Global warming my ass - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Bill8 · 12-29-2010, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dcat

Yes, I remember back in 2000/2001 when these Global Warming Clowns were saying that Britain might never see snow again.

This is priceless..

"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "

The CRU ...LOL!!

..kinda makes me want to hit 'em with a big fat snow ball.

You need to be more suspicious of everything you read about global warming in the conventional media.

The media isn't trying to explain the actual models, it's looking for "cartoons" of the competing global warming theories to get people to look at advertisements with controversy and attention grabbing headlines.

So, if one scientist says something offhand, and in this case with no time reference (did the scientist mean ten years, or, as seems equally likely, a hundred years?), the media has a profit motive to distort whatever is said into a sensationalistic headline.

If there is a "global warming industry", it's profit model is based on advertising, because it is pushed by the media.

You need to look at the actual science publications to get any real information on this subject.

Media links just tell us what the media, with a profit motive, wants us to think - and they will happily play both sides of the street, and happily distort the science, if it plays on peoples fears and prejudices and brings eyeballs to advertisements.

It's foolish to trust the media on anything.

Dcat · 12-29-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

You need to be more suspicious of everything you read about global warming in the conventional media.

The media isn't trying to explain the actual models, it's looking for "cartoons" of the competing global warming theories to get people to look at advertisements with controversy and attention grabbing headlines.

So, if one scientist says something offhand, and in this case with no time reference (did the scientist mean ten years, or, as seems equally likely, a hundred years?), the media has a profit motive to distort whatever is said into a sensationalistic headline.

If there is a "global warming industry", it's profit model is based on advertising, because it is pushed by the media.

You need to look at the actual science publications to get any real information on this subject.

Media links just tell us what the media, with a profit motive, wants us to think - and they will happily play both sides of the street, and happily distort the science, if it plays on peoples fears and prejudices and brings eyeballs to advertisements.

It's foolish to trust the media on anything.

I agree. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of it all.

Aric · 12-29-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

I know you people aren't strong on science, and that global warming as a concept is too difficult for you to process.

But, extreme weather of all sorts, including cold, increases as the heat engine of the climate slowly gets warmer on the average.

And yes, global warming can include sudden cooling of certain areas as the jet stream and the ocean currents are changed by the tiny increases in global temperature. Northern europe will probably feel this effect first, becaus it is kept warmer than it would ordinarily be by the gulf stream.

In a worst case scenario, global warming could cause sudden mini ice ages, because of sudden changes in ocean currents.

It definitely will cause more extreme snows and rains, as the slightly warmer temperatures cause more water to evaporate from the oceans, and the slightly warmer air can carry billions of tons more water vapor.

The climate is a giant heat engine, and global warming makes it run faster and harder.

Global warming does not mean a pleasant gradual warming of the average temperatures, and the people who are trying to confuse things by pretending that's what it means are idiots.

But this is gfy, and I know you folks are either too ignorant or too politicized by the corporate media to even make the minimal effort to understand what a climate heat engine means.

Very well put, but too long for the average attention span on GFY

Slutboat · 12-29-2010, 04:55 PM

jesus christ you global warming deniers are gullible fuckers - don't you get that there are large corporations that make a lot of money by fooling you stupid cocksuckers?

MetaMan · 12-29-2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornGreen

yes, that is indeed the fact. let us know when you grasp the relevance of ~100 years readings vs 4,540,000,000 years of actual temperature fluctuations.

THANK GOD

I am happy some people still think.

"on record" doesnt mean shit.

MetaMan · 12-29-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

You need to be more suspicious of everything you read about global warming in the conventional media.

The media isn't trying to explain the actual models, it's looking for "cartoons" of the competing global warming theories to get people to look at advertisements with controversy and attention grabbing headlines.

So, if one scientist says something offhand, and in this case with no time reference (did the scientist mean ten years, or, as seems equally likely, a hundred years?), the media has a profit motive to distort whatever is said into a sensationalistic headline.

If there is a "global warming industry", it's profit model is based on advertising, because it is pushed by the media.

