Page 33 of 50 FirstFirst ...
23
31
32
33
34
35
43
... LastLast
  1. #641
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylv_ View Post
    Considering I 4.0'd my stats class, and by 4.0, I received 105%, so keep speaking, please.
    no seriously, you know of a statistically significant sample?
    about unbiased samples?
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  2. #642
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylv_ View Post
    Considering I 4.0'd my stats class, and by 4.0, I received 105%, so keep speaking, please.
    that has nothing to do with this thread or any relevancy whatsoever to your argument.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  3. #643
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Aehl View Post
    ..this coming from a warmist and climate alarmist.
    Yeah, accepting scientific fact makes me an "alarmist". Are you serious?

    What happened to those projected 7 metre ocean rises..what did the IPCC say later...70 centimetres?
    You're not citing sources for this, but I can confidently state you're either making shit up, or completely failing to grasp what you're trying to cite.

    Science, real science NEVER says this is indisputable fact and there is no way we can be wrong" You use what data you have to prove or disprove a hypothesis.
    And in this case, "anthropogenic climate change theory" is in the same territory as "germ theory" and "evolutionary theory". Pointing out that it's technically falsifiable, in theory, actually goes against the point you're trying to make.

    There is no way in Hell you can prove these models are even halfway accurate without having a time machine to go forward 150 years and then come back and say "yup we were right"

    Given the plethora of BULLSHIT claims and repeated doomsaying, catastrophes, dogs and cats living together, NONE of which have come to pass and that includes Flannerys repeated failures and dud predictions ...give me one good reason why I should listen to any of these garbage mongers?
    Since you're going to cherry-pick and ignore pretty much all climate data we've gathered regarding the last several hundred thousand years, there's no reason I could possibly give you that you won't just ignore. You've decided to be irrational and rely on feels rather than evidence, so I really don't find your request for a rational argument to "convince" you is an honest one. You've already decided that you won't be convinced by overwhelming amounts of data that all point to the same conclusion. If that won't convince you, the best we can hope for is exposing that silliness so that anyone else paying attention can see how much you're ignoring.


    Every single example you're picking up is one single individual who made a tentative-maybe-possibly guess about a potential future outcome that, due to weather's variability, didn't actually come true. That has nothing to do with the state of climate science, on any level. It's an inherently dishonest way to go about things.

    It's like saying "hey, these paleontologists thought that apatosaurs and brontosaurs were different species, and they're NOT, therefore dinosaurs never existed and the Earth is 6000 years old!" That's what you're doing, here. It makes no sense at all.
    Last edited by Endus; 2016-04-16 at 02:51 AM.


  4. #644
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylv_ View Post
    Considering I 4.0'd my stats class, and by 4.0, I received 105%, so keep speaking, please.
    Considering your post was

    'Numbers? Numbers? People use number? Numbers prove nothing!'

  5. #645
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahhdurr View Post
    Considering your post was

    'Numbers? Numbers? People use number? Numbers prove nothing!'
    My post was about how comical 54% of the internet is.
    I was a Death's Demise.
    Those were the good old days.

  6. #646
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    So this means 3% got it right? Climate change has been happening for a very, very long time. And with or without mankind, it would continue to do so.
    Of course you are correct - we - human- only affect the rate of change.
    Without human "intervention" it would have taken probably thousands of years. With us polluting the shit of this planet - hundreds.
    Bottom line: considering for the moment that the change is a natural phenomenon, and happens once in a hundred thousands of years, we surely affect it by ... simply polluting.

  7. #647
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylv_ View Post
    My post was about how comical 54% of the internet is.
    how did you arrive at that number?
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  8. #648
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylv_ View Post
    My post was about how comical 54% of the internet is.
    So

    Quote Originally Posted by Sylv_ View Post
    14% of scientists didn't participate in this study.
    19% of ants licked ice cream.
    147% of scientists agree that the ocean can be turned into jello with enough cosmic rays.
    97% of scientists say 98% of scientists said.

    How the fuck do they know it was exactly 97%? How do they know how many 97% is? What if they missed people.

    The internet knows that 15% of all 19% studies are 100% made up by 88% miles per hour.
    was sarcasm?

    If so I've been Poe'd.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by newyorkerr View Post
    Of course you are correct - we - human- only affect the rate of change.
    Without human "intervention" it would have taken probably thousands of years. With us polluting the shit of this planet - hundreds.
    Bottom line: considering for the moment that the change is a natural phenomenon, and happens once in a hundred thousands of years, we surely affect it by ... simply polluting.
    Not sure how you're presenting this, but we have a pretty good understanding on all known long term cycles. 20kyr 45kys 360 kyr or whatever you're talking about.

  9. #649
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    For every study you someone finds supporting climate change, once can find 10 more refuting it.

