calfoxwc Posted July 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Woodypeckerhead translation: "Yes, every scientist and institute on earth that doesn't come to "your" liberal weinie politically bigoted agenda is all bad. Thousands and thousands of scientists should be sent to camps where they can never discover science I don't like, because I cherry pick and bs as my only pitiful basis for having any kind of phoney ego in this world." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Alright I'm done for now. You're a moron and anyone with at least half of a brain can see that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Everybody on the board can see you are a woodpecker, and the butt of the board. If you are ever done, it would be a good thing. Say, you didn't even misspell a word on that last post !!! YAY, woodypeckerhead ! Could have used a comma after "Alright", though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 biased reporting, in favor of "mmgw". nice, BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 The majority of people polled by Rasmussen believe the debate is NOT over about mmgw. It isn't just a few of us here on the board.... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/only_20_think_debate_about_global_warming_is_over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Everybody on the board can see you are a woodpecker, and the butt of the board. If you are ever done, it would be a good thing. Say, you didn't even misspell a word on that last post !!! YAY, woodypeckerhead ! Could have used a comma after "Alright", though. As a person who has watched the 2 of you go at it over pretty much EVERYTHING You guys are BOTH the butt of the Browns Board Cal seems to be an old man, wishing for the good old days, and Woody seems to be the young idealist, that has no personal experience. People on this board are about sick of both of you. But it is funny to watch the 2 of you go at it. Keep it up, maybe some day, we can actual talk about the Browns winning games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Not old, retired early. I'll be old in about twenty years, I suppose. But you just proved me right again. You stepped in with a personal insult, not provoked, and covered up my sincere last post, because it doesn't fit your politics. Besides, hopefully, it's over. Posted Yesterday, 11:50 PM The majority of people polled by Rasmussen believe the debate is NOT over about mmgw. It isn't just a few of us here on the board.... http://www.rasmussen...warming_is_over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Question (I honestly don't know-and just too laxy/tired to look) What are the hard line dates (if they exist) that we will start to see serious problems in our day to day lives? Meaning, if X doesn't happen by Y, then our theory was wrong. I saw a headline that said Global Warming was going to get rid of the ginger gene when I thought Al Gore said we had like a few years, confused me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Question (I honestly don't know-and just too laxy/tired to look) What are the hard line dates (if they exist) that we will start to see serious problems in our day to day lives? Meaning, if X doesn't happen by Y, then our theory was wrong. I saw a headline that said Global Warming was going to get rid of the ginger gene when I thought Al Gore said we had like a few years, confused me. This is difficult to answer, because this is the point at which there is scientific debate. Depending on who you ask, the most extreme scientists will tell you that we only have a couple of decades, whereas the most conservative will tell you centuries. But it also depends on what you take to be the consequences. IT's not as if there's going to be some monumental event, like a continent splitting down the middle or something like that. The immediate and obvious consequence is the warming of the planet. We know other things happen as a result of that, and I'll list some here (I won't be able to remember them all). - This has caused a destruction of habitat for some creatures , and species loss follows. - The oceans are becoming more acidic, meaning sea life is in danger - in particular, coral reefs are seriously threatened. - Examples of extreme weather events become more frequent - like that polar vortex. Just because it's cold, doesn't mean it's not because of global warming/climate change! Heat waves as well are extreme weather. - Related to the extreme weather and heat waves, recent droughts have been largely attributed to global warming, such as the one in California recently. This obviously has an impact on food supplies, and subsequently an economical effect (since futures on commodities are traded in such high volumes). - Glacial retreat, ice caps losing volume contributes to a higher sea level. This causes flooding and means some low-lying areas will be underwater, like a lot of islands, as well as parts of europe (there may be others that I'm not aware of). On top of that, as the permafrost melts in the ice caps, trapped methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas) is released. This doesn't help much. Those are some of the main points, but there are countless more consequences, I've just tried to highlight some of those that will have a tangibly bad impact on human and animal life. As you can see, there's no one big consequence of global warming, there are a load of interconnected consequences that we are already observing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 The majority of people polled by Rasmussen believe the debate is NOT over about mmgw. It isn't just a few of us here on the board.... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/only_20_think_debate_about_global_warming_is_over Which is why we should look to the experts for answers and solutions, not the public, when it comes to a very complex issue like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Which is why we should look to the experts for answers and solutions, not the public, when it comes to a very complex issue like this. unfortunately in a democracy that will never happen. Even if one party (in power) believes whole heartedly in mmgw you can't really trust their solution, which is basically more taxes. Reason being is that you can't really count on them to use the taxes properly. So we keep dancing. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 unfortunately in a democracy that will never happen. Even if one party (in power) believes whole heartedly in mmgw you can't really trust their solution, which is basically more taxes. Reason being is that you can't really count on them to use the taxes properly. So we keep dancing. WSS I agree, to a degree - there'll always be people on both sides looking to grab money/power from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 GftChris, thanks for the answer. I guess when you hear stuff like the science is settled but decades and centuries you just can't take the people saying the science is settled seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 Without all the maneuvering for power and wealth via "mmgw", and the partisan, cherry picked, and bogus.incomplete appraisals, the drama reeks of a falsehood. Especially with noted international experts saying it is not a valid conclusion, along with the mmgw supporters' determination to say nobody is allowed to see it all differently... so much for real science, and doing something VALID about whatever legit affect people have on pollution, and maybe, ever so slightly ? our weather. And to top it all off, the deforestation of our globe's virgin rainforests, billions of acres by now, is an ignored factor... nah. Not when the Kyoto Treaty was only going to apply to wealthy nations. Not when Al Gore could fly around in his big, stupid ultra-polluting jet all over the place. nah. I'm not buyin it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 Cal... If you choose to ignore the overwhelming support for climate change by multitudes of actual experts and scientific organizations, and instead choose to treat Heartland funded meteorologists as "experts", I can't help you. You are turning something that is a scientific issue into a political one. You look at anything political in such a biased, closed minded light that you ignore facts to fit your agenda. This is why we have voters that think there is "much debate" in the scientific community about climate change, when in fact there is very little. That kind of thinking will only hinder our ability as a society to reach a solution. A solution to a problem we really need to acknowledge more. Oh... And I was waiting for the Cal classic "Virgin rainforest line". It literally means nothing in these threads, and people have explained to you why, but you still post it. You're the person political parties prey on. Easy to manipulate, doesn't ask questions, and you can tell them what to think for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 Woody, you are barking up the wrong tree, again. There isn't any "overwhelming" science proving MMGW. Now that you have followed the liberal lead of changing it into "climate change", you've just proven my point. I've been explaining, again, that the alarmism of the theory of mmgw is rife with fraud, and political ulterior motives - namely, the distribution of wealth. You complain about Heartland funding... why can't I complain about US government funding? And UN funding? Seriously? And you think I am being "manipulated" by a political party? That's pitiful. The point about the rainforests, is that they want us to buy carbon credits. They want us to lower our heat. Get rid of coal fired electricity production ( which is about 1/3 of all our electricity), they bitched about farmers/cows and methane, and want higher taxes at every turn. You want to go to all the trouble to deny the destruction of millions of acres of VIRGIN rainforests, but you won't criticize the silly, money making attempts by "mmgw" fools? You just are walking the leftist liberal line yourself. They quit using "man made global warming" and start using "climate change".. and there you go, you do it, too. Gotcha, eh? You are the person who is being led around like a circus monkey. Meanwhile, the progressive liberal gov of Australia? They are getting rid of carbon tax bs. It doesn't work. Just one time, admit that the hockey stick scandal, and emailgate scandal, and the tree ring scandal makes your man made global warming suspect. And everybody else knows that I posted many, many EXPERTS opinions that mmgw is not a fact, is only a theory with conflicting evidence. Chris simply cherry picked a few, complained about one, and ignored all the other posts in my original thread. Ha. Then you post a comedian, and a TV personality scientist as your overwhelming consensus? Nah. Not buyin it, Woody. I can start another thread, and post all those quotes by highly qualified scientists again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 Can't wait for another bogus "debunked" argument on this one: ************************************************* http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/ Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 It seems to me that BOTH Cal and Woody are the people that politcal parties love. They both seem to believe whatever some party says to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 nah. I repeat, it isn't political. With two sides of argument, one more popular with the UN and liberals in the U.S. by a huge margin, it is a theory. And all the alarmist calls that the polar ice caps were going to have melted completely away were nonsense, obviously. Except the mmgw nonsense is ignored by the left, because it isn't helping their prospective cash cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 It seems to me that BOTH Cal and Woody are the people that politcal parties love. They both seem to believe whatever some party says to believe. When do I make blanket statements about a conservatives? When do I blame everything on all conservatives? I don't think Cal blindly follows a party because he has a conservative view. I think he does because he ONLY has conservative views. He constantly calla anyone that disagrees with him on something a liberal. He constantly blames everything bad on the liberals. You haven't been posting here long enough to make a statement that I blindly follow a political party. I don't affiliate with either party. I have more liberal views than conservative, but half the time its just common sense and the majority of America agrees (gay marriage). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 \ Chris simply cherry picked a few, complained about one, and ignored all the other posts in my original thread. Ha. Then you post a comedian, and a TV personality scientist as your overwhelming consensus? Nah. Not buyin it, Woody. I can start another thread, and post all those quotes by highly qualified scientists again. No cal, I didn't post Tyson (not a comedian) as my overwhelming consensus... I posted over 200 respected scientific orgs as my consensus. I posted 3 different studies showing the high 90s% number as my consensus. You can post 200 scientists (most of which have little to do with climatology), that doesn't mean anything. If 97% agrees, you'll still be able to find some that don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 Can't wait for another bogus "debunked" argument on this one: ************************************************* http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/ Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded Cal, one month in one year in one part of the globe does not disprove climate change... Look at the increased surface ice in Antarctica. It looks like it reacts much differently than other continents. I also wonder what its average temperature over the last century or so has done. I'll see if I can find a graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 On the hockey stick... http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm What exactly is your issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 When do I make blanket statements about a conservatives? When do I blame everything on all conservatives? I don't think Cal blindly follows a party because he has a conservative view. I think he does because he ONLY has conservative views. He constantly calla anyone that disagrees with him on something a liberal. He constantly blames everything bad on the liberals. You haven't been posting here long enough to make a statement that I blindly follow a political party. I don't affiliate with either party. I have more liberal views than conservative, but half the time its just common sense and the majority of America agrees (gay marriage). You do toe the Democratic party line almost as much as Cal toes the Republican party line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 You do toe the Democratic party line almost as much as Cal toes the Republican party line. Give me an example... Like I said, I am on the liberal side of more issues than the conservative, mostly social issues, but they just seem like common sense. They're the side the facts and evidence and science support, or they're just common sense to me (and many others). Ex, gay marriage. I have not heard a convincing argument yet for banning it. I don't blanket everything liberal or Democrat though. I don't generalize everyone that disagrees with me as the other side or call them all liberals or conservatives. You just started posting here, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Don't take my arguing with cal, who is full on right wing conservative, to mean I'm his opposite on the left. That's not even close. I'd call out the left wing version of cal if one existed on here too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 Uh oh, he is bringing out that he has more posts then you....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2014 Posted Today, 11:07 AM On the hockey stick... http://www.skeptical...ockey-stick.htm What exactly is your issue? Woody ******************************* From a comment from your own linked site: "protestant at 20:03 PM on 28 February, 2010 Why do you comply same cherry-picking as the IPCC? Many of the graphs presented still have Korrajärvi upside down. And the glacier-graph is ridicilous why do you cut it from 1600 the whole data from Greenland example can be seen here: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553 You are presenting a graph which ends just before the MWP and other warm periods. Why? Secondly, what statistical method allows you to do "the trick". Many other proxies than just tree-rings show the same divergence - which happens to be in the cooling phase of the PDO and between solar maximums. Much more likely explanation for the "divergence" is the UHI-effect and the effect of CO2 being weak (cloud feedback). if you use non-tree ring samples and UAH temperature data you get this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure11.png The IPCC "hockey stick" reconstructions are just pure quackery to hide the flaws in their biased theory. Even the Institute of Physics is aware of this possible scientific malpractise and cherry picking: LINK" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2014 Here's a very good explanation about the whole hockey stick rise and fall: Stats can be twisted and recalced until you get the result you want, if you have a mind to get a certain result. And, btw, I don't see where mmgw has been proven. Just that warming phases, as well as cooling phases, cycle back and forth over the centuries. Long before mankind had factories. ********************************** http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted July 14, 2014 Report Share Posted July 14, 2014 Uh oh, he is bringing out that he has more posts then you....... Of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.