AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
I'm not confused. Your question was based on a stupid claim. You seem to think there must be one equation to tell all. You shouldn't lecture anyone about being confused or retarded. Every time you type a response pertaining to science, you give more credibility to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Yes, I believe I covered that already:
You asked a stupid question, though to be fair plenty of people make similar claims.
Once again, going back to the beginning, my response was to Walt's article, where they claimed snow was not compatible. It clearly is. Then you changed it to attributing it to man made climate change, which I never said. You are as bankrupt with honesty as you are with intellect.
Everyday refineries get bigger, everyday more ore is extracted, smelters are smelting at record levels, there has been a zero reduction in coal burned, people rape dollarstores and electronic stores like they were pirranha while 1 in 6 are starving on the planet as 50% of our crops go to industry to be burned or make your walls all pearly white.
There is indeed a problem with the atmosphere of the planet.
What have you physically done about it Tonituna?
There is indeed a problem with the atmosphere of the planet.
What have you physically done about it Tonituna?
Car pool when I can, energy efficient appliances, we have an Echo, and the only efficiency left to gain where we live is to insulate the basement walls. Our vegetables come from the farm market in Chalottetown. I'd personally like more options as a consumer, but they aren't there. So, in the meantime, I support causes that lobby to have the regulators address the externalities in the market.
What have you done about the alleged faked 9/11 story?
Is that they post where you claimed that higher temps cause more H2O in the atm and therefore why it is snowing... That post where you forgot the part that it takes colder temps to actually create the snow?
As for my questions, they are not contingent on whose post you were referring to. It's a fundamental question.
What I actually said:
I didn't think I would actually have to explain to anyone the seasonal cycle in precipitation patterns...I thought that it was a given that most people would understand. But I forgot that you sometimes wander into these threads, and that you are retarded, and can't keep more than one idea in your head at a time. Hence why you always ask for one equation to rule them all, one baseline to prove, one silver bullet.
Asking what baselines are needed to claim that the record snow is caused by anthropogenic climate change is not a fundamental question. It's a highly specific question in that it relates to a singular event. A fundamental question is whether or not global warming leads to more precipitation. The results from the research on the subject says yes. If our climate change was occurring with global cooling, the answer would be different. That is a fundamental question, because it relates to the climate system as a whole and the principles that govern it. You can't pluck out one observation from a dataset and proclaim that explaining it is a fundamental question of science.
You don't even know what fundamental means...
False. Ice ages start when the Milankovitch cycles reduce the insolation in the polar regions. Ice sheets grow, not because there is increasing precipitation, but because the precipitation that falls doesn't melt.
Most of Antarctica is a dessert. Very little of the precipitation that does fall melts.
.. But you just decided to leave out the "record cold" part of the equation in explaining Anthropogenic Global Warming.
My point had nothing to do with record temps.. I leave that style of sensationalist marketing to you and Gore... And in true style, I see that you are working furiously to divert the discussion onto an extreme end of the spectrum in a futile effort to defer admitting your intellectual bankruptcy.
Sure I do.. Let me use it in a sentence for you:
Tonnington is a fundamentalist eco-fanatic who has no grasp of the fundamentals of the science he claims to possess.
Like a snowcone? It gets licked up by penguins and melts in their mouths?
I like pumpkin pie for dessert.
You really are thick...I wasn't explaining global warming. I was explaining why the quote I pulled from the American Thinker piece is retarded. And again, as I said earlier, I think it's dumb to attribute one weather event to anything. Including a record cold snap. It's not expected with global warming, but it's not impossible. You have a terrible time keeping these things straight. There are statistics involved, so I'm not surprised that you can't keep it straight. You have shown that you know even less about statistics than you do about science, which I thought would be hard to eclipse.
Your point was not related at all to anything I even said, which is why I said I didn't care to respond, because that is called a straw man. But I did anyways. Then I listed multiple parameters, all of which have baselines for assessing change. In different studies, by many different research groups, using multiple methods of investigating similar phenomenon. When they all end up with the same conclusions, that is how theories are built. But your simple minded insistence on one thing at a time causes you to miss the forest for the trees.
I see... So, what you're really saying is that your address to Walter's post is entirely unrelated to AGW in any way shape or form and because of that, there is no need for you to fit this event into the rock-solid model that you greenies have going..
Gotcha
You're a poor communicator. Maybe you ought to stick to your day job. You jack-off salmon for a living, right?
