Can't you read and answer the question asked? Why do you just go off on another mini-rant?
Oh bummer - you have no ability to engage in university level arguments.
I've written over and over that there is such a thing as "keepers of the faith" in response to Bill's complaints. The simple fact is, however, that you have no clue what Bill and I are discussing. You are a fool who just tries to interject yourself and your trolls into disagreements that you have no ability to do so.
In short, Pooh, everytime you attempt to interject yourself in these arguments, you just confirm our opinion that you have nothing to offer and you are incapable of understanding what we are discussing.
$#!+ or get off the pot, Pooh - offer us a decent argument of bugger yourself. I really find it sad that you have so little confidence in your intellect.
=Bob
In your cups again? Your booze fueled rants are fun up to a point.
Oh bummer - you have no ability to engage in university level arguments.
I've written over and over that there is such a thing as "keepers of the faith" in response to Bill's complaints. The simple fact is, however, that you have no clue what Bill and I are discussing. You are a fool who just tries to interject yourself and your trolls into disagreements that you have no ability to do so.
In short, Pooh, everytime you attempt to interject yourself in these arguments, you just confirm our opinion that you have nothing to offer and you are incapable of understanding what we are discussing.
$#!+ or get off the pot, Pooh - offer us a decent argument of bugger yourself. I really find it sad that you have so little confidence in your intellect.
=Bob
In your cups again? Your booze fueled rants are fun up to a point.
No, you're a f****** idiot. Must be sad for you that the best you can offer is that sad troll.
It doesn't take a PHD to see what people predict and compare that to what actually happens.
Um, wait a second here. Didn't you attack my source because "all" he has is a BS in physics from UCSD while ignoring his MS in civil engineering from MIT and his MS and Phud in atmospheric sciences from UCLA?
So after that attack, now you're claiming it "doesn't take a PhD (note the proper appellation)?
I'm sorry, Bill, but arguing with you is akin to arguing with a college freshman. Your argument on this is bogus because it assumes that because it assumes that the only people who believe in climate change are atmospheric scientists who are only there for the bucks.
That says a lot more about you than it says about them and if I had to guess, it would be that you'd sell your soul in favor of whatever corporation was willing to pay you and at your age, that bothers you.
But beyond that, you're just an old fart who has nothing better to do than spend your life on the net finding right-wing sites that validate your ideological beliefs when you could be learning. It's quite sad that you refuse to do that.
In your cups again? Your booze fueled rants are fun up to a point.
No, you're a f****** idiot. Must be sad for you that the best you can offer is that sad troll.
=Bob
I just have to laugh at you when either your booze inspired or rage inspired little rants hit the threads. Don't you think that most people with any sense can see through you? How can a person with that amount of schooling be such a naive dunce?
No, you're a f****** idiot. Must be sad for you that the best you can offer is that sad troll.
=Bob
I just have to laugh at you when either your booze inspired or rage inspired little rants hit the threads. Don't you think that most people with any sense can see through you? How can a person with that amount of schooling be such a naive dunce?
Ya know, it's really sad that someone who I think has a bit of intelligence reduces himself to pathetic trolls instead of offering reasonable arguments.
It's really sad, Pooh. All you offer is insults when you could be offering an intelligent discussion.
I'm sorry, but the more I communicate with you, the more I realize you are nothing more than a buffoon.
I just have to laugh at you when either your booze inspired or rage inspired little rants hit the threads. Don't you think that most people with any sense can see through you? How can a person with that amount of schooling be such a naive dunce?
Ya know, it's really sad that someone who I think has a bit of intelligence reduces himself to pathetic trolls instead of offering reasonable arguments.
It's really sad, Pooh. All you offer is insults when you could be offering an intelligent discussion.
I'm sorry, but the more I communicate with you, the more I realize you are nothing more than a buffoon.
=Bob
When irrational late afternoon rants are labeled as "PWD", don't be surprised or consider that trolling.
Ya know, it's really sad that someone who I think has a bit of intelligence reduces himself to pathetic trolls instead of offering reasonable arguments.
It's really sad, Pooh. All you offer is insults when you could be offering an intelligent discussion.
I'm sorry, but the more I communicate with you, the more I realize you are nothing more than a buffoon.
=Bob
When irrational late afternoon rants are labeled as "PWD", don't be surprised or consider that trolling.
If I'm drunk and offer nonsense, you have a right to claim I'm PWD. However, I think I offered perfectly reasonable responses to Bill's ridiculous claims. He framed his argument in such a manner as to suggest the only people who believe in climate change are atmospheric scientists who do not understand other disciplines.
On it's face, that's a bogus argument. I offered an example - someone with a BS in Physics from UCSD, an MS in engineer from MIT and a MS and PhD from UCLA. What did Bill zero in on? That his he "only" had a Phud in Physics while ignoring his other 3 degrees.
I understand your desire to troll, but you really should stay out of this one because Bill made a seriously bad decision in his response and you should be smart enough to recognize that simple fact.
When irrational late afternoon rants are labeled as "PWD", don't be surprised or consider that trolling.
If I'm drunk and offer nonsense, you have a right to claim I'm PWD. However, I think I offered perfectly reasonable responses to Bill's ridiculous claims. He framed his argument in such a manner as to suggest the only people who believe in climate change are atmospheric scientists who do not understand other disciplines.
On it's face, that's a bogus argument. I offered an example - someone with a BS in Physics from UCSD, an MS in engineer from MIT and a MS and PhD from UCLA. What did Bill zero in on? That his he "only" had a Phud in Physics while ignoring his other 3 degrees.
I understand your desire to troll, but you really should stay out of this one because Bill made a seriously bad decision in his response and you should be smart enough to recognize that simple fact.
=Bob
By this can I assume that you will label your posts in the future as (PWD) or (Not PWD)? It would save me the trouble of helping the other posters out.
If I'm drunk and offer nonsense, you have a right to claim I'm PWD. However, I think I offered perfectly reasonable responses to Bill's ridiculous claims. He framed his argument in such a manner as to suggest the only people who believe in climate change are atmospheric scientists who do not understand other disciplines.
On it's face, that's a bogus argument. I offered an example - someone with a BS in Physics from UCSD, an MS in engineer from MIT and a MS and PhD from UCLA. What did Bill zero in on? That his he "only" had a Phud in Physics while ignoring his other 3 degrees.
I understand your desire to troll, but you really should stay out of this one because Bill made a seriously bad decision in his response and you should be smart enough to recognize that simple fact.
=Bob
By this can I assume that you will label your posts in the future as (PWD) or (Not PWD)? It would save me the trouble of helping the other posters out.
Pooh, do you really believe that anyone on here needs your help? I mean really, how stupid are you?
If I'm drunk and offer nonsense, you have a right to claim I'm PWD. However, I think I offered perfectly reasonable responses to Bill's ridiculous claims. He framed his argument in such a manner as to suggest the only people who believe in climate change are atmospheric scientists who do not understand other disciplines.
On it's face, that's a bogus argument. I offered an example - someone with a BS in Physics from UCSD, an MS in engineer from MIT and a MS and PhD from UCLA. What did Bill zero in on? That his he "only" had a Phud in Physics while ignoring his other 3 degrees.
I understand your desire to troll, but you really should stay out of this one because Bill made a seriously bad decision in his response and you should be smart enough to recognize that simple fact.
=Bob
By this can I assume that you will label your posts in the future as (PWD) or (Not PWD)? It would save me the trouble of helping the other posters out.
The really sad part is you think your trolls somehow offer an argument when it's quite clear that your lack of education gives you nothing more than the ability to troll.
I'm sorry Pooh. I've given you slack over and over in hope that I might see a decent argument from you but it's become clear that you have no ability to argue any point.
It is quite sad - if you'd have bothered to get anything approaching a college education, you might understand where I'm coming from, but you can't and as such, you always come across a nothing but a buffoon.
Well, I am sure glad that you got me straightened out!
But you still did not say if you were going to label your posts or not. It would save us all some time.
As long as you are willing to admit that you have no intellectual ability to offer anything other than trolls. And, BTW, I am quite sober, as I was when I requested you address my response to Billy, but I guess that would require you to stop slurping down a couple pitchers of margaritas every morning at the 19th hole.
Well, I am sure glad that you got me straightened out!
But you still did not say if you were going to label your posts or not. It would save us all some time.
