NASA Publishes Report on Link Between Sun and Climate

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I'm going to attempt to answer you, even though I find no value in doing so... I can already tell you how this is going to go. I'm going to post valid arguments against your positions, and you're going to say I'm wrong and misunderstanding things. Then, I'm going to counter you by saying the exact same thing about you. Then it will go back and forth for a while, until I find a better way to spend my time, and you'll say you won because I never answered you back... sound about right? I thought so.


Originally posted by NoHierarchy
How can you SERIOUSLY sit there and even THINK of purporting that CO2 isn't central to trapping atmospheric heat (i.e. infrared radiation bouncing back from the surface of the Earth)
....

CO2 is responsible for 80% of the initial forcing mechanism of the greenhouse effect/global warming:
...


Denier nonsense? Deluded? So there is not two sides to this debate, it's all wrapped up and you're the deliverer who will fix my ill-conceived ideas?


First of all, I never once said anything about CO2 not being a part of the process involved in climate. It is however, not central. Climate science is made up of ALL disciplines of science, including things such as chemistry, which while not central nor the only understanding of how climate works, plays its part. The ONE paper I cited from the good doctor Nahle, is not considered wrong or illegitimate because he is a biologist, and happens to be a Scientific Research Director, who to obtain such a position, usually entails some level of detail on how the scientific process works. In his paper, he shows how CO2 absorbtion and emission effects temperature using very basic (and commonly accepted) formula for radiative heat transfer. Why is this important?

It's because it measures how LONG CO2 retains the energy from the radiative process and how much it emits back out. This can not just be ignored, no matter what discipline of science you are in. I suggest you actually read the paper and discount IT, rather than ME. It is in complete alignment with Dr. Hoyt Hottel and Klaus Lackner's calculations as well, so good luck.



Ok, you'll need to read this very carefully because it contains specific language that you need to focus on to understand:

THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT WARM ITSELF ACCORDING TO CO2 AS A PERCENTAGE OF ITSELF. IT WARMS ITSELF IN PROPORTION TO TOTAL GREENHOUSE GASES. In other words... in TRACE amounts (as compared to the entirety of the atmosphere's composition), CO2 can induce GREAT amounts of heat trapping. If there was no CO2 in our atmosphere, the planet would be 60 degrees cooler.


Since you want to be condescending, I'll be the bigger man here.


CO2 can induce heat trapping, I never said anything to the contrary. My argument is how much heat it traps and for how long that lasts. If you want to challenge my depth of knowledge in certain areas of science, that doesn't exclude other facts in other areas. If CO2 traps so much heat for such a long time, why does it get cooler at night? Simple... the energy radiates into space. Feedback versus forcing, big difference.

And please provide a source for your claim of a 60 degree difference in temperature without CO2.

If you'd read my previous posts, you'd see that I posted 2 sources on what ppm CO2 levels were when polar glaciation began, which means that is the same ppm it would take (approximately) to end current polar glaciation. That ppm was between 600-700ppm, FAR from where we are today, and caused NATURALLY. So, while CO2 can induce great amounts of trapping, it takes an enormous amount of it to do so in great amounts.



The Vostok ice cores absolutely BOLSTER the theory of Global Warming, and the actual scientists who drill and study these cores will tell you so. Stop your blatant and stupid lies about this, it's childish.

As for that ridiculous study you linked, Nasif Nahle is NOT A REPUTABLE SCIENTIST. He is not a Climatologist and is a nobody in the science community. Not only that, but he's obviously a quack-scientist denier found on a cornucopia of ridiculous denier propaganda sites, but NO reputable scientific institutions. Yeah... critical thinking is needed here... and you're in desperate need of some.


It's nice how quickly you can dismiss someone's work just because it doesn't fit into your mental model of climate science. What's a climatologist? Please explain, because there is no such thing. It is a MULTI-DISCIPLINARY FIELD. There is no one person or one field that has all of the knowledge required to tackle such a feat. Believing otherwise shows who is childish in this debate.

As for Vostok and my "childish lies", I have the RAW Vostok ice core data, and NOWHERE in it does it bolster GW. As I stated, it shows temperature came BEFORE CO2 increases, and it's easy to show. I'd like to see your sources that show otherwise. Where's your proof?

Round 2?


