Quake3World

losCHUNK wrote:The whole point of this thread is to point out exaggerated media crap taken as gospel from 'reputable' sources

And you start it off by linking to an article posted by the Daily Fail. lol, get real.

Cos anyone would have their on twist on this, I started this thread by linking to an article about the results of a new IPCC report.

IPCC debunked its own results, not the fail, if you got to that post I gather you should have been able to grasp that :]

Guardian - I havn't even entered stage 1 yet, Again they tell us what we should think and what everyone who doesn't agree with the report thinks.

Both those rags are extremely biased towards their own belief lol

It's sad when someone loses an argument then won't shut the fuck up...pathetic...

No it ain't sad, but like I said no one here can step up to the plate. No one here has brought anything new to the table, they try arguing the data but can't. I have even given you a guide to show how you can win because I'd like the answer myself.

I've presented graphs, IPCC report, methane inconsistencies, mentioned solar cycles and cooling phases / how the world has been cooling for the last decade, Arctic fucking ice. No one bothered to counter any of that, or present new information that wasn't mudslinging. Instead everyone just kinda assumed what they knew to be correct without giving any real reason other than I'm avoiding stuff that was never presented.

You're backpedalling losCHUNK. You were clearly arguing against global warming at first but suddenly this is about newspapers not being credible sources?

losCHUNK wrote:I've presented graphs, IPCC report, methane inconsistencies, mentioned solar cycles and cooling phases / how the world has been cooling for the last decade, Arctic fucking ice. No one bothered to counter any of that, or present new information that wasn't mudslinging. Instead everyone just kinda assumed what they knew to be correct without giving any real reason other than I'm avoiding stuff that was never presented.

You haven't presented any of that stuff other than mentioning it. All you say is "search teh forum for methane". Hey, if you want to make a case, do the searching yourself. Let me pull out a quote here: "You can't just say words and make them real"

Eraser wrote:You're backpedalling losCHUNK. You were clearly arguing against global warming at first but suddenly this is about newspapers not being credible sources?

losCHUNK wrote:You can't just say words and make them real

Every scientist may agree that Global Warming is natural but there's plenty of debate about who's causing it with most of the recent data suggesting, as usual, I was right

Even the media is waking up to the horseshit

losCHUNK wrote:More words

Sixteen prominent scientists recently signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their belief that the theory of global warming is not supported by science.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/ ... s-not-real

The green party just got the upper hand thanks to media fear mongering

2nd and 3rd replies.

Eraser wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:I've presented graphs, IPCC report, methane inconsistencies, mentioned solar cycles and cooling phases / how the world has been cooling for the last decade, Arctic fucking ice. No one bothered to counter any of that, or present new information that wasn't mudslinging. Instead everyone just kinda assumed what they knew to be correct without giving any real reason other than I'm avoiding stuff that was never presented.

You haven't presented any of that stuff other than mentioning it. All you say is "search teh forum for methane". Hey, if you want to make a case, do the searching yourself. Let me pull out a quote here: "You can't just say words and make them real"

Nono, if you read puff was asking for results in his own thread about methane, I politely declined to enter a new discussion with him cos it was already done on these boards with him and didn't wanna do it again, cos Its already been done in a thread where I took the time to use a calculator and go through it with him. It's not my fault if he forgot. Plus it's just 1 thing, if I was replying to trans n all I provided an arguement he refused to get into. If I didn't expand on something then it's cos no one gave a shit about it.

Oh yeah lol, if we go at it like that, I once wrote a conclusive essay about global warming which proved that it is a real threat to human existence within the next 10 years. It also proves that god doesn't exist. Just Google for it.

So you see, there's no debate possible, because I've already proven these things to be true. The truth is just one clever Google search away.

Also, because I calculated all this myself it must be true. There's also no possibility that I made errors in my calculations, made incorrect assumptions or, due to a lack of knowledge, failed to take a number of significant influences into account. Because, you know, I'm awesome like that.

lol really ?, If you sat down and constructed that report with me and then said that, then it would be an accurate example. The math is also very simple, even provided Dr Floods work where he goes into it with detail and no one tried arguing it.

Show me yours I'll show you mine.

lol, this thread and the people participating. What a waste of fucking time...

xer0s wrote:lol, Q3W and the people participating. What a waste of fucking time...

FTFY

Well floods report is on pg2 if you wanna pull his data apart, IPCC is on pg1, along with a graph. But really all you have to do is show me how the IPCC countered for uneven molecules when weighing 1 ton of Co2 VS methane and calculating the GWP. Cos I can;t find shit on that or that the IPCC results from 2007 were accurate after all.

Eraser wrote:suddenly this is about newspapers not being credible sources?

that was my point about the cretinous rag the OP quoted in the first place

should have been /thread at that point

Guardian link was thrown up by memph n all, that doesnt show no bias, even tho it barely mentions the report and just decides to attack anyone who criticises it. Its all garbage.

losCHUNK wrote:No it ain't sad, but like I said no one here can step up to the plate. No one here has brought anything new to the table, they try arguing the data but can't. I have even given you a guide to show how you can win because I'd like the answer myself.

I've presented graphs, IPCC report, methane inconsistencies, mentioned solar cycles and cooling phases / how the world has been cooling for the last decade, Arctic fucking ice. No one bothered to counter any of that, or present new information that wasn't mudslinging. Instead everyone just kinda assumed what they knew to be correct without giving any real reason other than I'm avoiding stuff that was never presented.

Lol...dumbass...

You still need an expansion joint

Think puff gave a guardian link too