well that was a clean the screen moment..damn! you are one ballsy bad ass!
record low maximum arctic sea ice
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
I just loved it when last winter the so called global warming scientists when to the Antartica to study the melting of the ice cap and got the ship stuck in the ice,
Then two ice breakers got stuck in the ice trying to get them out,
When I was a kid living in Oregon the federal government was giving scientists millions a year to study big foot, Those scientist swear and be damned that big foot existed,If they had come back and said no fucking such thing as big foot the government would cut their funding off,
just another scam , just like this global warming scheme,
Al Gore was going to be in charge of the carbon exchange trade and was set to make a trillion fucking dollars on it,
For a trillion dollars ill tell you dolts all the ice is melting and cali is going to go under water.
Then two ice breakers got stuck in the ice trying to get them out,
When I was a kid living in Oregon the federal government was giving scientists millions a year to study big foot, Those scientist swear and be damned that big foot existed,If they had come back and said no fucking such thing as big foot the government would cut their funding off,
just another scam , just like this global warming scheme,
Al Gore was going to be in charge of the carbon exchange trade and was set to make a trillion fucking dollars on it,
For a trillion dollars ill tell you dolts all the ice is melting and cali is going to go under water.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Only problem with this is that it's bullshit.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, but why are you espousing the same conspiracy theory as former KKK grand wizard david duke?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
....and also misleading. Tell me about this 130 years of record-keeping. You
sound as if you believe measuring Earth's temperature has been done in the
same manner for 130 years, and that there is an unbroken record covering the
period of measurements done by that method.
It is my understanding that measurement of Earth's "average temperature" is
a very difficult feat. The best work that has been done has detected a rise
in temperature over this century of about one half degree Celsius (with
large uncertainty). Whether this rise is large or not is seldom mentioned,
but it is not a large rise even by historical standards. It is thought that
a larger excursion occurred in this millenium (I forget the year) which was
so striking it produced what is called "the year without a summer". The lack
of historical perspective evident in the cries of today's most vocal Chicken
Littles is disturbing. I can still remember when "unusual" weather was
always blamed on nuclear testing; now it is blamed on anthropogenic carbon
dioxide. This must have been a very dull world back when there was no bomb
testing, anthropogenic carbon dioxide - or unusual weather!
snicker...
freddfish
Well-Known Member
Heckler, I think you are referring to the "Little Ice Age", a period of extreme cold winters that lasted from around 1300AD - 1850 or so. Washington was able to drag heavy brass cannon across the frozen Hudson River during the Revolution, and the Thames river froze, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Europe_and_North_America
All this proves to me is that the climate is ALWAYS changing...and has been since the dawn of time.
And as for the global warming folks (or is it "climate change" this week?), I 'll wait until they start acting like it is a serious problem, before I do. Gore, Streisand, and a few others live in houses that have a carbon footprint the size of a small town...and cruising into a climate conference in Davos or Rio alone in a private jet doesn't convince me that they are serious, or that the problem is. (ever notice how they never hold these things in places like Fargo, or Cleveland, or Baltimore? Or that they don't use video meetings instead, you know....to be all green and shit?)
This is not my first rodeo... and I have to say that from where I am sitting, this whole thing looks and smells like a huge scam. You have a lot of noise and con-man patter....and then at the end, there's always the line "now I just need your credit card number..."
The more things change, the more they stay the same......
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
none of your talking points rebut any of the scientific evidence, and your crudely drawn conspiracy theory mirrors that of former KKK grand wizard david duke.
you are unoriginal, uninspired, and hopelessly dumb.
i bet you are the type of racist loser who crows on about al sharpton endlessly and calls elizabeth warren "fauxcohontas".
hand your head in shame, you dumb idiot.
freddfish
Well-Known Member
I think that is the problem with some of these yo-yos....they are trying to extrapolate trends that span millennia from a small (hell, nearly microscopic) sample, and automatically assume that this will yield an accurate trend. It is a bit like making an assumption on what a man will be doing in 5 years, based on a 1/2 hour of observing him one morning. Some of these folks really should have stayed awake during Statistics 101....
