![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are you really willing to say that the BBC are scumbags, paedophiles or rapists? Here's a link to the article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever. Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones. If you do not, I shall report you. He disagrees with your contention. You are wrong. Either you debate with me sensibly or you continue to rant. What is it to be TW? |
Quote:
Phil Jones said: Quote:
Why did you ignore the relevant sentences? Why did you even ignore this: Quote:
Another fact that he stated, that was so relevant, and that you ignored. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
When skeptics aren't pointing to studies and making claims that were neither the intent nor the conclusions of the authors, there is always the old stand by of quoting a scientist out of context and then having the balls to claim that you were misquoted.
There is no limit to the skeptic tactics, but they become tiresome when repeated so often. |
Quote:
Though it's not going to work, in any case. |
Quote:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Ffi7yIm3-e0/S1...ing%5B4%5D.jpgQuote mining may not cause global warming, but I dont believe it is a reportable offense. |
Quote:
And now, twice a year with you. |
Quote:
Talk again around Christmas time? |
Quote:
Global warming exists no matter how many sources you or Blib27 quote out of context. Reality does not change because numbers and details are ignored. Blib27 - you posted an opposite of what Prof Jones actually said in that BBC interview. You misrepresented reality using methods routinely implemented by extremists for political purposes. Methods that work when illiteracy is widespread. |
I said good day.
|
Quote:
That was NINE HUNDRED papers that said global warming is NOT caused by humans. And I READ 15 of them and had earlier posted examples from 4 of them. (They are very dry reading.) But others on sites I trust have read them and posted over-reaching synopsis letting me know, they are proof if I would take the time to read more. WHERE is your proof? I showed you proof and you dismiss it out of hand by saying it doesn't count because I did not read more than 15 of them. HOW MANY papers have you read and post them. I will post the paper that disproves it. TW, you are a babbling loon that is guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. |
A return to thread topic
The usual prologue: I believe in global warming, I understand the theory of greenhouse gas and why it's plausible man has had a factor in this increase. However, as a born skeptic, I have to apply that too, and the debate fascinates me. Let's test these ideas with the right kinds of questions, and as the questions are answered correctly, so the truth becomes evident. Or doesn't! The most interesting skeptical question has become more and more prominent as time has gone by: Why hasn't there been any additional global warming since 1998? Why haven't climate scientists' models proven out? A new U of Alabama study, involving NASA data, now suggests more energy i.e. heat is lost to space than climate scientists' models originally predicted. (I hope that this is correct but I do not know if this is correct. Nevertheless, it will probably be the focus of global warming debate for a while.) bold by undertoad Quote:
|
Leaning towards not correct, as one of the study's main authors is not credible.
|
Quote:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html Here is the summary of the article if you don't want to read the very large and sometime mathamatical discussion. Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:56 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.