Science proves mmgw is a farce
-
yes, I watched them. you don't want to, and if you do, you won't admit it.
anything to excuse yourself from being wrong and admitting it.
"too short, too long, not a phd, not a climate scientist, I don't have time, too many
links, I son't read the Blaze, I won't read the Constitution, I won't admit mmgw
is a farce to my last peck on wood."
yes, I watched them. you don't want to, and if you do, you won't admit it.
anything to excuse yourself from being wrong and admitting it.
"too short, too long, not a phd, not a climate scientist, I don't have time, too many
links, I son't read the Blaze, I won't read the Constitution, I won't admit mmgw
is a farce to my last peck on wood."
To be fair Cal, if someone was arguing with you about wanting more gun control, would you sit and watch six hours of footage called "The 2nd Amendment: The Murderous Amendment"?
Or refute every point on the 20 links from doctors and health professionals on sites like thinkofthekids.org or bradycampaign.com?
No adult person has 10-15 hours a day to sift through information that is very likely biased to the gills to argue with someone on the internet.
-
but that isn't fair - I truncated the usual bunch to only five, I watched them and selected them
for the qualifications of the persons doing the video, etc.
If woody doesn't have time to watch them, fine. Let him STFU until he does. Same old, he bitches.
If I post only one, he bitches where it came from, what link, something, to try to minimalize it.
So, I didn't post links because he bitches about the sources so much, I tried to post videos instead.
And the videos are by experts in the field.
So, he can't watch just one - WTF? I post 4 or 5 videos, and he can't just watch the first one?
So, if I took the time to do a cliff's notes of the first video, everybody knows he'll just bitch that I'm biased,
and I probably misquoted, misassumed, misinterpreted,,,,,
if it was a two minute video, he'd bitch that it ignored any details. If I posted a ten minute video, he's just bitch
that it didn't elaborate. If I post a half hr, to an hr video, he bitches he doesn't have time/it's too long, etc etc.
If it was any conservative site that had an article with a link to the video, he'd just bitch about the conservative site
being biased.
Well, the liberal sites sure as heck won't have negative articles on mmgw, liberals don't work that way.
I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one
roller. lol.
It's tough to consider the 2nd Amendment analogy - it's a fact. mmgw is a flawed theory, as these experts in the field say.
-
To a person who thinks guns should be illegal, they believe the 2nd Am exists but that it is interpreted wrong or should be changed.
I will take Woody at his word until proven otherwise. If you throw out a few points and he shits on them without offering much explanation then you proved your point.
-
I don't know who is or isn't on Facebook but there are a lot of those medical videos that trumpet the title 5 things you should never do or always do or never eat or eat everyday blah blah blah.
Click on the video just out of curiosity and you find that it's at least an hour long infomercial. I don't think anybody on either side has the time or patience to sit through an hour at a time of almost anything.
I guess if somebody was telling me I should watch this I would just ask to point out the 5 things from the video.
WSS
-
But remember the debate whether it exists or not isn't that big of a deal. Most people think there's been some change and most people think that mankind has an affect.
Once more we should ask how much how dangerous and what can we reasonably do. Then the scientific community is that a loss for words.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Man-made global warming might or might not exist. It's become so politicized. Liberals don't care if it is real or not, they just want to control people and redistribute wealth. If they really cared they would start initiative to plant trees because trees remove carbon from the atmosphere. Some scientists hypothesize that when 90% of the Native American population was killed--due to a plague right after the first Europeans arrived--it caused a mini Ice Age in Europe because all the trees that the natives cut down started growing back, removing tons of carbon from the atmosphere. But liberals do not care about that, they just want to control people. I posted a link on here to the Arbor Day foundation where you could donate money to have trees planted in national Forests and it went largely ignored. Liberals don't want to actually do anything to help they just want to inconvenience everyone else.
:neutral_face: -
But remember the debate whether it exists or not isn't that big of a deal. Most people think there's been some change and most people think that mankind has an affect.
Once more we should ask how much how dangerous and what can we reasonably do. Then the scientific community is that a loss for words.
WSS
But remember the debate whether it exists or not isn't that big of a deal. Most people think there's been some change and most people think that mankind has an affect.
Once more we should ask how much how dangerous and what can we reasonably do. Then the scientific community is that a loss for words.
WSS
It is a very big deal. There is still a fight to even convince a good number of people that it is even happening. If a large portion of the people yell "mmgw is fake!" because their political party told them too, it is going to be hard to get anything meaningful done, because anything meaningful will have to go through congress. Subsidies, regulations, taxes. That can't happen without votes, and there won't be votes if a good portion of the public is still misinformed.
