ClimateGate

you know, higgie, you could try to be a tad less aggresive with your posts.

0311 is probably referring to this theory: http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Greenhouse.html

 

No I could not. I will not tolerate random nibblets to spout their unsupported nonsense and remain unchallenged.



How does this demonstrate 'global cooling' 0311?

 

http://ecolocalizer.com/2009/08/04/when-the-sahara-was-green/

And here is my point for its been going on for a while now.

 

It is not a challenge you dimwit. It's a discussion. big difference.

And i know the graph, but i say that the way they filter monitored area's which have been urbanized in the meantime is not adequite nor is their way of filtering faulty sensors. I'll go see if i can find a graph that shows only the sensor data not near urban areas

 

Since when is 'Oh there is more than enough evidence against the earth orbitting the sun to prove it, but nobody wants to talk about it. HOW INCONVENIENT' worthy of being called part of a discussion?

You say something stupid I will call you up on it. Cry about it and you will only make it worse for yourself.

Oh and please do post the graph. I am always looking forward to investigate my beliefs further. The fact that people criticize the global warming model is not what bothers me. The fact that they do it based on no scientific grounds whatsoever does.

 

you know, you could wait for people to present their case. Most people dont write large walls of text on the internet unless provoked into it. So first you ask for evidence, wait for another post, then mildly inquire that the proof they presented is in fact inadequate for such-and-such reasons.

Also, what was the cause of the temperature dip between the 40's and 80's?

 

So in addition you are also taking things out of context? You do realise this is the same person who called me 'soft-skinned sissy boy that cries' few minutes before he wrote that post? What makes you think that I should pay any respect to him if he spouts unscientific assertions and calls me a sissy? This is a rhetorical question by the way. I don't expect an answer.

Oh and I don't know. Feel free to research it and come back with an answer. Much appriciated.

 

wait wait wait. You dont know that sort of stuff about the evidence you presented, yet blame others for presenting incomplete evidence.

and he called the majority of the population sissy-boys, not ad-hominem.

 

What? I presented a graph which clearly demonstrates that the average global temperature has risen in the past century. Where is the problem?
And I do not blame others for presenting incomplete evidence. I blame others for presenting absolutely no evidence.

 

you presented a graph where the temperature was shown rising over the past 90 years, yet for about 30 of those years the temperature got lower and stabilizided, while the exhaust of greenhouse gasses kept rising during that period(well, except for a very small dip around the 40's, but after that the exhaust rose immidietly, so it doesnt account for the length of the stabilization).

Also, i might add that you have no reason to be offended by insults against large portions of the populations which you are a part of. You frequently fire the insult cannons against large portions of the population, and quite some forum members are probably part of those.

 

130 years actually and I still do not understand how a 20 year 'break' in the warming doesn't make it not consistent with the idea that the earth is heating up over the past hundreds of years and probably will continue to do so. Where is the problem?

 

the fact that we are talking about cause and effect. We assume it will continue to do so because we keep exhausting more greenhouse gasses. Yet the break occurs while the amount of greenhouse gasses was rising. If there can be a break in this with the exhaust of greenhouse gasses rising, doesn't that present the possibility that greenhouse gasses aren't the source of global warming? And if the source of global warming is different from greenhouse gasses, it is possible that the source will not continue to increase in gravity. It could be that greenhouse gasses deflect just about as much sunlight back into space as they mirror back towards the earth

So yes, a twenty year break during a period where according to the theory should be a rise is quite significant.


Can't find a graph anywhere of the temperature data not near urban areas though.

 

No, no, no, no, no. I am talking about Global Warming. The phenomen of Global Warming is a fact. What 0311 is saying that it is not and even asserts that it is the exactly the opposite. I just demonstrated that his statement is completely false. What more is there to discuss?

 

well, seeing as we are in a fancy thread and stuff, discussing the causes of global warming and ways to halt it would be nice.

 

But that's not what I was discussing nor is it what 0311 was hitting on. So if you want to create straw man arguments just to boost your ego then piss off.

 

Okay first off higgs you need to watch what you say. I don't care if he made posts insulting you if he did then report him. Also yes you should tolerate his post just like we tolerate your constant attacks against peoples religion. Yes its your opinion, but you are not in any place to use it as a way to demoralize another member of these forums. He posted an opinion and you attacked him for it. Its that cut and dry. If you don't agree with what hes saying then by all means say so, but do so in a mature fashion. I don't see how his post gave you any right to attack him directly.

 

"He posted an opinion and..."
False. He did not state an opinion. He asserted that there is 'more than enough evidence'. Assertion of fact.
To put it plainly: You are wrong.

 

He probably worded it wrong, and I don't think that justifies you bashing him. All you had to do was post evidence to the contrary to prove that it wasn't a fact. You don't need to attack him over a few words.

 

I did not even have to post any evidence to 'refute' his assertion. The burden of proof is on him.
The argument that he probably worded it wrong is absolutely pathetic. It is a completely baseless speculation which you limit only to him for some bozarr reason.
And finally I made myself clear why I am being so crude with that guy and the sorts of him and I stand behind it.

 

And exactly what "sorts" are you referring to?