independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 20th Jun 2018 2:08am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Real Science: This will hopefully end the CO2=AGW=Climate Change hoax
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 5 <12345>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 01/10/18 12:54pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Be like what? You brought up the 97% claim, then claimed to have put a lot of thought into the matter, and explaining FALSEY where that number came from? You're not even going to comment on how wrong you were on that false claim about the climate convention you supposedly know so much about and put so much effort into thinking about?

How about saying you were wrong about that for starters and applying more of your hard thought into the things you supposedly put so much thought into. lol

lol

the figure goes back well before 2013...dig deeper. and the 98% is of publication inclined to agree with it... and most of them (NONE REALLY) offer the what and how to do much less any real ideas on how to get the world to go along.

So you're not even going to apologize mr. i put a lot of thought into this? lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 01/10/18 1:16pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the figure goes back well before 2013...dig deeper. and the 98% is of publication inclined to agree with it... and most of them (NONE REALLY) offer the what and how to do much less any real ideas on how to get the world to go along.

So you're not even going to apologize mr. i put a lot of thought into this? lol

the link you posted did not mention what I did so I assume they got it wrong or the 2013 paper got it wrong and i reject the other part that 98% of papers agree as even if they did we have no way to know if that is even close to a representative sample.

so no i have nothing to apologize for. again loling at me is fine...but i have and it seems you've just accepted things you were told to believe. when people are attacked and mocked for having a different belief then tend to shut down...and go with the flow. They come to accept what they were told to what to think. I do not do that.

as i said even if it was true it still commits Pascal's fallacy

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 01/10/18 1:20pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

So you're not even going to apologize mr. i put a lot of thought into this? lol

the link you posted did not mention what I did so I assume they got it wrong or the 2013 paper got it wrong and i reject the other part that 98% of papers agree as even if they did we have no way to know if that is even close to a representative sample.

so no i have nothing to apologize for. again loling at me is fine...but i have and it seems you've just accepted things you were told to believe. when people are attacked and mocked for having a different belief then tend to shut down...and go with the flow. They come to accept what they were told to what to think. I do not do that.

as i said even if it was true it still commits Pascal's fallacy



Awww cue the violins.

So YOU post falsehoods, and YOU'RE the victim.

Boy you sure do know a lot about fallacies that's for sure. lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 01/10/18 1:24pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the link you posted did not mention what I did so I assume they got it wrong or the 2013 paper got it wrong and i reject the other part that 98% of papers agree as even if they did we have no way to know if that is even close to a representative sample.

so no i have nothing to apologize for. again loling at me is fine...but i have and it seems you've just accepted things you were told to believe. when people are attacked and mocked for having a different belief then tend to shut down...and go with the flow. They come to accept what they were told to what to think. I do not do that.

as i said even if it was true it still commits Pascal's fallacy



Awww cue the violins.

So YOU post falsehoods, and YOU'RE the victim.

Boy you sure do know a lot about fallacies that's for sure. lol

lol oh, it is not that I am offended I was not even talking about myself!



I was talking about many on your side that have been insulted into submission.

Like when Jonathan Gruber told the truth about how they (obama and company) bamboozled its supporters into supporting it...

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 01/10/18 1:30pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:



Awww cue the violins.

So YOU post falsehoods, and YOU'RE the victim.

Boy you sure do know a lot about fallacies that's for sure. lol

lol oh, it is not that I am offended I was not even talking about myself!



I was talking about many on your side that have been insulted into submission.

Like when Jonathan Gruber told the truth about how they (obama and company) bamboozled its supporters into supporting it...



Putting up a link showing you're full of shit? You not apologizing for the bullshit? Throwing partisan political bullshit like Pelosi and whomever else is on your political Rolodex...and out of left feild political partisan bullshit like ABORTION?

Insted of partisan political bulshit? how about you put hard thought into backing up your claims?

Now you're a victim? lol

Oh boy, you've gone way down into your rabbit hole lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 01/10/18 1:37pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

lol oh, it is not that I am offended I was not even talking about myself!



I was talking about many on your side that have been insulted into submission.

Like when Jonathan Gruber told the truth about how they (obama and company) bamboozled its supporters into supporting it...



Putting up a link showing you're full of shit?

it did not... it did not mention what i was talking about.


You not apologizing for the bullshit?


apologize for what? did I says something about you?


Throwing partisan political bullshit like Pelosi and whomever else is on your political Rolodex...

I mentioned people that want to tell you what to do as they do what it is they tell you not to do.


and out of left feild political partisan bullshit like ABORTION?


I mentioned it to show lack of consistency... you err on the side of life on earth but not in the womb? (but you KNOW many MANY of the global climate change people want to restrict a woman's right to choose)


Insted of partisan political bulshit? how about you put hard thought into backing up your claims?

what claim? that the 97% was based on faulty data.


Now you're a victim? lol

naww i know i am good i just point out you being rude... i am not insulted.

Oh boy, you've gone way down into your rabbit hole lol


LOL hop hop

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 01/10/18 1:59pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:



Putting up a link showing you're full of shit?

it did not... it did not mention what i was talking about.


You not apologizing for the bullshit?


apologize for what? did I says something about you?


Throwing partisan political bullshit like Pelosi and whomever else is on your political Rolodex...

I mentioned people that want to tell you what to do as they do what it is they tell you not to do.


and out of left feild political partisan bullshit like ABORTION?


I mentioned it to show lack of consistency... you err on the side of life on earth but not in the womb? (but you KNOW many MANY of the global climate change people want to restrict a woman's right to choose)


Insted of partisan political bulshit? how about you put hard thought into backing up your claims?

what claim? that the 97% was based on faulty data.


Now you're a victim? lol

naww i know i am good i just point out you being rude... i am not insulted.

Oh boy, you've gone way down into your rabbit hole lol


LOL hop hop

You forgot "What about Chappaquiddick?"

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 01/10/18 2:15pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I'm sure he also thinks Clinton killed Vince Foster.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 01/10/18 10:12pm

TweetyV6

avatar

Dancelot said:

TweetyV6 said:

Other fact is that CO2 only contributes for <4% to the Green House Effect

bottom line, it DOES contribute to the green house effect.

add to that the fact that humans pump additional C02 into the carbon cycle, so we can safely determine, that humans increase the greenhouse effect.

Q.E.D. smile



[Edited 1/10/18 6:39am]

And I never denied that. Duh.
I ALWAYS said that our emissions are insignificant. That the effort we put in reducing our CO2 emission in order to reduce global warming is futile.
But namely politicians broadcast the message that CO2 is baaaaaad, mkay.
They act as if CO2 is the thermostat for the global temperature. Which it simply isn't.
But if you preach that message often enough, in combination with doomsday scenarios what will happen if you don't do something about it, people will believe it and will be less resistant to pay for it if that makes it go away.... Just like a religion.

The role CO2 plays in the GH Effect is 1-4% depending on the relative humidity, since water(vapor) is the key player. And clouds in particular.

Which bring us back OT; Svensmark has, in a proprer, scientific way, provided 'the missing link' how solar inactivity leads to an increased influx of cosmic rays and how these cosmic rays initiate condensation nucleï that eventually will form clouds.
As was also researched by CERN.

So 'Mother Nature' has her own mechanism of regulating fluctuations in the earths temperature.
Which sounds very probable since there was sustainable life long before any human roamed the surface of the earth.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 01/10/18 10:14pm

TweetyV6

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Due to Worldwide cooperation on the warnings that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons were the cause of damage to the protective layer around us, there is relief that the hole is going back to normal.

let's revisit this sad little story and how it relates to TweetyV6 and his selective propaganda reuptake.


The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole

- al ot of C&P -


Hey!

Have you downloaded those raw data from RSS yet, plotted a graph and added a trendline yet?
Or do you only C&P?

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 01/10/18 10:20pm

TweetyV6

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Fact checking?

Have you downloaded the RSS data yet?

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 01/11/18 3:59am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

You forgot "What about Chappaquiddick?"

do you not believe the ted did that? that he was drunk and crashed and fled the scene leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die and he waited hours to sober up before reporting it?

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 01/11/18 4:19am

TweetyV6

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

You forgot "What about Chappaquiddick?"

do you not believe the ted did that? that he was drunk and crashed and fled the scene leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die and he waited hours to sober up before reporting it?

GTFO with your unrelated crap mad

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 01/11/18 4:34am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

do you not believe the ted did that? that he was drunk and crashed and fled the scene leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die and he waited hours to sober up before reporting it?

GTFO with your unrelated crap mad

I am sorry I took Ugot2shakesumthin's bait... I assume you meant us both?

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 01/11/18 5:59am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

do you not believe the ted did that? that he was drunk and crashed and fled the scene leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die and he waited hours to sober up before reporting it?

GTFO with your unrelated crap mad

lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 01/12/18 8:48am

TweetyV6

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

TweetyV6 said:

GTFO with your unrelated crap mad

I am sorry I took Ugot2shakesumthin's bait... I assume you meant us both?

Yup.

That's the nice thing about the English language, it's so simple.
"Your" can be used for one person only, or for multiple people.

Now... back OT.... kss, kss

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 01/13/18 9:19am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Your related crap is worse.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #77 posted 01/13/18 3:08pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Fact checking?

Have you downloaded the RSS data yet?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #78 posted 01/14/18 10:44pm

TweetyV6

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

TweetyV6 said:

Have you downloaded the RSS data yet?

That's not RSS.
Dunno what you want to prove with this chart?

These are ice core proxy data for T and [CO2]
Showing that temperature fluctuations arsomethjing of all times and that CO2 follows warming/cooling

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #79 posted 01/14/18 10:54pm

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Your related crap is worse.

No but your one-sentence-BS is a contribution to discussions (and not just this one) rolleyes

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #80 posted 01/15/18 2:31am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:




TweetyV6 said:




Have you downloaded the RSS data yet?











That's not RSS.
Dunno what you want to prove with this chart?

These are ice core proxy data for T and [CO2]
Showing that temperature fluctuations arsomethjing of all times and that CO2 follows warming/cooling



Yep. A direct correlation.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #81 posted 01/15/18 5:25am

TweetyV6

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

TweetyV6 said:

That's not RSS.
Dunno what you want to prove with this chart?

These are ice core proxy data for T and [CO2]
Showing that temperature fluctuations arsomethjing of all times and that CO2 follows warming/cooling

Yep. A direct correlation.


And thus? Keep in mind, correlation is not equal to causality.
Warmer times mean more life, more life means more production of CO2.

There's a lag between temperature rise and CO2 increase (CO2 lagging temperature)

Petit et al. (Vladivostok ice core research)
Indermühle e.a. (Taylor Dome ice core research)
Monnin et al. (Concordia Dome ice core research)


BTW, there's also a correlation between Solar Ray Influx and CO2 concentration.
Shaviv & Veizer

Aaaaaaand we're back on OP topic.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #82 posted 01/15/18 5:32am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

TweetyV6 said: Yep. A direct correlation.


And thus? Keep in mind, correlation is not equal to causality.
Warmer times mean more life, more life means more production of CO2.

There's a lag between temperature rise and CO2 increase (CO2 lagging temperature)

Petit et al. (Vladivostok ice core research)
Indermühle e.a. (Taylor Dome ice core research)
Monnin et al. (Concordia Dome ice core research)


BTW, there's also a correlation between Solar Ray Influx and CO2 concentration.
Shaviv & Veizer

Aaaaaaand we're back on OP topic.

A lag, but i driect corrolation that even the folks you mentioned do not deny and most importantly do not deny.

