that doesn't necessarily mean anything
there are journals upon journals of peer-reviewed bullshit in exercise science, and i'm sure it's not the only field suffering from poor research
Dear Climate Change Deniers
- Thread starter T-Dawg
- Start date
that doesn't necessarily mean anything
there are journals upon journals of peer-reviewed bullshit in exercise science, and i'm sure it's not the only field suffering from poor research
/end of thread.
i agree, but the problem with climate science is that it's impossible to test anything
all that can be done is run simulations with data
so while it may look like there's a correlation (from the extremely small amount of data collected in comparison to the history of the Earth), who can really say?
a lot of the climate research i've seen disregards anomalies, whereas other, hard sciences would typically go "ok.. things may not be as they seem)
disclaimer: i have not taken sides on this issue, because i am largely ignorant.. the little knowledge i have has come from an entry-level geology course
so what i've seen and what my experience has been is possibly completely different from reality, which i would encourage someone to correct
Last edited:
T-Refried-455
Veteran XX
hey are any grade school teachers slinging their hubris-filled dicks around in this thread??
because LOL @ posts
because LOL @ posts
30 years of people screaming imminent danger, you eventually stop paying attention to them. Not one projection has ever been accurate. Any evidence that contradicts the desired outcome is omitted from studies and reports or not included in the models. When models aren't accurate, it's dismissed as "Well you can't predict the weather, but the science is still sound."
Climate change is solid science though, just as long as you firmly believe observation shouldn't be a part of science.
Climate change is solid science though, just as long as you firmly believe observation shouldn't be a part of science.
They are interglacial cycles and they are tens of thousands of years long.
How does that change what I said? I even provided a link that stated the very same thing.All of your crazy ranting aside..........
And let me dig out my 1971 peer-reviewed journals that I have stored in the garage........
The story was based on one scientists interpretation of what would happen based on a computer simulation by Dr. James Hansen... (Remember him?) The computer simulation was obviously wrong, however at the time, it was the Gospel and couldn't possibly be wrong... just like today's computer models couldn't possibly be wrong, but so far the vast majority (something around 95% of them) have been wrong with the amount of warming. Therefore, the science isn't settled, and you being a scientist (even if it is just a delusion in your head) should know this.
Yeah, I don't think so.
I think you pick and choose what IPCC (you know, the agency that was exposed several times for fudging numbers in their bogus computer models that haven't predicted a single thing yet?) reports you want to agree with, and go from there.
An absolutely perfect example of how stupid someone can be while still being academically brilliant.
Or better yet, how the disease that is liberalism will trump an entire lifetime of actual science.
Last edited:
Nothing I said has anything to do with far-right ideology, retard. Let alone the fact that I despise both sides equally.
Maybe this forum isn't for you? I hear SA or Reddit is more your flavor. They're kind to women and liberals, as that's the only people that post there.
Last edited:
riiiightWe have idiots who claim a handfull of papers from the 70s is equivalent or outweighs centuries of climate science indicating that warming is expected as opposed to cooling.
The bunk ideas get left behind, thats the scientific process, referencing a rejected hypothesis from nearly 50 years ago as a reason to reject the opposite hypothesis is moronic.
Oh, that's really good one, Van!
Throw in an obvious thing like evolution and directly link the two that way the other party in the discussion is automatically deemed invalid. Simply ingenious if we were five years old.
It's funny to note that if I just change a couple names in your entire post, it's be perfectly suited argument against you and your kin.
It's similar to your argument tactics of saying someone is automatically posting like Tehvul. Too clever for us!
I call bullshit on your made up statistic. Show proof or shut the fuck up.
You want him to post every climate model to show how only 5% of them are remotely accurate? Wouldn't it be easier for you to post some climate models that have been accurate over a few decades? Oh that's right, they don't exist. The fucking Farmer's Almanac is more accurate at predicting future climates than any so called Climate model employed by Warmists.
Boy I remember when Bush was in office, the liberals here and elsewhere were signing up to swallow whatever bullshit .gov spewed then as well!
Oh wait... no, I don't remember that and the internet's influence was only 1/1000th of the amount as it is now. Now the government spends billions on brainwashing people on the internet.
By the way, you can't say:
"1+1=3... and I'm SURE that some idiot is going to try and respond and tell me that it isn't!"
... and then expect anyone to actually fall for that stupidity while you feel righteous because you predicted someone would tell you you're wrong.
p.s. Funny name you should bring up anyway: Timothy McVeigh. Let's not discuss his political affiliation, lol.