Scientists Use Stem Cells To Grow Body Parts In Their Lab, Including Noses, Ears, And Tear DuctsQuote:
Originally Posted by bcollins
....eh, but I'm sure it's coming.
Be sure to buy your carbon offsets!
Printable View
Scientists Use Stem Cells To Grow Body Parts In Their Lab, Including Noses, Ears, And Tear DuctsQuote:
Originally Posted by bcollins
....eh, but I'm sure it's coming.
Be sure to buy your carbon offsets!
The most excellent part about Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't Al Gore saying "The Science is settled", it isn't the rampant data manipulation in order to arrive at the conclusion the "scientists" want to arrive at, it isn't Roger Revelle apologizing for his studies on CO2 which laid the foundation for those like Al Gore to take advantage of, it's that those involved like bcollins here for example aren't able to handle ANY criticism at all regardless of who it is from...could be a politician who sees this Anthropogenic Global Warming as a political tool wielded by those who wish to create drastic political and economic changes, changes which without the imminent threat of death and destruction are WILDLY unpopular, or it could be another scientist or group of scientists that have studied this very subject and have differing hypotheses regarding Climate Change. Yes these people are merely written off by the Green Army as kooks, wackos, nutjobs, and bought and paid for by "Big Oil" or "Big Coal", or the most ironic "they are bad scientists" (as opposed to those who adjust their data to toe the line for Anthropogenic Global Warming).
And well, IF humans can't recreate the ice cube bcollins, then why fucking bother worrying about Anthropogenic Global Warming if nothing humans do can fix it??? Why so upset if Anthropogenic Global Warming only advances and never retreats???? Why work to fix, control, mitigate, it???? You've admitted that your work merely counts down the days until all of humanity and the life on this Earth ceases to exist....it does nothing more than that....if of course you are truthful in how you disagree with my take on this.
Question: Do these scientists come from different backgrounds or similar? I've heard a little of Climatology & meteorology. Do either of these fields back this Anthropogenic Global warming or deny?
Are there better fields to learn from global warming than those two?
And last: Would President Reagan's help with the Montreal Protocol treaty be something akin to acknowledging in some ways- where man hinders nature- he can help it? Or was the president's rationale for such a treaty not relative to a claim that: man's impact on a natural process has little impact.
Personally I think Global warming & freezing is an inevitable process with or without man- but can man help it or hinder it? That seems to be the question- and Kabong has pointed out that there are those who are manipulating data to get their point across. I apologize if I have taken your words out of context. Break it down for me, please.
Jesus. Clutching vainly to something that was debunked a long time ago is quite sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
‘Climategate’
Spew more propaganda. Go read some more blogs written by other people who also don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about, then present that as evidence to undo the work of real professionals. You aren't qualified to carry their jock strap. Talk to me once you have a Ph.D., the respect of your peers, and have any sort of clue what the hell you're talking about. Mindlessly regurgitating arguments that you are incapable of understanding does nothing to prove your point.
This is the true danger of the Information Age. Any mouthbreathing idiot can Google a few articles and think he or she possesses sufficient expertise to counter the opinions of people with *actual* expertise. You don't understand half of the terms you bandy about as "evidence." I mean come on - you really expect us to believe that you knew what "Milinkohovich cycles" or "orbital forcing" without the all-powerful Google search? Maybe a Wikipedia article? Okay. I'll believe that you know more about these than the scientists who coined the damn terms when you concede that I have an eleven foot penis and can teleport to the moon by wiggling my damn nose.
You really don't have a clue. THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATION IS PRECISELY THAT ALL ARGUMENTS MUST STAND UP TO THE MOST RIGOROUS OF SCRUTINY.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
The problem I have with your bullshit arguments is that barely any of them are from a source with any expertise to even understand the terminology involved! The few that do come from scientists in the field have been thoroughly dismissed by the rest of the community. That's precisely the point - the scientific community itself is MUCH better equipped at sniffing out bullshit than you, or the bloggers you adore, or any media source, or the voices in your head that tell you that you know more about this than GODDAMN PROFESSIONALS.
The people who know what they're talking about have clearly stated that the tipping point has not yet been reached.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
And why do you say "my work"? I'm NOT an expert in the field. Perhaps that's one reason why I'm aware of my own limitations, and even more so about yours. You seem to have no concept of the fact that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Lots of Blahblahblahblah linktomediaoutlet linktoblog linktoTomDickandHarry, yet hardly any actual reputable sources. I can only come to the conclusion that you are absolutely, 100% ignorant of how to perform any type of scientific research on your own. I asked you to do a high-school level analysis of a given data set a while back, yet you blathered on without even making an attempt there. Now you're back on the horn, blahblahblahblah, yet without offering even the slightest hint of credibility. You can choose to listen to fuckwits who squawk loudly yet offer no substance if you like. That's purely your choice, and you clearly prefer that choice to the more difficult one - doing the damn work.
I'll listen to people who have dedicated their entire fucking lives to the study of concepts beyond your ken. I respect people who do the work. The people who wanna just blather on and talk shit about the people walking the walk can go fuck themselves.
They are ignoring you .Ill break it down for you>Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMip0rzLptk
"Spew more propaganda" .....oh you are just precious.
There are PLENTY of doctors and experts in their fields of study that disagree with your view on Anthropogenic Global Warming. If you wish I could bring up a few and give you some time to look them over and see if you can't belittle and disrespect them....would you like to try?
Maybe if those on your side are mean enough, loud enough, and supported by the right people in the media then maybe you can convince everyone there is a consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. But there used to be the consensus that the Sun rotated around the Earth and that the Earth was flat....I remember when science enjoyed healthy debates do you? I remember when altering your data to fit your hypothesis was considered a bad thing and that's not JUST Climategate where that has happened, NASA and NOAA have altered their data sets as well....but that doesn't matter of course, it never does because only those who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming have good intentions for humanity, they are the only altruistic people in this world, they are the ONLY people we can trust bcollins.
Samantha Stevens can do it, and I got several episodes to prove my point B-money.;DQuote:
Originally Posted by bcollinsQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
‘Climategate’
that I can teleport to the moon by wiggling my damn nose.
http://www.retroland.com/wp-content/.../Bewitched.jpg
BCollins hmm, you wouldn't happen to be the one and only Bootsy Collins would ya?http://www.bet.com/content/betcom/to...sy-collins.jpg
The white brother in the midde of this video still- doesn't that look like Brett Favre on oxycontin?:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreThey are ignoring you .Ill break it down for you>Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMip0rzLptk
Australian Bureau of Meteorology has just been caught manipulating data to show warming where none actually exists bcollins.....why ever would anyone feel the need to do such a thing??? They claimed 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record but has yet to adequately explain why real world data showing a cooling trend was adjusted to show warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ge9Nwu8MxE
But you know, the science is settled and all, nothing to see here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain etc .....say how about that Justin Beiber fellow? Isn't he ridiculous?
It seems there is also an argument between climatologists & meterologists. Two different sciences giving their take on this issue.
Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, fiancee Cylvia Hayes provide new green energy scandal for Democrats - Washington Times
......lulululu hmm hmm hmm....lalala....nothing to see here.
Not like a politician would use something like Anthropogenic Global Warming to advance laws, rules, regulations, on the populous meanwhile he is collecting millions having business ties to those who would benefit from such laws, rules, and regulations. I mean the people who truly feel strongly about Anthropogenic Global Warming are of the highest moral and ethical fiber!
God that chick talking started slow :( but what she said made me think.
So basically they get the highest daily temperatures onto a graph and the lowest daily temperatures onto a graph over each year; then draw a line through the high and low points to see if the line is a rise or a fall. In this one TOWN's case the high points rise and the low points fall.
In reality (Out here in Australia) that is because of where that town is situated.
In the real world; In mid summer out here,(Inland) there is little cloud and what is there is thin and high cloud formation sirrus type of stuff no low or thick to hold in the warmth coming off the ground from during the days heat.
This makes our inland and northern nights freezing literally and our days like an oven.
Then you have other types of summer days more towards the coast with cloud and moisture humidity and the days and nights remain hot and steamy. This type of weather (humid) has moved south in the last ten years and we get it here frequently where as it didnt exist at all pre 20 years ago all the weather came off the southern ocean back then.
Now in the southern regions we have a change in weather system speed and direction as whole systems seem to drift down from the north occasionally and trap our usual fast shifting west moving oceans ones for long periods over the top of us which brings down northern weather style into our systems.
They call this ElNino and its from the warm currents of ocean flowing down the east coast effecting weather systems above and more so in meeting spots specially on the corners of continents in our case the south eastern corner just above Tasmania.
The east coast of Tassy that lines up with the east coast of Australia was in drought for some 10 years the last time this Elnino occurred. Where as the Tasmanian west coast that faces Africa as the next land west of it, was not in drought at all and had normal rainfall. It is only about 200 kilometers from one side of Tassy to the other!
That shows how local the effects can differ.
I dont think these stupid charts and number shifters who call on them or at worse manipulate them; take any of these local trends into consideration, its a numbers only game and aimed politically for one side or the others advancement; therefore a false projection concerning reality.
More so when the temperatures are taken and argued from the point of one inland town.