that post makes literally no sense
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I asked a question. A question is what you use to draw a conclusion… I have read what you wrote. If you would like to elaborate, take a shot.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Just try and read what I actually wrote before you make any attempt to draw your conclousions. Till then I will leave the small thinking to you.Kmar wrote:
Do think this somehow excludes the possibility of new factors playing a role in encouraging climate trends? This is incredibly small thinking.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
We have had real global warming and Minni ice ages before the was any industrialization at all.
btw, if your meteorologist, not to be confused with climatologist, can't predict tomorrows weather I feel sorry for you. They are definitely right most of the time, and to use them as a gauge of accuracy is not going to help your case.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So you're tellin me ya got wood?DBBrinson1 wrote:
I have a fire... Kept the stalk from a huge ass oak tree I had fell and am splitting it as needed. Live in FL -hard freeze in effect tonight.
Jee.zus.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
fixt for patriotismKmar wrote:
Jeez.us.
Warmer weather = more beach time
More beach time = more people at the beach
More people at the beach = more women too
More women too =
More beach time = more people at the beach
More people at the beach = more women too
More women too =
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Just because there are more women, doesn't mean it will increase your chances (slim chances at that) of getting laid.
You people have yet to produce evidence of global warming.
You people have yet to produce evidence of global warming.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
What would suffice?UnkleRukus wrote:
You people have yet to produce evidence of global warming.
Credible sources proving that the earth is getting warmer, sources can't contradict one another. Although that will be hard to do, since most sources in favor of global warming are just as distorted as those not in favor.Turquoise wrote:
What would suffice?UnkleRukus wrote:
You people have yet to produce evidence of global warming.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
I'll put it this way... I've yet to find a peer-reviewed source that suggests global warming isn't happening. Unless you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy among the scientific community to promote the concept of global warming, I'm not sure where the doubt is coming from.UnkleRukus wrote:
Credible sources proving that the earth is getting warmer, sources can't contradict one another. Although that will be hard to do, since most sources in favor of global warming are just as distorted as those not in favor.Turquoise wrote:
What would suffice?UnkleRukus wrote:
You people have yet to produce evidence of global warming.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
When I get home I'll grab my references that could potentially contradict global warming.
Last edited by UnkleRukus (2010-12-08 07:53:11)
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
I've got the book Red Hot lies if you want it. Its a comedy.UnkleRukus wrote:
When I get home I'll grab my references that could potentially contradict global warming.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ha ha ha
global warming deniers are still around in america? i thought they were in the same camp of crazies as the creationists
global warming deniers are still around in america? i thought they were in the same camp of crazies as the creationists
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Sorry, I just don't believe everything I hear unless I have consistant writings telling me so. Excuse me for not wanting to jump on the bandwagon and be labled uneducated for doing so.
Last edited by UnkleRukus (2010-12-08 08:14:49)
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
What I find questionable is that the graphs of a period of 200, 1000, or 2000 years always show a very steep and easily perceivable climb from the beginning of the 19th century up until now.
Is that time period actually sufficient to account for dramatic changes over larger periods of time and does it accurately display the history of the global weather system? Considering our planet is a few billion years old I'd imagine temperature fluctuations from the point where the weather pattern somewhat stabilized until now could be extreme far beyond of what is being displayed.
Lay it out against graphs of 10.000, 20.000, 50.000 even a hundred / million years and I'd love to see the findings. Even if it's just from a single region on the planet - as I imagine that's hard to aquire for a worldwide perspective.
Determining changes in the global weather system is just so incredibly complex and is dependant on SO MANY factors that the science in itself is only likely to contain many misconceptions and mistakes. Even the assumption of a continouos natural cycle that changes every X amount of years could just be very wrong.
Is that time period actually sufficient to account for dramatic changes over larger periods of time and does it accurately display the history of the global weather system? Considering our planet is a few billion years old I'd imagine temperature fluctuations from the point where the weather pattern somewhat stabilized until now could be extreme far beyond of what is being displayed.
Lay it out against graphs of 10.000, 20.000, 50.000 even a hundred / million years and I'd love to see the findings. Even if it's just from a single region on the planet - as I imagine that's hard to aquire for a worldwide perspective.
Determining changes in the global weather system is just so incredibly complex and is dependant on SO MANY factors that the science in itself is only likely to contain many misconceptions and mistakes. Even the assumption of a continouos natural cycle that changes every X amount of years could just be very wrong.
inane little opines
Ice core samples provide a view of a much longer timeline than any of the above spans at the beginning of your post.dayarath wrote:
What I find questionable is that the graphs of a period of 200, 1000, or 2000 years always show a very steep and easily perceivable climb from the beginning of the 19th century up until now.
Is that time period actually sufficient to account for dramatic changes over larger periods of time and does it accurately display the history of the global weather system? Considering our planet is a few billion years old I'd imagine temperature fluctuations from the point where the weather pattern somewhat stabilized until now could be extreme far beyond of what is being displayed.
Lay it out against graphs of 10.000, 20.000, 50.000 even a hundred / million years and I'd love to see the findings. Even if it's just from a single region on the planet - as I imagine that's hard to aquire for a worldwide perspective.
Determining changes in the global weather system is just so incredibly complex and is dependant on SO MANY factors that the science in itself is only likely to contain many misconceptions and mistakes. Even the assumption of a continouos natural cycle that changes every X amount of years could just be very wrong.
They actually provide us something more along the lines of the larger increments you mention.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-08 08:42:40)
Benefits of a warmer earth:
Less clothes
Less clothes
Being skeptical for the sake of rationality is healthy. Unfortunately, it would seem that a lot of climate change skeptics are that way for political reasons.UnkleRukus wrote:
Sorry, I just don't believe everything I hear unless I have consistant writings telling me so. Excuse me for not wanting to jump on the bandwagon and be labled uneducated for doing so.
Yeah I've seen a few documentaries and papers referring to ice core samples excavated in greenland, arctics, siberia etc, but similarily only the relatively recent ones are brought forth for argumentation purposes.Turquoise wrote:
Ice core samples provide a view of a much longer timeline than any of the above spans at the beginning of your post.
They actually provide us something more along the lines of the larger increments you mention.
They do provide very detailed information though, it's very interesting to say the least. I wonder what scientists who work on those and primarily on the long term have to say of how the weather system seems to work.
inane little opines
rationality would imply that there is going to be a debate on the topic, anyway. that's 'healthy' and conducive to 'good science'. having experts argue each way about the possible effects is a demonstration that the scientific method is as rigorous and reliable as ever... not that the subject itself is bogus, or not worth trusting in. if scientists never questioned their own theories and results then we'd regress several thousand years in terms of 'rational' knowledge. part of rationality is to open everything up to a positive and constructive questioning. taking the fact that there is differing opinion on global warming, and then concluding that this therefore means global warming is phoney... is a little mind-boggling.Turquoise wrote:
Being skeptical for the sake of rationality is healthy. Unfortunately, it would seem that a lot of climate change skeptics are that way for political reasons.UnkleRukus wrote:
Sorry, I just don't believe everything I hear unless I have consistant writings telling me so. Excuse me for not wanting to jump on the bandwagon and be labled uneducated for doing so.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
It's definitely a sign that many deniers don't really understand the basis of science itself.Uzique wrote:
rationality would imply that there is going to be a debate on the topic, anyway. that's 'healthy' and conducive to 'good science'. having experts argue each way about the possible effects is a demonstration that the scientific method is as rigorous and reliable as ever... not that the subject itself is bogus, or not worth trusting in. if scientists never questioned their own theories and results then we'd regress several thousand years in terms of 'rational' knowledge. part of rationality is to open everything up to a positive and constructive questioning. taking the fact that there is differing opinion on global warming, and then concluding that this therefore means global warming is phoney... is a little mind-boggling.Turquoise wrote:
Being skeptical for the sake of rationality is healthy. Unfortunately, it would seem that a lot of climate change skeptics are that way for political reasons.UnkleRukus wrote:
Sorry, I just don't believe everything I hear unless I have consistant writings telling me so. Excuse me for not wanting to jump on the bandwagon and be labled uneducated for doing so.
I'm a reasonable person, I listen to multiple arguments and theories before i make formulate an opinion. I try not to have an opinion on something I know nothing about, (this shouldn't be confused with the shit I pull on here most of that is trolling.)
If there is solid proof that demonstrates that global warming is mathematically proven, then yeah I'll believe it, and that goes the same for the lack of global warming, if there is mathematical proof that global warming doesn't exist I'll believe that.
It's tough for me to believe something that I don't understand as well which is why I'm on the fence about it. I'm not afraid to admit it either.
If there is solid proof that demonstrates that global warming is mathematically proven, then yeah I'll believe it, and that goes the same for the lack of global warming, if there is mathematical proof that global warming doesn't exist I'll believe that.
It's tough for me to believe something that I don't understand as well which is why I'm on the fence about it. I'm not afraid to admit it either.
Last edited by UnkleRukus (2010-12-08 12:40:43)
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
That's perfectly understandable. My post above isn't specifically calling you out, because I can tell your approach isn't politically motivated. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for certain people (most often conservatives) that seem to reject the concept altogether just because certain liberals happen to be connected with it.UnkleRukus wrote:
I'm a reasonable person, I listen to multiple arguments and theories before i make formulate an opinion. I try not to have an opinion on something I know nothing about, (this shouldn't be confused with the shit I pull on here most of that is trolling.)
If there is solid proof that demonstrates that global warming is mathematically proven, then yeah I'll believe it, and that goes the same for the lack of global warming, if there is mathematical proof that global warming doesn't exist I'll believe that.
It's tough for me to believe something that I don't understand as well which is why I'm on the fence about it. I'm not afraid to admit it either.
I can agree with conservatives that certain people (like Al Gore) have basically latched onto global warming and have decided to try and make a profit with products designed to "offset" pollution, but for them to reject the research done by legitimate scientists is just ignorant.
Even if I was a conservative, I'd be a bit embarassed by certain elements of the GOP that seem to be engaging in a War on Science -- whether it's rejecting climate change or evolution.
Warmer weather = higher sea level = beach under water-Sh1fty- wrote:
Warmer weather = more beach time
More beach time = more people at the beach
More people at the beach = more women too
More women too =
Fuck Israel
That's the most retarded thing I've seen you say Dilbert.
Ok so, the SAND beach would be under water...big deal.
Ok so, the SAND beach would be under water...big deal.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.