d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > New Climate Data
Prev123412Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 1602Replies: 114Track Topic
Member
Posts: 52,227
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
#11
Dec 8 2009 09:10pm
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Dec 8 2009 09:07pm)
One of three major sources, the other two of which jive just fine.  Because what appeared to be number fudging when taken as a tiny out-of-context text clip wasn't, ofc.

srsly just go download them yourself and actually read that shit


Ok, now you're going to defend NASA too? They have a great accuracy record on their numbers too. /sarcasm
Member
Posts: 112,095
Joined: Jul 25 2008
Gold: 40.42
#12
Dec 8 2009 09:12pm
Quote (Santara @ 8 Dec 2009 22:10)
Ok, now you're going to defend NASA too? They have a great accuracy record on their numbers too. /sarcasm


inb4metricjoke?
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
#13
Dec 8 2009 09:12pm
Quote (Santara @ Dec 8 2009 11:10pm)
Ok, now you're going to defend NASA too? They have a great accuracy record on their numbers too. /sarcasm


Next you're going to be telling me the moon landing was faked.
Member
Posts: 52,227
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
#14
Dec 8 2009 09:14pm
Quote (inkanddagger @ Dec 8 2009 09:12pm)
Next you're going to be telling me the moon landing was faked.


I'll tell you nothing of the sort. You might be able to go all night back and forth on this, but I need to sleep. Have to drive a school bus in a snowstorm in the morning.

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 8 2009 09:15pm
Member
Posts: 112,095
Joined: Jul 25 2008
Gold: 40.42
#15
Dec 8 2009 09:16pm
Quote (Santara @ 8 Dec 2009 22:14)
I'll tell you nothing of the sort. You might be able to go all night back and forth on this, but I need to sleep. Have to drive a school bus in a snowstorm in the morning.


I like the nothing you brought to the table though, have fun with whatever unnecessary information I don't care about you'll be enacting tomorrow.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/05/climategate-professor-calls-g-warming-skeptic-hole-live-tv

i lol'd

This post was edited by AiNedeSpelCzech on Dec 8 2009 09:17pm
Member
Posts: 9,503
Joined: Nov 7 2007
Gold: 0.00
#16
Dec 8 2009 10:03pm
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Dec 9 2009 12:44pm)
climategate was a non-story clung to by deniers, and the idea that there was no peer review on previous climate research is laughable at best.


That's not what I'm saying at all. Some of the scientists involved in climategate sort to ostracize other scientists who had opposing views by making sure no one peer-reviewed their work... This is digusting and not at all in line with scientific method.

Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Dec 9 2009 12:55pm)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/was-russian-secret-service-behind-leak-of-climatechange-emails-1835502.html

interesting info


It doesn't really matter who was behind the hack, the point is the science has been grossly misrepresented by a supposed genuine and influential scientific body.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Dec 9 2009 12:58pm)
Climategate did not disprove anything to do with basic science. All it did was make some researchers look like dicks for not allowing GW deniers to be published in peer-reviewed journals. All of the crap has been explained away. anyone who still thinks Climategate proves anything at this point is either an idiot or not paying attention.


So conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more isn't an issue?

Who needs religion when you have AGW.

This post was edited by lims101 on Dec 8 2009 10:17pm
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
#17
Dec 8 2009 10:14pm
Quote (lims101 @ Dec 9 2009 12:03am)
Who needs religion when you have AGW.


Refer to my next post in that sequence.

Look, carbon accounts for .038% of the total atmosphere (and accounts for about 26% of radiative forcing). All greenhouse gasses combined account for a little under 1%. Yet, 59 degrees F of earth's temperature exists because of that 1%. If there were no greenhouse gasses (NO2/CO2/Ozone/Water Vapor) and only Nitrogen and Oxygen the average surface temp would be -2 degrees F.

With such a small amount making such a huge impact it is pretty easy to see why we need to limit GHG emissions. The only thing saving us from advanced warming right now is particulate matter.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 8 2009 10:14pm
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
#18
Dec 8 2009 10:17pm
All "Climategate" showed is that some scientists are dicks. No surprise there, and nothing to do with science at all really.

News flash, some people are dicks!
Member
Posts: 9,503
Joined: Nov 7 2007
Gold: 0.00
#19
Dec 8 2009 10:24pm
Quote (Azrad @ Dec 9 2009 02:17pm)
All "Climategate" showed is that some scientists are dicks. No surprise there, and nothing to do with science at all really.

News flash, some people are dicks!


Oh really? I can just imagine the reaction if some scientists who were funded by mining companies and didn't agree with AGW were found out to be manipulating data and attempting to discredit other scientists in the field...

Regardless, I agree 100% that the search for 'green' or renewable energy should be pursued.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Dec 9 2009 02:14pm)
Refer to my next post in that sequence.

Look, carbon accounts for .038% of the total atmosphere (and accounts for about 26% of radiative forcing). All greenhouse gasses combined account for a little under 1%. Yet, 59 degrees F of earth's temperature exists because of that 1%. If there were no greenhouse gasses (NO2/CO2/Ozone/Water Vapor) and only Nitrogen and Oxygen the average surface temp would be -2 degrees F.

With such a small amount making such a huge impact it is pretty easy to see why we need to limit GHG emissions. The only thing saving us from advanced warming right now is particulate matter.


This may well be the case but as I pointed out, new data has questioned the scope of the effect, not the effect itself.

This post was edited by lims101 on Dec 8 2009 10:31pm
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
#20
Dec 8 2009 10:34pm
Quote (lims101 @ Dec 8 2009 09:24pm)
Oh really? I can just imagine the reaction if some scientists who were funded by mining companies and didn't agree with AGW were found out to be manipulating data and attempting to discredit other scientists in the field...


Yeah except your scenario is nothing like what happened. Thanks for playing though.

This post was edited by Azrad on Dec 8 2009 10:34pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev123412Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact