Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Global warming out of this world?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
107 replies to this topic

#25 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,956
  • Reputation: 3,466
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:12 PM

Take a quick gander at the bibliography and references cited for State of Fear and then get back to me on that


Have you read said sources? Not the bibliography, but the actual sources?

#26 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,388
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:14 PM

Have you read said sources? Not the bibliography, but the actual sources?


A couple, yes. And I bet that's two more than you

#27 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,956
  • Reputation: 3,466
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

A couple, yes. And I bet that's two more than you


Hah, you would be surprised. Good job being defensive for no reason though, jerk.

#28 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,388
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:17 PM

Hah, you would be surprised. Good job being defensive for no reason though, jerk.


I would be surprised given the utter lack of any effort for anyone to approach the substance of what I've put forth.

#29 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,956
  • Reputation: 3,466
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:19 PM

I would be surprised given the utter lack of any effort for anyone to approach the substance of what I've put forth.


I haven't been a part of this discussion before now - in this thread anyhow. Regardless, I'll leave you to it.

#30 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,781
  • Reputation: 19,989
SUPPORTER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:20 PM

Eugenicists, phrenologists, and Freudian psychologists were scientists too





elucidate

elucidate

elucidate

elucidate



Spoiler


#31 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,388
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:20 PM

Nah... time for work. I was stupid for venturing back into Tinderbox anyways... I get dumber every time I revisit this sandbox

#32 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,388
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:25 PM

same old snark with no substance

Spoiler


my response to the questions posed by mmmbeans after that attempted to note the things we knew for a fact just a short time ago that turned out to be completely false. The concept of scientists being wrong while quoting hard facts flies over the head of most on this page.

I'm outty... have fun with lack of reading comprehension

#33 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,781
  • Reputation: 19,989
SUPPORTER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:43 PM

my response to the questions posed by mmmbeans after that attempted to note the things we knew for a fact just a short time ago that turned out to be completely false. The concept of scientists being wrong while quoting hard facts flies over the head of most on this page.

I'm outty... have fun with lack of reading comprehension


it's rare that i see you post anything that isn't fringe stupidity. lack of substantive responses reflects the lack of substance in your posts.

#34 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,801
  • Reputation: 548
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 07:02 PM

my response to the questions posed by mmmbeans after that attempted to note the things we knew for a fact just a short time ago that turned out to be completely false. The concept of scientists being wrong while quoting hard facts flies over the head of most on this page.

I'm outty... have fun with lack of reading comprehension


Wait, what? Are you talking about the CFC thing you posted? You were serious about that?

#35 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 10:35 PM

Eugenicists, phrenologists, and Freudian psychologists were scientists too


lol

#36 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 10:41 PM

CO2 being a greenhouse gas is no more in dispute than CFCs cause a breakdown of O3.

The catch for the latter is justifying how a heavier-than-air molecule gets miles above the surface to perform this breakdown. Yet is was accepted as a slam dunk for anyone in the know about science just two decades ago.


Wait, do you really think that heavier than air particles can't reach the stratosphere?