You need to look at the actual science publications to get any real information on this subject.

Media links just tell us what the media, with a profit motive, wants us to think - and they will happily play both sides of the street, and happily distort the science, if it plays on peoples fears and prejudices and brings eyeballs to advertisements.

It's foolish to trust the media on anything.

We need to look at the pollution of our rivers, food supply and not waste one cent more on CLIMATE CHANGE. Which is a completely NATURAL OCCURANCE.

wow you describe instances where the globe has weather fluctionations between cold and hot. Wow you are a true scientist!

Agent 488 · 12-29-2010, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

THANK GOD

I am happy some people still think.

"on record" doesnt mean shit.

at the very least university builds critical facilities.

this one one of the reasons people go and finish.

don't worry, you are never too old to take your thinking to the next level.

MetaMan · 12-29-2010, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

don't worry, you are never too old to take your thinking to the next level.

Then you should have nothing to worry about.

dyna mo · 12-29-2010, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

You need to be more suspicious of everything you read about global warming in the conventional media.

The media isn't trying to explain the actual models, it's looking for "cartoons" of the competing global warming theories to get people to look at advertisements with controversy and attention grabbing headlines.

So, if one scientist says something offhand, and in this case with no time reference (did the scientist mean ten years, or, as seems equally likely, a hundred years?), the media has a profit motive to distort whatever is said into a sensationalistic headline.

If there is a "global warming industry", it's profit model is based on advertising, because it is pushed by the media.

You need to look at the actual science publications to get any real information on this subject.

Media links just tell us what the media, with a profit motive, wants us to think - and they will happily play both sides of the street, and happily distort the science, if it plays on peoples fears and prejudices and brings eyeballs to advertisements.

It's foolish to trust the media on anything.

actually, this scenario doesn't take into account the fact that scientists lied about global warming.

Agent 488 · 12-29-2010, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

Then you should have nothing to worry about.

meh ...........

justinsain · 12-29-2010, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roly

industrialised man has only been around for a couple of hundred years or so to upset the balance.

It's funny how people fail to realize this

What's happened the last few billion years on earth in it's natural balance is not the point. It's about what man has introduced in the last hundred years or so and what effect it may have in tilting that delicate balance.

will76 · 12-29-2010, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

Actually had to scrape frost off my car window yesterday morning. Un fucking real

Jesus Christ, every time it snows or gets cold some idiot comes and makes a post about how GLOBAL Warming must be bullshit.

FYI, global warming is the avg temp around the world going up each year. If it increases by more than just a couple degrees over a decade the repercussions would be catastrophic. Global warming is NOT reflected by it being hot or cold in your town today.

Nathan · 12-29-2010, 05:19 PM

Nobody lied about global warming... Bill8 explained it basically...

But I will make it simpler for the GFY brain

Northern/Western European cold and snow winter 2010/2011 explanation with global warming:
Global Warming -> Ice Melts -> Melted Ice Water cools oceans -> Gulf stream cools down -> Gulf stream heats air less than in 2009/2010 ->Europe gets colder air -> Europe gets colder

There, simple huh?

Choker · 12-29-2010, 05:57 PM

Wow, didn't intend to start a global warming conspiracy thread. Never seen frost on my car like I did yesterday morning. That's all I'm saying. LOL. I have not seen all the evidence or lack of it to make a real educated opinion about global warming. Although I do see how big cooperations are making billions off the scare the media has created about it.

dyna mo · 12-29-2010, 06:04 PM

////////////

Agent 488 · 12-29-2010, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

Wow, didn't intend to start a global warming conspiracy thread. Never seen frost on my car like I did yesterday morning. That's all I'm saying. LOL. I have not seen all the evidence or lack of it to make a real educated opinion about global warming. Although I do see how big cooperations are making billions off the scare the media has created about it.

who is making billions of the global warming "scare?"

dyna mo · 12-29-2010, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Nobody lied about global warming... Bill8 explained it basically...

