Pages: 1 2

 

2009-11-10 16:27:46
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6549|what

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Small sample size. I farted twice in the past five minutes. Does that mean I'm going to fart every five minutes for the rest of my life? Has my body drastically changed so that this occurs? No. It's a small sample size that can be spun in any way one wishes.
You are arguing that the global warming theory is based on a "small sample size" ?

Wow.
How long have we been taking accurate temperature readings? 150 years? How long have we had satellite imagery that can show us differences in polar ice cap sizes? 40 years? How old is the planet? Very very fucking small sample size.
Do you know what Pangaea is? There is evidence of pangea. Gee, nobody was around to see it, guess it never existed.

How long does the fossil record date back?

How long ago does geological evidence go back?

Do you know how many ice ages we have had?

There is plenty of evidence of the temperatures dramatic rise in the last 100 years.

You can measure the levels of carbon in the atmosphere thoughout history by taking samples of ice from the Arctic core.

And all you're evidence is "but we're on a small time scale here, we haven't measured it for long, it could be natural!"
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-11-10 16:37:44
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5754|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


You are arguing that the global warming theory is based on a "small sample size" ?

Wow.
How long have we been taking accurate temperature readings? 150 years? How long have we had satellite imagery that can show us differences in polar ice cap sizes? 40 years? How old is the planet? Very very fucking small sample size.
Do you know what Pangaea is? There is evidence of pangea. Gee, nobody was around to see it, guess it never existed.

How long does the fossil record date back?

How long ago does geological evidence go back?

Do you know how many ice ages we have had?

There is plenty of evidence of the temperatures dramatic rise in the last 100 years.

You can measure the levels of carbon in the atmosphere thoughout history by taking samples of ice from the Arctic core.

And all you're evidence is "but we're on a small time scale here, we haven't measured it for long, it could be natural!"
I'm aware of all of that. I'm also aware of the limitations of accurate readings in core samples. I'm also aware that we peaked about 5 years ago and global temperature has been dropping since. Hence why it's no longer labeled 'global warming' and is now 'climate change'. The climate change hysterics are on par with the religious people taking everything as a sign of armageddon. Every generation in history has believed that armageddon would occur during their lifetime. Now the same type of people are arguing that climate change is going to destroy the planet and we need to change our ways etc. All of this has been propagated by the same people that want us to commune with nature and to go back to living in caves and apologize to any animal we think about eating. Sorry, bunch of douches the lot of them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-11-10 16:47:01
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6549|what

Peaking 5 years ago is NOT a good thing or indication it's falling.

Satellites have been measuring the temperature of the troposphere since 1979. Balloon measurements begin to show an approximation of global coverage in the 1950s.

Several groups have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends in the troposphere. Both the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the private corporation Remote Sensing Systems RSS (RSS) find an upward trend. UAH find +0.130 °C/decade, to April 2008; RSS finds +0.169 °C/decade; Fu et al. finds trends (up to the end of 2004) of +0.19 °C/decade when applied to the RSS dataset; and Vinnikov and Grody find +0.22°C to +0.26°C per decade (Oct. 03).[/img]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png

You can see the variance here surely? Your peak from 5 years ago hardly qualifies when it's still heading upwards.

Any idea which were years the hottest 10 on record since 1880?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatur … since_1880

Each of the last 12 years (1997-2008) are one of the warmest on record. Somehow I don't think we've hit the peak...
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-11-10 16:58:37
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7028|949

the logical, rational way to disprove scientists claims about global warming (on either side) is to demonstrate that you understand the science behind it.  Prove that you understand the science behind anthropogenic global warming and debunk the science and methodology of the studies.
Citing evidence or studies doesn't count.  Simply saying "its too small of a data set" doesn't count.

Also, there are numerous GW topics open here.  Perhaps you two (and all else interested) could turn to one of those instead of focusing on one small aspect of the OP's content (which is also an apt observation - Al Gore is making money hand over fist by using the element of fear in his global quest for relevance to spread the idea of climate change.
2009-11-11 00:00:34
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,821|6502|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Small sample size. I farted twice in the past five minutes. Does that mean I'm going to fart every five minutes for the rest of my life? Has my body drastically changed so that this occurs? No. It's a small sample size that can be spun in any way one wishes.
Its not a small sample size, we have millions of years of data.
Fuck Israel
2009-11-11 02:58:13
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7086|Tampa Bay Florida
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol

Stopped reading after he mentioned that name.  Thread = partisan trash.  I could go make a thread full of random thoughts on the times, but I wouldn't, because it would be a massive waste of time. 

and btw, Mr. Galt, please tell me, who uses the phrase "liberals" more often?  Right wingers or left wingers?  Fact of the matter is, liberal in todays culture is more of an insult, whereas self declared "conservatives" often brag about it.  Just pointing out something I've noticed....
2009-11-11 03:07:19
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6776|MN
What does that have to do with anything.  I often find people like you describing yourselves as "progressive" and often bragging about it. 

It is nice that you label ideas that don't agree with your view as partisan trash.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-11-11 03:11:53
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7048|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Even if this country can survive intact and unharmed after the Obama administration-- or, heaven help us, two terms of Obama
It very nearly didn't survive Bush, and he was the neo-con wunderkind.
Realclearpolitics = lowingesque venting.
I rarely "vent", I voice my opinions, not vent angrily. I do so without PC, and for the most part, personal insults to any of you. None of you can make that claim,  not even the mods of this forum can make that claim regarding my presence in this forum. Your real problem with me is, I am right ( whether you know or admit it ). Sadly, Ft. Hood being the latest example of that fact.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard