10:10 - Global warming 'no pressure' *Somewhat graphic*

[The_Patriot]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Hah. See? You've got the game already set up. If it supports AGW, it's part of the cult and therefore biased. It's the same thing every time. You act like you're willing to discuss this scientifically, but then you go and use the word cult.

How about this, you prove that the IPCC's work is not scientifically sound.

That's easy since their data is based off of the work done by CRU. CRU's crediability is in the toilet due to the leaking of their internal documents like biased research studies, plans to discredit opposition scientists, and the emails showing a coordinated effort to shut down all dissent.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

IT WAS AN AD

NOT MADE TO BE SERIOUS!

:roll::roll::roll:

But the MMGW cult says that this is very serious which is a life and death situation... :roll:

 

[cpwill]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

IT WAS AN AD

NOT MADE TO BE SERIOUS!

it was intended to be funny. that does make it serious.

nor is it the only instance of this kind of stuff we see coming out of the "green" movement; if you will read the sections i highlighted for you earlier, there is definitely a "we need to kill the wasteful people who aren't with us" thread.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

This type of thing drives me AWAY from someone's point and purpose - it doesn't suck me INTO it.

 

[Deuce]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

That's easy since their data is based off of the work done by CRU. CRU's crediability is in the toilet due to the leaking of their internal documents like biased research studies, plans to discredit opposition scientists, and the emails showing a coordinated effort to shut down all dissent.

What, you mean the emails that show none of those things? Some blogger told you they were proof of a conspiracy. I bet you didn't even read them.
If there's some big coordinated effort in those emails, how come there's no mention of prominent skeptics like Shaviv, Svensmark, or Freischristianson? (sp?) If the goal was to suppress dissent, why do they only talk about a couple hacks? Why are the prominent skeptics I mentioned not talked about? Surely you'd want to suppress the prominent skeptics.

The journal that was being discussed had published a crap paper. That's why the discussion came up. It's not because of the conclusion, it's because the paper was so obviously flawed that it shouldn't have been published.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=related
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35376

This dude breaks it down pretty well.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

What, you mean the emails that show none of those things? Some blogger told you they were proof of a conspiracy. I bet you didn't even read them.
If there's some big coordinated effort in those emails, how come there's no mention of prominent skeptics like Shaviv, Svensmark, or Freischristianson? (sp?) If the goal was to suppress dissent, why do they only talk about a couple hacks? Why are the prominent skeptics I mentioned not talked about? Surely you'd want to suppress the prominent skeptics.

The journal that was being discussed had published a crap paper. That's why the discussion came up. It's not because of the conclusion, it's because the paper was so obviously flawed that it shouldn't have been published.

So you have nothing from another group. You expect me to believe the IPCC? :roll:

 

[Deuce]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

So you have nothing from another group. You expect me to believe the IPCC? :roll:

The IPCC is not the CRU, yet some fake scandal about the CRU is enough for you to just handwave all of their work? You clearly have no clue as to the scope of the CRU's work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=related
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35376

This dude breaks it down pretty well. Climategate was a fabrication of the right.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

The IPCC is not the CRU, yet some fake scandal about the CRU is enough for you to just handwave all of their work? You clearly have no clue as to the scope of the CRU's work.

YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
Little Green Footballs - Video: Are Climatologists Censoring Scientific Journals? (A: No)

This dude breaks it down pretty well. Climategate was a fabrication of the right.

Sorry not good enough. Since you cannot produce any data that isn't related to the IPCC and/or CRU then you have no argument to sway me to your side.

 

[Deuce]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Sorry not good enough. Since you cannot produce any data that isn't related to the IPCC and/or CRU then you have no argument to sway me to your side.

More admission of bias on your part. "Related to" is enough for you to handwave. You're admitting to not being able to discuss science. You're going with guilt by association, except the initial guilt is based on a fake scandal.

Here's some non-IPCC research.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/Agriculture_SAP_4.3_Letter.pdf

With increased CO2 and temperature, the life cycle of grain and oilseed crops will likely progress more rapidly. But, as temperature rises, these crops will increasingly begin to experience failure, especially if climate variability increases and precipitation lessens or becomes more variable.

More crop failures. Definite issue for third-world nations.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

More admission of bias on your part. "Related to" is enough for you to handwave. You're admitting to not being able to discuss science. You're going with guilt by association, except the initial guilt is based on a fake scandal.

Here's some non-IPCC research.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/Agriculture_SAP_4.3_Letter.pdf



More crop failures. Definite issue for third-world nations.

My bias is not against the science, but against the organizations themselves. The IPCC is part of the UN and the UN has a long history of being quite partisan plus biased and not making sound decisions like putting violators of human rights onto the Human Rights Commission. CRU is part of the green cult and have manipulated the data to prove their theory. Their manipulations are in the computer models and the shutting down of high altitude temperature stations to skew the results to show that man is causing global warming. Both are very valid reasons for me to not take what they have to say.

I'll disregard the report issued by the Department of Agriculture since it doesn't have any citations from scientists.

 

[Deuce]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

My bias is not against the science, but against the organizations themselves. The IPCC is part of the UN and the UN has a long history of being quite partisan plus biased and not making sound decisions like putting violators of human rights onto the Human Rights Commission. CRU is part of the green cult and have manipulated the data to prove their theory. Their manipulations are in the computer models and the shutting down of high altitude temperature stations to skew the results to show that man is causing global warming. Both are very valid reasons for me to not take what they have to say.

I'll disregard the report issued by the Department of Agriculture since it doesn't have any citations from scientists.

See what I mean? You'll do whatever you need to do to dodge the issues.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

See what I mean? You'll do whatever you need to do to dodge the issues.

So far the only person that's been dodging has been you. I asked for the science from a source that isn't the IPCC and CRU. You have yet to provide any science, but instead attack my positions for being biased against the organizations themselves. I have been patient and replied to every objection you've had to my position. I'm a skeptic, so the burden of proof is on you to provide the science that global warming is man made.When you can actually provide me science that isn't from the IPCC and CRU let me know.

 

[Deuce]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

So far the only person that's been dodging has been you. I asked for the science from a source that isn't the IPCC and CRU. You have yet to provide any science, but instead attack my positions for being biased against the organizations themselves. When you can actually provide me science that isn't from the IPCC and CRU let me know.

The document I linked is a part of a full report. You claim its not science. Did you bother to look it up?
http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/files/SAP4_3/Front_Matter.pdf

Full report if you want the large PDF
http://www.sap43.ucar.edu/document/SAP_4.3_6.18.pdf

Your turn: prove that the IPCC is not trustworthy.
edit: and you can't use anything from the Heartland Institute, Watts, Senator Inhoffe, or a blog/news article.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

The document I linked is a part of a full report. You claim its not science. Did you bother to look it up?
http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/files/SAP4_3/Front_Matter.pdf

Full report if you want the large PDF
http://www.sap43.ucar.edu/document/SAP_4.3_6.18.pdf

Your turn: prove that the IPCC is not trustworthy.

It's not my responsibility to look things up. It is up to you to provide the proof. I'll disregard the reports from the USDA since the current administration is biased towards MMGW. I already did prove that the UN is untrustworthy.

 

[Deuce]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

It's not my responsibility to look things up. It is up to you to provide the proof. I'll disregard the reports from the USDA since the current administration is biased towards MMGW.

Hahahaha. Check and mate. You've proven my point, thanks.

(also, that report is from June 2008)

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Hahahaha. Check and mate. You've proven my point, thanks.

(also, that report is from June 2008)

Which Bush co was also in favor of MMGW. Now do you have some real science to back up your position of MMGW or are you just playing a game?

 

[Deuce]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Which Bush co was also in favor of MMGW. Now do you have some real science to back up your position of MMGW or are you just playing a game?

Bush in favor of AGW? That's a laugh.

If it favors AGW, it's biased, therefore there's no proof of AGW. Circular logic. If that's your blanket opinion, are you really as open-minded as you seem to think you are? You don't have to answer here, it's a self-assessment question.

Me, I'm done with your ridiculous moving goal posts. You don't have any evidence of bias, you're just using it as an excuse to dodge any discussion.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Bush in favor of AGW? That's a laugh.

If it favors AGW, it's biased, therefore there's no proof of AGW. Circular logic. If that's your blanket opinion, are you really as open-minded as you seem to think you are? You don't have to answer here, it's a self-assessment question.

Me, I'm done with your ridiculous moving goal posts. You don't have any evidence of bias, you're just using it as an excuse to dodge any discussion.

That's a laugh since I have repeatedly asked you to present data from scientists that are not biased one way or the other. You still haven't provided anything to back up your initial claim that global warming is a life and death situation, instead you strawman my position. I asked repeatedly for you to present unbiased scientific evidence that this was a life and death situation. You dodged and moved the goal posts.

 

[Deuce]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

That's a laugh since I have repeatedly asked you to present data from scientists that are not biased one way or the other. You still haven't provided anything to back up your initial claim that global warming is a life and death situation, instead you strawman my position. I asked repeatedly for you to present unbiased scientific evidence that this was a life and death situation. You dodged and moved the goal posts.

I showed you evidence. It's up to you to show that the USDA under freaking Bush was somehow biased in favor of AGW. Then you'll have to show me how these particular scientists were biased. Then you'll have to show me how that bias would even affect this report. These guys discussed the effects of an increase in temperature. The source is not relevant to this report. It doesn't matter if the current warming trend is natural or not, their conclusions would remain the same. You claimed you will "disregard" this stuff, but that's bull****. You didn't disregard that USDA report, you didn't even read it. You thought it was from "this administration."

Anything I post, you'll call biased. Supporting AGW because scientific evidence tells you so isn't biased. That's science. You're transparent and not fooling anyone, so I don't know why you bother trying to convince everyone that you're actually open-minded, and actually have some reasonable standard of what is unbiased. You tell me: what is an unbiased source?

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

I showed you evidence. It's up to you to show that the USDA under freaking Bush was somehow biased in favor of AGW. Then you'll have to show me how these particular scientists were biased. Then you'll have to show me how that bias would even affect this report. These guys discussed the effects of an increase in temperature. The source is not relevant to this report. It doesn't matter if the current warming trend is natural or not, their conclusions would remain the same. You claimed you will "disregard" this stuff, but that's bull****. You didn't disregard that USDA report, you didn't even read it. You thought it was from "this administration."

Anything I post, you'll call biased. Supporting AGW because scientific evidence tells you so isn't biased. That's science. You're transparent and not fooling anyone, so I don't know why you bother trying to convince everyone that you're actually open-minded, and actually have some reasonable standard of what is unbiased. You tell me: what is an unbiased source?

I also said that I disregarded the USDA because they didn't cite any studies. I guess you missed that part.

 

[Deuce]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

I also said that I disregarded the USDA because they didn't cite any studies. I guess you missed that part.

Proof that you're not reading the links. I already linked this:
http://www.sap43.ucar.edu/documents/SAP_4.3_6.18.pdf

From here:
CCSP Sythesis & Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3): Documents
Click "full report," or whichever section you want to focus on.

The reference list is one hundred pages long. I guess you missed that part.

The original document I linked was a synopsis of this report.

 

[mikhail]

I believe there is man made global warming.However im also aware some Global warming proponents are some of the biggest assholes in the world.

 

[Deuce]

I believe there is man made global warming.However im also aware some Global warming proponents are some of the biggest assholes in the world.

Excuse me sir, the cast of Jersey Shore would like a word with you.

 

[mikhail]

Excuse me sir, the cast of Jersey Shore would like a word with you.

I dont know what your talking about there?

 

[Deuce]

I dont know what your talking about there?

American television monstrosity. One of those reality show, except this one revels in how ignorant and dickish the cast is. Oh wait, that's most reality shows.