But I will make it simpler for the GFY brain

Northern/Western European cold and snow winter 2010/2011 explanation with global warming:
Global Warming -> Ice Melts -> Melted Ice Water cools oceans -> Gulf stream cools down -> Gulf stream heats air less than in 2009/2010 ->Europe gets colder air -> Europe gets colder

There, simple huh?

i was not aware that climategate had been recently exposed as a manipulation of the facts and i simply stated that the explanation given didn't take climategate into account.

Choker · 12-29-2010, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

who is making billions of the global warming "scare?"

Start off with the pollution credits trade, windfarms, solar, did you know that BP is huge in solar? How many billions in tax dollars are going to alt fuels? I'm not saying we should not go green, we should, and it's business as normal the huge cooperations are the ones that stand to get even biiger from this.

Overload · 12-29-2010, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornGreen

oh, u mad?

lol

i'm pointing out that "on record" is ~100 years out of 4,540,000,000 and i think that should be noted. that is all.

errm ... deduct the years mankind wasnt present ... 4,500,000,000 maybe? and then narrow it down to the years of INDUSTRIAL mankind ... you are left with how many years then? hum?

Overload · 12-29-2010, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Nobody lied about global warming... Bill8 explained it basically...

But I will make it simpler for the GFY brain

Northern/Western European cold and snow winter 2010/2011 explanation with global warming:
Global Warming -> Ice Melts -> Melted Ice Water cools oceans -> Gulf stream cools down -> Gulf stream heats air less than in 2009/2010 ->Europe gets colder air -> Europe gets colder

There, simple huh?

amen ... i guess most EU folks know about this ... with the gulf stream weakening the EU zone gets a lot colder

PornGreen · 12-29-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Nobody lied about global warming... Bill8 explained it basically...

no. bill8 ignored the fact that scientists stand to reap hundreds of billions of dollars in funding (also known as high paying jobs) if they can 'prove' that there is some grave threat upon us that only they can solve, and instead pretended the media is the problem.

Adam_M · 12-29-2010, 07:39 PM

Coldest and wettest start to summer ever this year on the east coast of Australia

Overload · 12-29-2010, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

We need to look at the pollution of our rivers, food supply and not waste one cent more on CLIMATE CHANGE. Which is a completely NATURAL OCCURANCE.

yeah sure ... as natural as supported by billions of tons of CO² emissions by mankind

blockhead

Bill8 · 12-29-2010, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

actually, this scenario doesn't take into account the fact that scientists lied about global warming.

I suspect you have no idea wether or not individual scientists or scientists in groups have actually lied.

I'd be happy to dissect any examples of individual or group lies. What examples did you have in mind?

The internal peer review system of science culture is very harsh on scientists that lie. If you actually know any possible lies, it might be interesting to see what the science community did about it.

But, I think you have no idea wether or not there have been lies, and that you are just repeating something you've been told to repeat by the corporate media or someone influenced by the media.

If, however, we find examples of actual lies by actual scientists, it wouldn't be a definitive argument against the much much larger body of research, measurements, and models. It's just a reminder that scientists are human beings and people sometimes lie and cheat.

Which is always good to keep in mind.

Bill8 · 12-29-2010, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornGreen

no. bill8 ignored the fact that scientists stand to reap hundreds of billions of dollars in funding (also known as high paying jobs) if they can 'prove' that there is some grave threat upon us that only they can solve, and instead pretended the media is the problem.

I dont believe the "threat" can be solved. It's a done deal.

Your side is welcome to investigate wether or not funding plays a role in influencing science, and I strongly urge you to do so. Such investogations can only strengthen the scientific community.

I'm not ignoring funding issue you describe, altho I'm curious how you think that so many scientists around the planet, funded by so many different institutions, are in collusion?

Your side has had years now to come up with evidence to support your charge, yet as far as I can tell, despite the fact that this would make HUGE media news, you have been unable to support your claim.

You've been told to repeat this argument by the media, and I doubt you have even thought about wether or not there have been any facts or investigations to support it.

I urge you to find evidence to support your theory. present it here and let's examine it.

Bill8 · 12-29-2010, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

...

Although I do see how big cooperations are making billions off the scare the media has created about it.

one thing we can count on is that the big corporations are going to be making billions of dollars off every scare that comes along, and there are many threats facing this country and this planet at the moment.

the amount they stand to make off global warming is peanuts compared to the money they will be making when the age of expensive oil is truly here, and we will probably see that by the end of this decade.

because we have not planned for the end of cheap oil, they will be able to exploit that panic like nothing our society has ever seen before.

global warming is slow, and nothing can be done about it now. the end of the cheap oil age will be much more dramatic and painful, and it will happen before most of us die, unlike the worst effects of global warming.

2MuchMark · 12-29-2010, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

I know you people aren't strong on science, and that global warming as a concept is too difficult for you to process.

But, extreme weather of all sorts, including cold, increases as the heat engine of the climate slowly gets warmer on the average.

And yes, global warming can include sudden cooling of certain areas as the jet stream and the ocean currents are changed by the tiny increases in global temperature. Northern europe will probably feel this effect first, becaus it is kept warmer than it would ordinarily be by the gulf stream.

In a worst case scenario, global warming could cause sudden mini ice ages, because of sudden changes in ocean currents.

It definitely will cause more extreme snows and rains, as the slightly warmer temperatures cause more water to evaporate from the oceans, and the slightly warmer air can carry billions of tons more water vapor.

The climate is a giant heat engine, and global warming makes it run faster and harder.

Global warming does not mean a pleasant gradual warming of the average temperatures, and the people who are trying to confuse things by pretending that's what it means are idiots.

But this is gfy, and I know you folks are either too ignorant or too politicized by the corporate media to even make the minimal effort to understand what a climate heat engine means.

THANK YOU...

You know your stuff.

2MuchMark · 12-29-2010, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

We need to look at the pollution of our rivers, food supply and not waste one cent more on CLIMATE CHANGE. Which is a completely NATURAL OCCURANCE.

"Climate Change" IS a natural occurrence.

"Global Warming" is not. At least, not completely natural. Man, who releases tons of pollution, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, is warming the planet too. This is key.

Whether its natural or not can be debated by both sides. Regardless of who is right, we need to do something to stop the warming trend. Don't listen to Global Warming deniers like Glenn Beck. Listen to the scientists who are doing the actual research.

The planet is in trouble...

jigg · 12-29-2010, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

NASA research shows that 2010 is the hottest year on record.

right, because sticking a thermometer at the airport and around all that concrete and asphalt will not affect the temperatures

mgtarheels · 12-29-2010, 09:02 PM

I think I'll just leave this here....

PornGreen · 12-29-2010, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

I dont believe the "threat" can be solved. It's a done deal.

Your side is welcome to investigate wether or not funding plays a role in influencing science, and I strongly urge you to do so. Such investogations can only strengthen the scientific community.

I'm not ignoring funding issue you describe, altho I'm curious how you think that so many scientists around the planet, funded by so many different institutions, are in collusion?

Your side has had years now to come up with evidence to support your charge, yet as far as I can tell, despite the fact that this would make HUGE media news, you have been unable to support your claim.

You've been told to repeat this argument by the media, and I doubt you have even thought about wether or not there have been any facts or investigations to support it.

I urge you to find evidence to support your theory. present it here and let's examine it.

good post, but evidence did come out. correspondence between scientists leading the charge, privately discussing how to fudge data and mislead the public when hotter temperatures were not showing up a year or so ago. they knew it could hurt their funding, and they discussed how to fake the data to protect their cash cow.

mgtarheels · 12-29-2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornGreen

good post, but evidence did come out. correspondence between scientists leading the charge, privately discussing how to fudge data and mislead the public when hotter temperatures were not showing up a year or so ago. they knew it could hurt their funding, and they discussed how to fake the data to protect their cash cow.

Yep.....

dyna mo · 12-29-2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

I suspect you have no idea wether or not individual scientists or scientists in groups have actually lied.

