NationStates Jolt Archive

suc my dick

Very scientific response, you might want to learn how to spell "suck".

Well then show it. Pull out the information that you have studied because to my knowledge every point that you have made has been refuted.

Okay. This:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

This is what I have been sticking my nose in recently. As far as I know, it goes into detail that has not been done before. It makes alot of sense to me becuase it dosen't rely on trends or patterns, its straight physics. Alot of it is directly in opposition to the IPCC's methods. The level of detail in this paper makes me believe that an accurate method for predicting climate change has not been established.

FreeSoviets dosen't like this paper but I don't think he has looked at it.

Very scientific response, you might want to learn how to spell "suck".

I mean, if ur gonna attack me personally, don't expect nice responses.

S-U-C-K

rymes with duck

Okay. This:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

This is what I have been sticking my nose in recently. As far as I know, it goes into detail that has not been done before. It makes alot of sense to me becuase it dosen't rely on trends or patterns, its straight physics. Alot of it is directly in opposition to the IPCC's methods. The level of detail in this paper makes me believe that an accurate method for predicting climate change has not been established.

FreeSoviets dosen't like this paper but I don't think he has looked at it.

I got a white page.

Right.

It doesn't matter whether global warming is brought about mainly by humankind or if it is due to some freak "orbital eccentricities:rolleyes:".

We still are causing ridiculous amounts of pollution and destroying the natural systems we need in order to support life(including ours), as well as decreasing biodiversity in a wanton fashion.
*smites endangered species, overgrazes grassland to cause desertification, sets coal mine on fire and paves paradise to put up a parking lot* Yippee!

I'm hoping that scientists, politicians, and heck...everyone, will eventually realize that while global warming may be a problem, and while we may be causing it, there are other reasons to clean up our act. Reasons which will effect us much sooner and require action now.

I'm hoping that scientists, politicians, and heck...everyone, will eventually realize that while global warming may be a problem, and while we may be causing it, there are other reasons to clean up our act. Reasons which will effect us much sooner and require action now.

Sigged

Sigged
:eek:

I am quite pleased. :)

*plants a tree*

*looks at signature*

Personally, I'm very skeptical of the results this website gives. Almost every bit of data they give seems made to work in the favor of factories keeping the same CO2 emissions as they alway have.

Before I will believe any of this, I will need to see the resutls from independant studies from unbiased, well known climatologists and astronomers.

And considering the site is called "The Heartland: Free Market Solutions", of coruse they're going to believe that carbon emissions have nothing to do with Global Warming! It's just like how holocaust deniers are always the same people who are all for pushing the Jews into the sea!

I mean, it's "free market solutions", naturally it would be against their motto to regulate anything according to markets. They could be burning babies to fire their refineries; then, you could bet they would say they burned alive because of the water in the atmosphere.

:eek:

I am quite pleased. :)

*plants a tree*

*looks at signature*

:fluffle:

You're cute. :)

:fluffle:

You're cute. :)
:fluffle:

Fair is fair is fair. :)

sigh

all this time spent arguing, wasted.
love is all that matters

can we have a threesome?

sigh

all this time spent arguing, wasted.
love is all that matters

can we have a threesome?

So long as we are separated by thousands of miles and the internet, you are free to join.

:fluffle:

all this time spent arguing, wasted.


You mean you didn't find it fun? :(

I was trying my best.... honest.

You mean you didn't find it fun? :(

I was trying my best.... honest.

i mean, I just totally checked out a few minutes ago. I think, I'm glad I spent so much time in this forum today. yes, glad...mmmm

What if, after every post in this thread, we all said "in bed" at the end of the post. I bet you that would be really funny, in bed.

What if, after every post in this thread, we all said "in bed" at the end of the post. I bet you that would be really funny, in bed.

That would be rather interesting in bed.

That would be rather interesting in bed.

It's time for me to go to bed..... in bed?

Nighty night.


In bed.

That would be rather interesting in bed.

Im thinking about making a thread to try this on a bigger scale - in bed.

Im thinking about making a thread to try this on a bigger scale - in bed.

Bigger?
That sounds pretty dangerous.
In bed.

I think I'd like to keep the polar bears from going extinct.

In bed.

Bigger?
That sounds pretty dangerous.
In bed.

why not? I really want to teach a chimpanzee to smoke pot with me, in bed

why not? I really want to teach a chimpanzee to smoke pot with me, in bed

I can't really see animal rights activists supporting that, in bed.

I can't really see animal rights activists supporting that, in bed.

yeah, thats what my roommate said. Do you consider that animal abuse in bed?

yeah, thats what my roommate said. Do you consider that animal abuse in bed?

I don't think it's anyone's business what man does to animals in bed.

yeah, thats what my roommate said. Do you consider that animal abuse in bed?

Maybe more like animal misuse.
But I am going to go to sleep now, in bed.

what's your point? that this self-described very simple experiment isn't enough to deal with any but the most obvious stupidities that have been pushed in this thread (like the unpublished draft paper mentioned earlier that denies precisely what you and i find obvious)? yeah, and?

The study that you're speaking against (the physicists) is a mathematical study, so "obvious" qualitative assumptions have no place in this discussion. So please, read the study, and then talk. It's a little bit confusing, but it basically says that they didn't isolate the "x" in the equation.

The study that you're speaking against (the physicists) is a mathematical study, so "obvious" qualitative assumptions have no place in this discussion. So please, read the study, and then talk. It's a little bit confusing, but it basically says that they didn't isolate the "x" in the equation.

They didn't isolate "x," in bed.

The study that you're speaking against (the physicists) is a mathematical study

and/or rant that takes up dozens of fucking pages coming to the startling conclusion that the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn't work like a real greenhouse. its fucking overly verbose crank bullshit, from people that clearly have no grasp of what's going on, since no climatologists actually think the name 'greenhouse effect' really means the earth is operating like a real glass covered building.

which is why 1) it hasn't been published and 2) any climatologist that has taken a look at it has laughed at it for just being stupid. in the words of gavin schmidt (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=465#comment-48764),
"It’s garbage. A ragbag of irrelevant physics strung together incoherently. For instance, apparently energy balance diagrams are wrong because they don’t look like Feynman diagrams and GCMs are wrong because they don’t solve Maxwell’s equations. Not even the most hardened contrarians are pushing this one…"