Now, we're back on track. Yes you can do what the partisans do and instill doubt bydistraction, BUT that inconvinient fact is undisputable.

...Ok now go back and dig for dig for confirmation bisa..

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #83 posted 01/15/18 7:56am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Tweety, what made you doubt basic science?

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #84 posted 01/15/18 8:22am

TweetyV6

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Now, we're back on track. Yes you can do what the partisans do and instill doubt bydistraction, BUT that inconvinient fact is undisputable.


You got me puzzled. Which inconveinient fact are you referring to?

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #85 posted 01/15/18 8:40am

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Tweety, what made you doubt basic science?

Basic science caused my doubt.

I am BSc in Chemical Engineering and I have a Master in Quality Management. So I know a little about the scientific method, not saying I'm an expert. By far.

The scientific method is that if you posit a hypothesis in which you claim something (eg: more CO2 leads to global warming) based on a theory using/supported by models, but reality does not support your theory, then you have to re-visit or even reject your theory and/or look at the asumptions made in the model(s).

In other words, when your theory is falsified by reality it just might not be true....

And since in the past 20yrs CO2 concentration has risen (from 360ppm to about 400ppm), but the global temperature hasn't (significantly; 0,08K/decade is virtually nothing and falls within the margin of error of the measurement devices), the well known statement that CO2 causes global warning, is simply NOT true.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #86 posted 01/15/18 11:19am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:



2freaky4church1 said:


Tweety, what made you doubt basic science?




Basic science caused my doubt.

I am BSc in Chemical Engineering and I have a Master in Quality Management. So I know a little about the scientific method, not saying I'm an expert. By far.

The scientific method is that if you posit a hypothesis in which you claim something (eg: more CO2 leads to global warming) based on a theory using/supported by models, but reality does not support your theory, then you have to re-visit or even reject your theory and/or look at the asumptions made in the model(s).

In other words, when your theory is falsified by reality it just might not be true....

And since in the past 20yrs CO2 concentration has risen (from 360ppm to about 400ppm), but the global temperature hasn't (significantly; 0,08K/decade is virtually nothing and falls within the margin of error of the measurement devices), the well known statement that CO2 causes global warning, is simply NOT true.



Well I would suggest you listen to the people who work in this field as you are not completely qualified
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #87 posted 01/15/18 11:27am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Cornel West: let your cell phones be smart you be wise.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #88 posted 01/15/18 7:43pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Now, we're back on track. Yes you can do what the partisans do and instill doubt bydistraction, BUT that inconvinient fact is undisputable.


You got me puzzled. Which inconveinient fact are you referring to?

facts

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #89 posted 01/15/18 9:52pm

TweetyV6

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

TweetyV6 said:

Basic science caused my doubt.

I am BSc in Chemical Engineering and I have a Master in Quality Management. So I know a little about the scientific method, not saying I'm an expert. By far.

The scientific method is that if you posit a hypothesis in which you claim something (eg: more CO2 leads to global warming) based on a theory using/supported by models, but reality does not support your theory, then you have to re-visit or even reject your theory and/or look at the asumptions made in the model(s).

In other words, when your theory is falsified by reality it just might not be true....

And since in the past 20yrs CO2 concentration has risen (from 360ppm to about 400ppm), but the global temperature hasn't (significantly; 0,08K/decade is virtually nothing and falls within the margin of error of the measurement devices), the well known statement that CO2 causes global warning, is simply NOT true.

Well I would suggest you listen to the people who work in this field as you are not completely qualified



Tadaaaa.... there we have it.
It's not a religion where people have to explain what you have to know.

By saying that I'm not an expert, I mean I don't do research or R&D work anymore, so I don't work by the scientific method that often anymore.

Researchers do.

But that doesn't mean I know the scientific method.


I wonder, did you read beyond the first sentence?

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 5 <12345>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Real Science: This will hopefully end the CO2=AGW=Climate Change hoax