Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1

    Darkfall Online renamed to Fighting Goblins Online
    http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=86158

  2. #2

    Default

    Look man, it's really easy try and follow along plz.

    Obama said it, it must be true.

    Thanks, glad I could clear that up for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevron View Post
    I play Halo and I'm autistic.

  3. #3
    6000+
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    if its on the internet it must be true!
    Quote Originally Posted by NapalmEnema View Post
    I'll also find out where SSGuy is and blow him. Shaft, balls, swallow the gravy.

  4. #4
    6000+
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    6,857
    Quote Originally Posted by NapalmEnema View Post
    I'll also find out where SSGuy is and blow him. Shaft, balls, swallow the gravy.

  5. #5
    6000+
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    good article on climate change skeptics

    http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_c...e/skeptics.asp
    Quote Originally Posted by NapalmEnema View Post
    I'll also find out where SSGuy is and blow him. Shaft, balls, swallow the gravy.

  6. #6

    Default

    "I disagree with op so im just going to post a bunch of unrelated stuff to prove my own point instead of making another thread lololololol"

    btw lol @ blaming Exxonmobile. Exxon is working to push this legislation.
    Last edited by Vessol; 12-10-2009 at 22:51.

    Darkfall Online renamed to Fighting Goblins Online
    http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=86158

  7. #7
    6000+
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    " I assume what someone else means by there posts and create a strawman to put them down."

    being a skeptic means looking at both sides and trying to make sense out of it all. not just looking for information that back up your opinions.

    where did I say anythign about exxon?

    did you actualy read any of what I posted? there is alot of great information on that david suzuki site from one of the most respected scientists and activists in the world.
    Last edited by jonyak; 12-10-2009 at 22:55.
    Quote Originally Posted by NapalmEnema View Post
    I'll also find out where SSGuy is and blow him. Shaft, balls, swallow the gravy.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonyak View Post
    " I assume what someone else means by there posts and create a strawman to put them down."

    being a skeptic means looking at both sides and trying to make sense out of it all. not just looking for information that back up your opinions.
    Actually I do look at both sides. I used to be pretty environmentalist. And then I read up on a lot of the skeptic research and looked into the Medieval Warming Period.
    Do you do the same?

    The website you linked said ExxonMobile was behind climate skeptics, thus "lol they follow oil companies"
    Last edited by Vessol; 12-10-2009 at 22:56.

    Darkfall Online renamed to Fighting Goblins Online
    http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=86158

  9. #9
    6000+
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    actualy I have looked into the medevil warming period.

    you choosing to beleive anecdotal evidence of grapes being grown in england and norse farmers in england do not make a global warming period theory correct.

    good info on it here

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html
    Last edited by jonyak; 12-10-2009 at 23:05.
    Quote Originally Posted by NapalmEnema View Post
    I'll also find out where SSGuy is and blow him. Shaft, balls, swallow the gravy.

  10. #10
    6000+
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vessol View Post
    The website you linked said ExxonMobile was behind climate skeptics, thus "lol they follow oil companies"
    you obviously skimed over the linked sources for every single claim made in the article.

    "Not surprisingly, the skeptics have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connections with public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to - in the words of one leaked memo - "reposition global warming as theory (not fact).""
    Last edited by jonyak; 12-10-2009 at 23:04.
    Quote Originally Posted by NapalmEnema View Post
    I'll also find out where SSGuy is and blow him. Shaft, balls, swallow the gravy.

  11. #11

    Default

    Sorry for the shitty formatting of copy+paste. Full document can be found here: http://petitionproject.org/gw_articl...ew_OISM150.pdf

    Linked section starts on page 7 (of 12), section title "Global Warming Hypothesis"

    ------------------------
    The greenhouse ef fect amplifies so lar warm ing of the earth.
    Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, and CH4 in the Earth’s at mosphere,
    through com bined convec tive readjustments and the radi ative
    blanketing ef fect, essentially de crease the net es cape of ter restrial
    thermal infrared radiation. Increasing CO2, therefore, effectively increases
    radiative en ergy in put to the Earth’s atmosphere. The path of
    this radi ative input is complex. It is redistrib uted, both ver tically and
    horizontally, by vari ous physi cal processes, including advection,
    convection, and diffusion in the atmosphere and ocean.
    When an in crease in CO2 in creases the radiative in put to the at -
    mosphere, how and in which di rection does the at mosphere re spond?
    Hypotheses about this response differ and are sche mati cally shown
    in Figure 18. Without the wa ter-vapor green house effect, the Earth
    would be about 14 ºC cooler (81). The ra diative con tri bu tion of dou -
    bling atmo spheric CO2 is minor, but this ra di ative greenhouse effect
    is treated quite differ ently by dif fer ent cli mate hy potheses. The hypoth
    e ses that the IPCC (82,83) has chosen to adopt predict that the
    effect of CO2 is am pli fied by the at mosphere, es pecially by wa ter va -
    por, to pro duce a large tem per ature in crease. Other hy poth eses,
    shown as hy pothesis 2, pre dict the op posite – that the at mospheric re -
    sponse will coun ter act the CO2 increase and result in insignifi cant
    changes in global tem perature (81,84,85,91,92). The experi mental
    evidence, as de scribed above, fa vors hy pothesis 2. While CO2 has
    increased substantially, its ef fect on tem perature has been so slight
    that it has not been ex perimentally detected.
    The com puter cli mate models upon which “hu man-caused global
    warming” is based have sub stantial un certainties and are mark edly
    unreliable. This is not sur prising, since the cli mate is a cou pled,
    non-linear dy nam i cal sys tem. It is very com plex. Fig ure 19 illustrates
    the diffi culties by comparing the radi ative CO2 green house ef fect
    with cor rec tion fac tors and un cer tainties in some of the pa rameters in
    the com puter cli mate cal culations. Other fac tors, too, such as the
    chemical and clima tic influence of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably
    com puter modeled.
    In ef fect, an ex periment has been per formed on the Earth dur ing
    the past half-century – an ex periment that includes all of the com plex
    factors and feed back ef fects that de termine the Earth’s tem perature
    and climate. Since 1940, hy dro carbon use has risen 6-fold. Yet, this
    rise has had no ef fect on the tem per ature trends, which have con tinued
    their cy cle of re covery from the Lit tle Ice Age in close cor relation
    with increasing solar activity.
    Not only has the global warm ing hy poth esis failed experimental
    tests, it is the oretically flawed as well. It can rea sonably be ar gued
    that cooling from negative physi cal and biological feedbacks to
    greenhouse gases nul li fies the slight initial tem per ature rise (84,86).
    The reasons for this fail ure of the com puter cli mate models are
    subjects of scientific de bate (87). For ex am ple, wa ter va por is the
    largest con tributor to the overall green house effect (88). It has been
    suggested that the cli mate models treat feed backs from clouds, water
    vapor, and related hydrol ogy incor rectly (85,89-92).
    The global warm ing hypothesis with respect to CO2 is not based
    upon the radi ative properties of CO2 it self, which is a very weak
    green house gas. It is based upon a small ini tial in crease in tem per ature
    caused by CO2 and a large theo retical amplification of that temperature
    increase, primarily through increased evapora tion of H2O, a
    Figure 19: The radiative greenhouse effect of doubling the concentra tion of
    atmospheric CO2 (right bar) as com pared with four of the un certainties in the
    computer climate models (87,93).
    Figure 18: Qualitative illustration of greenhouse warming. “Present GHE” is
    the current greenhouse effect from all atmospheric phenomena. “Radiative
    effect of CO2” is the added green house ra diative ef fect from dou bling CO2
    without consideration of other atmospheric components. “Hypothe sis 1
    IPCC” is the hypothetical ampli fication effect assumed by IPCC. “Hypothesis
    2” is the hy pothetical moderation effect.
    – 7 –
    strong greenhouse gas. Any comparable tem perature increase from
    another cause would pro duce the same calculated out come.
    Thus, the 3,000-year tem perature record il lustrated in Figure 1
    also pro vides a test of the computer models. The historical temperature
    re cord shows that the Earth has previously warmed far more
    than could be caused by CO2 itself. Since these past warming cy cles
    have not initiated water-vapor-mediated atmo spheric warming catas -
    trophes, it is ev ident that weaker ef fects from CO2 can not do so.
    Methane is also a minor green house gas. World CH4 lev els are, as
    shown in Figure 20, leveling off. In the U.S. in 2005, 42% of hu -
    man-produced methane was from hydrocarbon energy production,
    28% from waste management, and 30% from ag riculture (95). The
    total amount of CH4 pro duced from these U.S. sources de creased 7%
    between 1980 and 2005. Moreover, the re cord shows that, even
    while meth ane was increasing, tem perature trends were be nign.
    The “human-caused global warming” – often called the “global
    warm ing” – hypothesis depends entirely upon com puter model-generated
    sce narios of the future. There are no em pirical records that
    verify either these models or their flawed predictions (96).
    Claims (97) of an epidemic of in sect-borne dis eases, extensive
    species extinction, cat astrophic flooding of Pacific islands, ocean
    acidifi cation, increased num bers and severities of hurricanes and tornados,
    and increased hu man heat deaths from the 0.5°C per century
    tem perature rise are not consistent with actual observa tions. The “human-
    caused global warming” hypothesis and the computer calculations
    that sup port it are in error. They have no empirical sup port and
    are inval idated by numerous observa tions.
    --------------------------

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •