Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8350463 - 05/01/08 05:00 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

What are you? 12?

Your failure to admit there are other points of view that are equally likely to be correct reveals your biased preconceptions.

Too bad.

The same old links prove nothing more than your lack of open-mindedness.

They were unimpressive the first time and they remain so.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8350497 - 05/01/08 05:09 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

More on cycle 24:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/solar-cycle-24-has-officially-started/

Quote:

Now we have the official start of solar cycle 24.

Solar physicists have been waiting for the appearance of a reversed-polarity sunspot to signal the start of the next solar cycle. The signal for the start of a new cycle is sighting a particular kind of sunspot. That wait is over.








Another relevant image, so that you can see exactly why there are few sunspots right now:



Another relevant image, so that once agian, you can put things in context:



We aren't expected to get real sunspot activity until 2012, so stop perpetuating something that is supposed to be from NASA, when it is not actually from NASA.

Give me the actual link to NASA, like I have done with my above images, that says that we are about to enter a Maunder minimum. While you are doing that, let ME show YOU why even if somehow, we were to enter a Maunder minimum (which we are not), because here is what NASA ACTUALLY has to say on the matter:

Quote:

The solar minimum forcing is thus about 0.15 W/m2 relative to the mean solar forcing. For comparison, the human-made GHG climate forcing is now increasing at a rate of about 0.3 W/m2 per decade. If the sun were to remain "stuck" in its present minimum for several decades, as has been suggested in analogy to the solar Maunder Minimum of the seventeenth century, that negative forcing would be balanced by a 5-year increase of GHGs. Thus, in the current era of rapidly increasing GHGs, such solar variations cannot have a substantial impact on long-term global warming trends. Furthermore, recent sighting of the first sunspot of reversed polarity (reported Jan. 4 by, e.g., SpaceWeather.com and NOAA) signifies that the ~ 4-year period of increasing solar irradiance is about to get underway.




http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

So NASA itself says that no, we are NOT about to enter a maunder minimum, and also says that if f the sun were to remain "stuck" in its present minimum for several decades, as has been suggested in analogy to the solar Maunder Minimum of the seventeenth century, that negative forcing would be balanced by a 5-year increase of GHGs.

Their conclusions for that last part are supported by
Their conclusions are supported by:

Willson, R.C., and A.V. Mordvinov, 2003: Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21-23. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, no. 5, 1199, doi:10.1029/2002GL016038.

P. Foukal, C. Frohlich, H. Spruit, and T.M.L. Wigley, Variations in Solar Luminosity and Their Effect on the Earth's Climate, September 14, 2006 Nature, 443: 161-166


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/01/08 05:12 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8350506 - 05/01/08 05:10 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:


What are you? 12?

Your failure to admit there are other points of view that are equally likely to be correct reveals your biased preconceptions.

Too bad.

The same old links prove nothing more than your lack of open-mindedness.

They were unimpressive the first time and they remain so.




Personal attacks and ad hominems go against your purported open-mindedness and appeal to emotion and appeal to character, and as such, logical fallacies will not get you very far in this debate, especially when your sources consist of right wing blogs with several misrepresentations of science.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8350523 - 05/01/08 05:15 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

ONE last thing to add, anyone thinking we're about to go into a maunder minimum or any sort of solar minimum, the argument is completely put to rest when you realize what that graph I posted is really saying:



For some time now, we can predict the size of a solar cycle and how strong it will be by looking at the geomagnetic activity that directly proceeds it. That is why many predictions are of a STRONG solar cycle in the next 5 years. Look at the geomagnetic cycle and how it slightly comes before the solar cycle, and look at the amplitude of the current wrung of the cycle. That's right, we're in for a strong one.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8350533 - 05/01/08 05:17 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
What are you? 12?

Your failure to admit there are other points of view that are equally likely to be correct reveals your biased preconceptions.

Too bad.

The same old links prove nothing more than your lack of open-mindedness.

They were unimpressive the first time and they remain so.



ha you know your ass never read any of the research papers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8350546 - 05/01/08 05:19 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

A intellectually honest discussion would have been fun. Sadly that didn't happen here.

As aptly pointed out the "Is so" mentality is the best that the warmist's can come up with.

Feel free to lock it up.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8350905 - 05/01/08 06:46 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Lock it up? As far as I can tell, I've made every effort to source everything that I say and keep the discourse civil.

