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.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 07-13-2009, 12:38 PM   #101
Libertine
sex dwarf
 
Libertine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 17,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc View Post
No, 7% supported..the other almost half didn't have a clue. And of course "now" we can look back and see it was wrong, we aren't in a ice age or anything.
71 total
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:
Originally Posted by TheDoc View Post
Exactly like today, other than today more money is paid to people and forced to publish whatever the 'payments' tell them.
Again, it's nothing like today. Today, the theory in question isn't one only supported by a small minority. Today, the theory at hand is one supported by a large majority of scientists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc View Post
You missed the point... and again, it was going away, before "man" changed anything. And now, it's been proven as a cycle, and that the estimates given in the 90's were incorrect, it was not as big or bad as they "estimated."

And even more so... when it takes 15-20 years to even see the effects "rise" to the upper atmospheres. Being so mathematically it should still be going on then... and it isn't.

Come on... pull your head out of the dark cavern.
It has not been proven as merely a cycle. And, in fact, it was about 20 years ago that a start was made in reducing CFC output. Recovery was expected to start around 2010, and that estimate is turning out to be fairly accurate.

In case you feel like reading more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=ozone+layer

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc View Post
"aid that they thought human activity" <-- lots of thinking..

"Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change."

Wow... all 5% and 8.5% published info on climate change (which nobody is arguing) but it doesn't say, 8.5% on man made climate change.

That's a "GREAT" bit of proof you just posted... So in reality, 3 were qualified to take the "poll."

And, more than enough links have been posted on this thread and others, that say it isn't man made.


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})/
Libertine is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 02:41 PM   #102
TheDoc
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
TheDoc's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Currently Incognito
Posts: 13,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
71 total
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.



Again, it's nothing like today. Today, the theory in question isn't one only supported by a small minority. Today, the theory at hand is one supported by a large majority of scientists.



It has not been proven as merely a cycle. And, in fact, it was about 20 years ago that a start was made in reducing CFC output. Recovery was expected to start around 2010, and that estimate is turning out to be fairly accurate.

In case you feel like reading more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=ozone+layer





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

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.
__________________
~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
TheDoc is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 09:48 PM   #103
Libertine
sex dwarf
 
Libertine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 17,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc View Post
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.
Congratulations.

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})/
Libertine is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 10:47 PM   #104
papagmp
Confirmed User
 
papagmp's Avatar
 
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.......
__________________
Real Amateur Porn, Amateur Teens, Sister Porn......
www.gmpcash.com
papagmp is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 01:38 PM   #105
Dirty Dane
Sick Fuck
 
Dirty Dane's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: www
Posts: 9,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc View Post
We would have a lot more of all animals, fish, birds, etc without humans. That is without question.

I know exactly how co2 works. It's naturally produced and naturally cycled by plants, water, and dirt. Just like upper air above the oil/coal burning centers don't have higher co2 than the air over the ocean. co2 is not why LA is warmer.

It's going to get 15-20 degrees warmer, even if humans never produced a particle extra of co2.
We would have more animals overall, yes, but I do not think there would have been more cows without humans. They are protected from pretadors today by humans. The amount today is therefor a concern regarding methan emissions, and at the same time we make room for it by reducing CO2 absorbing trees and plants.

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?
Dirty Dane is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 02:01 PM   #106
gleem
Confirmed User
 
gleem's Avatar
 
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

Last edited by gleem; 07-15-2009 at 02:03 PM..
gleem is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 04:28 PM   #107
thinkhype
Confirmed User
 
thinkhype's Avatar
 
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
__________________

ICQ: 462799470 | AIM: TChiefCL
thinkhype is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.