~Namaste
edit on 10-1-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reduce pollution - it helps everyone. problem solved



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Even though this is starting to derail into a global warming thread, I feel it necessary to post some papers and links as sources:

Why I don't believe anything skepticalscience.com has to say:

Source

Explosive paper published in August of this year further shows that temperature increases BEFORE CO2 does, and that it is the effect, not the cause (go ahead, try to refute it):

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature - take a look at figure 9.

Here is a clearer diagram of figure 9:

Source

The full paper from Dr. Nasif Nahle on back radiation experimentation:

Source

Australia's Antarctic Division findings on ice cores:

Source

There are many more, but these are the most recent and relative findings. (with exception of the skepticalscience link)

~Namaste
edit on 10-1-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I think you guys are misunderstanding what this study is trying to say....

Nothing is disproving the obviously warming planet here... What these scientists are trying to find out is how much is actually anthropogenic, and whether it's trivial by comparison or not.

Scientists are finally starting to look elsewhere for climate mechanisms that they yet do not understand. This means they're turning back to the obvious fiery ball of plasma in the sky, and no longer just willing to look at solar irradiance (TSI), but rather to dig further into heliophysics that has not been taken into account by the IPCC AR4 report.

They're now understanding that other variable mechanisms (other solar forces) could very well be at play which has nothing to do with solar irradiance.

Up until this point, solar forces have been completely ignored other than TSI.

In the up and coming IPCC AR5 report next year, there will be discussion further into heliophysics than what the previous report did... It will no longer be ignored.

Simply put, scientists are now stepping back and realizing their unscientific arrogance on the subject of climate change. There are far too many research studies on GCR's (one of many solar forcings not well understood yet) to ignore anymore.

NASA is, quite frankly, carefully lining themselves up to show they're in agreement with what will be coming out in the AR5 report.

But still just the same, at least this is a step in the right direction in the name of science.

They're letting go of the political brass ring.

And it's about friggin' time.

Sorry, but I just can't help to not laugh my butt off at the back-peddling... simply due to the fact that they were so damn sure of themselves that they knew everything they needed to know (the science is settled) to push forth global policies.



And again, those of you yapping about maunder minimums and quiet suns, etc and "yet the planet is still warming" are, still again, arguing the IPCC AR4 report about solar irradiance, and solar irradiance alone. You're still not getting it... there are other physics going on that have nothing to do sunshine output or sunspots or solar minimums or solar maximums, etc. And that's what heliophysics is now trying to get to the bottom of.

That is what this report is all about.
It's step one of what's further to come.


I still say, they're going to end up throwing Hansen under the bus.




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


Pretty spot on.


Thank you for keeping the original topic in perspective and not further derailing the thread. I'd give you many more stars if I could.


~Namaste



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
You don't say!? LOL. I've been telling friends and family for the past couple years that the Sun feels 'hotter' than it did when I was younger. I have a very strong form of mental memory, where I can recall ALL details of any day/date/time in my life. Not things like numbers, etc, but of what I felt, saw, thought, heard, smelt, what I was wearing, who I was with, what the weather was like, what I was thinking at any given moment, etc. My grandpa and great-grandpa both had what's called 'PhotographicTotal Recall.' However, my 'good' memory only runs up until the age of 17, when I was in a car wreck and suffered brain trauma and short term memory loss. Then it gets foggy from then until now (27). Anyhow, I can remember 10+ years ago, the Sun's UV output wasn't quite as 'hot' as it seems to feel now.

So anyhow, I have found it hard that when I tell people what I feel these days, people don't believe me and I guess it's because they either weren't paying attention to things like that when they were younger, or just don't understand how anyone could remember 'what the Sun felt like 12 years ago, etc.

Anyhow, it's hotter thee days. Higher UV output, causing higher surface temperatures that result in warmer nights, and subsequently warmer day time air temperatures...rather than directly effecting air temperatures.

I'm glad the almighty "NASA" has finally backed me up. Now I'm not crazy. LOL.
edit on 11-1-2013 by Xterrain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Xterrain
 


Anyhow, it's hotter thee days. Higher UV output, causing higher surface temperatures that result in warmer nights, and subsequently warmer day time air temperatures...rather than directly effecting air temperatures

Higher UV output does not affect surface temperatures. Better read it again.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


I try my best.



