NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
The co-founder of Greenpeace works for Nuclear Energy and Deforestation???you are aware that he works for nuclear energy and rain forest deforesters, right?
Man, how many cups deep in the coolaid are you?
The co-founder of Greenpeace works for Nuclear Energy and Deforestation???you are aware that he works for nuclear energy and rain forest deforesters, right?
Be proud that you derailed yet another thread by attacking a posters facts on a completely unrelated issue. Now all you have to do is call him a racist, sexist, homophobe and pass out after drinking another beer and your day is done!i hope you will accept nate silver as proof, since he always predicts these things using science and math.
much like with the global warming debate, you make stupid claims against science and math and get proven wrong over and over.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/oct-9-romney-erases-obamas-convention-bounce-in-forecast/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
here is what nate silver had to say about the election on the ninth of october of 2012.
Mr. Obama’s projected margin of victory in the national popular vote — 2.0 percentage points — represents the closest the race has been since June 27.
nate silver also got it wrong, just like you.
he got it wrong by 2 points, you had it wrong by 18 full points.
now since i suck with percentages and zeroes, you tell me: were you 900% wrong, or were you 9000% wrong? or were you 9 million times wrong?
in any case, this is the type of reality bitch slap that is occurring in the anthropogenic climate change debate, and you are the one off by 18 points while we may be off by just a couple.
be proud of your demonstrable wrongness.
Why don't you feel comfortable sharing your credentials after espousing how important they are? That seems a little unusual to me..Why don't you feel comfortable sharing your credentials after espousing how important they are? That seems a little unusual to me.. \
Do you think that nothing in science can be proven without seeing it firsthand first?
Do you think rhetorical bullshit questions is science. HA Haaaa
Besides the fact that there is no other viable theory to compete with the theory of evolution, what do you believe proves its validity? Validity? Ha Haaaa.
You don't realize that we simply don't NEED a current contradiction to the current understanding of the theory of evolution to conclude the theory of evolution is a scientific fact?
If you had one...
If you found a rabbit below a dinosaur in the strata TOMORROW it would totally disprove the theory of evolution. What a Joke!
What would you accept as proof of ACC?
..What would you accept as undeniable evidence of the planet warming faster now than at any other time in the planets recent history? 17 years and no warming....UN Climate Report, fool.
I see that buck.you don't have to be very old to see how stupid you are, even retarded children can tell how stupid you are.
Then why did you say "This Theory of Evolution cannot be proven without a Time Machine." implicating the necessity of human senses when humans didn't exist to prove the theory of evolution?Do you think rhetorical bullshit questions is science. HA Haaaa
Yeah, the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory, do you remember that consensus thing we were talking about earlier? That thing you said didn't mean anything..Validity? Ha Haaaa.
Here's where geology supports the theory of evolution;If you found a rabbit below a dinosaur in the strata TOMORROW it would totally disprove the theory of evolution.
What a Joke!
Every scientific study shows the complete opposite. You're choosing who to believe based on a political agenda, not the science. The science says you're wrong.17 years and no warming....UN Climate Report, fool.
You're the one that brought them up, now you don't want to talk about them?Like I said, you are total idiot. I would match resume and pay check with you, but I have to be able take from you a valuable assets, for the bet.
But you don't have any valuable assets, do you? So, you want it to feel comfortable and me not seem unusual, when I just want to put a boot mark on your face?
How unusual is that, girl beater? Maybe we can meet out back of Buck's hair place? Would that make you feel more usual?
You're the one implying the theory of evolution isn't true because you've never seen anything evolve firsthand and you only accept it because there's nothing better, not because you understand the science behind it..Hey low, slow thinker. Has anyone seen a Higgs Boson? You are so confused as to what science even is. It is a ruthless, career killing game, if you are not careful.
Your baby prose, shows it all.
Any scientist will tell there is no such thing as scientific fact. Again you are way out of depth for the discussion.
Yes, that's exactly what evolution means. Simpler organisms came first, more complex ones came later, and geology proves it. There has never, not a single time in human history been a younger species found below an older oneYou are such a character. A Rabbit below a dinosaur? Is that what you think evolution means? Dumb ass.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htmYou have not shown phenomenon, that is the point. This UN report said we have 17 years now of no warming. How long have you been sure? How old are you? See it is quite possible there has been no warming in your LIFE. HA Haaaaa.
I doubt you'd step up in real life, I'm 6'2, 220 with a size 12 boot, so stop pretending to be an internet tough guy, you're just an idiot who doesn't understand scienceGo to a mirror and visualize a size 10 stomping boot. Good fit? My credentials would be above your understanding.
See, that's the thing.. You've been shown the evidence that's convinced the vast majority of experts who study the climate, and you're still not convinced.. So obviously, "UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE" is not specific enough. As long as all you say is "UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE", you could be shown anything and then just continue to move the goal posts and say "nope, I don't accept that, so it's not undeniable."... see how that works? I know how that works, I've been highlighting it since the beginning. None of you can answer that simple question so you never have to set anything in stone, because once you do, then somebody finds it and shows it to you, you'd have to admit you're wrong. This way you never have to admit anything. Not how science works.1. UNDENIABLE evidence
2. UNDENIABLE evidence
3. Nah, I said 1 billion. I'll stick to that.
You have not shown phenomenon, that is the point. This UN report said we have 17 years now of no warming. How long have you been sure? How old are you? See it is quite possible there has been no warming in your LIFE. HA Haaaaa.
Doer is 100% correct, even the IPCC admits there has been no global warming in the last 17 years.
Every scientific study shows the complete opposite. You're choosing who to believe based on a political agenda, not the science. The science says you're wrong.
If you consider the head of the IPCC a biased source, and I do although biased in the opposite direction, then what proof will you accept that the globe isnt warming??Citing obviously biased sources is not science
The first link you posted is a conspiracy theorist website that covers such explosive scientific topics like chemtrails, fluoride, how vaccines cause autism and RFID chips...
Not science
You can't produce anything from any real scientists because all the real scientists accept ACC
Furthermore, even if the claim that the Earth hasn't warmed in 17 years was valid, temperature is not the only measure of ACC, shocking right?! How does your model account for the increased frequency of extreme weather over the past decade compared to the previous ones?
The sources JB cited are what is biasedIf you consider the head of the IPCC a biased source, and I do although biased in the opposite direction, then what proof will you accept that the globe isnt warming??
The pro-global warming people have said it isnt warming, the anti-global warming people have said it isnt warming but DAMNIT!!! You are bound and determined to prove the planet is still warming... LOL!!!
Pada, how about looking at it from a slightly different angle.The sources JB cited are what is biased
Post a direct quote of Rajendra Pachauri saying ACC is not real or has stopped or that the climate has not warmed in 17 years
It was right in the middle of that post...The sources JB cited are what is biased
Post a direct quote of Rajendra Pachauri saying ACC is not real or has stopped or that the climate has not warmed in 17 years
That's not a direct quote from the guy, that's a partial quote that is likely taken out of context by the biased source JB posted. Can you find that full direct quote of his?It was right in the middle of that post...
“THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”
Are you saying that he did not say it? It appears pretty legit as he is calling for 40 more years of study (about his lifetime)... LOL!That's not a direct quote from the guy, that's a partial quote that is likely taken out of context by the biased source JB posted. Can you find that full direct quote of his?
There is some Irony in you, an unemployed teenager that sits around the house bitching about minimum wage all day would have the balls to ask for other peoples credentials.That's not a direct quote from the guy, that's a partial quote that is likely taken out of context by the biased source JB posted. Can you find that full direct quote of his?
The Pad guy is plainly arrested, development wise. And Boring, and more boring.....Tag out. At 'em!Doer is 100% correct, even the IPCC admits there has been no global warming in the last 17 years.
IPCC Head Rajendra Pachauri Acknowledges 17 Year Stall In Global Warming
Shortly after the release, Nasas James Hansen acknowledged that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.
Now Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nations IPCC has Acknowledged the pause in warming.
THE UNs climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britains Met Office, but said it would need to last 30 to 40 years at least to break the long-term global warming trend.
So in essence their stance is that global warming has stopped, but needs to continue the non warming trend for twice as along (and twice as long as the previous warming trend 1980 1996) to break the trend. http://canadianawareness.org/2013/02/ipcc-head-rajendra-pachauri-acknowledges-17-year-stall-in-global-warming/
Scientists Baffled as Report Proves Global Warming Has Stopped - See more at: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/15/scientists-baffled-as-report-proves-global-warming-has-stopped/#sthash.q6B4ZGd9.dpuf
THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
IPCC Head Pachauri Acknowledges Global Warming Standstillhttp://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-head-pachauri-acknowledges-global-warming-standstill/
The global warming pause has now lasted for almost 17 years and shows no sign of ending.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html
You're reading a cherry picked quote from a biased new source, not his actual quote. You don't know what he said.Are you saying that he did not say it? It appears pretty legit as he is calling for 40 more years of study (about his lifetime)... LOL!
I'm not unemployed, I'm not a teenager and I'm not the one that claims some scientific background but oddly doesn't understand the science behind climate change or evolution. Claiming the position of authority without backing anything up and getting basic questions wrong is no way to argue a point you're trying to make..There is some Irony in you, an unemployed teenager that sits around the house bitching about minimum wage all day would have the balls to ask for other peoples credentials.
Then when we show you bits and pieces of the truth the liberal left doesnt want to tell you, you are too damn lazy to google it. I aint your mama....
Mr. Pada, I've cited many reputable sources with quotes by scientists, all you ever have to say is, you don't agree with them.Citing obviously biased sources is not science
The first link you posted is a conspiracy theorist website that covers such explosive scientific topics like chemtrails, fluoride, how vaccines cause autism and RFID chips...
Not science
You can't produce anything from any real scientists because all the real scientists accept ACC
Furthermore, even if the claim that the Earth hasn't warmed in 17 years was valid, temperature is not the only measure of ACC, shocking right?! How does your model account for the increased frequency of extreme weather over the past decade compared to the previous ones?
Until you can tell me what it would take to convince you, you have no business arguing anything further. It's an admission of defeat on your part.Mr. Pada, I've cited many reputable sources with quotes by scientists, all you ever have to say is, you don't agree with them.
Where are your citations, or are you just prolonging the fact you got this one wrong?
you couldn't be any dumber if you tried, but you do keep trying.The co-founder of Greenpeace works for Nuclear Energy and Deforestation???
Man, how many cups deep in the coolaid are you?
unlike you, muyloco is not a racist, bigot, homophobe, misogynist, or anything hateful.Be proud that you derailed yet another thread by attacking a posters facts on a completely unrelated issue. Now all you have to do is call him a racist, sexist, homophobe and pass out after drinking another beer and your day is done!