View Poll Results: How great a scientist is Al Gore compared to White_Male_Canada?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • White_Male_Canada makes Al Gore look like Albert Einstein

    0 0%
  • White_Male_Canada makes Al Gore look like Charles Darwin

    0 0%
  • White_Male_Canada makes Al Gore look like Stephen Hawking

    0 0%
  • White_Male_Canada makes Al Gore look like all of the above great scientists

    1 14.29%
  • Forget Al Gore, White_Male_Canada is just one dumb fuck!

    6 85.71%
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 111
  1. #11
    Junior Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by North_of_60
    The thruth is that CO2 is around 30% higher than it was in the pre-industrial period. According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. Your rigthwing ECO sources, as usual, are biaised.
    well............. cosign



  2. #12
    Professional Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,216

    Default

    anybody want to bet how long it will be until rodgers cant take the stupidity anymore?


    Elvis: I was dreamin'. Dreamin' my dick was out and I was checkin' to see if that infected bump on the head of it had filled with pus again. If it had, I was gonna name it after my ex-wife 'cilla and bust it by jackin' off.

  3. #13
    5 Star Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by North_of_60
    The thruth is that CO2 is around 30% higher than it was in the pre-industrial period. According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. Your rigthwing ECO sources, as usual, are biaised.



    The WHOLE truth is that the overwhelming greenhouse gas is water vapor, probably 30 to 50 times more important than CO2. The CO2 attributed to man is minuscule, about 6 to 7 PgC/yr into an atmospheric reservoir variously estimated between 720 and 760 PgC. Water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2. The dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink, not man-made CO2, only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities is only about 0.12% of the greenhouse gases in total.





    When people abandon the truth, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

  4. #14
    Silver Poster Quinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, among other places.
    Posts
    3,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muhmuh
    anybody want to bet how long it will be until rodgers cant take the stupidity anymore?
    LOL... I was thinking the same thing yesterday. How often can you listen to some poorly educated dullard continually insist that 2+2=5 before you just stop conferring upon them with so much as an ounce of credibility (let alone respectability)?

    Still, if the pattern holds, Rogers we'll go through the same cycle as every other poster who takes part in the P&R forum – eventually arriving at the conclusion that WMC is both delusional and deceptive in the extreme.

    When even the forum’s mods are laughing at you – as was the case the other day for poor WMC – you've become little more than a cautionary tale for other would be baffle wits.

    -Quinn


    Life is essentially one long Benny Hill skit punctuated by the occasional Anne Frank moment.

  5. #15
    Veteran Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Yawn, indeed, _Canada. I was starting to fall asleep long before the end of your last post, and it would seem that so were you whilst you were typing it. You do tend to prattle on a bit, perhaps that's what muhmuh and Quinn are on about? I will say this for you, _Canada, you seem to know far too much, far too well, to be just a layman. The reason there are many errors in what you are saying is simple, it’s not because you don’t know what your saying, it’s because you have to lie to back up your arguments, because the evidence for AGW is now so strong. I’m right, aren’t I?
    Quote Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
    The so called “air is younger than ice” theory is just that, a theory.
    So lets get this right, ice cores are alright if they back up your arguments, but not if they support others? You seem to shift what you believe in faster than a chameleon running across a brightly patterned duvet would change its colours. Again, it’s clear that you are lying. This is not a theory, its hard physics. The air trapped in snow needs a certain pressure above it before the bubbles form. Jaworowski debunked: http://community.tri-cityherald.com/?q=node/436/11311

    Quote Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
    More recently, during the Holocene (8,000 to 10,000 years before the present) when the temperature of the Arctic was 5°C warmer than now (Brinner and al. 2006), ice core records show a CO2 level of about 260 ppmv (IPCC 2007). This means that atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate, man-made EVEN LESS, and that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the ancient atmosphere are false.
    You know well that we cannot match precisely our current climate with any in the past, especially when the data obtained from the ice cores are, as you are now correctly saying, imperfect. Again, it is clear that you are lying, and again, it’s down to physics: the earth’s orbit, tilt, albedo, sea-level, position of land masses, distribution of greenhouse gases between sinks, etc., are constantly changing. The recent addition of man only serves to complicate things even further.

    Quote Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
    Correlation is not causation, when you are doing real science. Having two things exist at the same time is not the identification of the cause for their existence.Additional studies of the CO2 data matched with temperature data show that the global average temperature INCREASES BEFORE the CO2 increases and the global average temperature DECLINES BEFORE the CO2 declines. CO2 increase appears to be temperature-increase induced, not the other way around.

    But, that won’t sell in the political-induced scientific orthodoxy, because it does not produce a need for government intervention.

    * global temperatures are currently rising;
    * the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
    * the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
    * there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
    * the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
    * if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
    * the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
    * water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
    * determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
    * the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

    The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the man-made- CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2.
    Well, duh, to most of the above. I have already agreed with you that CO2 usually seems to lag temperature, and there is no climate scientist that I know of that says otherwise. The link I first posted concurs. You, however, have proved the point I was trying to make on this thread; that climate skeptics use this as a straw man against AGW. CO2 lags temperature is an informal fallacy in the AGW debate, because no climate scientist has ever said that CO2 is the initiator, or sole cause, of the current warming. It is however, the only GHG we can realistically do anything about, and that is why it hogs the news.

    CHECK-MATE, _CANADA, AND IN ONLY FOUR MOVES!!!!

    From some of the signatures I've seen here , _Canada, it would appear that you are easy in ways other than in just debating. ROTFLMAO. On the subject of climate change, try arguing against what AGW scientists actually say, rather than trying to put false statements in their mouths. That is what politicians do, not scientists, but it’s clear that it’s politics that are driving your posts here. Unfortunately for you, however, you can’t argue without using lies, half-truths, simplifications and straw men, because that’s all skeptics have.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	liar_156.jpg 
Views:	376 
Size:	39.5 KB 
ID:	100594   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dumb_149.jpg 
Views:	379 
Size:	14.4 KB 
ID:	100595   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	busted_197.gif 
Views:	373 
Size:	57.9 KB 
ID:	100596  



  6. #16
    Veteran Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ha_ha_127.png 
Views:	375 
Size:	60.9 KB 
ID:	100597  



  7. #17
    Veteran Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trish
    just wanted to welcome you to the forum, Rogers.
    Thank you kindly, ma'am.



  8. #18
    5 Star Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,011

    Default

    So lets get this right, ice cores are alright if they back up your arguments, but not if they support others?
    This is not a theory, its hard physics. The air trapped in snow needs a certain pressure above it before the bubbles form... the air in the bubbles can be hundreds or even thousands of years younger than the ice in which it is trapped.

    Pfft~ Making me laugh now junior.

    Ice core pressures below a certain depth force gases to transform into solid clathrates. Drilling cores decompress calthrates, decompression leads to sheeting, sheeting leads to solid clathrate decomposition which leads to CO2/O2/N2 escaping into the drilling liquids which means, concentrations appear lower.
    Above the depth of clathrate formation CO2 levels were found to be "too high" and were ahem, adjusted. The fact you are unaware of the subtlety of the argument makes an exhange of ideas, ideas you are unaware of, taxing, painstaking and boring.


    I have already agreed with you that CO2 usually seems to lag temperature, and there is no climate scientist that I know of that says otherwise. The link I first posted concurs. You, however, have proved the point I was trying to make on this thread; that climate skeptics use this as a straw man against AGW…

    Nonsense, calculations have already demonstrated that spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto), creating a precursor to a command and control economy, to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is not only impractical it`s insane.

    You know well that we cannot match precisely our current climate with any in the past...
    Already knew that.

    Here, “ let`s make the atmospheric data fit our agw agenda too. We`ll cherry pick our data to make it appear CO2 average was 292 ppmv instead of the real average of 335 ppmv ”
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	atmosphericdataskewed_591.jpg 
Views:	377 
Size:	56.9 KB 
ID:	100600  


    When people abandon the truth, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

  9. #19
    5 Star Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,011

    Default

    You really better practice more before making futile attempts:

    http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Dummies-.../dp/0764550039

    Nice try junoir but your AGW religion is a running joke.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	checkmate_705.jpg 
Views:	373 
Size:	14.6 KB 
ID:	100601  


    When people abandon the truth, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

  10. #20
    5 Star Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Out there somewhere...
    Posts
    2,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
    Nonsense, calculations have already demonstrated that spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto), creating a precursor to a command and control economy, to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is not only impractical it`s insane.
    Sounds like numbers straight out of someone's ass. And whose ass did you drag these numbers out of? Because even the most conservative estimates suggest it's at least 20 times that.

    Too small, you say? Well, here's the thing: these are only estimates, mostly conservative ones made by conservatives, and Kyoto is only a first step, anyway.


    Navin R. Johnson: You mean I'm going to stay this color??
    Mother: I'd love you if you were the color of a baboon's ass.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
DMCA Removal Requests
Terms and Conditions