Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Odee on August 16, 2007, 08:44:04 AM
-
So, you think you know everything about Global Warming from the media and Al-blowahard-Gore? Take The GLOBAL WARMING TEST (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html) and prove yourself... to yourself.
We're doomed! The sky is falling!
:noid
-
See you in a generic thread coming to your area soon. :D
-
Shockingly, they even listed references with their answers. This kind of thing must be stopped! Before you know all kinds of people will no longer believe in human caused global warming. How we will scare them now?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
See you in a generic thread coming to your area soon. :D
I think we're beyond generic threads, global warming/climate change/end of the world, needs its own Forum :cool:
-
oddly... I got 100%.
I thank this BB because, as usual.. It made me do the work. This BB is my source of news... not the posts necessarily but... the links.
I follow the links and then I am forced to do my own research. You can't get that by listening to talking heads on either side of the issues. You have to do the research and...
At no other time has it been so easy. The internet is a vast stroehouse of papers and thought... some crap some pure gold...
Here you can real peer reviewed scientific papers not available at a normal library and certainly not on the talking head bs news stations...
And all from the comfort of your home while drinking coffee before starting your day.
And still.... so many just go for the talking head soundbites. I rarely watch news at anymore.. only during major elections or disasters or wars...
Even then... I am shocked at the stuff that comes out of their mouths... that they have the nuts to say it.. glib soundbites while offering not a shred of proof for anything they throw out..
lazs
-
That test had a definite bias to it. A bias that CO2 does not effect global warming at all.
-
everything affects everything... the test just showed how little co2 plays out in the scheme of greenhouse gas and... global climate.
lazs
-
ok 95%. Definitely a lot of stuff there to read later this weekend.
-
I didn't feel like creating a new post, so...
I just might never stop laughing if New Orleans gets blown off the map, again. Dean is drifting nervously close to NO.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
everything affects everything... the test just showed how little co2 plays out in the scheme of greenhouse gas and... global climate.
lazs
Thanks Lazs ...for pointing out the obvious, to the clueless :D :aok
You can tell by their replies just who is the sheep being led by the media and who is willing to find out the 'real story'
-
Not that Al Gore is a great guy, or that environmental nazis aren't wackos, but this little 'test' basically infers the conclusion that we can keep dumping whatever we want into the atmosphere.
"source" info wasn't included accept in a couple places that I saw. Not sure how this is helping the debate.
-
68... where have I or anyone else ever said that we can "keep dumping" anything we want into the atmosphere?
The point is that co2 is not pollution. it can not cause global warming or even be a tiny player.. to reduce our tiny little contribution to it's (co2) miniscule little contribution by 30% is nothing... 30% of nothing is nothing...
worse... co2 is benificial... we have a 15% better production of food because of co2 increase.
pollution is bad... some pollution is minor and some is very bad... Co2 is not only not pollution but it is a needed, tiny little part of our atmosphere.
There is plenty of man made and natural pollution to worry about... co2 is not one of em.
lazs
-
Pretty much supports the info in the "Its the SUN Stupid" post.
-
I took the test and got 100% correct. Nowhere did the test infer we could keep dumping pollutants into the atmosphere and get away with it. Rather, it seems the answers/explanations were based on sound science. Imagine that. The test did say at the beginning that political correctness had no credentials when discussing global warming.
Thing about it is, even if global warming was a man-made phenomenon, what could be done about it? Not much... I'm afraid we'd all be sol. What country is going to sacrifice their economy dealing with it unless every industrialized country on Earth follows suit. Realistically does anyone here believe that could happen, or would it only be incumbent on the United States to try to do something about it? Let's say a good faith measure was attempted by industrialized countries to reduce global warming. Does anyone realistically believe such measures could be enforced? I sure don't. Imo we would be sol.
Les
-
Originally posted by lazs2
68... where have I or anyone else ever said that we can "keep dumping" anything we want into the atmosphere?
The point is that co2 is not pollution. it can not cause global warming or even be a tiny player.. to reduce our tiny little contribution to it's (co2) miniscule little contribution by 30% is nothing... 30% of nothing is nothing...
worse... co2 is benificial... we have a 15% better production of food because of co2 increase.
pollution is bad... some pollution is minor and some is very bad... Co2 is not only not pollution but it is a needed, tiny little part of our atmosphere.