"A loss for words?" What are you talking about? Are you saying nothing has been suggested? Or are you saying there hasn't been a "do this and climate change will disappear" solution brought forth?
-
Man-made global warming might or might not exist. It's become so politicized. Liberals don't care if it is real or not, they just want to control people and redistribute wealth. If they really cared they would start initiative to plant trees because trees remove carbon from the atmosphere. Some scientists hypothesize that when 90% of the Native American population was killed--due to a plague right after the first Europeans arrived--it caused a mini Ice Age in Europe because all the trees that the natives cut down started growing back, removing tons of carbon from the atmosphere. But liberals do not care about that, they just want to control people. I posted a link on here to the Arbor Day foundation where you could donate money to have trees planted in national Forests and it went largely ignored. Liberals don't want to actually do anything to help they just want to inconvenience everyone else.
Man-made global warming might or might not exist. It's become so politicized.
The ignore the right and ignore the left. Just look at where the vast majority of the scientific community stands.
-
but that isn't fair - I truncated the usual bunch to only five, I watched them and selected them
for the qualifications of the persons doing the video, etc.
If woody doesn't have time to watch them, fine. Let him STFU until he does. Same old, he bitches.
If I post only one, he bitches where it came from, what link, something, to try to minimalize it.
So, I didn't post links because he bitches about the sources so much, I tried to post videos instead.
And the videos are by experts in the field.
So, he can't watch just one - WTF? I post 4 or 5 videos, and he can't just watch the first one?
So, if I took the time to do a cliff's notes of the first video, everybody knows he'll just bitch that I'm biased,
and I probably misquoted, misassumed, misinterpreted,,,,,
if it was a two minute video, he'd bitch that it ignored any details. If I posted a ten minute video, he's just bitch
that it didn't elaborate. If I post a half hr, to an hr video, he bitches he doesn't have time/it's too long, etc etc.
If it was any conservative site that had an article with a link to the video, he'd just bitch about the conservative site
being biased.
Well, the liberal sites sure as heck won't have negative articles on mmgw, liberals don't work that way.
I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one
roller. lol.
It's tough to consider the 2nd Amendment analogy - it's a fact. mmgw is a flawed theory, as these experts in the field say.
but that isn't fair - I truncated the usual bunch to only five, I watched them and selected them
for the qualifications of the persons doing the video, etc.
I really doubt you watched them.
If woody doesn't have time to watch them, fine. Let him STFU until he does. Same old, he bitches.
If I post only one, he bitches where it came from, what link, something, to try to minimalize it.
No, that's how this works. You're making a scientific claim. It should be backed up with a legitimate source. In that situation you've already minimized it.
So, I didn't post links because he bitches about the sources so much, I tried to post videos instead.
And the videos are by experts in the field.
Not posting a link is not the solution here haha. Definitely post a source for everything you are claiming at the start of a thread.
The guys in the videos definitely have fancy titles. Not sure if they are actual experts in the field though.
So, he can't watch just one - WTF? I post 4 or 5 videos, and he can't just watch the first one?
The first one is 75 minutes long...
So, if I took the time to do a cliff's notes of the first video, everybody knows he'll just bitch that I'm biased,
and I probably misquoted, misassumed, misinterpreted,,,,,
I'm not asking for cliff notes. I'm asking for the main point or two being made, and then a legitimate source that backs up what you said. Your own convictions won't matter because you'll have a legitimate source backing you up.
if it was a two minute video, he'd bitch that it ignored any details. If I posted a ten minute video, he's just bitch
that it didn't elaborate. If I post a half hr, to an hr video, he bitches he doesn't have time/it's too long, etc etc.
I'd need to see the 2 or 10 minute video, what it explained, and what sources it provided.
If it was any conservative site that had an article with a link to the video, he'd just bitch about the conservative site
being biased.
A conservative site isn't inherently biased. It is very easy to tell from the wording in an article though when they are trying to spin something and when it is biased. You don't notice it because they're using the same adjectives that you're adding in yourself as you read it normally. But again, in that case it would be the video I'm looking at, not the text around it on the conservative site. So the video would need to have legitimate sources called out in it. Understand?
Well, the liberal sites sure as heck won't have negative articles on mmgw, liberals don't work that way.
