|
|
|
||||
|
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#101 | ||||
|
sex dwarf
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 17,860
|
Quote:
7 predicted cooling = 9.86% 44 predicted warming = 61.97% 20 were neutral = 28.17% I have no idea where you got the 7%, but either way, it's clear that the ones who predicted cooling were a small minority. Judging today's large majority of climate scientists by the views of a small minority some decades ago is stupid, plain and simple. Quote:
Quote:
In case you feel like reading more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=ozone+layer Quote:
![]() Have you been drinking? 3146 respondents, all of whom were earth scientists. 79 of those 3146 both listed climate science as their area of specialization and published more than half of their papers on the topic of climate change. I have no idea where you get the "3", but I am starting to suspect that your preferred method of doing math is smashing yourself in the head with a brick repeatedly, then randomly smashing your face into the numpad of your keyboard and seeing what shows up on your screen. In fact, after your numerous wildly inaccurate statements ("cows produce more co2 than humans", "one volcano releases more co2 into the atmosphere in a day than humans do in a year", etc) I am now realizing that it's entirely pointless to discuss this with you. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. It's as if you're just wildly quoting things you vaguely remember hearing on tv half a decade ago. The sad thing, of course, is that that still puts you ahead of most of the other "skeptics" in this thread, most of whom more than likely failed high school science
__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/ |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#102 | |
|
Too lazy to set a custom title
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Currently Incognito
Posts: 13,827
|
Quote:
Clearly, you have no idea how statistics work.. and I just got the numbers from the pdf and the article posted. If you are confused, read them again. Funny though.. did you read the questions in the poll? Why don't they just ask a yes/no question? "Now, thinking specifically about the issue of global warming: Do you think most climate scientists agree that the earth has been warming in recent years, or do you think there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about whether the earth has been warming?" Most Agree 25% A Lot of Dis-agreement 39% Unsure 9% "Do you think most climate scientists agree that human activities, such as burning coal and oil, are a major cause of global warming, or do you think there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about whether human activities are a major cause?" Most Agree 47% A Lot of Dis-agreement 42% Unsure 11% 47% agree... that's it.... Your "consensus" is busted. And why does the "no" answer have to be a disagreement question and an unsure? Why are the majority of questions about "global warming" vs. "man made" global warming? Clearly... the reason is to skew the results making the pdf, the poll, and your argument full of bullshit.
__________________
It's all disambiguation ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#103 | |
|
sex dwarf
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 17,860
|
Quote:
In another clueless move, you have now confused the poll with another one, done by other people, for Newsweek magazine. The respondents in the one you just quoted aren't actually scientists - they're the general public. You didn't actually read beyond the first paragraph of the pdf, did you?
__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 618
|
I'm just waiting for hell to freeze over so my GF will fuck me again.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
#105 | |
|
Sick Fuck
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: www
Posts: 9,491
|
Quote:
It is not local CO2 emissions and weather, like in LA, that is the problem. It is the global emissions and its feedback effects over the longer climate periods. And if it gets 20 degrees warmer or colder 20 thousands years from now, is irrelevant, don't you think? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sunny Land
Posts: 5,593
|
the whole thing is idiotic.
Proof. My friend is a scientist, he wanted a grant to study frogs. So he came up with an idiotic theory about global warming killing frogs, 1 year later he has a huge grant. He told me all his peers are doing the same to get money to do whatever they want, as long as they add the keyword "climate change" to the thesis. How many scientists that usually get all their money from grants, gonna stand up and give an opposing opinion and lose their money?? It's just a new form of religion, the worst kind, government sponsored religion. Control the sheeple. Scare them with boogiemen (terrorist, climate change, landfills) and get them to do what you want (pay more taxes, become dependent, become docile) "Global scientific consensus" came out of their mouths and I knew it was a huge pile of bullshit. Carbon tax came out and I knew we were all in alot of trouble.
__________________
Contact me: \\// E: webmaster /at/ unprofessional.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 519
|
For those who haven't checked it out already, strongly suggest to watch Home.
https://youtube.com/homeproject We got lot's more to do before stopping reading shit on the net lol |
|
|
|