New Page 1
home Steve Gleasons Website
Saints Report News Saints Super Forum Everything Else Board Political Discussion Board Fantasy Football Board Tech Board SaintsReport Affiliate Merchandise Gameday Board Behind the Levee New Orleans Hornets Board Twitter Outdoor Boards Video Games Board Smack Board Music Board College Sports Board SR Live Chat Room Contribute to our site costs Become a subscribing SR member




Go Back   New Orleans Saints - Saints Report - Message Boards > GENERAL > Political Discussion Board

Google Ads
Sponsored Ads


reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-05-2012, 12:07 PM   #127
Lint smoker
 
RebSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Alexandria, LA
Age: 40
Posts: 35,328
RebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger Club
RebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDoug View Post
Climate Change: Uncertainties more deniers just getting paid.

You are the OP so you already know, or refuse to read anything that is in disagreement with you, that this is a fraud. The primary document from an anonymous source has several discrepancies and contains numerous phrase used by the scientist who provided the document in his other reports and essays. One article I cited commented on the "anti agw" funding and the millions being spent on pro agw organizations so $ 200,000 is literal a drop in the bucket spent on the issue.

But keep up the good work.
The link you provide has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of your post, nor does it support the point you're attempting to make. Furthermore, that NASA link does not all contradict what I've specifically said about climate change and the nature of scientific debate.

It's obvious your still lost on the nature of this debate and the science behind it. Furthermore, it's interesting that you chose to link some information from NASA; I think this page is more relevant to the discussion.

Climate Change: Evidence
__________________
RebSaint is offline Reply With Quote


2 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-05-2012, 12:36 PM   #128
Oye
tight like hallways
 
Oye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 15,158
Oye Prestigious Gold Club MemberOye Prestigious Gold Club MemberOye Prestigious Gold Club MemberOye Prestigious Gold Club MemberOye Prestigious Gold Club MemberOye Prestigious Gold Club MemberOye Prestigious Gold Club MemberOye Prestigious Gold Club Member
Oye Prestigious Gold Club MemberOye Prestigious Gold Club MemberOye Prestigious Gold Club MemberOye Prestigious Gold Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDoug View Post
Dude, it was so funny, I literally crapped my pants
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Cross
Ew.... then what did you do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDoug View Post
What do you mean, dude? I was laughing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Cross
No, I mean what did you do with your crappy pants?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDoug View Post
No, dude, I didn't really crap my pants. I literally crapped my pants


Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDoug View Post
$ 200,000 is literal a drop in the bucket
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Cross
__________________
"Oye is not Canadian." - Friedrich Nietzche



Oye is offline Reply With Quote


4 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-05-2012, 01:20 PM   #129
is not a rookie
 
Yoweigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC, via uptown
Age: 31
Posts: 2,822
Yoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
Yoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDoug View Post
Climate Change: Uncertainties more deniers just getting paid.

You are the OP so you already know, or refuse to read anything that is in disagreement with you, that this is a fraud. The primary document from an anonymous source has several discrepancies and contains numerous phrase used by the scientist who provided the document in his other reports and essays. One article I cited commented on the "anti agw" funding and the millions being spent on pro agw organizations so $ 200,000 is literal a drop in the bucket spent on the issue.

But keep up the good work.
To begin with, the link you posted in no way supports whatever you're trying to argue here. I made this thread before it was even suggested that anything was a fraud, but feel free to attack my character regardless. Claims that the so-called primary document is a fraud are only speculations at this point anyway. Since I assume "pro agw orginazations" include some of the ones that actually do climate science, of course they're better funded! They have actual work to do! Science costs more than spewing PR does.
__________________
MERCEDES-BENZ SUPERDOME Section 506 Row 4 - Away Record 8-2
11/3/13 METLIFE STADIUM 10/6/13 SOLDIER FIELD 12/9/12 METLIFE STADIUM 10/21/12 RAYMOND JAMES STADIUM 11/13/11 GEORGIA DOME 10/9/11 BoA STADIUM 12/27/10 GEORGIA DOME 09/20/10 CANDLESTICK PARK 10/25/09 LANDSHARK STADIUM 12/10/07 GEORGIA DOME
Yoweigh is online now Reply With Quote


2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-05-2012, 07:38 PM   #130
Powhatan Power
 
IntenseSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South
Posts: 6,123
IntenseSaint is a true SaintIntenseSaint is a true SaintIntenseSaint is a true SaintIntenseSaint is a true SaintIntenseSaint is a true Saint
IntenseSaint is a true SaintIntenseSaint is a true SaintIntenseSaint is a true SaintIntenseSaint is a true SaintIntenseSaint is a true SaintIntenseSaint is a true Saint
I used to be skeptical of Anthropogenic Climate change but recent esoteric studies I have seen first hand have changed that. This is an issue that will need to be addressed and the sooner the better. These changes will most likely need to be done as government mandates because our private market will not adjust fast enough to affect the change we need to make an impact.
IntenseSaint is offline Reply With Quote


Old 03-05-2012, 08:19 PM   #131
More than 15K posts served!
 
Taurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: The Fault Line
Age: 46
Posts: 21,605
Blog Entries: 1
Taurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger Club
Taurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger ClubTaurus 50K Burger Club
Yup, we sure can't effect any changes on climate, us nekkid monkeys.

Oh, wait.

Hot on the Contrails of Weather
Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________

Trigeminal Neuralgia rocks your face!
Taurus is offline Reply With Quote


Old 03-11-2012, 10:57 AM   #132
What Does That Mean?
 
UncleDoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: T-town
Age: 39
Posts: 1,386
UncleDoug is marching in
UncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching in
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oye View Post
An interesting question arises. How did I get my pants in a position were I could "literally" crap them.
UncleDoug is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-11-2012, 11:33 AM   #133
Saintastic
 
Taceo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Age: 31
Posts: 6,149
Taceo is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTaceo is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTaceo is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
Taceo is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTaceo is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTaceo is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTaceo is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTaceo is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTaceo is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTaceo is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTaceo is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTaceo is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
One leg at a time, just like the rest of us.
Taceo is offline Reply With Quote


Old 03-11-2012, 01:23 PM   #134
What Does That Mean?
 
UncleDoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: T-town
Age: 39
Posts: 1,386
UncleDoug is marching in
UncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching in
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoweigh View Post
To begin with, the link you posted in no way supports whatever you're trying to argue here. I made this thread before it was even suggested that anything was a fraud, but feel free to attack my character regardless. Claims that the so-called primary document is a fraud are only speculations at this point anyway. Since I assume "pro agw orginazations" include some of the ones that actually do climate science, of course they're better funded! They have actual work to do! Science costs more than spewing PR does.
Your quote that I referenced in my post was about "deniers" just saying things because they were paid. I cited the article because it is from a source repeatedly cite by agw proponents, including the IPCC, so it can not just be dismissed off hand. It asserts that we know far to little about the climate and climate cycles to make definitive proclaimation about what will happen with what can be considered scientic accuracy (which is what I have been asserting for 5 years now).

The article you linked demonstrated numerous correlations between climate change and other elements. I am not questioning correlation just what people are implying is causation despite the numerous "uncertainties" and the "enormous effect" they have on climate.
UncleDoug is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-11-2012, 11:56 PM   #135
Hall-of-Famer
 
Brees4prez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,917
Brees4prez has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister pc View Post
Of course, its so simple! I wonder why all these scientists have not thought about the fact that the earth is very, very, very, old. the Earth is old, so industrial activity by humans cannot impact the habitat. That just makes sense! I mean, the age of the Earth clearly proves that humans cannot negatively effect the ecosystem. We should email your findings to those dummies at NASA right away.
I laughed out loud. This is a perfect example of conservatives bashing anyone who doesn't believe in what they believe. It's just that black and white. The Earth is old. Wow, and sad thing is that people like this actually have a good chance of being president. I'm moving to Canada because Idiocracy is coming to life. The plants need Brawndo because they have electrolytes!
Brees4prez is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-12-2012, 12:39 PM   #136
is not a rookie
 
Yoweigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC, via uptown
Age: 31
Posts: 2,822
Yoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
Yoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of FamerYoweigh is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDoug View Post
I cited the article because it is from a source repeatedly cite by agw proponents, including the IPCC, so it can not just be dismissed off hand. It asserts that we know far to little about the climate and climate cycles to make definitive proclaimation about what will happen with what can be considered scientic accuracy (which is what I have been asserting for 5 years now).
YOU are making that assertion. The article you linked does not say this. All it does is list known forcings and feedbacks.
__________________
MERCEDES-BENZ SUPERDOME Section 506 Row 4 - Away Record 8-2
11/3/13 METLIFE STADIUM 10/6/13 SOLDIER FIELD 12/9/12 METLIFE STADIUM 10/21/12 RAYMOND JAMES STADIUM 11/13/11 GEORGIA DOME 10/9/11 BoA STADIUM 12/27/10 GEORGIA DOME 09/20/10 CANDLESTICK PARK 10/25/09 LANDSHARK STADIUM 12/10/07 GEORGIA DOME
Yoweigh is online now Reply With Quote


Old 03-12-2012, 11:26 PM   #137
What Does That Mean?
 
UncleDoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: T-town
Age: 39
Posts: 1,386
UncleDoug is marching in
UncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching in
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoweigh View Post
YOU are making that assertion. The article you linked does not say this. All it does is list known forcings and feedbacks.
"But there's a great deal that we don't know about the future of Earth's climate and how climate change will affect humans.". First paragraph.

"So aerosol forcing is another substantial uncertainty in predictions of future climate." Bottom of the segment about aerosols.

"Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth's climate,... ..Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well...". The segment about clouds.