Well liberals are generally on the side that science is on in this issue. So you're probably right. They might have articles that exaggerate the effects and how early we'll see them, and that might not have a source too it. I'm not sure. I don't really frequent liberal sites and I don't use any as sources when posting something about climate change.
I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one
roller. lol.
That seems incredibly inefficient.
It's tough to consider the 2nd Amendment analogy - it's a fact. mmgw is a flawed theory, as these experts in the field say.
It is how the 2nd amendment is interpreted and how relevant someone sees it as today.
I still very much doubt you watched all of those videos Cal...
Again, post the main point or two being made. Provide a legitimate source for it. I will look that over and get back to you. But I have no intention of watching 6+ hours of video.
If you really did watch those videos, it should be easy to do. Complaining about me and hypothetical situations does not mean you "win". If anything it shows you really do have nothing to present, and are just mindlessly regurgitating anti climate change articles from your incredibly biased right wing sources.
-
for anybody but you, Woody, that would be easy. I have posted a link that was easy to read
many times in the past, and you just knee jerk and try to diss it for what's in the title of the link,
etc, etc etc.
I have posted from CNN, you ignore it. I have posted Fox and Blaze and Constitution, you bash it for
what sources talk about the LINK that goes to the TECHNICAL SOURCE.
So, I repost the actual technical source, and you bitch about something else, and go back to the false
"97 %" nonsense. It's a complex issue with evidence that doesn't prove mmgw, because there is
evidence that CONTRADICTS it. If you care so much, use the little solid ">" thing - it plays.
Then, use the ">>" thingie to fast forward throught the non-required watching part, and
check out what he says about it on a technical level.
I started posting several links because you ignored, mocked somehow, one link here and there that was
very legit, written by an expert PHD in climate, and you peck at it like it's a bug under the bark.
take you time - you molt at the site of any one link - it's easy to dismiss without even reading it.
You just can't handle the truth, woody. It isn't on your side. The videos will be there a long time.
I've posted graphs, and you ignore them, reiterate your gibberish on the subject, and/or, you bitch
about what site posted the graph, even when the graph came from a scientific site. You conveniently
ignore the latter part.
The next time I post a simple link to an excellent, simple explanation on why mmglobalwarming is not fact,
all eyes are on how you respond. Hopefully, it won't be a smart ass knee jerk dismiss of it because it isn't msnbc,
or from a climate scientist you LIKE.
-
I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one
roller. lol.
That seems incredibly inefficient. Woody
******************************************************
Actually, no. Our giant deck is 23 years old, and we filled the cracks with wood filler,
and it needs sanded with an orbital sander. so, I was sanding while she painted.
-
Cal srsly, pull out a few points and debate woody on them. He's 100% right you havent sat through 6 hours of video so just stop.
Also, i saw one of those videos is from lindzen.....correct me if im wrong but didnt we go over him in the past? Hasnt he been on exxons payroll since the 60's or something?
-
I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one
roller. lol.
That seems incredibly inefficient. Woody
******************************************************
Actually, no. Our giant deck is 23 years old, and we filled the cracks with wood filler,
and it needs sanded with an orbital sander. so, I was sanding while she painted.
I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one
roller. lol.
That seems incredibly inefficient. Woody
******************************************************
Actually, no. Our giant deck is 23 years old, and we filled the cracks with wood filler,
and it needs sanded with an orbital sander. so, I was sanding while she painted.
Ok that makes more sense.
-
North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation
The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean’s persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-triggered-ice-age-climate-change
The new study “is the best demonstration that this indeed happened,” says Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and a study author. “It is very convincing evidence,” adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”
-
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/05/in-eric-worralls-logically-fallacious.html?m=1
Heres a good takedown of eric worral
-
hotwhopper blog is your authority?
Talk about nonsense. They complain that he says the scientists can't have it both ways, then he reinvents that into
a point whoever it is ...can refute.
that's kinda funny, in a stupid kind of way.
-
North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation
The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean’s persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-triggered-ice-age-climate-change
The new study “is the best demonstration that this indeed happened,” says Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and a study author. “It is very convincing evidence,” adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”
North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation
The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean’s persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-triggered-ice-age-climate-change
The new study “is the best demonstration that this indeed happened,” says Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and a study author. “It is very convincing evidence,” adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”
and what point of yours do you believe this is helping you prove?
-
the title.
"Crippled Atlantic currents triggered ice age climate change" -
No one is saying that natural climate change doesn't occur.
-
exactly - that's why they changed "man made global warming" to "climate change".
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đź’—
Register Login