I'd be happy to dissect any examples of individual or group lies. What examples did you have in mind?

The internal peer review system of science culture is very harsh on scientists that lie. If you actually know any possible lies, it might be interesting to see what the science community did about it.

But, I think you have no idea wether or not there have been lies, and that you are just repeating something you've been told to repeat by the corporate media or someone influenced by the media.

If, however, we find examples of actual lies by actual scientists, it wouldn't be a definitive argument against the much much larger body of research, measurements, and models. It's just a reminder that scientists are human beings and people sometimes lie and cheat.

Which is always good to keep in mind.

you missed this

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i was not aware that climategate had been recently exposed as a manipulation of the facts and i simply stated that the explanation given didn't take climategate into account.

Bill8 · 12-29-2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornGreen

good post, but evidence did come out. correspondence between scientists leading the charge, privately discussing how to fudge data and mislead the public when hotter temperatures were not showing up a year or so ago. they knew it could hurt their funding, and they discussed how to fake the data to protect their cash cow.

you are very careful not to name names, I note.

presumably you decline to name names because you are talking about the most heavily investigated science "scandal" of all time.

Perhaps you care to tell me what the results of the investigations were?

I'd love to discuss it detail by detail with you. I think it's a fascinating case study.

I personally hope to see even more investigations of this famous "scandal" - I think it has been a boon to the scientific community, and a much needed push towards greater transparency and education of the layperson.

I strongly urge you to urge your congresspersons and anyone else you can get to listen to continue investigating.

Bill8 · 12-29-2010, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

you missed this

sorry, I don't understand - what did I miss?

PornGreen · 12-29-2010, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

you are very careful not to name names, I note.

presumably you decline to name names because you are talking about the most heavily investigated science "scandal" of all time.

Perhaps you care to tell me what the results of the investigations were?

I'd love to discuss it detail by detail with you. I think it's a fascinating case study.

I personally hope to see even more investigations of this famous "scandal" - I think it has been a boon to the scientific community, and a much needed push towards greater transparency and education of the layperson.

I strongly urge you to urge your congresspersons and anyone else you can get to listen to continue investigating.

just a minute ago it didn't exist, and now you want to discuss it?

your whole point is obviously that you know more about this than the rest of us media-fed sheep, so go ahead, out with it. what were the results of the 'investigation' by other scientists who needed to keep their cash cow intact?

dyna mo · 12-29-2010, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jigg

right, because sticking a thermometer at the airport and around all that concrete and asphalt will not affect the temperatures

i don't give a fuck.

as i mentioned previously, it was simply a comment based on a recent end of the year article.

mgtarheels · 12-29-2010, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i don't give a fuck.

as i mentioned previously, it was simply a comment based on a recent end of the year article.

So, you don't give a fuck about any possible retort to your postings?

dyna mo · 12-29-2010, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

sorry, I don't understand - what did I miss?

ugh.

you wrote this

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

You need to be more suspicious of everything you read about global warming in the conventional media.

The media isn't trying to explain the actual models, it's looking for "cartoons" of the competing global warming theories to get people to look at advertisements with controversy and attention grabbing headlines.

So, if one scientist says something offhand, and in this case with no time reference (did the scientist mean ten years, or, as seems equally likely, a hundred years?), the media has a profit motive to distort whatever is said into a sensationalistic headline.

If there is a "global warming industry", it's profit model is based on advertising, because it is pushed by the media.

You need to look at the actual science publications to get any real information on this subject.

Media links just tell us what the media, with a profit motive, wants us to think - and they will happily play both sides of the street, and happily distort the science, if it plays on peoples fears and prejudices and brings eyeballs to advertisements.

It's foolish to trust the media on anything.

i replied with this

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

actually, this scenario doesn't take into account the fact that scientists lied about global warming.

this guy chimes in with this

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Nobody lied about global warming... Bill8 explained it basically...

i replied with this

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i was not aware that climategate had been recently exposed as a manipulation of the facts and i simply stated that the explanation given didn't take climategate into account.

you then wrote this

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

I suspect you have no idea wether or not individual scientists or scientists in groups have actually lied.

