Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

    Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
    Search is your friend and so is google. I am Tired of dealing with ignorant liberals who continue to claim no opposition even though there have been plenty of posts with the information. Not my problem if you are unable to actually find the posts, that is your lack of capability not mine as I have posted and I am tired of the bullshit you and your ilk continue to spew and make new threads then claim nothing was presented in rebuttal. Bullshit lame ass kindergarten arguing. Not what adults do.
    The people trying to explain Climate Change to you just want to get your coherent argument and your list why you doubt what 97% of climate experts believe....

    That is pretty impressive considering they are taking on the Oil Lobby...

    So tell Wiessard, who die and made you the oracle of all climate knowledge... You don't use peer reviewed stuff because it is weak...

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

      Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
      The people trying to explain Climate Change to you just want to get your coherent argument and your list why you doubt what 97% of climate experts believe....
      BS. Most scientists refute AGW and more come out all the time against it. See the Oregon Petition.

      As far as climate experts, I am sure that is some code word for people alarmists prefer to refer to.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

        Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
        Have you ever touched the sun? How do you know it is a nuclear reaction? All we do is observe it and the output but no one has actually touched the sun and we have not gotten anything close enough to touch it and verify it is not actually a big fire of wood for example. We ASSUME our observations are in line with a nuclear reaction.
        And your point is?

        You are the one who claimed math is not a science of which that position is either one of intentional derailment OR you really are that ignorant of what science is.
        You were the one first claimed that math was a science which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

        BTW here is as good a definition of Math as anything.

        Mathematics is the abstract study of quantity,[2] structure,[3] space,[2] change,[4][5] and many other topics.[6] It has no generally accepted definition.[7][8]

        Yes Wiki but still a good definition.
        Do you see anything in that definition relating to "observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses"?

        BTW - Wiki also says this about math:
        Today, no consensus on the definition of mathematics prevails, even among professionals.[7] There is not even consensus on whether mathematics is an art or a science.[8]
        Educate your ignorance or be a stubborn fool hidebound to your ignorance it is your choice.

        I read a reply in another thread about this. I like what he said.

        Math is a science, philosophy and art all rolled into one.
        I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

          Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
          BS. Most scientists refute AGW and more come out all the time against it. See the Oregon Petition.

          As far as climate experts, I am sure that is some code word for people alarmists prefer to refer to.
          There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:

          The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
          There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
          No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:

          The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
          The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.
          In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.

          32,000 Sounds Like A Lot
          In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

          According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

          There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

          Several independent studies have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, that CO2 is causing global changes to the climate, and that the consequences could be catastrophic. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.
          Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

          So out of 10 Million sample set you got 32,000 (around .3%)... You state this as 'Most'... I have a B. Sc. in Financial Maths and Statistics... I would have qualified to sign... Doesn't mean I am qualified....

          So can we refute the OISM Petition or are you going to still stand behind it...

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

            Originally posted by Brexx View Post
            That pretty well blows the whole climate alarmist theory out of the water - pun intended - since it depends entirely on the assumption that increased water vapor will drive catastrophic global warming.
            If CO2 feedback depended on the 1% of water vapor in the stratosphere, and not the 99% in the troposphere, then the global warming theory might be in trouble. But it doesn't, and it isn't.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

              Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
              BS. Most scientists refute AGW and more come out all the time against it. See the Oregon Petition.
              You have a strange idea of what constitutes "most".

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
                Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

                So out of 10 Million sample set you got 32,000 (around .3%)
                BS. Where do you get 10 M from? You are just making up how many scientists are actually on record supporting AGW.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                  Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
                  Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

                  So out of 10 Million sample set you got 32,000 (around .3%)... You state this as 'Most'... I have a B. Sc. in Financial Maths and Statistics... I would have qualified to sign... Doesn't mean I am qualified....

                  So can we refute the OISM Petition or are you going to still stand behind it...
                  ...On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. ...
                  Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

                  Thanks & respect Cowboy Ted, I'd like to see the findings of that investigation. Although those findings may be questioned as well, I still think it would shed some much needed light.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                    Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
                    So can we refute the OISM Petition or are you going to still stand behind it...
                    Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                    BS. Where do you get 10 M from? You are just making up how many scientists are actually on record supporting AGW.
                    Answers that question.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                      Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                      BS. Where do you get 10 M from? You are just making up how many scientists are actually on record supporting AGW.
                      The Consesus Project has done a review of peer reviewed papers which is where the 97% figure comes from.. i.e. 97% of research has found to be supportive of AGW when compared to rejection of AGW
                      http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs..._consensus.pdf

                      But here is a survey compared to each other...
                      http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

                      Screen Shot 2013-06-16 at 15.21.43.png

                      What this shows is the less you know about climate science the more anti AGW you are... But even among non published scientist (i.e. your Maths Teacher, Science Teacher and me) the number is still above 75%...

                      So John Lock you have been answered as you still going for BS...

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                        Originally posted by Cleisthenes View Post
                        And your point is?
                        That you deliberately ignore what you don't like but since you are that slow about reading a statement and following the previous line. My point is that you claim in part because you cannot touch math it is not a science. Well you cannot touch the sun so how can solar studies be a science?

                        You were the one first claimed that math was a science which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
                        Post 178 YOU bring into question whether or not math is a science.

                        Do you see anything in that definition relating to "observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses"?

                        BTW - Wiki also says this about math:



                        I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
                        As I predicted and said, it depends on what your lala land of definitions is. Despite the accepted definition by everyone else you decide yours is the only definition and that means your position is again about your OPINION not facts.

                        As I said your own little lala land and that makes everything else suspect and at opinion value not fact or logical statements.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                          Originally posted by Cleisthenes View Post
                          If CO2 feedback depended on the 1% of water vapor in the stratosphere, and not the 99% in the troposphere, then the global warming theory might be in trouble. But it doesn't, and it isn't.
                          The abstract of that study you linked states this:

                          Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                            Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                            That you deliberately ignore what you don't like but since you are that slow about reading a statement and following the previous line. My point is that you claim in part because you cannot touch math it is not a science. Well you cannot touch the sun so how can solar studies be a science?
                            Actually, I can touch the sun. I can feel it's heat any time I stand outside on a sunny day. I can see the light that it bathes our world in. I can even measure it's intensity. When was the last time you touched a number?

                            Post 178 YOU bring into question whether or not math is a science.
                            Post 178 was a casual remark illustrating that nothing in science is ever "proven". It was your condescending dismissal in Post 181 that started the question of whether or not math is a science.

                            As I predicted and said, it depends on what your lala land of definitions is. Despite the accepted definition by everyone else you decide yours is the only definition and that means your position is again about your OPINION not facts.

                            As I said your own little lala land and that makes everything else suspect and at opinion value not fact or logical statements.
                            I present a definition of science from the exact same source you get your definition of math and I'm the delusional one? Now you're really trolling.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                              Originally posted by Brexx View Post
                              The abstract of that study you linked states this:

                              Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.
                              Stratospheric water vapor is important enough to offset most of the warming from CO2 but not all of it. That doesn't negate the fact that most of the feedback from CO2 warming comes from the troposphere, not the stratosphere. Your attempts to create contradictions where none exist only illustrate your lack of understand on the subject. And you still haven't answered my question of what you think happens when ENSO reverses and stratospheric water vapor increases again?

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: One... More... Time... No Global Warming!

                                Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
                                The Consesus Project has done a review of peer reviewed papers which is where the 97% figure comes from.. i.e. 97% of research has found to be supportive of AGW when compared to rejection of AGW...So John Lock you have been answered as you still going for BS...
                                The 97% has already been repeatedly refuted by others and I will not dignify it as though credible. And no, you absolutely did not answer my question of where the 10M came from. The presented evidence remains unchallenged; more actual scientists are on record refuting AGW, such as the Oregon Petition, by a very large margin.

                                And so we do another lap on the greatest hoax in the history of the world. Science does not work by consensus but evidence. Alarmist predictions keep proving wrong. While alarmists said over and over again the 1990's was the hottest decade on record - due to manipulation of data - and that is the most compelling evidence to date, when cooling is seen not in 10 years but 15 years, their standards of significance prove to be double standards. Those with the most to gain from AGW repeatedly are found manipulating data. A reasonable question is IF the data actually supported AGW, why would they resort to altering the data?

                                The answer is obvious. There is no global warming so there can be no man-made global warming. AGW is the greatest hoax in the history of the world, used by Leftists in an attempt to achieve world wide socialist utopia starting with global control of energy by force. This explains why the subject is hotly discussed on political forums.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X