Jump to content

Geodude

Members
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Geodude

  1. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!1i YOU GUYS ARE ALL PATHETIC, YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BAN ME!!!!!!!!!! ATOMIKPSYCHO IS A FAG WHO LIKES GOATS!!!!!!!!!!! ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO [much more of the same... ] ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO
  2. LOL, the same could be said about you. We deniers at least look at the data BEFORE we say with certainty that it is bunk.
  3. Excuse me? You actually believe that I am a sockpuppet! Geez, it seems as if you'll do anything to win an argument. You've already discredited yourself with your lame insults you know.
  4. Gee, can't you be more creative with you insults. Seriously, do you think that I will actually be bothered by that! HA! They are just as pathetic as you are. Thanks, I guess.... I already promised to be more specific when needed. I read them. I have too, but so far most on this thread, except for maybe lucaspa or CDarwin or 1veedo actually done that. I think you should tell that to the rest of the membership.
  5. I'm afraid the reverse is true for you. YOU are nothing but a creationist for believing in junk science. Have you any data to support your claim? Or are you just going to be like everyone else and not think critically about this?
  6. Do you really want a more precise graph? Here: Why don't you contemplate that, instead of making a bunch of baseless assumptions. As you can see, I presented plenty of data here, and now I'm presenting more. I will do so if need to be, since you guys are clearly incapable of seeing the obvious. All I've seen so far is ad hominems from most of you guys, only one or two people here have even bothered to present any data for their position.
  7. Neither did you. And yes I did. Don't project your failures on me.
  8. WHAT!? Just because you can't counter my arguments your just going to call me a troll? That's real original. I thought this was a science site, where people are free to express their ideas and theories. All I did was made the argument that our current global warming theories are bunk, and gave some reasons. You have yet to counter them. But your not interested in critical thinking, are you? When they present information that contradicts the dogma, simply dismiss as troll. Wonderful. Do you, iNow, have any DATA or effective arguments that supports YOUR position. As far as I know, you haven't presented anything, you just threw ad hominems at me and rolled your eyes.
  9. But you haven't presented anything that could adequately counter my points though. Your just trying to save your ridiculous position with more logical fallacies.
  10. Not really, extrapolated over millions, or even thousands of years, CO2 concentrations were either much smaller or much larger. Humans weren't around then. What makes this situation any different?
  11. The volcano was just an example though. There are a lot of other sources of CO2 you know, and not including human ones. CO2 doesn't even keep heat in that well either. Methane, for example, is 25 times more potent. Plus, it spews out a huge amount of CO2 during eruptions, far more than humans do in a single year in that single instant. Keep your ad hominems to yourself. Really, they don't support your position. By this, its already clear that you cannot back up your arguments.
  12. But I already did. It's not my fault if you don't want to look at it. I gave SPECIFIC examples. Well, now your just misrepresenting or misunderstanding, because I did NOT say that! The reasons I gave were not just the sun but also other natural sources such as methane, etc. The amount of greenhouse gases do fluctuate time and again. Remember what I said before, natural sources usually give out a great deal more pollutants than man-made sources. Take a look at some of the volcanoes in Hawaii for example.
  13. I already gave you a reason. And yes it is. What possible reason could there be to justify the paranoia over anthropogenic global warming, of which is obviously trash? Is listening to whatever CNN or Al Gore says your justification? Besides, you just spelled "responsible" wrong.
  14. Oh, I see how it is now. Your only willing to cherry pick data that agrees with your premise, rather than considering other factors. Hardly scientific you know, especially since that you should know to avoid that given your title as a physics "expert".
  15. What, do you expect me to do everything for you? I gave you a list, just stay on the first couple of pages and look through them. and .gov or .edu sites doesn't necessarily mean that they are good, there are plenty of .edu and .gov sites that support all sorts of crackpottery and quackery, just take a look at the alternative medicine department on the nih.gov site. so what? it was sudden enough. It happened on much the same time scale, give or take a couple of decades. The point is it does happen. Why not though? Why would they be insufficient? Certainly greenhouse gases can't have done the job. You know how much more pollution a volcano or natural seepage of crude oil does than any man made sources? A lot more than we have been putting in!
  16. Here's a list of them right here on google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Global+Warming+is+Bunk&btnG=Google+Search Pick and choose my friend.
  17. The temperatures have always been spiking up and down. What makes this recent one any different. Take a look at the time when temperatures suddenly dropped about a few centuries ago. In that case it was caused by the sun. You guys seem to act as if this never happens in Earth's long history. To give an example, about 55 million years ago there was believed to be a runaway greenhouse event caused by methane, from what we can tell from the fossil record. Ironically, that event was what set forth the evolution of mammals into overdrive and eventually gave rise to mankind. Besides, humans release a lot more than just CO2 the atmosphere. They also release a bunch of aerosols.
  18. No not really. the sun is a kind of a really big factor in keeping the planet heated. Greenhouse gases are too, without them the Earth would have an average temperature somewhere below 0 C. The main thing that is bunk are the models used for prediction, the various extrapolations, and a whole host of other so called "data" I care not mention right now. To somehow get incomplete data and tie it all to human activity seems a little rash and hasty.
  19. Depends on the number of free electrons in the s and p orbitals there are. And how many other atoms it is bonding with. The strength of the bond depends largely on the number of free electrons. As for the elements with the strongest bonds, the Alkali and the Halogen groups produce some of the strongest bonds. Ionic bonds tend to be very, very strong.
  20. Geodude

    Abortion Survey...

    I don't know my stance on this. I guess it depends on the situation, though I find that being "anti-abortionist" tends to draw some negativity these days. To me its all relative.
  21. Seconded. It will react with the moisture in your lungs and create hydrochloric acid. You don't want your lungs corroding away now.
  22. no, not that it hasn't been experiencing an upward trend, but that this is a completely natural phenomenon. Recent ones yes, but the deeper you go down the less reliable they become. Not really. The problems with them is because there are many many variables AND there are various ones that either haven't been discovered or aren't taken to account. However tiny those variables may be, they might still have a huge impact on future trends. You can see for yourself right here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.A51G..02W The same could be said for you. Do you have any RELIABLE data to prove otherwise, I gave you my graph, show me a counter example?
  23. Dude, YOU should take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes. Global Warming is bunk! There is plenty of data out there that PROVES this. If you want I can show you. All that has been shown in this thread is that you pro-global warming people guys have been misled to believe otherwise.
  24. Global warming is total bunk, seriously I don't know why people and many scientists buy into it. First of all, the Earth has been much warmer millions of years into the past, in fact it has been a little warmer in the recent past. The climate models that are used are not very good at all. There are thousands upon thousands of variables and new ones are being added every once in a while. There is no possible way that you can possibly predict the climate, because of the chaotic nature of the climate. Didn't anyone ever hear of the butterfly affect? Also, many predictions were wrong. And it has been shown that it is solar irradiance is the cause of the warming, as is has been for the past billions of years or so. Right here: Some people don't just know that all of these records on greenhouse gases have only been reliably measured for the past 100 or so years. Also, notice how the sunspot activity has been increasing steadily. And yet, everyone gets all paranoid over this bunch of misinformation. All in an effort to make lots of money off of the ignorant. Global warming on the scale as described is such an exaggeration, and total bunk.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.