COLLEGEDOOG!! TRUE?!?
Comments
-
@Race- Most of the youth don't give a shit about this stuff. They are more concerned about getting the maximum amount of alcohol and drugs for the $20 in their bank account, making sure their parties aren't sausage fests, and using their fake ID's to get into bars.
-
That was cute. As always the readers can decide. I think we all know whose lack of critical thinking has been displayed.CollegeDoog said:
Because dismissing decades of scientific study due to an anti capitalist America blaming youth scare is smart, critical, thinking.RaceBannon said:We just ignorant people compared to that mental giant collegedoog. He smart
Checkmate bitch. -
Then most of the youth are a lot smarter than collegedoogRoadDawg55 said:@Race- Most of the youth don't give a shit about this stuff. They are more concerned about getting the maximum amount of alcohol and drugs for the $20 in their bank account, making sure their parties aren't sausage fests, and using their fake ID's to get into bars.
-
Abundance motherfucker.
-
It's not abundance. Hookers an blow, steak and lobster, football and beer. Those are examples of abundance. Climate control advocacy and partying is not abundance.CollegeDoog said:Abundance motherfucker.
-
Holy shit collegedoog...this is a circle of comedy. You claim some wacked out shit (China being the model of climate change, regurgitating global warming talking points, etc.)...people point out both on the macro and micro level how full of shit you are, you tell yourself you won, people laugh even louder at you, you ignore everything previously pointed out about your stupidity and start again.
I know it won't sink in, but here is at least a response to the ignorance you spouted back at me (again noting you ignored everything I wrote previously).
1) James Hansen is a fraud at the level you could only hope to slander Lindzen. If Lindzen went and published conclusions on this theories without detailing how he came to those (calcs, statistics, etc...) idiots like you would be screaming. He doesn't, but Hansen does ("adjusted" temp profiles, unpublished statistical "readjusting" of data to get the answer he wants, etc.). You don't like Lindzen's science so you personally attach him...Hanson ignores science to preach a religion and you sing his praises. You claim Lindzen is bought by oil money, but reality shows that Hansen "forget" to report $1.6 million in outside income. Fucking morons (both you and him).
2) Even the IPCC railroad engineer in charge of climate whatever admitted temps haven't risen in 17 years...the NASA guys say there has been a "pause"...keep ignoring them...they are even on your side. Statistically the slope is zero...nada...you can pick whatever year and it doesn't change that fact.
3) You are now using an empirical fit of the temps (ignoring any correlation to CO2 levels...guess they aren't important to you anymore...) and you are still clueless. CO2 levels went up the ~40 ppm in the last 17 years...the same amount they went up in the previous 32 years. The previous 32 years the temps went up 0.6 C...the last 17 they statistically went up 0. Simple fact you keep ignoring. Any simple empirical relationship using CO2 as a main culprit falls apart...get more complex with climate models and those guys said it couldn't happen for more than 10 years with that level of CO2 increase before it actually did. It's why temps now are below what they predicted would happen if we made cuts in CO2 emissions and below the 95% threshold of predictions if we didn't. It means they are wrong in their modeling/representation of CO2 on prediction...in your case just the new made up claim that your el nino dog ate your global warming for the last 17 years...
4) Now your claiming a temperature "anomalies" graph (instead of actual temperature) proves your point? You REALLY suck at this.
5) Now you are averaging data over a random 10 year period to prove your point because the actual data doesn't? Who is being selective here? Again, you REALLY suck at this.
6) So now you are ignoring land temperatures because you've been proven an idiot on those and claiming the ocean is absorbing all the global warming? Do you know the mess of data that is the ocean data? There is lots of good, detailed data but it started when they deployed the ARGO floats...and that started sometime around 2000 and finished something like 2007. Before that its a incomplete, spotty mess...i.e. perfect to fool the limp-brained into telling them what they want to hear. On top of that it still didn't give the answer the author wanted, so he did all sorts of "adjustments" (one example of many being that he didn't have deep temps before the ARGO data so he assumed the shallow temps applied)...but keep pimping this if it is all you got. There is a lot of on-line discussion of the source of that plot...you should read it. Actually...you shouldn't...it would just go over your head.
7) Wow...EPIC fail from you on the climate models:
A) Note temps on your graph stop at 2005...its 2014 now and the temps are at the same magnitude if not lower...where does that put them against the models again?
Do you even have a clue what "Scenario A", "Scenario B", and "Scenario C" are? Holy fuck...scenario A was his prediction if greenhouse gases grew fast, scenario B was his prediction is greenhouse gases grew moderately, and scenario C was his prediction if greenhouse gases grew moderately until 2000 and after that stopped growing. Whoops on your part...
C) Thanks for proving my point.
You can keep this up...I mean...its good in that there is a chance it might actually sink in with somebody else reading that they might learn something and realize there is a lot of religion and very little science to the current global warming crowd (why the fuck did I type this much)...but for you though reality says it won't happen. Keep being the Lemming you are on all this...it would be pretty funny if it wasn't so sad...
God Vermont schools must be shitty.
-
Yeah this argument is clearly becoming useless because you got pretty much everything wrong.
Richard Lindzen isn't an oil shill he's just a bad scientist as proven by his recent work.
The moderate increase in Scenario B is what most closely models Hansen's projection. Plenty of literature on this.
Can't believe you keep repeating the temps have gone up 0 line. That's been debunked by me and others so many times.
The graph shows temps in the 2000s much hotter than average temps in the 90s and yes it correlates to CO2 ppm. There's a natural variability though you idiot so you can't start an average temp graph WHEN IT WAS ABNORMALLY HIGH above the trendline. For fucks sake are all people from Texas this stupid?
And no I'm not averaging data from a random 10 year period, I'm comparing it to decades before that. I didn't ignore land temperatures. Land temps prove me correct anyway. The ocean temps are supplemental, and further support that warming hasn't stopped.
Sadly, your knowledge of the science behind global warming and debate skils are weak, biased, and flat out wrong.
Sucks to suck. -
Collegedoog is really embarrassing himself now. I mean he's kicking ass
-
Richard Lindzen is a balanced voice on climate change.RaceBannon said:Collegedoog is really embarrassing himself now. I mean he's kicking ass
-
And btw temps are not "at the same magnitude or lower" since 2005. You continue to peddle false information. It's getting ridiculous.HoustonHusky said:Holy shit collegedoog...this is a circle of comedy. You claim some wacked out shit (China being the model of climate change, regurgitating global warming talking points, etc.)...people point out both on the macro and micro level how full of shit you are, you tell yourself you won, people laugh even louder at you, you ignore everything previously pointed out about your stupidity and start again.
I know it won't sink in, but here is at least a response to the ignorance you spouted back at me (again noting you ignored everything I wrote previously).
1) James Hansen is a fraud at the level you could only hope to slander Lindzen. If Lindzen went and published conclusions on this theories without detailing how he came to those (calcs, statistics, etc...) idiots like you would be screaming. He doesn't, but Hansen does ("adjusted" temp profiles, unpublished statistical "readjusting" of data to get the answer he wants, etc.). You don't like Lindzen's science so you personally attach him...Hanson ignores science to preach a religion and you sing his praises. You claim Lindzen is bought by oil money, but reality shows that Hansen "forget" to report $1.6 million in outside income. Fucking morons (both you and him).
2) Even the IPCC railroad engineer in charge of climate whatever admitted temps haven't risen in 17 years...the NASA guys say there has been a "pause"...keep ignoring them...they are even on your side. Statistically the slope is zero...nada...you can pick whatever year and it doesn't change that fact.
3) You are now using an empirical fit of the temps (ignoring any correlation to CO2 levels...guess they aren't important to you anymore...) and you are still clueless. CO2 levels went up the ~40 ppm in the last 17 years...the same amount they went up in the previous 32 years. The previous 32 years the temps went up 0.6 C...the last 17 they statistically went up 0. Simple fact you keep ignoring. Any simple empirical relationship using CO2 as a main culprit falls apart...get more complex with climate models and those guys said it couldn't happen for more than 10 years with that level of CO2 increase before it actually did. It's why temps now are below what they predicted would happen if we made cuts in CO2 emissions and below the 95% threshold of predictions if we didn't. It means they are wrong in their modeling/representation of CO2 on prediction...in your case just the new made up claim that your el nino dog ate your global warming for the last 17 years...
4) Now your claiming a temperature "anomalies" graph (instead of actual temperature) proves your point? You REALLY suck at this.
5) Now you are averaging data over a random 10 year period to prove your point because the actual data doesn't? Who is being selective here? Again, you REALLY suck at this.
6) So now you are ignoring land temperatures because you've been proven an idiot on those and claiming the ocean is absorbing all the global warming? Do you know the mess of data that is the ocean data? There is lots of good, detailed data but it started when they deployed the ARGO floats...and that started sometime around 2000 and finished something like 2007. Before that its a incomplete, spotty mess...i.e. perfect to fool the limp-brained into telling them what they want to hear. On top of that it still didn't give the answer the author wanted, so he did all sorts of "adjustments" (one example of many being that he didn't have deep temps before the ARGO data so he assumed the shallow temps applied)...but keep pimping this if it is all you got. There is a lot of on-line discussion of the source of that plot...you should read it. Actually...you shouldn't...it would just go over your head.
7) Wow...EPIC fail from you on the climate models:
A) Note temps on your graph stop at 2005...its 2014 now and the temps are at the same magnitude if not lower...where does that put them against the models again? Do you even have a clue what "Scenario A", "Scenario B", and "Scenario C" are? Holy fuck...scenario A was his prediction if greenhouse gases grew fast, scenario B was his prediction is greenhouse gases grew moderately, and scenario C was his prediction if greenhouse gases grew moderately until 2000 and after that stopped growing. Whoops on your part...
C) Thanks for proving my point.
You can keep this up...I mean...its good in that there is a chance it might actually sink in with somebody else reading that they might learn something and realize there is a lot of religion and very little science to the current global warming crowd (why the fuck did I type this much)...but for you though reality says it won't happen. Keep being the Lemming you are on all this...it would be pretty funny if it wasn't so sad...
God Vermont schools must be shitty.
![[Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/0207c5b8d9863e3a221f61582bd6bfa3_100.png)
