The Negative Correlation Between Global Temperature Rise andCO2 Concentrations
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Australia Dust Storm ... WELL DESERVED DIVINE RETRIBUTION FOR WELL KNOWN COLLECTIVE CRIMES
Next: sonoluminescence: sonofusion explained
From: Sam Wormley on 28 Sep 2009 15:50 leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > > Worms et al, Coppock too, would do well to check out > http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm > It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies Can you articulate why you think so, Leonard?
From: Marvin the Martian on 28 Sep 2009 20:39 On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:50:49 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > > >> •• Worms et al, Coppock too, would do well to check out >> http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm >> It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies > > Can you articulate why you think so, Leonard? You're a riot wormley. You make dumb argument after dumb argument to support your false claims: bandwagon fallacies, red herring glacier fallacies, appeals to authority fallacies that are not even true; and they all get batted down and you STILL think that the game is every single one of your dumb arguments must be batted down before you will admit you're backing a bullshit fraud theory. You haven't shown that we put the CO2 there. You haven't shown that the CO2 causes the warming. And you ignore that Svensmark explained it with a useful, working theory and CO2 isn't involved, and it's a natural event, just like the past warming and cooling trends.
From: Marvin the Martian on 28 Sep 2009 20:51 On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:05:21 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > > >> You have no way to prove global warming ergo I have nothing to prove. >> >> > Obviously. LOL! In Wormley science, they can spout bullshit and it isn't up to him to prove his "science", everyone else has to "disprove" his BS to HIS satisfaction, which cannot be done. You really believe you don't have to prove GW and it's up to others to disprove it, don't you?
From: Unumnunum on 28 Sep 2009 21:19 Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:50:49 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >> >>> •• Worms et al, Coppock too, would do well to check out >>> http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm >>> It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies >> Can you articulate why you think so, Leonard? > > You're a riot wormley. You make dumb argument after dumb argument to > support your false claims: bandwagon fallacies, red herring glacier > fallacies, appeals to authority fallacies that are not even true; and > they all get batted down and you STILL think that the game is every > single one of your dumb arguments must be batted down before you will > admit you're backing a bullshit fraud theory. Marvin seems to think that trashtalk convinces people he is right. > You haven't shown that we put the CO2 there. > You haven't shown that the CO2 causes the warming. I think he did in fact show both of those, but if not I will. > And you ignore that Svensmark explained it with a useful, working theory > and CO2 isn't involved, and it's a natural event, just like the past > warming and cooling trends. Rebuttal of Svensmark here; http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark "While the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces."
From: Unumnunum on 28 Sep 2009 23:02
leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 28, 9:19 pm, Unumnunum <non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >> Marvin the Martian wrote: >>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:50:49 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> leonard7...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>> �� Worms et al, Coppock too, would do well to check out >>>>> http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm >>>>> It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies >>>> Can you articulate why you think so, Leonard? >>> You're a riot wormley. You make dumb argument after dumb argument to >>> support your false claims: bandwagon fallacies, red herring glacier >>> fallacies, appeals to authority fallacies that are not even true; and >>> they all get batted down and you STILL think that the game is every >>> single one of your dumb arguments must be batted down before you will >>> admit you're backing a bullshit fraud theory. >> Marvin seems to think that trashtalk convinces people he is right. > > �� Sorry Bud, you are wrong as usual and Marvin is right. > >>> You haven't shown that we put the CO2 there. >>> You haven't shown that the CO2 causes the warming. >> I think he did in fact show both of those, but if not I will. > > �� Bullshit > >>> And you ignore that Svensmark explained it with a useful, working theory >>> and CO2 isn't involved, and it's a natural event, just like the past >>> warming and cooling trends. >> Rebuttal of Svensmark here;http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/hen... > > �� There is some of that trash around. Alarmists have > too much at stake to surrender easily but that too > will come. Leonard "Last Post" and Marvin the Martian make a good pair. |