Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
But, for the true argutron, facts and links, references, etc are not relevant.

We would like to assume there is the desire for mutual understanding in the participation, or indeed there is a even an honest desire to factually disagree.

But, when emotions rule the weak, this is the best it can get. The small mind will attack the person, not the ideas.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
The season can now be expected to arrive a week and a half earlier than it did in the mid 1970s, the wide-ranging study of plant and animal behaviour found
Click to expand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7189104/Spring-is-coming-11-days-earlier-on-average.html
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7189104/Spring-is-coming-11-days-earlier-on-average.html
Click to expand...
and we go right back the the New Normal of the 70's.

mixing it up a little by saying it's the "mid 70's" doesnt fool anyone.

the late 70's /early 80's were the bottom of a cooling trough, as such "the seasons" were coming LATE (and by that they mean it was generally Colder during that time) when compared to the average temps of the last 100, 200, 300, or even 400 years.

this "citation" is specious, and taken from "TABLOID REPORTS" which you previously declared to be unacceptable.

consistent in your bullshit, ever changing in your criteria for what is and is not valid evidence for or against your theory.

brilliant!
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
Can you say seralini? Cancer rat studies?
Click to expand...
those cookies are far more interesting than anything you have belched up, and my Pastry Pontification comes from Unimpeachable Sources, unlike the "Skeptical Science" blog you have plastered all over the place, while pissing and moaning about DNAProtections IDENTICAL USE of "natural news"

your hypocrisy is staggering.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
those cookies are far more interesting than anything you have belched up, and my Pastry Pontification comes from Unimpeachable Sources, unlike the "Skeptical Science" blog you have plastered all over the place, while pissing and moaning about DNAProtections IDENTICAL USE of "natural news"

your hypocrisy is staggering.
Click to expand...
yeah funny how skeptical science refers to proper studies from reputable journals

Whereas you have to rely on shoddy methodology published in let's just say less than respectable publications

It's a hilarious suggestion of yours that natural news is analogous to the site that has picked apart everyone of your old tired talking points

Friday the first ipcc report comes out I wonder if it will align with the science reported by sceptical science or the crap you guys have been espousing
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
The IPCC keeps talking about reaching a consensus. That is not science, it is politics.

They couldnt make their shitty computer model work even with made up data...
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
ΔF = α/4 * (ΔTSI) , α = 0.7 "albedo factor"
ΔT = λ*ΔF , λ = "climate sensitivity"

How important are those equations, in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Lol in what context? As a red herring on a pot forum or as part of a reputable study?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
The IPCC keeps talking about reaching a consensus. That is not science, it is politics.

They couldnt make their shitty computer model work even with made up data...
Click to expand...
I know. This time after all the evidence in WG1, WG 2 and 3 will still forge ahead with a 95% certainty.

Probablities only when no experiemt or data collection can show it, still is is "95% possible" only because they have their heads are still jambed way up in the politcs.

If fact when I read this, it is fouled from the beginning. We should be proceeding with WG1 only. The rest of the poltics of the forgone conclusion that the WG1 has never come with.

Facts are not significant in Politics. Only power is significant and that is taken only from emotions of fear.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
The IPCC keeps talking about reaching a consensus. That is not science, it is politics.

They couldnt make their shitty computer model work even with made up data...
Click to expand...
I know. This time after all the evidence in WG1, WG 2 and 3 will still forge ahead with a 95% certainty.

Probabilities only. When no experiment or data collection can show it, still is is "95% possible" only because they have their heads are still jammed way up in the politics.

In fact when I read this, I see it is fouled from the beginning. Who has read all these reports, but me?

We should be proceeding with WG1 only. Scientific Basis is not yet shown. The rest of the politics of the forgone conclusion that the WG1 has never shown in data.

Facts are not significant in Politics. Only power is significant and that is taken only from emotions of fear.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I know. This time after all the evidence in WG1, WG 2 and 3 will still forge ahead with a 95% certainty.

Probablities only when no experiemt or data collection can show it, still is is "95% possible" only because they have their heads are still jambed way up in the politcs.

In act when I read this, it is fouled from the beginning. Who has read all these reports, but me?

We should be proceeding with WG1 only. Scientific Basis is not yet shown. The rest of the politics of the forgone conclusion that the WG1 has never shown in data.

Facts are not significant in Politics. Only power is significant and that is taken only from emotions of fear.
Click to expand...
your rantings sound very similar to the anti gmo's in the other thread

It's not a big conspiracy that only you and your friends can see
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top