  10. #650
    Quote Originally Posted by newyorkerr View Post
    Of course you are correct - we - human- only affect the rate of change.
    Without human "intervention" it would have taken probably thousands of years. With us polluting the shit of this planet - hundreds.
    Bottom line: considering for the moment that the change is a natural phenomenon, and happens once in a hundred thousands of years, we surely affect it by ... simply polluting.
    Without humans there would be forest fires raging from lightning that would probably take 100's of years to extinguish themselves.

  11. #651
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Without humans there would be forest fires raging from lightning that would probably take 100's of years to extinguish themselves.
    hooked this isn't jupiter and forests aren't the size of planets.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  12. #652
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Without humans there would be forest fires raging from lightning that would probably take 100's of years to extinguish themselves.
    that's... not even wrong
    i'm starting to realize that you show up, post an outlandish statement and then go out, like a weird "conspiracy bomber"
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  13. #653
    Quote Originally Posted by Aehl View Post
    It is perfectly tenable. They cried wolf, they were wrong, so why should I listen?



    Okay then, this is from 2009





    Do you really want a list of all the climate disaster predictions that havent come true in the last thirty years?
    I've never seen anyone present their dishonesty so openly. Your mixing time eras willy nilly because you don't want to accept that reaching back 100 years is meaningless.

    And Flannery is the favorite whipping boy for people who can't be arsed to read statements in context. When you read what he says in context, you'll find that he's actually rather cautious; he says what he thinks will happen but stresses that it's not a definite prediction. Read his elaboration on the Sydney damns.

    That's right. That looks to be the case. We'll know probably within two or three years, I suppose, how this is going to play out, particularly for Sydney, because its water supply is limited to that sort of scale, but it is my fear that the new weather regime is going to be a much drier one, and while we may get the odd good rainfall event, they're going to be much less frequent than in the past, and we'll just be in a different climatic regime.
    So Flannery makes cautious statements, as he should. And then the media spins it to look like a set in stone prediction and you buy it. Plus, Flannery is really speaking about trends. Flannery's time scale was off because as it stands now, the more local you get the more inaccurate you get. But his message is correct: rainfall is dropping in temperate areas.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zantos View Post
    There are no 2 species that are 100% identical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redditor
    can you leftist twits just fucking admit that quantum mechanics has fuck all to do with thermodynamics, that shit is just a pose?

  14. #654
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Without humans there would be forest fires raging from lightning that would probably take 100's of years to extinguish themselves.
    Shit post or trolling? Probably both because it's not like you can ever provide evidence to back up the constant stream of sewage that pours from your mouth.
    Last edited by Ahhdurr; 2016-04-16 at 03:34 AM.

  15. #655
    Quote Originally Posted by breadisfunny View Post
    how did you arrive at that number?
    By being in the 97% of scientists.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahhdurr View Post
    So



    was sarcasm?

    If so I've been Poe'd.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Not sure how you're presenting this, but we have a pretty good understanding on all known long term cycles. 20kyr 45kys 360 kyr or whatever you're talking about.
    I'm fiercely sarcastic. Being Poe'd was accurate.
    I was a Death's Demise.
    Those were the good old days.

  16. #656
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylv_ View Post
    By being in the 97% of scientists.
    that doesn't guarentee you know how many people are in a given statistic.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  17. #657
    Herald of the Titans Pterodactylus's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Without humans there would be forest fires raging from lightning that would probably take 100's of years to extinguish themselves.
    I'd love for you to expand on this. Give me a few more details on how you think this works.
    “You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass." - President Donald Trump

  18. #658
    Quote Originally Posted by Aehl View Post
    And another one


    Is 2013 recent enough for you?
    Did you read what David Viner wrote? You quoted it. He's not saying snow will be gone, he even says right there that it will be a very rare and exciting event. He elaborated later on in that interview:
    Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time."
    It's like you guys always miss the point that we'll see less events on average, but that they will be more intense. And then we have the irony of people thinking that heavy snow for three months disproves Viner's statement when he literally did say that we'll see heavy snows.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zantos View Post
    There are no 2 species that are 100% identical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redditor
    can you leftist twits just fucking admit that quantum mechanics has fuck all to do with thermodynamics, that shit is just a pose?

  19. #659
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylv_ View Post
    I'm fiercely sarcastic. Being Poe'd was accurate.
    Good darts sir.

  20. #660
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Silk Road
    Posts
    9,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Aehl View Post
    It is perfectly tenable. They cried wolf, they were wrong, so why should I listen?



    Okay then, this is from 2009





    Do you really want a list of all the climate disaster predictions that havent come true in the last thirty years?
    Wikipedia - Straw man:
    "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

    The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition."
    "In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)

Posting Permissions

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