Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 24  Next

And why is it that you assume that the models they are using are Garbage in?

   

Well he insulted you after you attacked me because I asked you to provide a link to your quote. You remember, the thread full of your condescending eye roll emoticons?

I don't need to read every link or post in the thread. I have the right to pick a random post and disagree with what that person says. It's your job in your argument to provide context for your sources.

Keep you out of it? You started the "holier-than-thou" bullshit.

   

So YOU are the one to call me on that, right? Not him.

Anyway, I posted that post directly under Zip's who provided that link, which when you would have read that, would have been totally clear what I was quoting. I see absolutely no use in linking links that have been linked to in the previous post.

It was an important link in this discussion, so if you didn't read that link, your contribution to this topic is useless anyway.

Thank you for agreeing with me he insulted me, which he claims he didn't do

   

I don't care if the thread is about chocolate vs. vanilla, if I see someone say 1 + 1 = 3 I'm going to question that.

My contribution to the topic is useless? Well I guess that's typical for this forum, dismissing someone's view purely arbitrarily. Find an excuse, ANY excuse to dismiss an argument.

   

I said 1 + 1 = 3???

Yeah, that is not dissmissing an argument. Right

   

Huh? I can't believe I have to explain this...

It was ananalogy.

Brenda: Your opinion is irrelevant to the topic if you don't read every link.

Neopundit: No. Say there is a thread in which people argue "chocolate is better than vanilla", within which someone argues 1+1=3. I don't need to read every link about chocolate to argue that 1+1 does not, in fact, equal 3. There for my opinion is not irrelevant to the topic if I do not read every link.

See how that works?

   

You claim you don't have to read every link to have an opinion and state it. I think that is ignorant, because you don't base your argument on the links provided, but on your personal opinion, which is not gonna change or able to be argued if you don't listen to what other people say.

You cannot debate if you don't wanna listen.

   

I can't help it if you don't understand this concept. First of all, I don't need to read anything to have an opinion, and that is repeatedly demonstrated on this forum.

Second, I wasn't "arguing" anything. I asked for a source. I asked for a source because at that moment I felt the contents of said source were relevant. I wasn't required to read it up until that point.

If I'm arguing about the contents of an article without reading the article (which is ludicrous), you have a case. I wasn't. Saying I can't argue anything without reading every link is wrong.

Case in point? We're arguing about something right now that has nothing to to with Zip's link.

Anyway, this is wasting space.

   

It seems pretty clear to me from the data you provided that the average mean temperature and the five year mean temperature are positive from 1998 to 2006, indicating above average tempratures. So if you are saying that no warming since 1998, I don't think those data support that. Consistent above average mean temperatures indicate a warming trend. Even in the short timne period since 1998, there has been one year that exceeded 1998 in average temperature and a few years that approached it.

Note also that 1998 was particualrly strong El Nino year, and I did specify this in my above comments. The Wikipedia article you provided a link to states:



I couldn't see the graph you printed, but the supposition that their has been no warming since 1979 doesn't seem to be supported by the data I've seen.

   

WHAAAAAAHHHHHHH, you say I have low intelligence! [/sarcasm]


We obvioulsy disagree on the rest of your post.




Yes, it is, thank you.

   

I'm no climatologist, but I do have a meager knowledge of statistics. Based on that I'd have to say it's irrelevant to base any analysis of climate variations on 8 years of data.

In fact, in comparison to the 4.5 billion years the earth has been around, it's pretty ludicrous to look at the sample from 1975-2007 and make assumptions about warming or cooling.

   

But But But

----4 drowned Polar Bears by a storm
and a clip of an Argentine glacier calving into a fresh water land -locked lake, represented as antarctica or greenland depending on the movie
is proof positive of GLOWBULL Warming........
having your favourite graph or data discredited is just heresy and irrelevant

----GAI is offended---bring on the virgins.

The birth rate in Northern Europe is declinning....
The population of STORKS in northern Europe is declinning...

THIS IS PROOF THAT STORKS BRING BABIES?

   

Nonsnese, I'm enjoying every minute of it. Throw another tomato.

   

Tomato as requested:

Unless we have a sudden spate of activity, 2007 will be just as calm as 2006 in the hurricane department.

Can't wait to see you people claim that all the good, stable weather is because of global warming.

   

Do you have any original thoughts on the subject Samsquanch. I mean other than times when you've copied other people's prose and tried to claim it for your own, it's pretty much the same nonsense over and over again, isn't it? A lot of capital letters and emoticons; lots of aggressive displays from the board's resident purple-assed baboon and concommitant flinging of feces.

I notice of late, a slightly more hysterical tone; insinuations that any one that doesn't subscribe to your point of view is a Nazi. Is this perhaps indicative of an incipient meltdown? Wouldn't that be ironic? We would finally have conclusive proof of global warming: it caused a Samsquanch meltdown.

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 24  Next