I'd be happy to dissect any examples of individual or group lies. What examples did you have in mind?

The internal peer review system of science culture is very harsh on scientists that lie. If you actually know any possible lies, it might be interesting to see what the science community did about it.

But, I think you have no idea wether or not there have been lies, and that you are just repeating something you've been told to repeat by the corporate media or someone influenced by the media.

If, however, we find examples of actual lies by actual scientists, it wouldn't be a definitive argument against the much much larger body of research, measurements, and models. It's just a reminder that scientists are human beings and people sometimes lie and cheat.

Which is always good to keep in mind.

dyna mo · 12-29-2010, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

So, you don't give a fuck about any possible retort to your postings?

dude, it was a comment based on a fucking article i read that stated as such. it wasn't my fucking opinion, i was simple relaying the conclusion. get off my fucking back.

fuck, you gfy climatologist can ruin fucking wet dream.

Bill8 · 12-29-2010, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornGreen

just a minute ago it didn't exist, and now you want to discuss it?

your whole point is obviously that you know more about this than the rest of us media-fed sheep, so go ahead, out with it. what were the results of the 'investigation' by other scientists who needed to keep their cash cow intact?

You're the one making the attack, it's only polite for me to allow you to take the strike.

however, in addition, it's important to outline the quality of the knowledge on which you are basing your attack.

I have argued that it is purely media "knowledge", that you have been told to say a certain thing, and you don't even understand what it is that you have been told to repeat.

that you have no real sense of the actual events or issues involved, and haven't really studied it or even thought about it much, and that your sole source of knowledge on the subject comes from well known media sources, particularly from the murdoch media empire.

prove me wrong. explain the issues, and explain why the investgations of the most heavily investigated science scandal of our time, and possibly ever, were incorrect.

mgtarheels · 12-29-2010, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

dude, it was a comment based on a fucking article i read that stated as such. it wasn't my fucking opinion, i was simple relaying the conclusion. get off my fucking back.

fuck, you gfy climatologist can ruin fucking wet dream.

You're awfully upset over one question.

mgtarheels · 12-29-2010, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

You're the one making the attack, it's only polite for me to allow you to take the strike.

however, in addition, it's important to outline the quality of the knowledge on which you are basing your attack.

I have argued that it is purely media "knowledge", that you have been told to say a certain thing, and you don't even understand what it is that you have been told to repeat.

that you have no real sense of the actual events or issues involved, and haven't really studied it or even thought about it much, and that your sole source of knowledge on the subject comes from well known media sources, particularly from the murdoch media empire.

prove me wrong. explain the issues, and explain why the investgations of the most heavily investigated science scandal of our time, and possibly ever, were incorrect.

He made his claim, you're just attempting to refute it with circular reasoning. Ball is in your court.

PornGreen · 12-29-2010, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

You're the one making the attack, it's only polite for me to allow you to take the strike.

however, in addition, it's important to outline the quality of the knowledge on which you are basing your attack.

I have argued that it is purely media "knowledge", that you have been told to say a certain thing, and you don't even understand what it is that you have been told to repeat.

that you have no real sense of the actual events or issues involved, and haven't really studied it or even thought about it much, and that your sole source of knowledge on the subject comes from well known media sources, particularly from the murdoch media empire.

prove me wrong. explain the issues, and explain why the investgations of the most heavily investigated science scandal of our time, and possibly ever, were incorrect.

you are using good, although transparent, debate tactics i will grant you that. the problem you have run into is that i have no interest in debating you.

your assertion that media profits from global warming more than scientists is laughable.

you believe in scientists. i believe in scientists.

when scientists can get billions of dollars for agreeing with certain data interpretations, i see the billions of dollars and understand.

mgtarheels · 12-29-2010, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornGreen

you are using good, although transparent, debate tactics i will grant you that.

Nope.

