European scientists' study shows woodypeckerhead rejects science MINI ICE AGE

calfoxwc

bbedward

calfoxwc

You mess up the litterbox in your mind, you

get to suffer the consequences.

MLD Woody

The key term in "Multi Variable Calculus" is Multi variable. Just FYI

Clevfan4life

two of cals links were "whydon'tyoutrythis.com" and "iceagenow". I cringe now everytime I see Cal links. Literally the most ridiculous places on the internet cannot hide from Cals discerning efforts. Any website that cherry picks and kind of official data from places like NASA, and then constructs a wild carpet ride for the mind.....Cal will find it. He will. I don't think he needs google anymore, I think he just jacks right into the addy bar and he's got em.

calfoxwc

there you go again.

The iceagenow link refers to the NASA study.

Ever heard of NASA?

LEARN. THINK. POST.

Clevfan4life

@calfoxwc said:

there you go again.

The iceagenow link refers to the NASA study.

Ever heard of NASA?

LEARN. THINK. POST.

Yes I know it "referred" to a NASA study. Something tells me though, as I stated in my post...that the info sounded awful cherry picked. And that's what we've been telling you. These sites you constantly link take info from an actual verifiable study but then give you "their" interpretation of the results. The NASA study is likely inifinitely more complicated but your websites don't care, they parse and pick what they can make sound like it backs up what they claim is the truth.

Stop, breathe, analyze...

MLD Woody

He doesn't understand. We've tried. He values a source based on whether or not the conclusion they present agrees with him. Nothing more

blowe

Stop, collaborate and listen.

Clevfan4life

ice is back with my brand new invention

calfoxwc

I analyze on the fly. I read, read, read, it's fun for me.

That's why, when somebody knee jerks and says

"oh, bs, stupid cal, that is complete bs"...

I can go back and find sites I've read, and haven't read but

support what I said.

You don't like the message, too bad. You don't find problem with the content,

just go liberal and attack the site that talks about a scientific study....

If I were to post the actual study, not one of you haters would read it, and and wouldn't understand it

if you did.

So, go ahead go to the actual study, and read it, and then let us know what you emote about it....

bbedward

Read read read

I thought it was read think post

calfoxwc

It changes based on the nitwits' knee jerky that is taking place at the time.

The left thinks being stupid and a smart ass liar is cool ...especially at the same time.

Pumpkin Eater

@mld-woody said:
Carson and Huckabee aren't on my list of politicians I can trust with science...

Shut the fuck up already. You know very little about science, apparently.

You are aware that scientific research must be conducted without bias? Yet mmgw proponents are caught on record showing their bias and inflating data to support their hypothesis. That's not even how experiments are supposed to be conducted. Scientists are supposed to try to disprove their hypothesis, not fudge numbers to try to scare people.

Science is based on observation. Real observations are that the earth has not warmed in almost 20 years and NASA has observed Antarctic sea ice growing by billions of tons. Those observations do not support mmgw, therefore the hypothesis has not been proven, and more than likely is disproven. THE OBSERVATIONS PREDICTED IN THE HYPOTHESIS HAVE NOT BEEN OBSERVED. Not one gloom and doom prediction has come to fruition.

MLD Woody

Yep, the vast, vast majority of climatologists are biased. They all fudge numbers (insert hysterical liberal rant here). Exactly! It is so simple. Much more likely this giant, overwhelming majority is pushing mountains of independent, peer reviewed, propaganda than that a small group of "experts" funded by large companies with something to gain are producing biased and misleading reports to trick gullible public...

The "Antarctic Sea Ice Growing" story has been debunked on here multiple times...

Are you also going to take the "we haven't observed it!" route of science denial? Do we need another article on what a scientific theory is as well?

Pumpkin Eater

Peer reviewed by peers with the same agenda. LOL.

What doom and gloom predictions have come true? New York is supposed to be underwater by now. Where's the widespread famine?

Then of course, there's this: http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm

LOL the arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2013. lolololol.

Oh and this:

http://www.examiner.com/article/nasa-study-shows-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-slowing-sea-level-rise

not sure how you "debunked" cold hard facts such as:

"The paper, published by researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation show that based on satellite data, there was a "net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet. The gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. All of which translates to a net reduction in global sea level rise of 0.23 mm per year."

The study authors say in a NASA announcement that the findings "challenge current explanations for sea level rise, much of which is attributed to Greenland and Antarctica. The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," said Dr. Zwally"

but then again your warped liberal mind probably just ignores hard data like the above.

MLD Woody

Show me the scientific study that said NY was supposed to be under water by now and that there'd be "widespread famine".

The sea ice stuff has been covered multiple times.

We're looking at studies be NASA? Ok, let's see what they say about Climate Change.... http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Oh right, the same thing as every other reputable source...

Pumpkin Eater

You are contradictory. First you claim there are no actual "studies" that predicted the earth would, by now, be ravaged by the effects of mmgw. You want to see an actual "study", not some opinion Of some "peer reviewed" scientist. You want facts. But then you go and base your argument on an opinion in an attempt to refute actual cold, hard, measurable data that doesn't support mmgw.

I suppose that's typical faulty liberal thinking though.

bbedward

@pumpkin-eater said:

You are contradictory. First you claim there are no actual "studies" that predicted the earth would, by now, be ravaged by the effects of mmgw. You want to see an actual "study", not some opinion Of some "peer reviewed" scientist. You want facts. But then you go and base your argument on an opinion in an attempt to refute actual cold, hard, measurable data that doesn't support mmgw.

I suppose that's typical faulty liberal thinking though.

Taking data that has nothing to do with climate change, but interpreting it in a way that disproves global warming is not "cold, hard, measurable data that doesn't support mmgw"

MLD Woody

@pumpkin-eater said:

You are contradictory. First you claim there are no actual "studies" that predicted the earth would, by now, be ravaged by the effects of mmgw. You want to see an actual "study", not some opinion Of some "peer reviewed" scientist. You want facts. But then you go and base your argument on an opinion in an attempt to refute actual cold, hard, measurable data that doesn't support mmgw.

I suppose that's typical faulty liberal thinking though.

Where do you think those "opinions" came about? Scientific studies. Data. Facts.

Now, where are the studies showing "widespread famine" by now? I'll wait...