On a lighter note, I'm going to stick my neck out a little bit here and wager that over the next 3-5 years these scientists are going to realize that a huge influence on our climate change roots back to the changes happening in our geomagnetic field and that those changes are being caused by solar influences directly effecting earth's core... which is where our magnetic field originates.

Our magnetic field has been decreasing for the past estimated 150 years and that rate of decrease has been speeding up the past few decades.

This decrease has been happening mainly in the arctic magnetic field - the southern magnetic field has remained fairly constant... but note how the arctic is what has seen the biggest changes in temperatures, not to mention the consistency at this rate of change ? Interesting to note indeed.

In a nutshell, I think they're going to realize that GCR's are the culprit, but it won't have anything to do with cloud formation and albedo... instead it will have to do with solar forcings spreading out across our solar system effecting each planet's geomagnetics along the way. Various magnetic changes have been noticed on other planets in our solar system over the past couple of decades now too.

As a side note just to nail that idea home, scientists have recently discovered that the outer front edge of our heliosphere has increased from being 10au thick to now being around 100au thick.

Our shiny little ball in the sky effects every aspect of our solar system due to energy exchanges at the subatomic level.

Call this my 5-year ATS prediction.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


This decrease has been happening mainly in the arctic magnetic field - the southern magnetic field has remained fairly constant... but note how the arctic is what has seen the biggest changes in temperatures, not to mention the consistency at this rate of change ? Interesting to note indeed.
Interesting indeed. Some data on this please. The variation between both magnetic field strength between the north and south as well as the variation in temperatures?


Various magnetic changes have been noticed on other planets in our solar system over the past couple of decades now too.
Also interesting. Data please?


As a side note just to nail that idea home, scientists have recently discovered that the outer front edge of our heliosphere has increased from being 10au thick to now being around 100au thick.
How was the depth of the heliosphere measured previously? How has it been measured recently?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Oh man, Phage...

You're going to have to give me some time to dig all this stuff up... the magnetic field decrease comes from NASA, I remember that source from a while back at least, so easy enough.... but the rest I'll have to dig around and try to figure out where by brain took in this info from over the years.

*sigh*


But I have to ask: Haven't we been grilled over and over of the temperature changes being seen the most consistantly in the Arctic - hence the "Arctic ice is disappearing!!" soapbox screamers ?


Anyways, let me dig this crap out.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
NASA just proved that man made global warming is a hoax and it is nothing but a solar change in which will trigger the next Ice Age. But the self-proclaimed scientist Al Gore and who claims to have created planet earth, KFC, McDonald's, Microsoft, Apple, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and jeans suggests that if we pay him the illegal carbon tax, this would prevent a non existent global warming. If he really care about earth, why doesn't he drive a hybrid car? why doesn't he live in a small-sized house ( just like Agenda 21 claims that small houses prevent large carbon emission), why doesn't he fly a commercial airlines like the general public but have his own private jet that costs more to operate and thus creates more pollution. Oh wait, if we pay him the carbon tax, it will prevent all of that pollution and we will live in a Utopia. The solution is we just have to pay him the carbon tax and everything will be great. Al Gore did not pay attention to school because carbon emissions is what keeps this planet alive. your garden will be healthier the more cows farts on it.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by BristolStew
 


I know I'm feeding into this, but....

Let's not forget that after all the chicken little-ing about how bad fossil fuels are, and then turns around and sells his TV station to people who own the fossil fuels and enjoy televising broadcasts of women and homosexuals being stoned to death. The same people who threw a televised party for a man who used his boot to stomp a little girls head in.

Al Gore is the epitome of a typical politician that talks out of both sides of his arse, err, mouth, for nothing more than his own personal profit and status. It's sick.

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Really? I thought he made a lot of sense.
He did win the debate at the rather well known and respected Oxford Union, would that be possible if he was talking a load of bs?
linky

So what makes you say that then? I am genuinely interested as I always thought he was rather good, and Al Gore rather untrustworthy.
edit on 11-1-2013 by CthulhuMythos because: added linky
edit on 11-1-2013 by CthulhuMythos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Really I think you are addressing the wrong audience, most of the people in this forum aren't climate scientists, haven't studied the material at the level necessary to understand it from a physical and mathematical level. If you truly believe your arguments are as compelling, and truly reveal inconsistencies in the science then why not take them to the people who write the papers and conduct the research:

Real Climate

The real climate website is run by actual well known climate scientists who for the most part are the architects of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

So take your "A game" to them, you better prepare your best arguments and evidence, get some good sleep and get your mind right for the science battle. Ooh Whatcha Gonna Do!!!



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 



The summary of the workshop details the areas in which several disciplines agreed, and I never once claimed that it was for or against global warming


Really? Do I need to post this again:


Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
I'm happy to see that science is taking the climate discussion to the correct venue, which starts with understanding the sun. Figure that out first, and then start looking at the terrestrial side before jumping straight to blaming humans.


^ this.

You leave this part out of the OP and I wouldn't have even bothered commenting. But stop trying to pretend like others are derailing your thread when you derailed it yourself by putting that paragraph there in the first place.

The idea that anyone jumped straight to blaming humans is just ignorant hyperbole peddled by delusional strawman skeptics who only seem to know what they know about this topic from all the bullsh** Koch-brothers Kool-Aid they like to drink on it.

I didn't just leave you one source before, I left you several - one of which was a link to the American Institute of Physics detailing over 100 years of explicit history on this, but of course you just ignored that and continued on with more delusional Al Gore-invented-global-warming nonsense.

Meanwhile what you are doing here is completely misrepresenting the study in the OP as some sort of "alternative" to AGW, which it absolutely is not.

The two are not mutually exclusive, there is no such thing as "the correct venue", and understanding climate change does not work by some perverse process of elimination like you are trying to imply. This is simply the backwards way AGW skeptics seem to look at all this because again, evidently they don't comprehend a lick of how any of it actually works.


So I tried to explain some to you, but naturally you just took that as an attack from "the AGW cult" and decided to immediately shoot it all down - with references to even worse misunderstandings of the general science - underwritten by total kooks and frauds, which you even proudly introduced as "destroying" my position (so cry me a friggin river about "pompous and egotistical" ok?)



Now I have no idea where you're even trying to go with this anymore - other than skirting around all the uncomfortable bits you're either very poorly versed in, or straight up BS'ing yourself on.

You seem to be trying to appeal to authority where there is no need for it. The reason I showed you the homework problem is because anyone can deconstruct the underlying physics for themselves. That was the point - there is no need to reference "dozens of reputable scientists", or ask an adult or anything like that. All that's required is your own brain and some of that critical thinking thing you keep bragging so much about.


So maybe you should get off your own high horse, stop trying to "win" so much and start trying to actually learn a little something here instead.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CthulhuMythos
 


Lord Monckton LOVES to engage people in live, on the spot debates where he can use his oratory skills to his advantage while not having to worry about being fact-checked or anything like that. It's very much like the Presidential debates that were very long on rhetoric but short on facts.


Retired journalist Peter Hadfield, who goes by the name potholer54 on Youtube challenged him to an internet debate where every claim could be sourced and fact checked, and he absolutely mopped the floor with Monckton, exposing him as a complete fraud - to the point the so-called "Lord" quite literally ran away from the debate (which was really more of an evisceration).

You can find parts of it on Youtube and parts of it on wattsupwiththat.com - that is until the notoriously biased Watts shut the whole thing down when it became obvious Monckton was getting his *** whooped.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 




I think you guys are misunderstanding what this study is trying to say....

Nothing is disproving the obviously warming planet here... What these scientists are trying to find out is how much is actually anthropogenic, and whether it's trivial by comparison or not.



No I think you're misunderstanding what this study is saying...

That's the whole problem with this thread.

All they're doing is trying to better understand the nitty gritty links between solar forcing and climate in general - both past, present and future. Many of the names in this workshop like Gerald Meehl are actually well-known proponents of AGW. But this is a stand alone topic that needs more research and actually has very little to do with the anthropogenic aspect - because both mechanisms stand on their own merits, and it's not some climate change tug of war.

But you guys are just confusing it as such because you continue to treat AGW as some totally baseless filler "theory" that Al Gore himself came up with to color in the gaps after someone noticed it was getting warmer outside or something...

Absolutely no one in this study is covering their tracks or back pedaling or anything like that - and this is all CONFIRMED by the leak of the AR5 report, which actually said the opposite of what the once-again totally confused deniers tried to imply it was saying (notice a trend yet?)...

##snipped##
edit on Fri Jan 11 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

The idea that anyone jumped straight to blaming humans is just ignorant hyperbole peddled by delusional strawman skeptics who only seem to know what they know about this topic from all the bullsh** Koch-brothers Kool-Aid they like to drink on it.


