★ Have you made up your mind on climate change, yet?
- Thread starter Ceiling Cat
- Start date
Jan. 10, 2016:
Jan. 10, 2016:
(You just know this one's going to make it into the next update of Crybaby Frankfooter's greatest hits. :thumb
Jan. 10, 2016:
Feb. 20, 2016:
LMFAO! :biggrin1:
(You just know this one's going to make it into the next update of Crybaby Frankfooter's greatest hits. :thumb
Still confused, weasel?
:thumb:
Lets look again at yet another post you are lying about, the quote you took out of context to infer the bet was a year over year bet.
In this case, it was covered about 5 posts again, so I'll just repeat the same post for you:
This is just yet another example of cheat #6
#6 Deliberate use of quotes out of context.
Lets take a look at the quote moviefan uses as claim that he thinks the bet was on a year over year change.
This is from the post he links to:
In typical weasel form, moviefan takes a post in which I clearly state that the bet was on the global anomaly hitting 0.83ºC and tries to claim the total opposite.
Yet another weasel quote out of context, you really are stinking this place up with your cheap kindergarten level antics.
Once again, the bet was simple, yet moviefan continues to weasel around to cheat again and again.
Another repeat of cheat attempt #7
#7 - Trying to retroactively claim that the bet was based on a year over year change instead of decadal projections.
Great way of totally embarrassing yourself, nice work.
For analysis, lets look at the post where you claim I used bad math, in your first quote:
First, lets start with the chart used in the bet.
#5 - Trying to replace the chart specified in the bet with a different chart at a different web address.
Its really very stupid and very entertaining.
Moviefan tries to switch to a different reference chart, then accuses me of being the one who switched and then claims I used bad math.
Three total fails at trying to cheat the bet needed to create his fabricated claim I used bad math.
Total weasel move.
Thanks for clearing that up, weasel.
#7 - Trying to retroactively claim that the bet was based on a year over year change instead of decadal projections.
Post #270 (and the repeat in #285) is great, in which you fake a claim, admit its a lie that you can't defend and then also admit that the bet was simple and you lost.
Great way of totally embarrassing yourself, nice work.
For analysis, lets look at the post where you claim I used bad math, in your first quote:
Lets start with your claim that I switched graphs.
First, lets start with the chart used in the bet.
Yes, thats the web address of the only chart and data I've used in reference to the bet, so what is moviefan talking about? He claims that the bet was made on a different chart, covered repeatedly before as 'moving the goal post' attempt #5:
#5 - Trying to replace the chart specified in the bet with a different chart at a different web address.
Its really very stupid and very entertaining.
Moviefan tries to switch to a different reference chart, then accuses me of being the one who switched and then claims I used bad math.
Three total fails at trying to cheat the bet needed to create his fabricated claim I used bad math.
Total weasel move.
Thanks for clearing that up, weasel.
Once again, the bet was simple, yet moviefan continues to weasel around to cheat again and again.
Link:
From geocentrism to climate change, defenders of dogma don’t willingly give up. Four hundred years ago this week, the Inquisition met in Rome to discuss Galileo’s support for the Copernican model of the cosmos, which placed the Sun at the center of the solar system. After five days of deliberation, a commission of inquisitors ruled that heliocentrism was “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of the Holy Scripture.” Not a good moment for the Church. Two days later, Galileo was summoned to the Vatican and ordered “to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it . . . to abandon it completely . . . and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.” Last summer, taking his lead from the Inquisition, Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse proposed that anti-racketeering laws be used to shut down the “climate denial network” and the work of scientists who have “consistently published papers downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change.” Most people have a pretty casual acquaintance with the Galileo debate; it was not simply a fight between religion and science. Many clerics — who tended to be well educated — supported Galileo; likewise, many scientists were on the side of the Church. This was not because they believed science should be subordinated to the Bible; in fact, geocentrists had an extremely well-reasoned argument in defense of the Sun orbiting the Earth: If the Earth is orbiting the Sun, said the geocentrists, parallax should be observed in stars. Parallax is the apparent shift in the relative position of objects when viewed from different vantage points. When you’re driving, and the telephone poles along the side of the road seem to move much faster than the mountains a mile away, that’s parallax. Some of the most remarkably astute and imaginative scientists in history reasoned that if the Earth were moving, the relative position of the stars would appear to change, with nearer stars being displaced more than more distant ones. Since no such parallax was evident, the Earth had to be stationary. Their logic was flawless; unfortunately, their equipment wasn’t. Scientific instruments wouldn’t be refined enough to measure such minuscule relative movement until 200 years after Galileo’s death. But the geocentrists’ conception of stellar parallax remains a tremendous milestone in the development of mathematics and astronomy. People tend to think that proponents of an Earth-centered solar system were nothing but intransigent religious fanatics. In fact, they included scientists of Galileo-level genius, like Ptolemy and Aristotle. People tend to think that proponents of an Earth-centered solar system were nothing but intransigent religious fanatics. In fact, they included scientists of Galileo-level genius, like Ptolemy and Aristotle. When their theories were weakened and their opponents’ strengthened, they switched sides — and the “scientific consensus” changed. The intransigence belonged to the government, seated in the Vatican, which refused to accept new data because a deviation from the consensus-ante would have proved politically difficult. There have, in the past, been strong arguments for anthropogenic climate change. Data showed industrialization-correlated warming, and computer models said that the warming would continue. But a lot of those data turned out to be wrong, or falsified, and — according to a study performed by former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer — 95 percent of those climate models “failed miserably,” with the global climate proving too complex for computer simulation. The pro-anthropogenesis arguments were thrown into doubt, and new data showed a pause in global temperature change. So scientists started to change their minds. But our government — or parts of it, like Senator Whitehouse — prefer the status quo. Global warming is (literally and metaphorically) cash in the bank for many of our men in Washington, and a lot of their supporters. They want the new heliocentrists excommunicated and in prison. But remember: The lesson of Galileo’s inquisition is that truth will out. — Josh Gelernter writes weekly for NRO and is a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard. He is a founder of the tech startup Dittach. Did you like this? View Comments by Taboola Sponsored Links FROM AROUND THE WEB 13 Weird and Wonderful Animal Hybrids. I Hope I Never Cross Paths with …Day Styles What These 30 Bond Girls Look Like Now Is IncredibleFlipopular How Easy Is it to Add x86 Android* Support in Unity? Developers Shar…Intel 10 Worst Body Language MistakesForbes Do You Have Royal Blood? Your Last Name May Tell You.Ancestry Cher Stuns at 69Noozley 5 Companies That May Not Survive This YearThe Fiscal Times Watch What Happens As This Angry Driver With Road Rage Gets What H…Holy Horsepower by Taboola Sponsored Links MORE STORIES World's Scariest Bridges Revealed In Stomach Churning Photos (Time To Break) I am not an activist (Ontario’s Doctors) "Brightest Flashlight Ever" is Selling Like Crazy (X800 Tactical Flashlight) Top 11 Cities Of The Rich You Never Knew Existed (Forbes) 10 Things Men Find Unattractive (Flipopular) Freejam’s User-Friendly Development Strategy for Robocraft (Intel) Incredible Military Grade Flashlights "Hottest Holiday Item" of the Year (Shadowhawk X800 Flashlight) "Brightest Flashlight Ever" Is Selling Like Crazy (G700 Flashlight) Dragons are a symbol of power, able to raze entire cities to the ground. Play Now to meet one! (Stormfall - Online Game) A Brave Buffalo Took On Five Lions, But You Won't Believe What Happened Next (FuzzFix) Trending on Social How the Left Is Ruining Science Stop Defending Trump’s Poisonous ‘Middle-Finger Politics’ How Prescription-Drug Abuse Unleashed a Heroin Epidemic National Review 2016 Post-Election Cruise Trending on NR Stop Defending Trump’s Poisonous ‘Middle-Finger Politics’ How the Left Is Ruining Science The Cruz Juggernaut (In a Way)! About Institute Advertise Connect NR Facebook Twitter Google+ Privacy
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431644/climate-change-leftist-dogma
From geocentrism to climate change, defenders of dogma don’t willingly give up. Four hundred years ago this week, the Inquisition met in Rome to discuss Galileo’s support for the Copernican model of the cosmos, which placed the Sun at the center of the solar system. After five days of deliberation, a commission of inquisitors ruled that heliocentrism was “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of the Holy Scripture.” Not a good moment for the Church. Two days later, Galileo was summoned to the Vatican and ordered “to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it . . . to abandon it completely . . . and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.” Last summer, taking his lead from the Inquisition, Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse proposed that anti-racketeering laws be used to shut down the “climate denial network” and the work of scientists who have “consistently published papers downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change.” Most people have a pretty casual acquaintance with the Galileo debate; it was not simply a fight between religion and science. Many clerics — who tended to be well educated — supported Galileo; likewise, many scientists were on the side of the Church. This was not because they believed science should be subordinated to the Bible; in fact, geocentrists had an extremely well-reasoned argument in defense of the Sun orbiting the Earth: If the Earth is orbiting the Sun, said the geocentrists, parallax should be observed in stars. Parallax is the apparent shift in the relative position of objects when viewed from different vantage points. When you’re driving, and the telephone poles along the side of the road seem to move much faster than the mountains a mile away, that’s parallax. Some of the most remarkably astute and imaginative scientists in history reasoned that if the Earth were moving, the relative position of the stars would appear to change, with nearer stars being displaced more than more distant ones. Since no such parallax was evident, the Earth had to be stationary. Their logic was flawless; unfortunately, their equipment wasn’t. Scientific instruments wouldn’t be refined enough to measure such minuscule relative movement until 200 years after Galileo’s death. But the geocentrists’ conception of stellar parallax remains a tremendous milestone in the development of mathematics and astronomy. People tend to think that proponents of an Earth-centered solar system were nothing but intransigent religious fanatics. In fact, they included scientists of Galileo-level genius, like Ptolemy and Aristotle. People tend to think that proponents of an Earth-centered solar system were nothing but intransigent religious fanatics. In fact, they included scientists of Galileo-level genius, like Ptolemy and Aristotle. When their theories were weakened and their opponents’ strengthened, they switched sides — and the “scientific consensus” changed. The intransigence belonged to the government, seated in the Vatican, which refused to accept new data because a deviation from the consensus-ante would have proved politically difficult. There have, in the past, been strong arguments for anthropogenic climate change. Data showed industrialization-correlated warming, and computer models said that the warming would continue. But a lot of those data turned out to be wrong, or falsified, and — according to a study performed by former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer — 95 percent of those climate models “failed miserably,” with the global climate proving too complex for computer simulation. The pro-anthropogenesis arguments were thrown into doubt, and new data showed a pause in global temperature change. So scientists started to change their minds. But our government — or parts of it, like Senator Whitehouse — prefer the status quo. Global warming is (literally and metaphorically) cash in the bank for many of our men in Washington, and a lot of their supporters. They want the new heliocentrists excommunicated and in prison. But remember: The lesson of Galileo’s inquisition is that truth will out. — Josh Gelernter writes weekly for NRO and is a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard. He is a founder of the tech startup Dittach. Did you like this? View Comments by Taboola Sponsored Links FROM AROUND THE WEB 13 Weird and Wonderful Animal Hybrids. I Hope I Never Cross Paths with …Day Styles What These 30 Bond Girls Look Like Now Is IncredibleFlipopular How Easy Is it to Add x86 Android* Support in Unity? Developers Shar…Intel 10 Worst Body Language MistakesForbes Do You Have Royal Blood? Your Last Name May Tell You.Ancestry Cher Stuns at 69Noozley 5 Companies That May Not Survive This YearThe Fiscal Times Watch What Happens As This Angry Driver With Road Rage Gets What H…Holy Horsepower by Taboola Sponsored Links MORE STORIES World's Scariest Bridges Revealed In Stomach Churning Photos (Time To Break) I am not an activist (Ontario’s Doctors) "Brightest Flashlight Ever" is Selling Like Crazy (X800 Tactical Flashlight) Top 11 Cities Of The Rich You Never Knew Existed (Forbes) 10 Things Men Find Unattractive (Flipopular) Freejam’s User-Friendly Development Strategy for Robocraft (Intel) Incredible Military Grade Flashlights "Hottest Holiday Item" of the Year (Shadowhawk X800 Flashlight) "Brightest Flashlight Ever" Is Selling Like Crazy (G700 Flashlight) Dragons are a symbol of power, able to raze entire cities to the ground. Play Now to meet one! (Stormfall - Online Game) A Brave Buffalo Took On Five Lions, But You Won't Believe What Happened Next (FuzzFix) Trending on Social How the Left Is Ruining Science Stop Defending Trump’s Poisonous ‘Middle-Finger Politics’ How Prescription-Drug Abuse Unleashed a Heroin Epidemic National Review 2016 Post-Election Cruise Trending on NR Stop Defending Trump’s Poisonous ‘Middle-Finger Politics’ How the Left Is Ruining Science The Cruz Juggernaut (In a Way)! About Institute Advertise Connect NR Facebook Twitter Google+ Privacy
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431644/climate-change-leftist-dogma
That's on par with a person taking an aspirin or a pill of cyanide.
Think those pills are too small to change a person's health?
Trying to replace the chart specified in the bet with a different chart
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
:biggrin1:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/healthsafety/f/Do-Apple-Seeds-Contain-Poison.htm
Yup i taken eaten cynanide everyday since i eat two or three apple a day. Note apple contain cyanide also!
The real level of concentration of co2 is actually 0.038% of the atomosphere which is actually 0.000038 of the atmosphere that the level of co2 in the atmoshphere! Now that is so fucking extremely low contrentration..it like you drop an cube of sugar into atlantic ocean and you will able to taste sweetness in the water!
Climate change / Globel Warming have been wrong all along and been champion by the left so they can tax you more!
apple contains cyanide in low concentrations. again explain how low concentration of CO2 in air which is 0.038% cause the rise in temperatures. Your scientific illiteracy is showing
You eat the seeds of two or three apples a day?
Apple seeds have trace amounts of cyanide, which is much different then a pure pill, which is what my comparison was made from. Even so, if you eat enough apple seeds you will die. Don't believe me? Try it. Report back after, or not.
in prehistory CO2 levels where much higher when the earth was colder than it is today? i like the fact that global warming types ignore paleontology
Still trying to weasel around with Cheat#5 - Trying to replace the chart specified in the bet with a different chart at a different web address., combined with a weak attempt at Cheat #7 - Trying to retroactively claim that the bet was based on a year over year change instead of decadal projections.
We've been over that one, as we have been over each of the seven weasel dicked attempts at cheating the bet.
The bet was really simple, its so easy to show how you lost with one quote and one reference to the correct chart, with link.
Remember weasel, the bet was not made on this link:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/
It was made on this one:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Nope, that's just really wrong.
Knowledge of historic CO2 levels is most definitely taken into account just as the really basic claims like yours have been covered over and over again.
I suggest you check this page and see if there is a rebuttal or not for everything you think they missed. Its a good site with different levels of complexity arguments and direct links to the sources.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It's repeating the same global warming arguments repeated over and over
it also ignored the medieval warming period 1000 years ago when the earth was warmer than today
the people on the team on that website have no background in climatology nor paleontology
Ice core data shows the much feared +2°C climate ‘tipping point’ has already occurred…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/...c-climate-tipping-point-has-already-occurred/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/...c-climate-tipping-point-has-already-occurred/
Ah, that explains it.
You've been reading articles from moviefans favourite site, wattsupwiththat.
That's why you repeat nonsense like this:
That ones just wrong.
Here's a good take down of Watt's medieval claim:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/medieval-anthony-watts-reveals.html
That sites great, they just blog on all the idiocy that Watts publishes. If you think Watt's work is so great then you should be able to read each of the takedowns on hotwhopper.com and tell us why they are wrong, with sources that prove your point. Otherwise I'd have to just call you a sucker with confirmation bias who can't tell legit science from bullshit. Like moviefan.
