Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
SCseagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2013 - 09:22pm PT
|
SCseagoat, but the point is that you want to continue aging (at least as long as it makes sense...)
Good point Ed.
I found this when I got home today, so I guess it's leaning towards Chile.
Susan
|
|
part-time communist
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2013 - 09:30pm PT
|
They think I'm Daria?!
Yikes!
Scary, isn't it?
Did someone say my name?
Back by popular demand! I think I may be indirectly contributing to global warming with my hotness.
|
|
SCseagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2013 - 09:35pm PT
|
She's back
Susan
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 01:12am PT
|
hey that's the cave at pirates cove..
|
|
part-time communist
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 01:37am PT
|
its not pirates cove, dummy
its a private beach only accessible via kayak quite a few beaches south of pirates cove, probably 5 miles south of pirates cove
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 03:20am PT
|
hey that's the cave at pirates cove..
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 08:58am PT
|
its not pirates cove, dummy
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 11:24am PT
|
hey that's the cave at pirates cove..
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 12:07pm PT
|
he's too busy keeping an eye on the commies he can see from his house.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 01:21pm PT
|
Why cant climate change be nailed down in that same time span?
You really are THAT stupid.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 01:34pm PT
|
Weve been cleaning our air water and land for nearly the past four decades. With zero effect of CO2 reduction according to the graphs.
You sure are the stupid one.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
|
Weve been cleaning our air water and land for nearly the past four decades. With zero effect of CO2 reduction according to the graphs. And of course, the TEMPS havent followed the CO2 like they said it does..
whos stupid?
You.
You're so ignorant...
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 02:12pm PT
|
I take it back...mean-spirited.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 03:15pm PT
|
I use basic science and chemistry on a daily basis. Geometry as well.
bahahahaahhahahaaaaaaaa.
Yeah, and I basic taxidermy skills every time I dispose of a rodent my dogs bring home.
Idiot.
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 03:41pm PT
|
A clear case of spite by the warmists of not stopping the cyclone.
All they claim they had to do was by activate a few of their
magical carbon dioxide noxious incantations and 'poof' it would be over.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 04:06pm PT
|
The latest "97% agree" paper and discussion in another example poor credibility from the AGW camp. The researchers looked at 12,000 papers/studies. 8000 were disqualified. Of the rest, the consensus supporters were broken down to three groups - Manmade CO2 has caused warming, CO2 has caused most of the warming of the last 50 years and lastly CO2 has caused most of the warming of the last 50 years (and the future looks bleak). Of the papers stating a position of any kind, less than 2% stated the gloom and doom scenario. Well... that's not quite right. According to Cook et al, 2%. However, several the the authors in that group publicly objected to being put in that group. Less than 25% of the papers (if Cook et al are correct) supported the IPCC consensus position. Again. It's about credibility.
Where did you find that "information"? It is at least clear that you didn't find that in the Cook et. al. paper.
Yes, credibility is important and you have lost most of your credibility when you write things that everyone can see are not correct
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
You didn't even get the groupings of the papers correct.
"1 Explicit Endorsement with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing
most of global warming.
2 Explicit Endorsement without Quantification: paper explicitly states humans are causing
global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a given fact.
3 Implicit Endorsement: paper implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research
assumes greenhouse gases cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.
4 Neutral: paper doesn't address or mention issue of what's causing global warming.
5 Implicit Rejection: paper implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming
without saying so explicitly. E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global
warming.
6 Explicit Rejection without Quantification: paper explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans
are causing global warming.
7 Explicit Rejection with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing less
than half of global warming."
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
|
About the same coverage in 1900 as now for HADCRUT3, which shows considerable warming, as do all the data sets.
BTW, Chief. The data shows the oceans were warming before Argo ramped up and after Argo was fully populated.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 04:57pm PT
|
Norton, can you cite your source please?
We've got to keep this legit, right?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2013 - 06:12pm PT
|
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!