Global warming

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Name-calling? I just compared you to Oog and Ugg. You should be honored I give you that much credit. Libertarianism is fatally flawed. Just look at the one country that employs it (Somalia) in order to see how effective the philosophy really is. Perhaps you should move there and put your intellect to work.

Somalia is a failure of libertarianism in the same way North Korea is a failure of statism.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
More science, nothing to see here, except for Marsha Blackburn (R) getting OWNED !

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/bill-nye-marsha-blackburn-climate-meet-the-press

TOS.

Bill Nye mostly made himself foolish by doing things such as holding a picture of Arctic while saying its Antarctic. Mostly it was just the two of them refusing to agree on anything so it was pretty much a waste of time. Despite Nye badgering Blackburn to try to get her to concede his points but she stood her ground. And Nye never effectively countered Blackburn's arguments either. But a story that is so biased about what really happened is expected when the source is motherjones.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
So sad.

Ban yourself and take wolfboy with you.

My posting privileges are pretty much non-existent here anyway. Many posts that just contain links don't get approved by the powers to be.

Fear rules.


Why did you post this? Be an adult and live up to your agreement. I gave you plenty of opportunities to back out.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Can you take this derail to a PM instead of clogging the climate board with threats?

TOS

Are you kidding me? This thread got derailed before the first couple of pages were complete. Vast majority of threads go through this kind of life cycle, especially the ones that achieve the kind of length this one has. Many threads would just disappear after a few posts or a page at the least in this forum except Moreluck likes to resurrect them to post cartoons and then her counterpart in I'm Waiting get's into the action and off we go again.

I think it's been kind of comical watching RR and AV swatting each other with their light sabers in the bathroom.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
I see it as you failed to post what you said you would post.

How so?

What's your special definition of peer reviewed?

How would you prove something was peer review,aside from linking to the paper?

If you are truly concerned about staying in topic why did you make multiple post off topic?
 

raceanoncr

Well-Known Member
I dont see it that way. I see it as you failed to post what you said you would post. But rather than go on and on, why not make this a PM instead of a pssing contest?

TOS



Oh? "...failed to post what you said you would post"? How about answering some questions, Miss "Just The Facts...Maam"?
 

roadrunner2012

Four hours in the mod queue for a news link
Troll
That was the bet even though there were more than one at least you admit you lost. Now kindly contact a mod and ask them to ban your ip
The one peer reviewed paper you posted a link to, but were obtuse about, referred to the climate 65 million years ago. No one is arguing that there have not been times in the pat that the temps and CO2 were higher. What most rational people are saying is that they have never been higher in the human era. That did not support your argument. If you had just posted the link to begin with, this could have been settled a week ago. Wading through your posts is no an enviable task, it dulls the mind after a few pages.

This was what the earth was like 65 million years ago:

cret-climate.jpg


No one is arguing that the Earth has not been warmer in the past. What the argument is, that without apparent cause, other than human caused, the earth is warming again, after about 50 million years of cooling. The rate of change is faster than any time in the last 65 million years. This is not to say that the deity will decide to have Yellowstone blow, send an asteroid our way, or have the stored methane in the ocean release and plunge the earth into a millennium of cooling again, but the rate of change is unprecedented in the last 65 million years.

You produced no peer reviewed papers to bolster your denier argument.

Let a mod decide if you 'won your bet'.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
The one peer reviewed paper you posted a link to, b

You produced no peer reviewed papers to bolster your denier argument.

Let a mod decide if you 'won your bet'.

First just to be clear which paper do you acknowledge is peer reviewed and meets your definition as peer reviewed?
 
Last edited:
Top