There is plenty of man made and natural pollution to worry about... co2 is not one of em.
lazs
To prove how CO2 is needed and is not bad, would you please inhale a canister that contains just 6% CO2 for us? Please!
-
Anything in a harmful concentration can be a pollutant. So far in our earth's history, Co2 has been in very low concentrations. 150-270 parts per million. There is a theory that it once rose to a high level, and this heated the earth sufficiently to liberate vast amounts of methane from hydrates and caused the Permian-Triassic extinction.
-
So we'll just wait for the Earth to fart itself to death then maybe we can administer large amounts of Beano and save mankind from global warming/asteriod impacts/end of the world...
-
Lazs, never said you said that.
Co2 is pollution if we're putting more of it into the environment than need be.
Is Al Gore right? I don't know, and the truth is much of the science is in a speculative or research stage. We don't completely know that he's wrong either.
I really don't care to get into a huge debate on Al Gore or the environment, but that little test had about an equivalent scientific basis as his movie. I'd be careful to call it a trump because it supports your political beliefs.
Aside from nitpicking at certain chemicals or other finer points of the LARGER ISSUE, the truth is that human population is skyrocketing, and human impact on the environment with it. Western lifestyles are very wasteful in a lot of ways, and if we don't do something to start curbing human impact on the planet we're all going to be in for a hard time. Maybe not in our lifetimes, maybe in a decade. Doesn't matter, eventually we will eat and drive ourselves out of house and home.
Sanity must be exercised to find a balance between the economy/environment. Hysteria isn't helping, but industrial hysteria that claims we will sink the economy by trying to provide for a better environment is also a serious problem.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
So we'll just wait for the Earth to fart itself to death then maybe we can administer large amounts of Beano and save mankind from global warming/asteriod impacts/end of the world...
Doubt it, Beano still costs more per gallon than gasoline. :D
-
<--- 10/10 correct
I just KNEW listening to coast to coast am at work was good for something :D
-
90%
-
(http://www.hscripts.com/freeimages/icons/buildings/igloo/igloo-clipart-icon3.gif)
"We all live in a Yellow Igloo, a Yellow Igloo, a Yellow Igloo..."
Mac
-
That test has no real signifigance. It is definantly skewed to support the people like Lazs who beleive we have no impact on the globe at all.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
That test has no real signifigance. It is definantly skewed to support the people like Lazs who beleive we have no impact on the globe at all.
translation, McFarland got an F on the test 0/10
-
Great test, Odee. I missed some but learned a lot.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
That test has no real signifigance. It is definantly skewed to support the people like Lazs who beleive we have no impact on the globe at all.
Not quite, it represents an opposing view to all the global warming propaganda we have all been subject to.
No one can deny the impact we humans have on the planet. It's there for all to see. I for one have no objection to reducing emissions and pollution. Recycling is a good thing. The less crap we put into the atmosphere, the water and on the earth the better. If there is a positive side effect to all this global warming hysteria, it is that big companies and polluters are making serious attempts to reduce their emissions. At least some are. This even extends to countries like China who in the past have simply ignored the pollution they caused.
That is a very good thing. The more we reduce our dependence of fossil fuels the better off we will be. In fact taking all the advice about energy use is to be recommended because quite honestly it will save us money. We all like smaller bills.
None of the positive aspects takes away from the fact that many of us here and all over the world have come to seriously resent the global conspiracy (probably too strong a word) to make us all believe that we have caused the Earth to warm up and that only we can do something to stop it. I don't buy it neither do a growing number of people. In the light of this we have been subject to more and more strident and hysterical fear mongering in order to convince us. We have been told the debate is over and that human caused global warming is real so we better get used to it. There are well documented cases of scientists who don't follow the party line being suppressed or had their careers damaged.
Lazs sees this as an attempt by the left to reduce our freedoms. I don't, what I see is a typical human reaction, a mob mentality. Everyone blindly following the one great message. A kind of collective madness. Also human arrogance. The notion that we can control the climate of the Earth.
Years from now, when the balloon bursts, our kids will wonder what got into us but at least the world will be less polluted.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
That test has no real signifigance. It is definantly skewed to support the people like Lazs who beleive we have no impact on the globe at all.
Stick to hugging snakes.
People reading is not your bag.
:aok
-
skyrock.. anything in too high a level is toxic including water. Tell ya what.. when we get somewhere close to 6% co2 (impossible) then I will worry.
cpxx.. pollution is not good but co2 is not the boogey man it is made out to be... you see that but say "hey.. the end justifies the means"
I don't see it that way... all we have is the means and the means cause harm.
You see it as there being no lefty agenda but... who are these mob people? did people come up with this silliness on their own? Nope.. organized groups like acadmemics and the UN and the media... all lefties... made a concerted and powerful effort to come up with this myth and lie in concert. I would call that an agenda.
It may have finally taken on some life of it's own but the puppetmasters in this one are the left wing socialists who have failed in every other way.
There may even be some genuine environmentalist tree huggers who have no political agenda but... why listen to them when they are duped so easily? they are worthless mob drones.
Mostly tho.. the lefties are trying to tie co2 into mans polluting of the planet. If you are against the nutball greenhouse gas is co2 and co2 is pollution theory... then you are against the environment. That is their goal.. and they and apparently... many of you are buying it.
most of the things the man made global warming people want us to do have nothing to do with mans polluting the planet... So long as the focus is on reducing co2 there is no focus.
lazs
-
Don't misunderstand me Lazs. I don't see it as 'end justifiying the means'. Merely a good by product of bad science and mass manipulation. But I still don't really see it as a leftist conspiracy. You could be right though. Just not my opinion.
-
Fun agricultural fact...
In a proper greenhouse, with various crops, you should install a co2 system. Ramping up to 1500ppm not only lets you run certain flowers in a 20 degree hotter environment without "burning", it doubles and tripples your yield.
-
the facts are in on global warming. it's a ploy to further weaken the united states and the west. the catastrophic end crowd are sheep. the real danger is posed by the ever growing intrusion into our daily lives by the nanny state under the pretext of save the chickens save the pitbulls and save the ecology tards.
isn't there a save my civil rights organization the sane can join?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
when we get somewhere close to 6% co2 (impossible) then I will worry.
lazs
No need to worry when you're dead! :aok
jfyi, I do not attempt to reduce my co2 output in any way, I see it as futile. I do think only a moron would not see that we do add to the CO2 levels and that the threat of raising the level to a dangerous one is a real possibility if not a fact that is in progress.:aok
-
skyrock.. you are worrying about something that is not even possible.
Who is the moron here? You admit that it is futile to try to reduce co2 but then you go on to say that only a "moron" would raise co2 levels?
only a moron like a farmer who raises co2 to get better crop yeild? that kind of moron?
greenhouses won't kill you... you can walk in and breath just fine... the levels of co2 are 5 times higher than what we are at right now.
lazs
-
cpxx... sorry.. maybe I didn't understand you entirely but...
If you see a worldwide regulatory board based on junk science and "the end justifies the means" as being a good thing or even... having a good result despite being dishonest...
I would have to disagree. I seen smog laws pushed through on junk science that made things worse until computer controlled fuel injection came along.... I seen mtbe forced on us and ending up poisoning the water supply...
that is a perfect example... they said we had to do something now... what could it hurt? no time to study it... scientists agreed.... but... they put it in and it poisoned the water.. it is costing billions to undo... it cost billions to put it in the fuel... then it cost billions to take it out... now it is costing billions to undo the damage.
DDT... tens of thousands died from malaria because of a feel good ban.
yeah... it can hurt a lot more than it can help. Loss of economic freedom...everyone doing with less... just making ends meet to pay for junkscience?
Even if they manage to reduce mans tiny little co2 contribution by 30%... millions will be driven into poverty... land will be taken away from food production for biofuels... eat or drive...
Yeah... I can see lots of reasons why the end does not justify the means...
The means are all that counts... you don't know if you are even working toward the end of anything ever...
Lots of people died in firing squads to put castro into power... was that end worth it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
only a "moron" would raise co2 levels?
lazs
Thats not what I said! I said, " I do think only a moron would not see that we do add to the CO2 levels and that the threat of raising the level to a dangerous one is a real possibility if not a fact that is in progress."
:aok
Mark
-
ok... then what is a "dangerous level". I guess that is the crux of our disagreement.
We have a 15% increase in crop production right now... No one is having trouble breathing... there is no proof that the co2 we are adding has any negative affect at all.
There is no proof that we will ever reach a point that is harmful in any way. No one knows what the co2 level will be in 10 years much less 100.
It is more than a tad early to worry about harmless co2. It is also a waste of time and resources and... very very very dishonest.
lazs
-
There has got to be research out there that determines whether or not higher CO2 levels cause a rise in temperature. Shoot, it would be an easy experiment too.
Have two sealed containers. One has an atmospheric content like that of the earth, the other has a much higher CO2 level. Use some type of heating source that simulates the sun, and see which gets hotter.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok... then what is a "dangerous level". I guess that is the crux of our disagreement.
We have a 15% increase in crop production right now... No one is having trouble breathing... there is no proof that the co2 we are adding has any negative affect at all.
There is no proof that we will ever reach a point that is harmful in any way. No one knows what the co2 level will be in 10 years much less 100.
It is more than a tad early to worry about harmless co2. It is also a waste of time and resources and... very very very dishonest.
lazs
I guess if you are only looking at inhaling it, it would be that simple. There is, however a much bigger picture here. For now, it seems you would be much more helpful to the world worrying about lefties. :aok
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
There has got to be research out there that determines whether or not higher CO2 levels cause a rise in temperature. Shoot, it would be an easy experiment too.
Have two sealed containers. One has an atmospheric content like that of the earth, the other has a much higher CO2 level. Use some type of heating source that simulates the sun, and see which gets hotter.
Bro, there are studies and they aren't hypothetical. Don't get sucked into the politics..........facts are facts!:aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
DDT... tens of thousands died from malaria because of a feel good ban.
Yeah, and more would have died when the levels in the water and environment became high enough to kill US. As it were, thousands of birds of prey were killed, and many became almost extinct. Including: bald eagle, peregrine falcon, osprey, red tailed hawk, etc. We were lucky to ban it when we did. Otherwise we could have lost those species, and many more, and also began affecting people with it. DDT doesn't break down very quickly in the environment, and can remain in soil and water for years, constantly building up as more is applied. It remains in body tissues as well, building up as the animal eats more animals, plants, and/or water that have come in contact with it. When someone says banning DDT was a bad thing, I begin to wonder about their other oppinions.
-
ddt is bad. that does not mean that an instant world wide ban with no substitute was good. If you can't see that mcfarland no wonder you can't get it.
skyrock... why don't you tell him that there are 108 computer models and that all them show something different because none of them can simulate the complexity of the interaction of natural and man made events and elements?
I talked about inhaling co2 because that is what you were talking about. I will be glad to discuss how our 0.02% addition to greenhouse gas is harmful.
You do agree tho that people do better in warm weather than cold? that we have seen a 15% increase in crop production mainly because of co2 and...
That no real harmful effects of co2 or global warming have yet been felt?
NONE. that any bad effects are only on some computer or in the head of backwoods yahoos and alarmists? Nothing real yet... nada.. zip..
No one has drown... no one has starved.. no one has been incinerated.
more people die in the winter still of cold than do in the summer of heat..
But.... you want to change everyones life because you believe that bad things are on the way... you can't prove it and your models are sillly (one has no clouds.. none take into consideration solar or axis shifts or sea floor spreading)...
lazs
-
I was wondering at this point in time if there's anyone out there with a degree in a related science field.
Could we please get some scholarly input from someone who has actually studied the related science and can offer a well rounded and objective opinion?
-
Scored just fine on the test. Can't beat 100% though. But if Lazs inhales some amont of CO I will beat him.
(that statement is also a test)
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
I was wondering at this point in time if there's anyone out there with a degree in a related science field.
Could we please get some scholarly input from someone who has actually studied the related science and can offer a well rounded and objective opinion?
Unfortunately, that isn't very likely to happen. If you were a climatologist, would you waste your time in a futile effort to convince the legions of self professed 'experts' on global warming? What are they going to get from it, other than:
ITS THE SUN STUPID
If you are interested in the actual science, rather than ignorant opinion try http://www.realclimate.org
-
angus... I am inhaling some amount of co2 as we speak... my guess is that it is the same amount that you are.
There are lots of links to "real science" but the fact remains.... no one can prove that any amount of co2 will have any real effect on the warming of the planet in anything but a flawed computer model.
Even the most rabid (except akh) are backing off of co2 as the great demon.
lazs
-
if you read akh's site...
read this one too.
http://www.junkscience.com/
I have others.
Truth is... 19,000 people with advanced degrees have signed a petition of their own free will (and they won't even get grant money) saying that the math doesn't add up.
That there is no way that co2 is causing global warming.
What are the hardships today? anyone notice? anyone drown? starve to death? more people are killed by cold last year than heat.
When will the disaster strike? every year we put it off and... nothing happens... no floods... no starvation.. no one is saved from freezing to death or burning up.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
if you read akh's site...
read this one too.
http://www.junkscience.com/
Ah, the aptly named junk science site. See previous comments on self professed experts who do little more than opine their ignorance.
I have others.
Of that there is little doubt.
Truth is... 19,000 people with advanced degrees have signed a petition of their own free will (and they won't even get grant money) saying that the math doesn't add up.
Further troubles with truth...
The infamous Oregon petition of 1998. I think you'll find that the 19,000 signatories that you quote includes such scientific luminaries as Drs Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt and Benjamin Franklin Pierce. OISM themselves only claim 17,200 (or is it 17,100 - they don't seem too sure.)
"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.
So, let's see if the numbers add up. Let's assume that all 17,200 of the signatures were valid as claimed.
17,200 / (500,000 + 10,000,000) = 0.0016 or 0.16% of the community.
That there is no way that co2 is causing global warming.
Well, according to the "peer reviewed scientific paper" (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm) mailed out with the petition, the earth was actually cooling, not warming:
(http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig6.gif)
Empirical evidence shows this to be the crock that it was (and remains.)
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy of Science issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
junk science indeed...
What are the hardships today? anyone notice? anyone drown? starve to death? more people are killed by cold last year than heat.
When will the disaster strike? every year we put it off and... nothing happens... no floods... no starvation.. no one is saved from freezing to death or burning up.
What part of "increased probability and magnitude of extreme weather events" do you have difficulty understanding?
-
LOL akh.. so 19,000 people with advanced degrees who were not paid a penny is insignificant but the 2500 who were paid to do the UN study and of which only a handful had any degree in any climate science... they are significant?
Not only that but .. yes the site says that only 17,000 have been verified.. that doesn't mean the other 2,000 aren't real... just not verified yet.
as for your increased chance of.... of what? "extreme weather events"???? hwo does co2 cause extreme weather events? now you are really stretching.
Is that like the prediction of "worst hurricane season ever"???
oops... didn't happen but... it was very mild so I guess that is an extreme too?
Yeah that covers it... whatever the weather does... it can be blamed on man now.. too cold? man Too hot? man Too many hurricanes? man Not enough hurricanes? man
I am still waiting for you to prove that our contribution to co2 is doing anything at all to the planet other than increasing crop yeild a bit... if you can.. there is $100,000 in it for ya.
lazs
-
I'm not really trying to weigh in on this too much as it's not my area of training, but we CAN and SHOULD do something about the smog in our cities and the runoff in our rivers, warming or not.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL akh.. so 19,000 people with advanced degrees who were not paid a penny is insignificant but the 2500 who were paid to do the UN study and of which only a handful had any degree in any climate science... they are significant?
A handful - how many is that?
Not only that but .. yes the site says that only 17,000 have been verified.. that doesn't mean the other 2,000 aren't real... just not verified yet.
Yet? Nine years and counting.
as for your increased chance of.... of what? "extreme weather events"???? hwo does co2 cause extreme weather events? now you are really stretching.
IPCC reports - have you ever read them? It certainly doesn't appear to be the case.
Yeah that covers it... whatever the weather does... it can be blamed on man now.. too cold? man Too hot? man Too many hurricanes? man Not enough hurricanes? man
Feel free to put your words into my mouth...
I am still waiting for you to prove that our contribution to co2 is doing anything at all to the planet other than increasing crop yeild a bit... if you can.. there is $100,000 in it for ya.
Nobody is going to win that challenge, simply because of the rigged rules. Tell you what, using the same rules, I'll give you $100,000 if you can prove that you're not a fool. $50 per entry.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus... I am inhaling some amount of co2 as we speak... my guess is that it is the same amount that you are.
There are lots of links to "real science" but the fact remains.... no one can prove that any amount of co2 will have any real effect on the warming of the planet in anything but a flawed computer model.
Even the most rabid (except akh) are backing off of co2 as the great demon.
lazs
We now have proof Lazs doesn't read the posts before responding to them:
Originally posted by Angus
Scored just fine on the test. Can't beat 100% though. But if Lazs inhales some amont of CO I will beat him.
(that statement is also a test)
As for CO2 being a great demon, it is in some respect: CO2 warms the earth a little, enough to melt some permafrost, releasing CH4 (methane), which warms the earth a lot, releasing more methane, which warms a lot, releasing even more methane. CO2 may not do much, but it does enough. It is the fuse to the dynamite.
-
akh... why is it that lefties like yourself are the biggest supporters of the whole man made global er... global... whatever is happening?
so ya got nothing? maybe the scientist mcfarland can help you.. he thinks breathing some co2 will make you stupid.
He also has nailed down the whole thing with the precise term of "a little" when referring to co2 and warming... pretty much a back down from the real scientists terms of "significant" and "almost certainly some"
I am dazzled by the math.
Ya say there is a consensus of scientists but the 17,000 (give you that) that sign that co2 can't be causing it... they are not a consensus even tho only 2500 signed the UN trash... and most have backed off or said their views were distorted. 17 at least have even sued to get their name off the document.
I certainly would not site that one.
Show me the math... leave out the lefty emotion and show me the math...
the contest is not rigged... it simply says that you have to show the numbers... to you it is rigged because it doesn't allow emotion and wishy washy "almost" or significant".
no one can even give me a defenition of "average global temperature" I don't really think anything even slightly accurate can be done... look for a chart... look how it was made. If you take weather balloon and sat data... it hasn't warmed at all here in the US in two decades...
No scientist that I know of here... has ever even looked at the flawed weather stations they so glibbly use as data.
It is a scam.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
akh... why is it that lefties like yourself are the biggest supporters of the whole man made global er... global... whatever is happening?
It's people like yourself who seem to be confused about what is happening. First you deny that the warming is occuring, then you claim that the warming is exclusively natural (ITS THE SUN STUPID), now you are claiming it's not warming again? Come on man, stop flip-flopping and make your mind up...
so ya got nothing? maybe the scientist mcfarland can help you.. he thinks breathing some co2 will make you stupid.
Unlike you, McFarland knows enough about science to tell the difference between CO (carbon monoxide) and CO2 (carbon dioxide.)
He also has nailed down the whole thing with the precise term of "a little" when referring to co2 and warming... pretty much a back down from the real scientists terms of "significant" and "almost certainly some"
A little CO (that's carbon monoxide) can have a significant effect on your health.
I am dazzled by the math.
Bamboozled more likely.
Ya say there is a consensus of scientists but the 17,000 (give you that) that sign that co2 can't be causing it... they are not a consensus even tho only 2500 signed the UN trash... and most have backed off or said their views were distorted. 17 at least have even sued to get their name off the document.
Most as in nearly all, or at least one more than half, or most as in a handful? Likewise, you should have little trouble in naming the 17 that sued to have their names removed.
I certainly would not site that one.
If you can cite real junk science, I'm sure that I can cite real science.
Show me the math... leave out the lefty emotion and show me the math...
Certainly. Let's see the evidence to support your theory first though. Please be so good as to limit the evidence to just one of the theories.
the contest is not rigged... it simply says that you have to show the numbers... to you it is rigged because it doesn't allow emotion and wishy washy "almost" or significant".
From the rules:
2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
3. JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.
Not convinced? Let's rewrite them for the "Laz is a fool challenge:"
2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the Laz is fool hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. AKH reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
3. AKH, at his sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from Laz is a fool entries. All determinations made by AKH are final.
Go on, put your money where your mouth is, or can you only talk the talk?
no one can even give me a defenition of "average global temperature" I don't really think anything even slightly accurate can be done... look for a chart... look how it was made. If you take weather balloon and sat data... it hasn't warmed at all here in the US in two decades...
You don't look very hard, do you. Two minutes with Google.
No scientist that I know of here... has ever even looked at the flawed weather stations they so glibbly use as data.
You're wrong. Easily verified.
It is a scam.
Not another nutjob conspiracy theory, please.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I didn't feel like creating a new post, so...
I just might never stop laughing if New Orleans gets blown off the map, again. Dean is drifting nervously close to NO.
(http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT04/refresh/AL0407W5_sm2+gif/144527W_sm.gif)
-
CO (Carbon monoxide) and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are totally different. Carbon monoxide is a deadly odorless poison, carbon dioxide is a by-product of respiration.