In a formal debate his circular reasoning would have him looking foolish.

quiet · 12-29-2010, 09:39 PM

and aonther gfy thread degrades.

dyna mo · 12-29-2010, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

You're awfully upset over one question.

no, i just couldn't give a fuck about a gfy poster named mqtrheels making unsubstantiated claims about nasa.

if you have a link to an article stating that nasa gets every one of its temp readings from airports across the globe, i'd prolly read it for fun.

otherwise, as stated, i don't give a fuck.

mgtarheels · 12-29-2010, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quiet

and aonther gfy thread degrades.

Thread is still on topic.

Btw, pot and kettling is not fun.

mgtarheels · 12-29-2010, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no, i just couldn't give a fuck about a gfy poster named mqtrheels making unsubstantiated claims about nasa.

if you have a link to an article stating that nasa gets every one of its temp readings from airports across the globe, i'd prolly read it for fun.

otherwise, as stated, i don't give a fuck.

Obviously, you're so upset you haven't any idea who is making what claims.

Go back and read this thread, fool.

Bill8 · 12-29-2010, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

ugh.

you wrote this

i replied with this

this guy chimes in with this

i replied with this

you then wrote this

clear as mud - but I will guess that you are trying to say "what about climategate?", but are being cagey because you already know that none of the investigations of climategate found any wrongdoing.

with one exception - it was considered a violation of science ethics to share data from a scientist outside the east anglia circle within east anglia without permission (I believe that was the finding on that particular breach, if I have a detail wrong I still stand behind my general description as accurate enough for gfy). But that sharing had nothing to do with the commonly discussed and published issues in the east anglia emails, so it doesn't apply to climategate as a political issue.

There was an additional civil finding, that east aglia was not responding properly to FOI requests, but that isn't considered an ethical breach. The scientists argued that FOI requests were bombarding the center at an unprecedented rate and that they didn't have staff or time in place to answer them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy

as I said, I urge your side to continue investigations. and i fervently support greater scientific transparency. if climate information is going to be subjected to greater public scrutiny some sort of system to make that possible, including paying staff to put data onto open servers and making subscripttion publications more available to the public, should be instituted.

but if you continue to claim wrongdoing, without new evidence, when 3 investigations in the UK and one here in the US have all said none occured, then your side is simply ignorant at best and intentionally lying for political purposes at worst.

personally, I think you are both ignorant, which is common, AND intentionally lying for political purposes; but I'm willing to allow that simple ignorance is sufficient explanation, given the average state of the american mind.

12-29-2010, 04:55 PM	#54
Slutboat Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,388	jesus christ you global warming deniers are gullible fuckers - don't you get that there are large corporations that make a lot of money by fooling you stupid cocksuckers? __________________ The Slut Boat soon will be making another run The Slut Boat promises something for everyone

12-29-2010, 05:19 PM	#63
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Nobody lied about global warming... Bill8 explained it basically... But I will make it simpler for the GFY brain Northern/Western European cold and snow winter 2010/2011 explanation with global warming: Global Warming -> Ice Melts -> Melted Ice Water cools oceans -> Gulf stream cools down -> Gulf stream heats air less than in 2009/2010 ->Europe gets colder air -> Europe gets colder There, simple huh? __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

12-29-2010, 05:57 PM	#64
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	Wow, didn't intend to start a global warming conspiracy thread. Never seen frost on my car like I did yesterday morning. That's all I'm saying. LOL. I have not seen all the evidence or lack of it to make a real educated opinion about global warming. Although I do see how big cooperations are making billions off the scare the media has created about it. __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o

12-29-2010, 07:39 PM	#72
Adam_M Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 3,796	Coldest and wettest start to summer ever this year on the east coast of Australia __________________ DiscountedPorn.Com ReviewedPorn.com

12-29-2010, 06:04 PM	#65
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,914	////////////

12-29-2010, 09:02 PM	#80
mgtarheels Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Daytona Beach, FL Posts: 1,317	I think I'll just leave this here....

12-29-2010, 09:39 PM	#96
quiet we'll miss you our friend. RIP Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Fernie, BC Posts: 25,115	and aonther gfy thread degrades.