. I've never heard of a kyoto as a unit of measurment either moron. That's the point of satire. Of course one must have a certain level of intellect to comprehend satire. That's why a lot of lefties don't like Stephen Colbert, they actually think his O'Reilly esk personna is real, they can't conceive of the idea that it is a character.

 

[gslack]

Again we see the CON$ervative dumb act that a simple google search could cure.
christy spencer wrong sign diurnal - Google Search

In a GOP congressional hearing on energy and commerce, Christy admitted Mears and Wentz were right citing his paper with Spencer published in 2005 in "Science"!

Using the wrong sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift was only one of many "errors" Christy and Spencer made.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the mis-analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide.

And no, they work for the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).

Spencer works for NASA as well retard, he did so before and does so now. He also works as a professor at the University of Alabama huntsville... LOL

Now again your claim was he deliberately messed up data to give the appearance of cooling. Correct? Good lets fix your bullshit here and now ....

1. According to your link you cited Only ONE report showed cooling... Thats right only ONE report showed a cooling and that ONE report from 1995 was what got other scientists to check the way they (themselves as well as christy and spencer) reconstruct the data. This led to Mears et al. in 2003 and 2005 to figure out the error was in the established methods used due to a complex problem involving satelite drift, degradation and so on. AND it took em 13 years to figure it out themselves...

NOw edtheeunic you have once agains stuck your foot in your mouth all because you are too dam lazy to read something fully before running your mouth...

Now the link I provided and you cite did not say it "TOOK 13 years to figure out." In typical CON$ervative fashion, you change the words of the link to manufacture the spin you want. It was actually pointing out that the Christy and Spencer disinformation was in circulation for 13 years before it was debunked.

During those 13 years deniers swore the the cooked UAH data was the only accurate data and the ground stations and the RSS satellite data were cooked by Hansen. Mears and Wentz at RSS had no trouble applying the correct sign for diurnal satellite drift, and only after the repeated denier slurs against them did RSS take the UAH cooked data and analyze it AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE to clear their good name because UAH refused to check their methods themselves when it was pointed out to them that their data was out of line with EVERYONE else. They knew ecxactly what they were doing wrong and they knew that it would take significant TIME and EXPENSE to go over their data and methods and find their manipulations. They figured no one would make the investment in time and money needed for checking them, but the never ending deniers' slanders prompted RSS to make the sacrifice and defend themselves.

It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

Try following your own advice, hypocrite!

13 years to figure out the error moron, YOU are the one calling it debunked idiot.. Debunking an error in a method? You are a moron..

BTW, I didn't even know or care about the UAH until AFTER all the inconvenient BS with your messiah Gore. And I seriously doubt many people here tried to contend the UAH data was the only set reliable. Either way the UAH data was corrected before most of us cared to enter this debate dumbass..

Now did you also happen to notice that the study in 2006 you linked to cited Christy as an author and scientist involved? LOL no of course not cause that would have required reading wouldn't it... Yeah so he deliberately helped to mess up data sets showing only one report of actual cooling, then not only was he given an award for his work in climate research, and remained an IPCC author and expert, but was also one of the people who helped to implicate himself and show his error???

Dude you are incompetent to the core..

LOL I didn't link to mears et al in 2003 or 2006 because it was already linked to before. So what? Its not the same thing as posting a hotlink from a google search is it lazy ass.. I didn't link it and didn't care to, you hotlinked through google and people get pissed and disallow your hotlinking resulting in the google OOOPS! page. You followed headlines again without checking or reading and made an ass of yourself in 3 ways. 1. you were wrong about their error being deliberate 2. you were wrong about spencer not working for NASA and 3. you followed headlines without reading the story first and it turned out the headline didn't match the story again.

Way to go man!

 

[edthecynic]

Spencer works for NASA as well retard, he did so before and does so now. He also works as a professor at the University of Alabama huntsville... LOL

Now again your claim was he deliberately messed up data to give the appearance of cooling. Correct? Good lets fix your bullshit here and now ....

1. According to your link you cited Only ONE report showed cooling... Thats right only ONE report showed a cooling and that ONE report from 1995 was what got other scientists to check the way they (themselves as well as christy and spencer) reconstruct the data. This led to Mears et al. in 2003 and 2005 to figure out the error was in the established methods used due to a complex problem involving satelite drift, degradation and so on. AND it took em 13 years to figure it out themselves...

NOw edtheeunic you have once agains stuck your foot in your mouth all because you are too dam lazy to read something fully before running your mouth...

Now the link I provided and you cite did not say it "TOOK 13 years to figure out." In typical CON$ervative fashion, you change the words of the link to manufacture the spin you want. It was actually pointing out that the Christy and Spencer disinformation was in circulation for 13 years before it was debunked.

During those 13 years deniers swore the the cooked UAH data was the only accurate data and the ground stations and the RSS satellite data were cooked by Hansen. Mears and Wentz at RSS had no trouble applying the correct sign for diurnal satellite drift, and only after the repeated denier slurs against them did RSS take the UAH cooked data and analyze it AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE to clear their good name because UAH refused to check their methods themselves when it was pointed out to them that their data was out of line with EVERYONE else. They knew ecxactly what they were doing wrong and they knew that it would take significant TIME and EXPENSE to go over their data and methods and find their manipulations. They figured no one would make the investment in time and money needed for checking them, but the never ending deniers' slanders prompted RSS to make the sacrifice and defend themselves.

It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

Try following your own advice, hypocrite!

13 years to figure out the error moron, YOU are the one calling it debunked idiot.. Debunking an error in a method? You are a moron..

In typical CON$ervative fashion, when caught in their bullshit, CON$ just keep repeating their bullshit.

It didn't take 13 years to "FIGURE OUT" the error, the link I posted and you cited for you "figure out" lie merely says the error was debunked 13 years after it was first published, not that it took 13 years to figure it out!

 

[gslack]

Now the link I provided and you cite did not say it "TOOK 13 years to figure out." In typical CON$ervative fashion, you change the words of the link to manufacture the spin you want. It was actually pointing out that the Christy and Spencer disinformation was in circulation for 13 years before it was debunked.

During those 13 years deniers swore the the cooked UAH data was the only accurate data and the ground stations and the RSS satellite data were cooked by Hansen. Mears and Wentz at RSS had no trouble applying the correct sign for diurnal satellite drift, and only after the repeated denier slurs against them did RSS take the UAH cooked data and analyze it AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE to clear their good name because UAH refused to check their methods themselves when it was pointed out to them that their data was out of line with EVERYONE else. They knew ecxactly what they were doing wrong and they knew that it would take significant TIME and EXPENSE to go over their data and methods and find their manipulations. They figured no one would make the investment in time and money needed for checking them, but the never ending deniers' slanders prompted RSS to make the sacrifice and defend themselves.

Try following your own advice, hypocrite!

13 years to figure out the error moron, YOU are the one calling it debunked idiot.. Debunking an error in a method? You are a moron..

In typical CON$ervative fashion, when caught in their bullshit, CON$ just keep repeating their bullshit.

It didn't take 13 years to "FIGURE OUT" the error, the link I posted and you cited for you "figure out" lie merely says the error was debunked 13 years after it was first published, not that it took 13 years to figure it out!

So then you are contending Christy and spencer did it intentionally?

So then CHristy helped to out himself in that paper you linked to?



Sure ed sure.... You are unbelievable man, you lie and then lie about your lie...HAHAHAHAHAA!

BTW, want to explain why CHristy is a IPCC author if hes such a bad scientist? Or why Spencer is still working for NASA on their new satellite data-sets as their lead science team guy no less? Didn't you imply he didn't work for NASA after I told you he did?



PATHETIC!!!

 

[edthecynic]

13 years to figure out the error moron, YOU are the one calling it debunked idiot.. Debunking an error in a method? You are a moron..

In typical CON$ervative fashion, when caught in their bullshit, CON$ just keep repeating their bullshit.

It didn't take 13 years to "FIGURE OUT" the error, the link I posted and you cited for you "figure out" lie merely says the error was debunked 13 years after it was first published, not that it took 13 years to figure it out!

So then you are contending Christy and spencer did it intentionally?

So then CHristy helped to out himself in that paper you linked to?



Sure ed sure.... You are unbelievable man, you lie and then lie about your lie...HAHAHAHAHAA!

You are milking that dumb act beyond its capacity to mask your lying!!!

The paper Christy coauthored, where he confessed that once his and Spencer's errors were corrected the UAH data showed the same AGW warming all the other data sets showed, was written in 2006, well after his errors were "outed" by others without his help.
Try again

 

[wirebender]

LOL!!! Can't even get the units right!!! 1,000 is 'kilo' and 1,000,000 is 'mega'.

So now you are an expert on the nomenclature for expressing the unit of measure in cow fartology?

Figures.

Can you show me some peer reviewed science to back up your claim of misused prefixes in that particular pseudoscience?

 

[wirebender]

LOOK moron, we know what you meant, I was pointing out the ignorance of your own sentence. You decided that anything with "gate" on the end is not to be trusted, yet refer to watergate.

I wonder if it would do any good to point out to him that his belief that anything that begins with gate isn't to be trusted is a prime example of a logical fallacy known as a circumstantial ad hominem?

 

[wirebender]

What's your point? Are you saying that, if it happened for obne reason in the past, it couldn't be happening for a different reason now? That sounds very unscientific. You got any data proving that all Earth's climate variations happened for the same reason?

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Which begs the question: You got any data proving that the present changing climate is due to the activities of man?

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Do keep in mind that proof and assumption have different meanings.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

the earth goes through changes.

Wow man. That's deep.

 

[konradv]

the earth goes through changes.

We all know that. The question is, is it natural or man-made? I'm afraid the skeptics are relying a bit too much on FAITH that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth.

 

[konradv]

What's your point? Are you saying that, if it happened for obne reason in the past, it couldn't be happening for a different reason now? That sounds very unscientific. You got any data proving that all Earth's climate variations happened for the same reason?

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Which begs the question: You got any data proving that the present changing climate is due to the activities of man?

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Do keep in mind that proof and assumption have different meanings.

More data comes in every day. But since you don't ascribe to the same physical laws as the rest of us, my "assumption" is that you'll never get it. Your frame of reference is skewed, preventing you from undertstanding the most basic concepts of the theory.

 

[konradv]

LOOK moron, we know what you meant, I was pointing out the ignorance of your own sentence. You decided that anything with "gate" on the end is not to be trusted, yet refer to watergate.

I wonder if it would do any good to point out to him that his belief that anything that begins with gate isn't to be trusted is a prime example of a logical fallacy known as a circumstantial ad hominem?

The only circumstance that's important here is that some people think putting 'gate' on the end of everything, proves something.