« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »

Reply To Thread

We're melting, we're meltingFollow

#52 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 2:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) But don't get me wrong, if you want to make your case on strict anti-pollution grounds, such as CO2 exhaust collection mandated on tail pipes and factory smoke stacks, you're much more likely to get a friendlier Monx on this issue. No need whatsoever for bogus incomplete science either.

#53 Feb 02 2007 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592260045708

Sage

6,730 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

But don't get me wrong, if you want to make your case on strict anti-pollution grounds, such as CO2 exhaust collection mandated on tail pipes and factory smoke stacks, you're much more likely to get a friendlier Monx on this issue. No need whatsoever for bogus incomplete science either.

Good Dog, don't get mad! I wouldn't want you to bore us to death with anymore of your inane drivel.

#54 Feb 02 2007 at 2:11 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

MonxDoT wrote:

If it was in there it would have been mentioned in there. You know it's mentioned in a study or two I might not have read? Then show me it's there.

Was it mentioned? Again, did you read the report and its source materials?

Has it ever been studied? A quick peer-reviewed journal search reveals:

"Prediction of expected global climate change by forecasting of galactic cosmic ray intensity time variation in near future based on magnetic field data." Advances in Space Research, 2005, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p491-495

"Does Earth's magnetic field secular variation control centennial climate change?"
Earth & Planetary Science Letters, Jul2005, Vol. 236 Issue 1/2, p339-347

"Possible impact of the Earth's magnetic field on the history of ancient civilizations." Earth & Planetary Science Letters, Jun2006, Vol. 246 Issue 1/2, p17-26 (includes information on anthropogenic climate change)

"Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?" Earth & Planetary Science Letters, Jan2007, Vol. 253 Issue 3/4, p328-339

"Estimation of long-term cosmic ray intensity variation in near future and prediction of their contribution in expected global climate change." Advances in Space Research, 2005, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p496-503

"Climate oscillations and abrupt changes in C14 data" Advances in Space Research, Jul2004, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p426

That's the point where I got bored.

Edited, Feb 2nd 2007 2:19pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#55 Feb 02 2007 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good

bodhisattva

Drama Nerdvana

20,674 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

Jophiel wrote:

Either you can back that statement up or you can't. I'm simply inviting you to do so before dismissing your comments. Do you have a copy of the study handy? The base studies used to compile it? Would you like to share with the class?

If it was in there it would have been mentioned in there.

Lets take a second and debunk something you said earlier that I didnt care to go after at the time.

You made a claim that they only looked at 400 years of data, compared to your supposed 50k year worth of data. Which was techinically wrong in the first place. They looked at anthropogenic causes for the last 250 years.

Well a cursory glance at the outline of the project shows the following

â€¢ The amounts of carbon dioxide and methane now in the atmosphere far exceed pre-industrial values going back 650,000 years. As stated above, concentrations of carbon dioxide have already risen from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to around 379 ppm in 2005, while methane concentrations have risen from 715 parts per billion (ppb) to 1,774 in 2005.

I will take a second and read up on your cite later on but just wanted to point out one case where you made an assertion where it was clearly wrong.

____________________________

Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer

#56 Feb 02 2007 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good

bodhisattva

Drama Nerdvana

20,674 posts

Oh and upon a cursory glance both of the cited materials clearly state that the change in magnetic poles were used as MARKERS in order to date material. There is absolutely no reference to magnetic changes being the cause.

Learn to read nubz.

____________________________

Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer

#57 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 2:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Bodhi, that's one variable, not taking into account other non-human variables. I'm trying to help you out. If you want to cut CO2 pollution emissions, fine! I'll back that 100%. But then don't be stupid and mix that one variable in a huge complicated global climate change model. Focus on accomplishing something you can get support for. Improve your methodology.

#58 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 2:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Edited, Feb 2nd 2007 6:02pm by MonxDoT

#59 Feb 02 2007 at 2:41 PM Rating: Good

bodhisattva

Drama Nerdvana

20,674 posts

Yes their is magnetic phenomena.

You have yet to link it in any way with global warming.

You have also failed to prove that Climatologists and others working on the UNEP report failed to take magnetism into account.

Get to work, quit posting links that do neither.

____________________________

Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer

#60 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 2:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Pfftt. I'm ahead of the curve. You're behind it. Use your own bootstraps. My point is that data linking climate to the magnetic flip phenomenon comes next.

#61 Feb 02 2007 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good

bodhisattva

Drama Nerdvana

20,674 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

Pfftt. I'm ahead of the curve. You're behind it. Use your own bootstraps. My point is that data linking climate to the magnetic flip phenomenon comes next.