That is absolutely ridiculous and really sets the tone for this post. I don't know ANYONE (until now) that would deny the idea of humans being being blamed for global warming, it's what sparked the whole debate in the first place. I'm almost inclined to say you are flat-out trolling.

Get this... there's this crazy idea that I'm allowed to say whatever the hell I want, who are you to tell me otherwise? I posted an article unaltered, from the source, with MY comments on it, and YOU are the one turning this into an AGW debate, syntactically picking apart wording in my post to make it look as though I'm taking a position. I posted the article with some comments, and YOU are the one taking it out of context.


I didn't just leave you one source before, I left you several...


After seeing several of them from skeptical science, your credibility on sources went out the _ They are undeniably biased, and very well-known AGW proponents. Your video was a gross misrepresentation of how CO2 actually behaves, especially under pressures where the highest concentrations are found in the atmosphere, and said nothing of the way CO2 emits and absorbs different wavelengths of radiation (which are few).


The two are not mutually exclusive, there is no such thing as "the correct venue", and understanding climate change does not work by some perverse process of elimination like you are trying to imply.


I'd like to see where I implied that it was some perverse process of elimination? Oh, and please show me where ATS terms and conditions specify the requirements for syntactic sugar in posts? I think most people here would say that the correct venue for addressing something as large as a planet's climate, is a collaboration across multiple studies of science, which is exactly what I said in subsequent posts. This would "imply" that you don't read very well.



This is simply the backwards way AGW skeptics seem to look at all this because again, evidently they don't comprehend a lick of how any of it actually works.


Phew, glad I'm not one of "them"! I feel bad for those folks...
Nice way to label people.


So I tried to explain some to you, but naturally you just took that as an attack from "the AGW cult" and decided to immediately shoot it all down - with references to even worse misunderstandings of the general science - underwritten by total kooks and frauds, which you even proudly introduced as "destroying" my position (so cry me a friggin river about "pompous and egotistical" ok?)

Now I have no idea where you're even trying to go with this anymore - other than skirting around all the uncomfortable bits you're either very poorly versed in, or straight up BS'ing yourself on.


I need you to explain my position to me? That's all you've done is attack my position instead of attacking the facts written in the report or the papers I cited. All you keep doing is calling other scientists "kooks" and "frauds" with nothing to back up your claim. You drop sources from skeptical science, and expect anyone to take you seriously? And you call it an "AGW cult", which shows your own bias and personal lament for the other point of view. Your "sources" are websites, such as AIP, where it CLEARLY states at the bottom of the page:


The statements on this site represent the views of the author and are not positions endorsed by the American Institute of Physics.


It also cites no other sources except to ITSELF and a single bibliography. Moving on to your second link to University of Wisconsin, using the Wayback Machine for the web archives, the link you posted to "explain things to me" hasn't changed in almost 8 years. I guess climate science hasn't changed since then either, because many of the formulas are out of date and completely wrong. But you would know that if you checked your own sources. And you were right about one thing, it was very "basic and axiomatic".

The rest of your links were from skepticalscience.com...
... enough said.


You seem to be trying to appeal to authority where there is no need for it.


Nice strawman... I have absolutely zero to gain, and I've already stated that as well, had you actually read the thread.


...there is no need to reference "dozens of reputable scientists"...


No? Ok, I guess the whole scientific world will just take your word for it based on your homework.



...stop trying to "win" so much and start trying to actually learn a little something here instead.


I learned plenty, but not from you.

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


I think you guys are misunderstanding what this study is trying to say....

Nothing is disproving the obviously warming planet here... What these scientists are trying to find out is how much is actually anthropogenic, and whether it's trivial by comparison or not.


No I think you're misunderstanding what this study is saying...

That's the whole problem with this thread.


Thanks for straightening that out for us all.



All they're doing is trying to better understand the nitty gritty links between solar forcing and climate in general - both past, present and future. Many of the names in this workshop like Gerald Meehl are actually well-known proponents of AGW. But this is a stand alone topic that needs more research and actually has very little to do with the anthropogenic aspect - because both mechanisms stand on their own merits, and it's not some climate change tug of war.


There is no way you read the report to make such a statement. Both mechanisms stand on their own merits and the report was based on a stand alone topic? Since when? The whole purpose of that workshop was to understand how the sun plays the part of not only temperatures and general climate change, but also how it works in tandem with CO2 forcing. Only someone blind or a complete idiot would not understand that the warming effects of CO2 are pretty much non-existent without the SUN, so understanding what role it plays, and the various effects it has on ALL of the systems that make up climate is what was heralded as progress when all of the different disciplines came together to talk about the problems and discuss future possibilities at the workshop.

It's not a climate tug of war, it's science. There isn't a side to pick or a winner, and that is a fatal flaw of yours and I have a hard time believing that you have earned a physics degree.

I went through a lot of your posts and almost every source you reference is from Skepticalscience.com without citing a single paper as a source. You rely on the reports from blogs, mass media publications like the Guardian and Reuters, and 1 minute videos of grossly misrepresented science. You constantly call skeptics (which is healthy to be one) "skeptics" in quotes as though they are a separate race of people, as a way to create divisiveness. You bash any view that goes against any of your proponent sources, and towards everyone else who presents rock solid evidence that is contrary to your perspective. To defend yourself, you resort to strawman arguments, don't ever debate the actual math, physics or science, and treat anyone who doesn't agree with you as inferior. You make science look bad, and you make honest threads that encourage constructive discussion impossible. Almost every thread of yours wreaks of condescension and everything I previously mentioned.


But you guys are just confusing it as such because you continue to treat AGW as some totally baseless filler "theory" that Al Gore himself came up with to color in the gaps after someone noticed it was getting warmer outside or something...


It's all still very much "theory", unless of course climate change has been solved, and who are "you guys"? Oh, you mean us pesky "skeptics" again? The ones who actually ask questions and cite legitimate sources from real scientists? Again, this just shows that you are extremely biased and really don't care to debate facts or science, only to make vacuous statements that have no depth or context.


Absolutely no one in this study is covering their tracks or back pedaling or anything like that - and this is all CONFIRMED by the leak of the AR5 report, which actually said the opposite of what the once-again totally confused deniers tried to imply it was saying (notice a trend yet?)...


Confirmed by a leak???
Another source, from a journalist who has a blog and is quoting another source, which eventually points back to skepticalscience. Just about every source you provide goes in circles between the same sites. That's not research, it's misinformation. It takes 10 minutes to look over your threads to see you have an agenda.


So you can continue with this completely delusional narrative all you want...


Thank you for succinctly proving my points. Calling someone delusional just because they don't agree with you or YOUR opinions is a strawman tactic to move the conversation away from your inept ability to have a civil discussion about the science, which just happens to make you into the perpetrator of the things you accuse everyone else of doing wrong.

I feel bad for you.

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


What's absolutely ridiculous is you trying to backpedal and contend you never said things that are written right there in your posts. And to claim that no one has ever denied humans have an impact on climate - are you kidding - have you read this website? This is the exact response YOU solicited with those comments and GOT out of several replies in this very thread.

That's why this "debate" is absolutely insane and why I really shouldn't have even bothered. Trying to discuss these things with people who just constantly dance around the issue and make it a pissing contest, grasping at anything they can to justify their own bias rather than discussing it open-mindedly and honestly. You act like the latter is what you're all about but your hypocrisy on this thread is astounding. You keep trying to make everything into some pointless google fight, nit-pick irrelevant details to avoid the facts, and immediately defer to the opinions and interpretations of others when all I'm trying to do is get you to look at the content itself.

I would have gladly discussed this topic in a polite rational manner if you had shown any intention of doing the same. I have easily managed to do this in the rare threads with those few and far between real skeptics who don't just make arrogant, foolishly authoritative statements on what's "the correct venue" or "destroying" others positions (with really ignorant and long ago debunked memes - I'm still lol'ing about that one).

So you want to judge me on my style then go ahead - but the fact is I rarely shoot first around here, I just have this nagging intolerance for hypocrisy and people showing up on ATS spouting total BS while preaching "deny ignorance" or some phony appeal for critical thinking. So I suggest before posting yet another preachy-winded diatribe you take a long hard look in the mirror considering you are very visibly projecting a lot of your own deficiencies onto others in this thread.

There is plenty of room for a healthy, polite, sane discussion on climate change - but not when people are so clearly arrogant AND insecure about their opinions that they feel the need to explode over every little criticism that comes their way.

~Namaste, love+light, nanoo-nanoo, and all that junk





top topics
 
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum