ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
At least you've reverted to a level more befitting your abilityWoops your Freudian slip is showing. Liar liar, fire pants. La la la la LA LA.
There's the honesty your posts desperately needed
Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013
- Thread starter tryingtogrow89
- Start date
There's the honesty your posts desperately needed
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yeah thats why theres so many studies on the projections of future glaciations and attempts to predict their cycles...
there have never been many studies, but no any attempt to search for them is bombarded with tons of crap about "global warming" carbon dioxide and al gore's latest adventure
precession, axial tilt, plate tectonics, sollar riadience cycles, and the milankovitch cycles on our planet's orbit made ice ages and then caused their retreat many times in the past, these processes continue, and we Will have another ice age, and given the time of previous interglacials, that time is coming, and right soon.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/
[h=3]3. Summary[/h]
- The Earth's climate has changed dramatically in the past, apparently in response to natural changes in orbital characteristics and topography (plate tectonics).
- We are able to deduce past climates through multiple techniques but much of the progress in resolving Cenozoic climate change has resulted from oxygen and carbon isotope records.
- A paleoclimate record has been developed using different techniques, stretching back over 2 billion years. The Earth was warmer than at present for most of this time, punctuated by infrequent Ice Ages.
- The Great Ice Ages may have been caused by processes associated with continental drift and greenhouse warming.
- The interglacial periods are related to orbital changes described by the Milankovitch cycles, among other factors.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v364/n6434/pdf/364218a0.pdf
the temps went DOWN and then after a few decades, RIGHT BACK UP. stop pretending that a reduction in temps, followed by a rise in temps back to previous norms is anything but up AND down.
also, there were several such variations observed, the one cited being the most violent, and most rapid, both on the downslope and the climb back up.
so substantive.
no evidence for such catastophes in the last interglacial's wild variations.
"RECENT results[SUP]1,2[/SUP] from two ice cores drilled in central Greenland have revealed large, abrupt climate changes of at least regional extent during the late stages of the last glaciation, suggesting that climate in the North Atlantic region is able to reorganize itself rapidly, perhaps even within a few decades."
"We find that climate instability was not confined to the last glaciation, but appears also to have been marked during the last interglacial (as explored more fully in a companion paper[SUP]3[/SUP]) and during the previous SaaleHolstein glacial cycle. This is in contrast with the extreme stability of the Holocene, suggesting that recent climate stability may be the exception rather than the rule."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v364/n6434/pdf/364218a0.pdf
in light of this evidence it seems quite plausible (since it has happened before) that the +>2 degrees F over the last century is a result of factors other than "co2", and could well be reversed (possibly quite dangerously) by even more factors which remain unexplained, and completely beyond our power to control
why is this so perplexing? or is the age of the study proof that it is therefore obsolete due to the tremendous changes in the nature of geology over the last 2 decades?
nope. you smirked, made a derisive snort, and provided NO criticism of the data presented.
i see a shitload of links from SkepticalScience, an ad homiem packed Name and Shame blog full of half assed assumptions, faked referecnces, fraudulently altered graphs and smug condescension, i see why you like it so much.
plus i see a shitload of fucked up board tags...
almost as if you are unable to grasp the concepts of Open tags, followed by Close tags resuting in a readable quotation or a link which is both visible and functional.
NOOO REALLY!! is that what graphs are?
when you slap an attribution on a graph, implying it came from a study (not even a study, just basically a web search and tally count with no particular analysis or original research) you give the impression that the graph came from "science" which is, for most of SkepticalScience's audience, Voodoo. skeptical science wants their OPINIONS to be taken as fact, their research is shabby, their citations are haphazard at best and their amateurishly altered graphs (with no citation for the source of the added data) do not engender confidence in me.
why you hold that BLOG in such high regard remains a mystery.
implying it is found in said study, it is NOT from that survey. that citation is a LIE.
gibberish, no suggestions on meaning.
U no make type with boxing gloves i no make fun of u silly talk.
no, the press ran with a story, at a time when most people had NO ACCESS to scientific literature, and science was very slow to correct the misaprehensions, further, the idea of a coming glaciation was NOT controversial, it is comeing, and even the most Greenhouse Obsessed geologists and climatologists are suggesting the glacial cycle might be altered or delayed by human action.
i guess those are more of theos Peer reviewed links" you have been bragging about.also your mixing tabloid coverage with actual science
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
previous interglacial turnover there was less co2 in the air than there is now
If you bothered to get information instead of asserting without fact you would have known that
not only is the name and date "attribution" I just got this from their page http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
you really are a hypocrite
shhshh shhh, no tears now, only dreams.
and back to the ad hominems.
i really tried , but you just refuse to behave civilly.
Doer
Well-Known Member
You know when you say "you" like that, you are sticking a socio up your anal path.
And actually I thought I was doing a pretty good imitation of.....Humphrey Bogard.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Keynes quotes aren't working properly so for now I'll just leave you this single post
Tell me again how I haven't posted any studies.....
Tell me again how I haven't posted any studies.....
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
upon reflection (doobies make me contemplative and hungry... oooo! cheetos!) i suspect Ginjas problem, and the real trigger for his vehement and outspoken refusal to accept the concept that glaciations have happened before and will happen again, is his Ineferences.
he has inferred (and wrongly so) that i am somehow implying that the greenhouse effect is a myth, or even more ridiculously, that i am espousing a position which suggests we INCREASE emissions, to kick the Greenhouse Effect into high gear to hold back the coming glacial cycle.
both those assumptions are directly contrary to my stated beliefs, the evidence of science, and all motherfucking logic.
the last century's much hyped +>2 degrees F average temperature increase is, in my opinion Exaggerated, by the current, non-controversial, and well established long term warming trend, ongoing since the beginning of the holocene era.
greenhouse emissions may be causing some warming, but the real question remains, HOW MUCH, an answer the climate believers are unable to provide, instead they sneer, craft doomsday scenarios, scream "Think Of The Children!", engage in ad hominem, twist data to suit their agenda, pander to the press and the most shrill alarmists, engage in FRAUD and try to bury good science under a landslide of repetition of their orthodoxy.
i suppose, the question "How Much" is just too hot for him to handle.
he has inferred (and wrongly so) that i am somehow implying that the greenhouse effect is a myth, or even more ridiculously, that i am espousing a position which suggests we INCREASE emissions, to kick the Greenhouse Effect into high gear to hold back the coming glacial cycle.
both those assumptions are directly contrary to my stated beliefs, the evidence of science, and all motherfucking logic.
the last century's much hyped +>2 degrees F average temperature increase is, in my opinion Exaggerated, by the current, non-controversial, and well established long term warming trend, ongoing since the beginning of the holocene era.
greenhouse emissions may be causing some warming, but the real question remains, HOW MUCH, an answer the climate believers are unable to provide, instead they sneer, craft doomsday scenarios, scream "Think Of The Children!", engage in ad hominem, twist data to suit their agenda, pander to the press and the most shrill alarmists, engage in FRAUD and try to bury good science under a landslide of repetition of their orthodoxy.
i suppose, the question "How Much" is just too hot for him to handle.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
thats the first anybody has seen of that.
but still, thats NOT you citing journal articles, studies, reports, or research, thats you REPEATING the claims of Skeptical Science.
have YOU read those cited works?
or are you just taking Skeptical Science's word for it, and using those citations in an attempt at academic intimidation, and a blatant appeal to authority.
i doubt you have read any of them, shit i doubt you have even read the abstract for all of them.
Edit: heres the Tally from your repetition of Skeptical Science's "citations"
5 articles from journals which are in disagreement about what global warming will do, how much is man made, and what should be done to reverse the trends. apparently we can expect north america to recieve torrential downpouurs and unprecidented precipitation, and at the same time long term droughts and desertification...
1 IPCC report
1 Broken Link
1 interesting study which i am currently reading (but thus far, it does not seem to say what Skeptical Science implies)
4 instances of Skeptical Science citing Skeptical Science to prove the assertions of Skeptical Science as cited in Skeptical Science. lulz. the links simply take you to another page of the blog and more unsourced assertions. only fool would cite a blog which cites itself to prove it's own claims
4 duplicate links, appaernlty in Skeptical Scioence Land, Dai (2010), and Dai (2011) are TWO citations, making that TWICE as truthy, but unfortunately both link to the same article.
Likewise, Donat and Alexander (2012) and Otto et al (2012) both link to the same source, too bad the source is Skeptical Science once again citing itself as evidence of it's scientific credibility.
that shit is nothing but shabby research and Citation Inflation.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
The thing about the internet it keeps the posts there as proof
Go back and see for yourself.
Then apologise for above lie
sceptical science has backed up their claims.... those links to the studies are evidence their claims are inline with the available science
Debunk them (even just a single one)
Or carry on with ad hominem
Some I have read
The fact they cite their work moves the authority onto the author
Your free to falsify any of sceptical sciences view on the studies or find authors objections
Yawn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they were indeed exonerated for crawling through the window in the dark.
no, you just plain made stuff up. you tried to black up the story, too. because you are a racist little dick.
then, in ALL CAPS, you proclaimed your lies to be facts.
don't call yourself a grown up and then cite creationists, idiot.
sorry that you can't handle mundane facts, but the ice is melting faster than projected.
go cry now, crybaby.
the guy who cites creationists is talking about being taken seriously.
this is fucking grand.
you are an idiot, kynes. there is a reason why you make minimum wage.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Cool story bro
I have repeatedly said no on is denying natural variation
Keep lying tho
I have asked repeatedly for evidence or even timescale of "the coming glacial cycle"
Please provide quotes where I have inferred both the above
What evidence of science bar the 20year-old study have you provided?
CITE
Please post some good science it's not like I asked you for it pages ago
Check the latest ippc for information
Google is your friend, deliberate ignorance is no excuse
EDIT: GRANDIOSE soapboxing like your above post with zero evidence has all the hallmarks off woo peddlers Inc: anti gmo, psychics, the worst of the environmentalists, homeopaths
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
at least he's not appealing to creationists in a scientific debate, like some people i know.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he's using CAPS again folks, so you know there are plenty of lies and kynes butthurt in there.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
My post (originally 194) why was it deleted?
Looking for confirmation from mod (am reporting this post)
Looking for confirmation from mod (am reporting this post)
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
Offensive posts are deleted with the reason 'Inappropriate.'
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
drifting standard of "offensive" it seems..Offensive posts are deleted with the reason 'Inappropriate.'
The post I replied to still stands
Which one of your mods is exercising their bias?
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
What don't you understand about "offensive posts?"
Your post that was deleted included "go fuck yourself."
I consider that to be offensive.
Your post that was deleted included "go fuck yourself."
I consider that to be offensive.
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
I keep explaining to these libs rolly. They don't want to listen. Us conservatives want to debate politics and argue our point of view in a civilized manner. What are we going to do?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
civilized manner, eh?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
presented without comment.
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
You call people stupid, idiot, and retard all the time. Problem is, you take it to the next level. Totally inappropriate. You need to read your terms of service agreement before dropping F bombs all over the forum. Keep it up you're getting another strike. So I suggest you and ginja warrior cut it out.