A point you are entirely unable to substantiate. A point based off a rather incomplete (judging by your responses so far) understanding of the actual report, the scientific method and even the links you have thus far provided.

Kudos, you are an idiot.

Edited, Feb 2nd 2007 11:04pm by bodhisattva

____________________________

Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer

#62 Feb 02 2007 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

bodhisattva wrote:

Kudos, you are an idiot.

It's like the retarded child of Gbaji and Shadowrelm. If Gbaji drank heavily during pregnancy.

Edited, Feb 2nd 2007 3:06pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#63 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 3:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) ***** why don't you do something useful and provide a link to the, what is it, 21 pages, report. Since you like to waste people's time with your bourgeoise scientific sensibilities.

#64 Feb 02 2007 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good

bodhisattva

Drama Nerdvana

20,674 posts

this is where he breaks into jibberish oscillating widly between attacking us and our sources while all the while clinging to his point (if you call it that) which he can't prove but continously begs us to disprove.

Man this was old has at 5k posts, let alone 13k.

Edit - The scary thing is that I wrote this before I had even read the above post by Monx

Edited, Feb 2nd 2007 11:14pm by bodhisattva

____________________________

Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer

#65 Feb 02 2007 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

MonxDoT wrote:

***** why don't you do something useful and provide a link to the, what is it, 21 pages, report. Since you like to waste people's time with your bourgeoise scientific sensibilities.

Because I wasn't making any claims about it? I thought you were the one saying that it ignored your magentic field.

Quote:

.....wellll we're waaaaiiiitttiiiinnnngggg....

Somebody struck a nerve!!!

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#66 Feb 02 2007 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592260045708

Sage

6,730 posts

I predict a "I was yanking your chain. I don't care one way or the other. I was bored and decided to play devil's advocate," in 3...2...

#67 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 3:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) *****, you've got no source so far. Oh, that's right, you've got a NEWS ARTICLE saying global warming is caused by man as your source citing some report you've never read!

#68 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 3:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Whatever, be stupid if you want to be stupid. The report has data going back 780k or it doesn't. Check pleeeassse. RACK 'em!

#69 Feb 02 2007 at 3:21 PM Rating: Excellent

bodhisattva

Drama Nerdvana

20,674 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

*****, you've got no source so far. Oh, that's right, you've got a NEWS ARTICLE saying global warming is caused by man as your source citing some report you've never read!

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=499&ArticleID=5506&l=en

In fact I have taken a quick glance over it. Though I havent poured over it in detail.

Once again the only claim I ever made was that a) you were speaking gibberish you couldnt proveb) you didnt know what you were talking about. I think I have quite solidly proven my case on both these points, with your help.

It is nice to see I pretty much called the manner you were going to start grasping at straws. I think Git owes me a rate up.

____________________________

Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer

#70 Feb 02 2007 at 3:21 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

MonxDoT wrote:

*****, you've got no source so far. Oh, that's right, you've got a NEWS ARTICLE saying global warming is caused by man as your source citing some report you've never read!

Yeah. Silly me for not making blanket statements about a report that hasn't even been fully released yet, much less saying what is or isn't in its source documents. I mean, you'd have to be pretty stupid to do that, huh?

You'll note that I never said that magnetic field data was included in the report. I merely questioned your claims that it was excluded and showed other studies regarding it. Nice of you to melt down so easily though Smiley: laugh

Quote:

Even got you saying it earlier in the thread

You crying does that.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#71 Feb 02 2007 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592260045708

Sage

6,730 posts

bodhisattva wrote:

I think Git owes me a rate up.

Up, down it's a rate you wanted, AmIRight?

#72 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 3:25 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) http://www.unep.org/Documents....06&l=en

#73 Feb 02 2007 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Man, it's just embarassing now.

I know, I know.. "Yeah, I'm embarassing YOU! Pwn and win and I'm gonna drink syrup.."

No, but seriously. You're embarassing.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#74 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 02 2007 at 3:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sizzurp. Get it right. And it's sip on, not drink. ^^

#75 Feb 02 2007 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good

bodhisattva

Drama Nerdvana

20,674 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

http://www.unep.org/Documents....06&l=en

AHAHAHAHAHAH LAWL, a bunch of unsubstantiated *claims* and unproven undemonstrated "conclusions". That's the study?

You have yet to prove that point.

You have also shown that you do not understand how the project worked. Much like the whole Magentic shift to mark dates, you misunderstand and misinterpret the significance of "The IPCC does not conduct new research.". Which once again comes back to you being an idiot.

Good try though.

____________________________

Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer

#76 Feb 02 2007 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

MonxDoT wrote:

Silly all of you for making yet another bs thread

Smiley: confused

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »

Reply To Thread

Recent Visitors: 295 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (295)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC