The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

Discussion in 'Politics' started by drjekyllus, Jun 15, 2009.

  1. Also, if your poll is accurate, that hardly constitutes a cult. Or are you prepared to walk up to one in every three people on the street and tell them they're cultists?
    Something that one-third of the people believe is not a cult. It's a mainstream view. And that's granting your single data point. Single data points being all your mind can deal with, it seems.
     
    #341     Jun 30, 2009
  2. If you have nothing to add, which you don't, shut up. You're a waste of electrons.
     
    #342     Jun 30, 2009
  3. And by your numbers, 29% believe that GW is natural.....

    Are you gonna call them cultists?

    Now you can't, can you, cuz by your own standards, that's a main stream view.

    And so once again, you haven't proven a damn thing, have ya sport?

    Kinda painted yourself into a corner there, didn't ya, numbnuts....
     
    #343     Jul 1, 2009
  4. LMAO.

    You're getting your ass handed to you.

    Why don't you just end your humiliation now and quit proving to everyone how stupid you are?

    Oops... cars were the solution for horseshit..... too late.
     
    #344     Jul 1, 2009
  5. It didn't prove I was wrong at all. There was a study done by the scientists at Vostock Station who used temp and CO2 data that spanned 420,000 years and it determined that CO2 lagged temp. What part of that don't you understand? If the data is so flawed, do your own study, write a paper and submit it to an academic journal. Until then, I don't care about your bogus version of how the climate works.

    How many more times are we going to discuss this? I suppose you are trying the good old Bill Clinton trick. If you tell a lie enough times it becomes true. At least according to the Clinton's it does.
     
    #345     Jul 1, 2009
  6. That would be great if the antarctic temperatures were global average temperatures, but they aren't. That's why more recent studies used 14 proxy sites to reconstruct past temperatures and reconfirmed that the recent temperature changes are anomalous.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/841

    Additionally, any lags that exist hundreds of thousands of years ago would be due to naturally generated CO2. Current CO2 additions are anthropogenic and not natural, and therefore that would not apply.
     
    #346     Jul 1, 2009
  7. Ouch, try editing your posts before hitting "Submit"
     
    #347     Jul 1, 2009

  8. dude, you gotta run for office ...



    i'd vote for anyone who so thoroughly beats the hell out of these idiots
     
    #348     Jul 1, 2009
  9. CO2 is CO2, does heat have a prejudice against CO2 from fossil fuels. The explanations are becoming more and more bizarre.
     
    #349     Jul 1, 2009
  10. Wow, traderzones got someone on spelling and in an internet forum.
     
    #350     Jul 1, 2009