You are not a moderator, and as much as Phred and Seuss and Diploid may be on your side, I doubt they are keen to you playing backseat moderator.

You're playing a tough game and you're on thin ice, given your ad hominem to me a moment ago and then appealing to moderators to close the thread because I called you out on it.

I personally think the best way to get this thread flourishing and in a positive direction would be, as I said before, moving it to the S&T forum.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8351291 - 05/01/08 08:20 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
A intellectually honest discussion would have been fun. Sadly that didn't happen here.




Perhaps if people debated the mountain of evidence that supernovasky presented rather than resorting to ad hominems and other logical fallacies, or lists of scientists that don't believe in global warming (LOL) we could have had an "intellectually honest discussion."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8351385 - 05/01/08 08:45 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Mushman, what you are seeing here is actually not all that uncommon. Whenever a group with a belief that lies on the fringes of science (and more overlaps the realm of pseudoscience than anything else) is faced with a massive body of peer reviewed evidence, they will argue back only up to a certain point. Just like creationism, AGW skeptics will then leave the realm of peer reviewed science and make the debate about how many individual scientists agree with their point of view instead of using specific articles with checked data and observations. These scientists may not be fully credentialed, some of them may come from diploma mills, like I pointed out in one of Phred's sources above. And then, once everything else fails, they repeat the same mantra of "You're not being fair. You're not agreeing that my point of view is just as valid as yours." And then they'll just go off into a sequence of ad hominems. I've seen it many times, in many different arguments between science and pseudoscience.

When, from the beginning, the point of view espoused by them was NOT just as valid.
That's what happens when someone goes up against a mountain of evidence.


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/01/08 08:56 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion *DELETED* [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8351544 - 05/01/08 09:22 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Post deleted by EntheogenicPeace

Reason for deletion: ---


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8351625 - 05/01/08 09:46 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Speaking of lists of scientists, check this out:

www.dailykos.com

Quote:

It's a very bad day for the chronic climate change deniers at the right wing "think" tank, the Heartland Institute.

The folks at DeSmogBlog have discovered an inconvenient truth about the heartland institute's "500 climate scientists" list:

Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.

DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list.

They updated the news with:

UPDATE: we have received notes now from 45 outraged scientists whose names appear on the list of 500. we've published more quotes here

A sample quote:

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

Ouch.

Make sure you click all the links, especially the one in the update, and bookmark DeSmogBlog so you can keep up with the story as it develops.


This is an open thread. The Flat Earth floor is yours, for eco-news and anything else that's on your mind.

And, of course, you can read the Overnight News Digest here.





--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8353115 - 05/02/08 09:57 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

You've got some gall, Phred. You list a big consensus of scientists that say that things are responsible for global warming. You provide a list with scientists OPINIONS.




I listed some very well credentialed and prominent scientists. They have among them written thousands of scientific papers in the peer reviewed journals. They are every bit as much scientists as Hansen or Mann or any other scientist involved in writing the IPCC report. The only thing that differentiates them from YOUR scientists is that they reject the "human-produced CO2 as primary driver of climate change" hypothesis. Their opinions are based on their own research and their review of the research of others -- just as the opinions of YOUR gang are based on their own research and their review of the research of others.

So I -- as a politician -- need to decide which group to believe. The problem is, my decision cannot be arrived at by simply polling scientists and whichever side of the question registers the most votes wins. Science doesn't work that way. As you yourself say, "...the validity of a theory has nothing to do with the number of scientists. The validity of a theory has everything to do with the number of facts." And these two groups are disputing the key facts which decide the issue. One group says "We believe this is a fact, and here is why we believe it..." while the other group (referencing the same claim) says, "We believe that is not a fact, but an error, and here is why we believe it."

You then provide a list of comments you claim illustrate my "dishonesty", which are at worst errors of fact rather than intentional dishonesty (such as your deliberate pretense that "the science is settled"). I could show how my comments are not in fact examples of dishonesty at all, but I told you pages ago that the time to quibble over the science in this thread or in this forum is past. This is not the Science and Technology Forum. This is the Political Discussion forum. How hard is it to understand that simple declarative sentence? I have been ridiculously patient in allowing you to continue to ramble on with your graphs and charts and hair-splitting while ignoring the political aspects of the issue. As a moderator, I could rightfully have shut you down pages and pages ago, with the full support of the Administration.

As a moderator, I could also abuse my position by rebutting your accusations, then cutting off any response from you -- in essence giving myself the last word. Instead, I gave you the last word. Repeatedly. I deliberately made myself follow my own dictate to turn this back to politics while allowing your repeated violation of this dictate to stand unedited. I have been allowing you for pages and pages now to take potshots at me without defending myself, because to defend myself I must argue the science, and that ship sailed pages ago. So you get the last word (faulty as it is) on the science. What more do you want? If you choose to present that as some kind of victory on your part, knock yourself out.

What baffles me -- especially given your ability to demonstrate that you are not of sub-standard intelligence -- is that you seem completely unable to grasp the principle under discussion here: that if politicians are going to start enacting legislation which will certainly lessen the well-being of their constituents, they are morally obligated to be certain the consequences of not enacting that legislation will be worse. But there is no such certainty to be had. Far from it, in fact.

I'm going to cut and paste something I have had sitting on my notepad for a long time now. I forgot to record the URL for its source when I put it in the notepad, and I have a meeting I have to get to in twenty minutes so I'll just post it now and dig up the link to the author later today.

Quote:

There are a lot of reasons not to be worried about "inaction" on global warming.  To justify the enormously expensive cuts in CO2 productions, in the neighborhood of 80% as supported by Obama and Clinton, one has to believe every element of a five-step logic chain:

1. Mankind is increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
2. Increased atmospheric CO2 causes the world to warm (by some amount, large or small)
3. The increases in CO2 from man will cause substantial warming, large enough to be detectable above natural climate variations
4. The increases in world temperatures due to man's CO2 will have catastrophic impacts on civilization
5. These catastrophic impacts and their costs are larger than the enormous costs, in terms of poverty and lost wealth, of reducing CO2 with current technologies.

Climate alarmists have adopted a rhetorical trick that no one in the media seems willing to call them on.   They like to wage the debate over global warming policy on points one and two only, skipping over the rest.  Why?  Because the science behind numbers one and two is pretty strong.  Yes, there are a few folks who will battle them on these points, but even very strong skeptics like myself accept points one and two as being very likely true.
 
Here are some examples of how this trick works.  If, like me, you do not accept steps 3-4-5 in the above logic chain, you will be called a "denier."  When asked what a denier means, a climate alarmist will often position this denial as somehow disputing #1 and #2.  On the other hand, if one publicly accepts #1 and #2, the alarmist will shout "QED" and then proceed to say that strong action on CO2 is now justified.  When an alarmist says a consensus exists, he is probably correct on points 1 and 2.  But he is absolutely incorrect that a consensus exists on 3-4-5.

Don't believe me?  Think back to the early Republican debate, where the moderator asked for a show of hands whether [I can't remember the exact question] man was causing global warming.  The implication is that you either have to accept this whole logic chain or not.  One can see why Fred Thompson begged to have 90 seconds to explain his position, and why the moderator, presumably in the alarmist camp, denied it to him.
 
Over the last year or two, skeptics have gotten a lot better at making their argument.  Most all of them, like I do, begin their arguments by laying out a logic chain like this and explaining why one can believe that man-made greenhouse gases cause warming without accepting the need for drastic climate action.  The result?  Alarmists have stopped debating, and/or have declared that the debate is "over."  Remember that last great Al Gore climate debate?  Neither do I.




My position on the subject is pretty much the same as this guy above. I think he's done an admirable job of explaining the situation.


Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8353133 - 05/02/08 10:04 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Lock it up? As far as I can tell, I've made every effort to source everything that I say and keep the discourse civil.

You are not a moderator, and as much as Phred and Seuss and Diploid may be on your side, I doubt they are keen to you playing backseat moderator.




He is not a moderator, no, but he is the originator of the thread. Normally if the originator of a thread requests it be locked, the moderators will comply. If luvdemshrooms makes a direct request it be locked, I will honor his request. However, I don't interpret "Feel free to lock it up" as synonymous with "I want you to lock it up", so I presume the decision is being left to Diploid and myself for now.





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8353339 - 05/02/08 11:23 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Phred, you gave me a list of scientists opinions, some of which had already been discredited.
I gave you pages and pages of hard research, evidence, data, and conclusions that were peer reviewed and fact checked. Is it a wonder why your info, your "list of scientists," the people you rely on for your facts, were so wrong and off base?

Quote:

As a moderator, I could rightfully have shut you down pages and pages ago, with the full support of the Administration.




And I believe that says it all :smile: Before shutting me down, the thread should be moved to S&T. Until it is either moved to S&T, or someone else comes in here making a phony pseudoscientific argument, I'm off, but don't think I won't be watching.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8353823 - 05/02/08 01:21 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

No, their opinions have not been "discredited". Those people I listed are all pretty much on the same page as that guy I cut and pasted. They either agree with or don't strongly contest steps one and two of the five step logical chain presented.

Your pages and pages of blah blah blah were -- at best -- support for 1 and 2. For what it's worth, I myself believe 1 and 2 are probably true. I won't be gobsmacked if some time down the road it is found that either 1 or 2 or even both are false, but my personal opinion after thoroughly researching this issue for almost ten years now is that 1 and 2 are likely true. I'll go even further and say they are VERY likely true.

But that is not anywhere close to enough justification for governments to enact legislation to reduce CO2 emissions.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion *DELETED* [Re: Phred]
    #8353943 - 05/02/08 02:02 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Post deleted by AnonymousRabbit


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8354165 - 05/02/08 03:12 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

What matters is scientific facts, observations, and data, that of which I have provided to you, but that of which you have not provided to me.




Don't be disingenuous. You know damn well the scientists I listed have written papers on the subject for the peer reviewed journals. You know how to find their papers. Find them and read them. I haven't provided them to you because we are done discussing science in this thread.

I listed those scientists to show there is no consensus on 3, 4, and 5. The science is not settled on 3, 4, and 5. Hell, it isn't even settled on 1 and 2 if you want to be picky about it, but as I say, I myself won't waste lots of energy arguing against 1 and 2.

Quote:

3) It alraedy has caused substantial warming. from -.2 degrees C to .7 degrees C is quite substantial, and the wattage forcing per square meter of CO2 is more than the wattage forcing....




I could say it is far from proven that this increase is due to CO2 alone, but that would be to argue the science again, and we are through with arguing the science in this thread, since it has been established the science is not settled.

Despite your claim you will lay off the science, you seem unable to help yourself. Your latest post was yet another repetitious rehash of the same material you've been laying on us for twenty pages now. I have already told you I am willing to buy into your delusion for the sake of argument that 100% of the last century's warming is due to man's CO2 production. To use a legal term, for the sake of getting this discussion back to policy, I will stipulate that every last fraction of a degree of temperature increase since 1880 is due to human-generated CO2. I will for the sake of getting this back on track stipulate those distinguished scientists who are convinced otherwise are wrong. I will stipulate your guys are right.

What the fuck more do you want from me?

As I have pointed out before, even if the above was true (and it certainly isn't, but this is me stipulating now to make you happy), from a political point of view it doesn't matter, for reasons I've gone into several times earlier in the thread.

Now, I have been more than accommodating here. Because of my own lack of discipline earlier in the thread, I have given you literally dozens of posts worth of leeway when by rights I had no obligation to. But that ends now. Your above post is the final one of this thread which will contain charts and graphs and formulas and footnotes. Because the next post you make which contains any of that will be deleted. If you want to discuss that stuff, discuss it in the Science and Technology forum. That's what the Science and Technology forum was created for.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion *DELETED* [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8354425 - 05/02/08 04:12 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Post deleted by EntheogenicPeace

Reason for deletion: ---


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8354561 - 05/02/08 04:55 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

No, it is not being debated in any serious setting. What has yet to be determined though, is --

1) How much of the currently increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to human activity? All of it? Half of it? One per cent of it?

2) How large or small is the warming caused by increased concentration of CO2? Does it account for all of the observed increase over the last century? Half of it? One per cent of it?





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male

Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8355924 - 05/02/08 10:20 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

But that ends now. Your above post is the final one of this thread which will contain charts and graphs and formulas and footnotes. Because the next post you make which contains any of that will be deleted.




:rofl2:

Sorry, but that reminded me of the time I was playing Half-Life2 and was abruptly kicked during the game.
My score? 20-4. The server op was playing me and his score was 14-15.

Draw your own conclusions.

Tsk tsk.

Go ahead and move it to Science and Tech, Fred.

Out of sight, out of mind.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch


Edited by zorbman (05/02/08 10:26 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,177 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,911 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,409 37 07/18/03 06:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 994 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Blair must tackle global warming Xlea321 463 1 05/28/04 10:30 AM
by phi1618
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,887 20 03/14/04 12:45 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
39,558 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.