Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
GOP Says Scientists Don't Agree on Climate Change
Posted by:
Dr. Conserve A. Tard
()
Date: September 12, 2014 02:33PM
Those Republicans are pretty fucking funny, except this ain't funny.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: GOP Says Scientists Don't Agree on Climate Change
Posted by:
Gunlover
()
Date: September 12, 2014 03:59PM
Well it's snowing in North Dakota, Where Al at? The other AL, I mean Gore not Sharpton.
Never Run Out of Ammo
Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People
Them or You
The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why
Never Run Out of Ammo
Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People
Them or You
The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why
Re: GOP Says Scientists Don't Agree on Climate Change
Posted by:
Climate = NAZI!!!
()
Date: September 12, 2014 04:06PM
SWIDT!
Re: GOP Says Scientists Don't Agree on Climate Change
Posted by:
Deceptive Graphs =/= Science
()
Date: September 12, 2014 04:15PM
Not when you cherry-pick the range as your graphic does as far as the models used and date range. lol
Or when you expand the scale so that a .5 degree change looks much large than it is and you don't show the other larger swings at various other times to put it in perspective.
Nor are bs "studies" which parse terms and cherry-pick results in order to show "consensus" among 98% of climate scientists which on closer examination actually don't.
Even IPCC concedes that the warming trend largely has been flat to trivial for an extended time period. Far, far below what was predicted via modeling. Even revised models, the only reason most of which are still even marginally within statistical significance being such revisions. In fact, the reasons for that are a primary area of inquiry for those who actually are interested in the science versus politics and bullshit talking points.
Or when you expand the scale so that a .5 degree change looks much large than it is and you don't show the other larger swings at various other times to put it in perspective.
Nor are bs "studies" which parse terms and cherry-pick results in order to show "consensus" among 98% of climate scientists which on closer examination actually don't.
Even IPCC concedes that the warming trend largely has been flat to trivial for an extended time period. Far, far below what was predicted via modeling. Even revised models, the only reason most of which are still even marginally within statistical significance being such revisions. In fact, the reasons for that are a primary area of inquiry for those who actually are interested in the science versus politics and bullshit talking points.
Re: GOP Says Scientists Don't Agree on Climate Change
Posted by:
97% disagree in writing too
()
Date: September 12, 2014 04:52PM
Deceptive Graphs =/= Science Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not when you cherry-pick the range as your graphic
> does as far as the models used and date range.
> lol
>
> Or when you expand the scale so that a .5 degree
> change looks much large than it is and you don't
> show the other larger swings at various other
> times to put it in perspective.
>
> Nor are bs "studies" which parse terms and
> cherry-pick results in order to show "consensus"
> among 98% of climate scientists which on closer
> examination actually don't.
>
> Even IPCC concedes that the warming trend largely
> has been flat to trivial for an extended time
> period. Far, far below what was predicted via
> modeling. Even revised models, the only reason
> most of which are still even marginally within
> statistical significance being such revisions. In
> fact, the reasons for that are a primary area of
> inquiry for those who actually are interested in
> the science versus politics and bullshit talking
> points.
3% is not a strong disagreement either.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not when you cherry-pick the range as your graphic
> does as far as the models used and date range.
> lol
>
> Or when you expand the scale so that a .5 degree
> change looks much large than it is and you don't
> show the other larger swings at various other
> times to put it in perspective.
>
> Nor are bs "studies" which parse terms and
> cherry-pick results in order to show "consensus"
> among 98% of climate scientists which on closer
> examination actually don't.
>
> Even IPCC concedes that the warming trend largely
> has been flat to trivial for an extended time
> period. Far, far below what was predicted via
> modeling. Even revised models, the only reason
> most of which are still even marginally within
> statistical significance being such revisions. In
> fact, the reasons for that are a primary area of
> inquiry for those who actually are interested in
> the science versus politics and bullshit talking
> points.
3% is not a strong disagreement either.
Re: GOP Says Scientists Don't Agree on Climate Change
Posted by:
Climate Change = NAZI!!!
()
Date: September 12, 2014 05:14PM
Yep.
Re: GOP Says Scientists Don't Agree on Climate Change
Posted by:
Deceptive Graphs =/= Science
()
Date: September 12, 2014 05:39PM
97% disagree in writing too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Deceptive Graphs =/= Science Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not when you cherry-pick the range as your
> graphic
> > does as far as the models used and date range.
> > lol
> >
> > Or when you expand the scale so that a .5
> degree
> > change looks much large than it is and you
> don't
> > show the other larger swings at various other
> > times to put it in perspective.
> >
> > Nor are bs "studies" which parse terms and
> > cherry-pick results in order to show
> "consensus"
> > among 98% of climate scientists which on closer
> > examination actually don't.
> >
> > Even IPCC concedes that the warming trend
> largely
> > has been flat to trivial for an extended time
> > period. Far, far below what was predicted via
> > modeling. Even revised models, the only reason
> > most of which are still even marginally within
> > statistical significance being such revisions.
> In
> > fact, the reasons for that are a primary area
> of
> > inquiry for those who actually are interested
> in
> > the science versus politics and bullshit
> talking
> > points.
>
>
> 3% is not a strong disagreement either.
It isn't 3% disagreement. The 98%, 97%, whichever similar claims are based on bullshit. Which is easily seen by anyone who's actually taken the time to look at them versus just buying into stupid claims like that in faith-based belief.
You like science-based research, go do some.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Deceptive Graphs =/= Science Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not when you cherry-pick the range as your
> graphic
> > does as far as the models used and date range.
> > lol
> >
> > Or when you expand the scale so that a .5
> degree
> > change looks much large than it is and you
> don't
> > show the other larger swings at various other
> > times to put it in perspective.
> >
> > Nor are bs "studies" which parse terms and
> > cherry-pick results in order to show
> "consensus"
> > among 98% of climate scientists which on closer
> > examination actually don't.
> >
> > Even IPCC concedes that the warming trend
> largely
> > has been flat to trivial for an extended time
> > period. Far, far below what was predicted via
> > modeling. Even revised models, the only reason
> > most of which are still even marginally within
> > statistical significance being such revisions.
> In
> > fact, the reasons for that are a primary area
> of
> > inquiry for those who actually are interested
> in
> > the science versus politics and bullshit
> talking
> > points.
>
>
> 3% is not a strong disagreement either.
It isn't 3% disagreement. The 98%, 97%, whichever similar claims are based on bullshit. Which is easily seen by anyone who's actually taken the time to look at them versus just buying into stupid claims like that in faith-based belief.
You like science-based research, go do some.
Re: GOP Says Scientists Don't Agree on Climate Change
Posted by:
Lease go away
()
Date: September 12, 2014 08:41PM
Gunlover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well it's snowing in North Dakota, Where Al at?
> The other AL, I mean Gore not Sharpton.
God how stupid can one person be.....
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well it's snowing in North Dakota, Where Al at?
> The other AL, I mean Gore not Sharpton.
God how stupid can one person be.....