I also confess to gritting my teeth a bit when I hear some fool braying about "settled science". There is no such thing. None.
BTW- I like that quote
. As metaphors go, it is both descriptive and accurate.
Cheers
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You should notify NASA. I think that they might want to know.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Oh look, a Wikipedia link. Still waiting for peer reviewed research denying man made global warming.Heckler, I think you are referring to the "Little Ice Age", a period of extreme cold winters that lasted from around 1300AD - 1850 or so. Washington was able to drag heavy brass cannon across the frozen Hudson River during the Revolution, and the Thames river froze, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Europe_and_North_America
All this proves to me is that the climate is ALWAYS changing...and has been since the dawn of time.
And as for the global warming folks (or is it "climate change" this week?), I 'll wait until they start acting like it is a serious problem, before I do. Gore, Streisand, and a few others live in houses that have a carbon footprint the size of a small town...and cruising into a climate conference in Davos or Rio alone in a private jet doesn't convince me that they are serious, or that the problem is. (ever notice how they never hold these things in places like Fargo, or Cleveland, or Baltimore? Or that they don't use video meetings instead, you know....to be all green and shit?)
This is not my first rodeo... and I have to say that from where I am sitting, this whole thing looks and smells like a huge scam. You have a lot of noise and con-man patter....and then at the end, there's always the line "now I just need your credit card number..."
The more things change, the more they stay the same......
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I'm wondering... Isn't everything eventually 'peer reviewed'? ...hasn't cold fusion been peer reviewed at this point?
I wonder what the point is when we "tisk-tisk" people (or worse) about not going through 'proper' channels of peer review. Is it because we do not want anything published which isn't 'true'? Are we trying to preserve some sort of image? Look at the process in journals. How many reviewers are there usually? I expect under 5 of them for almost everything. Doesn't it make a huge difference which 5 people are chosen by the editor as to how the review process comes out? (If your answer to this last question is "no," then I know of a bridge I can sell you at a bargain price!)
Seems to me we have evidence right here in this whole discussion that the whole issue of scientific publication is not nearly as simple as we seem to be making it out. We have a bunch of highly trained physicists with obviously different opinions and data. Imagine picking any one of the e-mail notes on this track and how easy it would be to launch it into publication by picking one set of reviewers and how easy it would be to bury it by picking another. I'm not arguing against peer reviewing, but I am suggesting that the buck does not stop there nor as simply as is often suggested.
snicker...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
microscopic sample, eh?
how about we check out the last 800,000 years and note that CO2 has been between 200 an 300 PPM the entire time.
and in just 100 years, human activities have caused CO2 levels to skyrocket to 400+ PPM.
CO2 being a greenhouse gas and all (it is, heckler. deal with it), it causes warming. which is why we have wiped out 5000+ years of cooling in a mere century.
i have read your posts on another site where you spew racist drivel and your tea party talking points and other assorted nonsense.
we already have enough racist, science denying, addle-brained buffoons on this forum. we do not need another, dumb dumb.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No.
Niel DeGrasse Tyson and George W Bush aren't peers, nor are Oprah Winfrey and Sheskunk.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i wonder if whoever you plagiarized this snippet from actually has legitimate concerns about peer review or if this is their latest hissy fit meltdown because their "science" is for shit and does not pass muster.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
hiatus.
benghazi.
emails.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
I got your peer right here.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I was time-trolling. What gave it away Buck? They were posts from a thread ~20 years old, before the internet was a cash cow, and Carl Sagan was going on about Nuclear Winters.
It turns out I met one of the authors of one of those posts today and stumbled on some of his old convos while researching his background.
However, that's a story for another time.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so was whatever he was working on back then getting ridiculed and being torn a new david in peer review back then?
I was time-trolling. What gave it away Buck? They were posts from a thread ~20 years old, before the internet was a cash cow, and Carl Sagan was going on about Nuclear Winters.
It turns out I met one of the authors of one of those posts today and stumbled on some of his old convos while researching his background.
However, that's a story for another time.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
No...the convo was on the general subject of the peer review process, at that point. It had earlier been focused on some PBS special which aired at the time.
This one, in fact