As long as you are willing to admit that you have no intellectual ability to offer anything other than trolls. And, BTW, I am quite sober, as I was when I requested you address my response to Billy, but I guess that would require you to stop slurping down a couple pitchers of margaritas every morning at the 19th hole.
=Bob
OK, I agree. Now start labeling your posts and let me figure out when you are fibbing.
You are wrong. Climate changes have happened relatively quickly in the past.
This is something I've meant to respond to and have spaced on. Believe it or not, you are quite correct. There is a lot of evidence that at least one "ice blitz" occurred and the planet was in an ice age no more than 100 years after the blitz began. But this is the problem - $#!+ happens that we can only speculate on, just as you and the climate change deniers speculate.
Shoot, maybe you're correct and as I've stated before, I hope you are. But if you and the deniers are wrong the consequences are incredibly nasty while if the majority of scientists are wrong, there are no real consequences. What I don't understand is why you and the deniers want to take that chance. Seems to me that if you are a "conservative", you'd want to error on the side of judgement. But then again, I don't think there is any judgement on the right these days - there's just ideology and a desire to "win" instead of a desire to do what's right for humanity.
=Bob
Because even if I am wrong about AGW, which the evidence is really looking like I am not, the solutions that are being pushed by the AGW faithful are worse, much worse, than the consequences of GW without their solutions. Adaptation is a much better solution to GW, no matter the cause. Adaptation works no matter the cause. Their solutions only work if they happen to be right about what is causing the warming, that has stopped and was only very mild in the first place. Their solutions make us much weaker economically which if they are wrong, will leave us in a position that is much more difficult to adapt from.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
You are wrong. Climate changes have happened relatively quickly in the past.
Ok, Lets say the last Ice age lasted 150,000 instead of millions years. (I'll give you that with the last ice age) Some have come to the conclusion that it lasted 110,000 to 150,000 years. Regardless, don't you still have to scratch your head to the fact the ice caps have disappeared in 40?? 150,000 years is still a long time. Again, Just saying!!
The ice caps haven't "disappeared in 40". They are still there and there is plenty of evidence in ships logs that they are about where they were in the 1930s. And by the way don't speak of ice caps since the south ice cap has increased ice in the last 40 years not lost. Speak only of the Arctic in this context to be more accurate.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
A BS in Physics and you think he can compete with a PHD in Physics?
Climate Science is such a broad field that any Climate Science PHD only gets cursory knowledge in all the necessary fields of study. It is like an MBA. They get some law and some economics and some computers and some accounting, but when they really need those things they call an expert. That is what the PHD's in physics et all are to climate scientists...and they tell them they are wrong. That is why a PHD in mathematics told Mann his hockey stick was wrong. His use of statistics and his methodology were totally bogus.
My goodness, how stupid are you? You attempt to offer credentials while you are nothing more than a f****** bookkeeper. I'm sorry, but you offer nothing other than your inability as a bookeeper to understand much of anything approaching "science".
But, BTW, you do not get to claim any sort of argument based upon your pathetic degree because your degree is horseshit. My goodness, you majored in what? Business or Econ? Ain't like you ever majored in something worth a tinker's damn and it ain't like you ever bothered dealing with people other than figuring out ways you could f x x x them in order to make bucks.
I'm sorry Bill; having no other value than what's best for you and your kids instead of doing what's best for everyone makes you a whore. And, quite frankly, people like you are not people I much care to deal with.
=Bob
I never said what I majored in Bob. But unlike you I continue to learn after my schooling is over. That is the main difference between you and me. Remember you are the one who thinks a climate scientist knows more about the use of stats than a PHD in mathematics. And a climate scientist knows more about geology than a PHD in Geology.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
Ok, Lets say the last Ice age lasted 150,000 instead of millions years. (I'll give you that with the last ice age) Some have come to the conclusion that it lasted 110,000 to 150,000 years. Regardless, don't you still have to scratch your head to the fact the ice caps have disappeared in 40?? 150,000 years is still a long time. Again, Just saying!!
The ice caps haven't "disappeared in 40". They are still there and there is plenty of evidence in ships logs that they are about where they were in the 1930s. And by the way don't speak of ice caps since the south ice cap has increased ice in the last 40 years not lost. Speak only of the Arctic in this context to be more accurate.
Bill, either you are not paying attention, or some how you got brainwashed into believing this isn't happening. I don't have the scientific knowledge to explain why it's happening. Nontheless, it is happening at a very fast rate. Your statement about ice in the Arctic being where it was in the 30's, is just a bull ship log.
Ok, Lets say the last Ice age lasted 150,000 instead of millions years. (I'll give you that with the last ice age) Some have come to the conclusion that it lasted 110,000 to 150,000 years. Regardless, don't you still have to scratch your head to the fact the ice caps have disappeared in 40?? 150,000 years is still a long time. Again, Just saying!!
The ice caps haven't "disappeared in 40". They are still there and there is plenty of evidence in ships logs that they are about where they were in the 1930s. And by the way don't speak of ice caps since the south ice cap has increased ice in the last 40 years not lost. Speak only of the Arctic in this context to be more accurate.
The ice caps haven't "disappeared in 40". They are still there and there is plenty of evidence in ships logs that they are about where they were in the 1930s. And by the way don't speak of ice caps since the south ice cap has increased ice in the last 40 years not lost. Speak only of the Arctic in this context to be more accurate.
Bill, either you are not paying attention, or some how you got brainwashed into believing this isn't happening. I don't have the scientific knowledge to explain why it's happening. Nontheless, it is happening at a very fast rate. So, your statement about ice in the Arctic being where it was in the 30's, is just a bull ship log.
That article is just plain wrong. They state that multi-year ice is decreasing every year. That can't be since 2007 was the low point and ice has increased since then. How can there be less multi-year ice if there is more ice now than in 2007? This whole multi-year ice argument is a misnomer. It has only come along since their predictions of an ice free summer in 5 years, didn't come to pass. Since 2012 is 5 years since 2007, they said there should be no ice this summer. Far from it there will be more sea ice than in 2007.
That article had this quote, "Sea ice area is always smaller than sea ice extent". That is obviously not a scientific statement and makes me question who wrote that article. It just isn't wrong, it shows no understanding what is being discussed.
The sea ice extent in the south has been increasing slightly for the past 40 years but NASA assured the faithful that the volume is decreasing as the ice underneath and the thickness of the ice is being lowered. They made that statement without any measurement but relied instead on computer models. But this new study (linked above), a study that actually measures the thing in question, says the sea ice thickness has been a steady state.
Below is linked a study that shows that Greenland was about the same in the '30s.
Dec 5, 1932, The New York Times reports the “feat, accomplished for the first time” of circumnavigation of Franz Josef Land (actually, an Arctic archipelago). The same expedition (lead by a Professor N.N. Subkov) was also described in March 1933 in the pages of Nature. Notably, in the words of the NYT, that circumnavigation had been “heretofore regarded as impossible“. It actually took just 34 days, from Aug 17. It was warm enough for the “Eva” and “Liv” islands to be recognized as one, joined by “a low stretch of land” and thereby renamed “Evaliv”. Fast forward to 2008. Cryosphere Today shows two tongues of ice still clinging to Franz Josef Land as of Aug 31. Prof. Subkov would not have been so lucky this time around.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
The ice caps haven't "disappeared in 40". They are still there and there is plenty of evidence in ships logs that they are about where they were in the 1930s. And by the way don't speak of ice caps since the south ice cap has increased ice in the last 40 years not lost. Speak only of the Arctic in this context to be more accurate.
Bill, either you are not paying attention, or some how you got brainwashed into believing this isn't happening. I don't have the scientific knowledge to explain why it's happening. Nontheless, it is happening at a very fast rate. So, your statement about ice in the Arctic being where it was in the 30's, is just a bull ship log.
Look at page 224 plot (a) on the top right. This is the satellite data on sea ice in the north before they changed it to start in 1979. When you see the data, you will see why they later stopped reporting all the satellite data. You can plainly see that 1975 was much lower than 1979 and even by 1990 (the date of the report) that sea ice hadn't gone close to as low as 1975.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k387/aztecwin/th_Annoyer-1.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged
![[avatar]](http://i48.tinypic.com/11h5mjk.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h319/davdesid/red_wolf6.jpg "[avatar]")