Substantial uncertainty, and enormous impact. Yet we are suppose to except computer projections as proof what is going to happen, yet NASA claims current climate models don't represent cloud physics well. The be all end all "proof of impending doom" is CO2 yet they state that "It isn't well understood where this carbon dioxide goes." But you are correct the report is not intended to refute agw. Hansen would get ****** but they could no longer ignore all the facts that the "deniers" were pointing out.
UncleDoug is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-13-2012, 07:07 AM   #138
Lint smoker
 
RebSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Alexandria, LA
Age: 40
Posts: 35,328
RebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger Club
RebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger ClubRebSaint 40K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDoug View Post
"But there's a great deal that we don't know about the future of Earth's climate and how climate change will affect humans.". First paragraph.


"So aerosol forcing is another substantial uncertainty in predictions of future climate." Bottom of the segment about aerosols.

"Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth's climate,... ..Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well...". The segment about clouds.

Substantial uncertainty, and enormous impact. Yet we are suppose to except computer projections as proof what is going to happen, yet NASA claims current climate models don't represent cloud physics well. The be all end all "proof of impending doom" is CO2 yet they state that "It isn't well understood where this carbon dioxide goes." But you are correct the report is not intended to refute agw. Hansen would get ****** but they could no longer ignore all the facts that the "deniers" were pointing out.
You're just demonstrating how much you don't understand about science or you have a reading comprehension problem.

There's absolutely nothing on that website to substantiate the logical leaps you're making about climategate. You obviously don't understand there can be a lot of uncertainty about the nature of climate change among scientists, but all agree that it is happening.

And it's obviously that you never bothered venturing over to this part of the same website which pretty much outlines quite clearly that there's tremendous consensus among scientists that climate change is indeed happening, and evidence strongly indicates that man does indeed contribute to it

Climate Change: Evidence

Take a look at the first graph; it provides a strong clue as to NASA's position on the issue of climate change.

You're basically attempting to argue that NASA is making a strong case to completely ignore those who are claiming that climate change is happening, and that the information there somehow ratifies your conclusions on climategate, yet the same website pretty much affirms the argument that Yoweigh and others who have made in this thread about the whole scandal, and global warming in general.

What you're doing is a common tactic among GW deniers--point out that there's a lot that scientists "don't know," and make the illogical assumption that just because there's some disagreement and tacit agreement that there's a lot to learn, then all other conclusions or findings have to be false or questioned as some sort of other "conspiracy."
__________________
RebSaint is offline Reply With Quote


4 out of 7 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-13-2012, 01:08 PM   #139
What Does That Mean?
 
UncleDoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: T-town
Age: 39
Posts: 1,386
UncleDoug is marching in
UncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching in
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebSaint View Post

And it's obviously that you never bothered venturing over to this part of the same website which pretty much outlines quite clearly that there's tremendous consensus among scientists that climate change is indeed happening, and evidence strongly indicates that man does indeed contribute to it

Climate Change: Evidence
Climate through out history has been changing so scientific consensus that climate is changing is not very meaningful. I never said climate was not changing. It is not if climate is changing that I am debating, despite your continued insistence. It is the cause of the change that is up for debate.

The first graph shows atmosphereic CO2 but does not show temperature. Why?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre.../IceCores1.gif
This graph does and it indicates CO2 is a LAGGING indicator. So through out history CO2 concentrations as not caused the temperature to increase or decrease it has only increased or decreased in response to temperature change or something else that also causes the temperature to change. Why has CO2 increased so much lately? Human activity certainly has something to do with it, but a lagging indicator reacting to a force outside it's relationship does not mean it WILL affect the other entities within a relationship with it. So the graph you continue to point to does not itself mean anything to the topic of "what is causing climate change" that I am trying to have.
UncleDoug is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-13-2012, 01:19 PM   #140
Truth Addict

 
V Chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Close enough to Atlanta to smell the stink of Falcons
Age: 46
Posts: 9,966
Blog Entries: 9
V Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club Member
V Chip Prestigious Gold Club MemberV Chip Prestigious Gold Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDoug View Post
This graph does and it indicates CO2 is a LAGGING indicator.
If it is only a lagging indicator, then explain the spike at the end of the graph in the red line, where it shoots up way higher than any other point it ever reached and as high as any other point the blue line (the temperature variation that the CO2 is supposed to be lagging) has ever reached? If it depends on the blue line, then why the sudden complete disregard for what the temperature variation is?
__________________
Credulity kills. -- Carl Sagan

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -- Neil Degrasse Tyson

Did you find this post helpful?    | 
V Chip is offline Reply With Quote


reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 AM.



Saintsreport.com - New Orleans Saints News, Info & Community! All marks, logos and images related to the Saints are the property of the New Orleans Saints, the NFL and NFL Properties. We are in no way affiliated with the New Orleans Saints or the NFL. All commentary and original artwork, 1997-2014 SaintsReport.com, owned and operated by Andrus Whitewing, DBA Saints Report,LLC. All rights reserved. Copying of original columns prohibited without a return link and credit given. Teasing articles is ok.



Some of the Photos and pictures used throughout the site are copyright Michael C. Hebert and are used with the permission of Michael C. Hebert and the New Orleans Saints.




vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise (Reduced on this page: MySQL 2.94%).

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0