You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New NASA Study Shows CO2 causes Cooling
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
If you had any business acumen you would know that it isn't the number of hits that advertisers are looking for. It's the number and dollar amount of conversions vs advertising costs. Idiot.Quote from Ricter:
I think jem may "work" for the site owner, drumming up page hits. Advertisers don't know that a large percentage of ET's page hits are down here in the basement, they just think the site's popular.
Quote from Ricter:
I think jem may "work" for the site owner, drumming up page hits. Advertisers don't know that a large percentage of ET's page hits are down here in the basement, they just think the site's popular.
It very well may be that jerm and pisspoor are working to pump up views. AND that they are majorly fucked in the head. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Quote from futurecurrents:
It very well may be that jerm and pisspoor are working to pump up views. AND that they are majorly fucked in the head. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
And you are just working to pump up your brother.
Speaking of 'fucked in the head,' isn't that what is happening to you when you are sucking his dick?
I have a mandatory contest.
I will admit that I am a crazy paid by the oil industry poster and never post on a CO2 thread again as a paid poster... .
if any of you leftists drones posts links to real science showing man made co2 causes net warming in the earths atmosphere.
If you do not you all agree you are ignorant lying leftist drones.
The contest begins now... you have 24 hours to post links to real science.
No exceptions or complaints will be accepted.
I will admit that I am a crazy paid by the oil industry poster and never post on a CO2 thread again as a paid poster... .
if any of you leftists drones posts links to real science showing man made co2 causes net warming in the earths atmosphere.
If you do not you all agree you are ignorant lying leftist drones.
The contest begins now... you have 24 hours to post links to real science.
No exceptions or complaints will be accepted.
Quote from futurecurrents:
And this is patently false and you know it you fucking lying piece of shit.
If you don't know it, you're even dumber and more insane than I thought.
Kill yourself now. Do the world a favor. Take pisspoor and that moron gwb with you.
how can there be two sides to one set of facts.
If you are saying world temperatures have gone up in a statistically discernable manner the last 17 years... then prove the links I have given you to the MET office the CRU temperature data and the hade of the UN IPCC are incorrect.
You are a fricken moron all you have to do is show us air temperatures have gone up the last 17 years in a statistically discernable manner and you will be famous.
Instead you stay an ignorant lying leftist drone... here is my proof... where is yours...
and don't do your usually bullshit of posting water temps.
we are talking about air temps.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/...d-16-years-ago/
UPDATE: Thereâs a response from the Met Office here
A report in the UK Daily Mail reveals a Met Office report quietly released⦠and here is the chart to prove it:
By David Rose
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the âpauseâ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the âplateauâ or âpauseâ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 â a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at Americaâs prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were âdeeply flawedâ.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...l#ixzz29E78OR9H
What's funny is that even energy sector executives, at least here in Alberta, believe Man is contributing to global warming via CO2 emissions. So I'm not sure who you're working for!Quote from jem:
I have a mandatory contest.
I will admit that I am a crazy paid by the oil industry poster
i don't care what the public thinks, I care about what science knows.
For instance a large percentage of democrats thought OJ was innocent and a large percentage believe in man made global warming.
Science is not about a consensus... a consensus is fine only if it is built on good data and good science.
but you already know that so you are just trying ot deflect from the fact you have no science.
For instance a large percentage of democrats thought OJ was innocent and a large percentage believe in man made global warming.
Science is not about a consensus... a consensus is fine only if it is built on good data and good science.
but you already know that so you are just trying ot deflect from the fact you have no science.
Quote from Ricter:
What's funny is that even energy sector executives, at least here in Alberta, believe Man is contributing to global warming via CO2 emissions. So I'm not sure who you're working for!
Perhaps you think science has some objective reality, like a god, but it doesn't. Science is what scientists do. And scientists, therefore science, are saying that Man is warming the planet.Quote from jem:
i don't care what the public thinks, I care about what science knows.
For instance a large percentage of democrats thought OJ was innocent and a large percentage believe in man made global warming.
Science is not about a consensus... a consensus is fine only if it is built on good data and good science.
but you already know that so you are just trying ot deflect from the fact you have no science.
I'd bet that if the scientific consensus was the opposite (ignoring the melting ice), you'd be in full agreement. Why? Because of your monomania re taxes.