Global warming
- Thread starter mthbstr8
- Start date
Getting desperate, eh?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm
You set them up, I'll knock them down.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm
You set them up, I'll knock them down.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Your reasoning being there's not enough knowledge of Mars climate?
Sounds lots like the situation on earth to me.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
So now a story from Heartland that is 9 years old?
Since you didn't comprehend the first link, I'll point out the tl;dr version:
Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.
You can also attempt to read this, which is more contemporary with your articles.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/theres-global-warming-on-mars-too/
Since you didn't comprehend the first link, I'll point out the tl;dr version:
Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.
You can also attempt to read this, which is more contemporary with your articles.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/theres-global-warming-on-mars-too/
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
While ice melts on mars(remember the simpler days a couple weeks ago when your global warming proof was melting ice).
Meanwhile on planet earth.....
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/predictions-off-arctic-ice-cap-grew-60-this-year
Meanwhile on planet earth.....
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/predictions-off-arctic-ice-cap-grew-60-this-year
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
At this rate we will be covered in ice at some point soon.
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/12/27/arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-percent/
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/12/27/arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-percent/
Meanwhile, last year on planet Earth, you mean. You linked to an actual tabloid piece, by the way. Thta is not suprising,, since most everyone agrees that there is solid evidence of human caused warming.
You did read the actual, peer reviewed study I linked to, right?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/wcc.277
BTW, your posts that claim 50% increase are year to year, not historical. From your link:
Despite the short-term rebound, sea ice volumes remain low compared to historical averages, scientists say.
In September, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre reported that Arctic ice cover at its summer minimum this year was 5.1 million square kilometres. That was also up 50 per cent from last year’s record low, but the sixth lowest on record. The seven lowest levels have all been recorded in the last seven years.
Reading the articles past the headline must not be your thing. See the linked video in post 851. You continue to embarrass yourself. Find another thread and criticize my spelling, because this is a lost cause for you.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
17 years and 5 months but who's counting.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...ger-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...ger-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I'm so happy you are not a denier. At that rate we will all be frozen in a matter of years. I assume you support legislation forcing oil companies to provide more oil. I'm thinking we may also need the government to buy every citizen a SUV in an effort to combat this impending ice age. I also suggest a law requiring they run constantly. We must act fast before it's irreversible. The debate is over. The science is irrefutable.
My last comment seems to have not passed the mod squad standards.
Hoaxster, I mean photog, must be in charge tonight.
I will see if I can say this:
You sir, have lost all credibility. You have posted nothing that can not easily be refuted. Disregarding your basic lack of understanding of actual science, I have to admit that you are not even the least bit clever in your remarks. Most of them are taken right out of the playbook. Are you being paid to post? I can't believe anyone is willfully that ignorant of facts.
This got through and the last didn't? Different mod squad, I guess.
Av8torntn, you are perhaps the most obstinate person I have ever run across. Are you sure you are not a Tennessee mule?
Hoaxster, I mean photog, must be in charge tonight.
I will see if I can say this:
You sir, have lost all credibility. You have posted nothing that can not easily be refuted. Disregarding your basic lack of understanding of actual science, I have to admit that you are not even the least bit clever in your remarks. Most of them are taken right out of the playbook. Are you being paid to post? I can't believe anyone is willfully that ignorant of facts.
This got through and the last didn't? Different mod squad, I guess.
Av8torntn, you are perhaps the most obstinate person I have ever run across. Are you sure you are not a Tennessee mule?
Last edited:
I know you are, but what am I?
Are you being to paid to post your tripe as well?
In any case, it is a poor reflection on UPS.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
What credibility did I have that you lost?
I'll disregard your false statement of refuting posts for now but what is this play book thing? Is it another of your leftist fantasies like global warming?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I know you are, but what am I?
Are you being to paid to post your tripe as well?
In any case, it is a poor reflection on UPS.
Wait, are you trying to claim UPS is paying people to post on this site? Is that claim backed by peer reviewed papers?
No. I'm saying that certain people are paid to post on sites to refute science to the benefit of unregulated industry.
I've linked to actual peer reviewed papers, the last one, on Arctic Ice, was published this week. You link to debunked crackpots who got picked up by right wing tabloids in 2007.
Geesh.
Too easy:
http://www.universetoday.com/94550/letter-to-nasa-is-common-ploy-in-climate-change-denial/
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=093ad383-7d87-4ad1-b3a0-999b27f22906
The 49-person letter was organized by Leighton Steward, chairman of Plants Need CO2, a non-profit organization with ties to the coal industry. In a statement, Mr. Steward said that NASA's climate research could not only damage the reputation of the U.S. space program but the "reputation of science itself."
http://www.universetoday.com/94550/letter-to-nasa-is-common-ploy-in-climate-change-denial/
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=093ad383-7d87-4ad1-b3a0-999b27f22906
The 49-person letter was organized by Leighton Steward, chairman of Plants Need CO2, a non-profit organization with ties to the coal industry. In a statement, Mr. Steward said that NASA's climate research could not only damage the reputation of the U.S. space program but the "reputation of science itself."
