Dear Climate Change Deniers

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html

*We find that the most prominent annual mean surface and tropospheric warming in the Arctic since 1979 has occurred in northeastern Canada and Greenland. In this region, much of the year-to-year temperature variability is associated with the leading mode of large-scale circulation variability in the North Atlantic, namely, the North Atlantic Oscillation14, 15. Here we show that the recent warming in this region is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity originating in the tropical Pacific.


* This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.
 
amRam said:
Its cool yo, cover your eyes and ears... if you were genuinely interested you'd put in the time instead of asking us to do your homework. Lazy AND ignorant. A winning combo.
Click to expand...

If you dont mind when ppl say you are full of shit there is no consequence to making things up and claiming they are true without any written proof. But youre prob full of shit if you cant show proof.
 
Veniggs said:
he wasn't just wrong but the solution was extremely severe imo. this is how people like him sell their ideas. they treat the subject like the apocalypse is around the corner if we don't do something now. kind of like some creationist conservatives do when a rainbow appears upside down.
Click to expand...

Sensationalism is used by all sides for political and philosophical purposes. Much of the time it goes unnoticed by those utilising it because they exist with a paradigm of "being correct" having not really considered many of the actual fundamentals.

I'm a "creationist" in a general sense of the term. Although my understanding is not aligned with popular creation as espoused by many in the conservative arena.
 
The point is that science is never settled. Should we continue to pollute the Earth? Of course not. I don't think anyone is like "yay pollution, I love my water and air being polluted... woooohoooo"..... But the EXTREME alarmist view is equally nutty.

Peer reviewed papers come out all the time, proving or disproving other papers as new evidence is available.
 
JackBootedThug said:
I'm a "creationist" in a general sense of the term. Although my understanding is not aligned with popular creation as espoused by many in the conservative arena.
Click to expand...

We usually equate creationists with brain dead ignorant uneducated easily influenced fools, in the general sense of the term.
 
DealyRrunk said:
If you dont mind when ppl say you are full of shit there is no consequence to making things up and claiming they are true without any written proof. But youre prob full of shit if you cant show proof.
Click to expand...

Video is based on written graphical proof. The proof was already linked to but I guess you need it QUOTED because you're too fucking lazy to leave TW for a minute.

If you'd bother to read or listen to it you would understand the crux of the argument. Pro tip: its not about whether climate change is happening.
 
amRam said:
Video is based on written graphical proof. The proof was already linked to but I guess you need it QUOTED because you're too fucking lazy to leave TW for a minute.
Click to expand...
I shouldnt have to leave the argument to get proof in text form. If you cant make an argument without youtube I dont want to hear what you have to say cause you may as well be tehvul.

Your excluding margins of error for each and every climate model which are necessary for determining accuracy.
 
even if the data falls within the margins of error, that graph shows that they are consistently at the lower end of the margins. something is flawed with the models

and you're not your
 
arcadus said:
even if the data falls within the margins of error, that graph shows that they are consistently at the lower end of the margins.
Click to expand...

actually an argument made earlier was that 95% were not even remotely accurate... well if they are in the margin of error then that is being remotely accurate given the correct information.
 
DealyRrunk said:
We usually equate creationists with brain dead ignorant uneducated easily influenced fools, in the general sense of the term.
Click to expand...

creationists believe in magic. you believe in purposely sabotaging one of the greatest inventions, if not the greatest invention, with emotionally-driven social studies that yield only stats and weak observations (note im not talking about climate studies in this case). ur kind will be worse in the long run.
 
Veniggs said:
creationists believe in magic. you believe in purposely sabotaging one of the greatest inventions, if not the greatest invention, with emotionally-driven social studies that yield only stats and weak observations (note im not talking about climate studies in this case). ur kind will be worse in the long run.
Click to expand...
the greatest invention is the toilet and I sabotaged mine this morning while reading your posts.
 
So far dealyrunk has required multiple references, yet he has provided exactly none in support of his position. Why is it, dealy, that everyone else has to make a "textual"argument with references, but its sufficient for you to say "there is peer-reviewed science"?
 
DealyRrunk said:
If you dont mind when ppl say you are full of shit there is no consequence to making things up and claiming they are true without any written proof. But youre prob full of shit if you cant show proof.
Click to expand...

can you show us proof of your claim that people that dont show proof are full of shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top