Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Take dataset, cherry pick numbers that suit agenda, use long word's to confuse the ignorant and explain away the data that doesn't.
The $100k Global Warming Challenge
- Thread starter heckler73
- Start date
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
Good video!
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
The one that suits your hypothesis.Which data-set, though?
Cos thats totally how science is supposed to work.
The sheer abundance of farts alone from 7B is enough of a carbon footprint.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Cow farts. There's a lot of cows and that's a lot of methane. Methane is thirty times more active as a greenhouse gas than CO², which is why burning it actually does the environment a favor.
Better yet, put that NATURAL GAS through a fuel cell and now you have electrical generation with a negative carbon footprint!
Last edited:
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
Food and Bugs make for a better argument.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/spurred_by_warming_climate_beetles_threaten_coffee_crops/2312/
Russet mites now @ 4000' in CA.
But lets not up set the real-estate market.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/spurred_by_warming_climate_beetles_threaten_coffee_crops/2312/
Russet mites now @ 4000' in CA.
But lets not up set the real-estate market.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
An argument of what, though?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
This is somewhat disappointing seeing how arrogantly ignorant the "97%ers" in this committee are.
When "Admiral" Tittey is asked directly about what experimental evidence can support their position of causation--probably under the assumption he'd have the hard answer (gunna git dem deniarz wid a gotcha)--he essentially says NONE, via some circumlocution.
WOOPS!
Tittey even tries citing Arrhenius, calling him Arhoos, and leaves it at that...what a knob! If you're going to hold up some "old dead white guy" (his words) as the champion of your hypothesis, at least say his name properly, FFS. He's probably not even read Arrhenius' work, just like Arrhenius never read Fourier's but still "quoted" him! It seems these people are getting more desperate by the day, which is why they've been pushing so hard to get legislation at COP21.
People are going to get a rude awakening if the prime agendas get pumped through. I'm all for a technocracy, but not one that remains based in capitalism.
When "Admiral" Tittey is asked directly about what experimental evidence can support their position of causation--probably under the assumption he'd have the hard answer (gunna git dem deniarz wid a gotcha)--he essentially says NONE, via some circumlocution.
WOOPS!
Tittey even tries citing Arrhenius, calling him Arhoos, and leaves it at that...what a knob! If you're going to hold up some "old dead white guy" (his words) as the champion of your hypothesis, at least say his name properly, FFS. He's probably not even read Arrhenius' work, just like Arrhenius never read Fourier's but still "quoted" him! It seems these people are getting more desperate by the day, which is why they've been pushing so hard to get legislation at COP21.
People are going to get a rude awakening if the prime agendas get pumped through. I'm all for a technocracy, but not one that remains based in capitalism.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he will, because he is stupid.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm sorry that you felt insulted by my accurate description of your limited intellect and right wing dogmatic retardation.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
we actually have hundreds of thousands of years of data to make our conclusions from, moron.
I wish I had said that first.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
AGENDA!
speaking of confusing the ignorant, there is no apostrophe in "words".
now that we have established that you cannot command the english language at a 4th grade level, why don';t you tell us all about how you know better than scientists at NASA?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
This is somewhat disappointing seeing how arrogantly ignorant the "97%ers" in this committee are.
When "Admiral" Tittey is asked directly about what experimental evidence can support their position of causation--probably under the assumption he'd have the hard answer (gunna git dem deniarz wid a gotcha)--he essentially says NONE, via some circumlocution.
WOOPS!
Tittey even tries citing Arrhenius, calling him Arhoos, and leaves it at that...what a knob! If you're going to hold up some "old dead white guy" (his words) as the champion of your hypothesis, at least say his name properly, FFS. He's probably not even read Arrhenius' work, just like Arrhenius never read Fourier's but still "quoted" him! It seems these people are getting more desperate by the day, which is why they've been pushing so hard to get legislation at COP21.
People are going to get a rude awakening if the prime agendas get pumped through. I'm all for a technocracy, but not one that remains based in capitalism.
maybe you should start blaming it all on termite farts while being unable to do an exponent, like your fellow head-in-the-sand denier KKKynes did.
that will make me laugh abundantly.
dbkick
Well-Known Member
I can't wait to fucking meet you
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I was wondering when you were going to bring that up. It's too bad he's not here to provide alternative entertainment. I will say his termite hypothesis led me to some interesting side notes about methane and its reactions around termite mounds.
Do you know how important rainfall is in the generation of CO2 and CH4 by termite mounds?
There's an interesting, non-linear relationship. When there is water, there is the by-product of life. While their particular influence is minor--just in the natural scheme, never mind the grand one--the "model" they provide is an interesting anecdote of potentially great value. That's if you believe the microcosm reflects the macrocosm to any extent.
Do you know what the temperature of the moon is?
The data is out there.
https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/
Last edited:
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
It's funny to see the "amateur Climatologists" try to keep up with you.I was wondering when you were going to bring that up. It's too bad he's not here to provide alternative entertainment. I will say his termite hypothesis led me to some interesting side notes about methane and its reactions around termite mounds.
Do you know how important rainfall is in the generation of CO2 and CH4 by termite mounds?
There's an interesting, non-linear relationship. When there is water, there is the by-product of life. While their particular influence is minor--just in the natural scheme, never mind the grand one--the "model" they provide is an interesting anecdote of potentially great value. That's if you believe the microcosm reflects the macrocosm to any extent.
Do you know what the temperature of the moon is?
[img=100x50]http://diviner.ucla.edu/gallery/tbol_global-animation.gif[/img]
The data is out there.
https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/
Epic lulz to be had, they're so ignorant they don't even realise how stupid you make them look.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
heckler is the amateur climatologist.
i am just laughing at him while citing the works of NASA.
idiots like you are the sideshow.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, it's not.
it is becoming clear to me that you are about as dumb as KKKynes is.
termite farts? REALLY?
Similar threads
