Is this munchie, speedy, or wtf?You want to take a bet as to who looks better in cycling pants, you or me? I'll put $100 on me.
Originally Posted by gfejunkie
Ignore the facts ignorant redneck hillbilly. Bury your head in the sand and continue to say that you won't be around when global warming really heats up so why worry?That's funny. I refuted NASA and the NOAA's credibility by conveying how not only were they caught manipulating weather data, but they also refused a judge's order. You, Speedie, responded by saying that wasn't you bringing up NASA. Well, you are bringing up NASA now.
.....
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Again -- it's your OPINION against the opinion of thousands of scientists who study climate change for a living.Remember how all you aGWers (aka nut jobs) used to use "peer review" as some type of scientific holy grail until it was proven that a leading IPCC scientist used that argument about a glacier that was melting but was later found out it was not...in his peer reviewed article?
.... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Remember how all you aGWer used to use "peer review" as some type of scientific holy grail .... Originally Posted by gnadflyThere were probably many "scientists" who observed Columbus taking off on his first voyage exclaiming how he would sail off the edge and they'd never see him again!
That's why he's called "Speedo"!Wrong yet again!!! At least you are consistent.
Tight, spandex pants on a guy in Austin is acceptably fashionable!!!!
Speedo must troll down on 6th Street showing off his ass in tight pants!
$100 a show! Originally Posted by LexusLover
That's funny. I refuted NASA and the NOAA's credibility by conveying how not only were they caught manipulating weather data, but they also refused a judge's order. You, Speedie, responded by saying that wasn't you bringing up NASA. Well, you are bringing up NASA now.Once again -- the opinion 1200 scientists vs. the opinion a few people on a hooker board.
But then again, you really don't have any credibility as you are bringing up the IPCC and their hockeystick graph. Originally Posted by gnadfly
That's funny. I refuted NASA and the NOAA's credibility by conveying how not only were they caught manipulating weather data, but they also refused a judge's order. You, Speedie, responded by saying that wasn't you bringing up NASA. Well, you are bringing up NASA now.Wrong and right. Iiffy originally brought up a NASA report in post #67 in this thread that stated "more ice than ever" to support his POV that global warming is a myth. All I did at that time was say that if one read the WHOLE NASA article, it went on to say that the ice growth had slowed decade to decade and in the next 20 or 30 years there will be a DECREASE in the amount of ice in Antarctica.
But then again, you really don't have any credibility as you are bringing up the IPCC and their hockeystick graph. Originally Posted by gnadfly
Remember how all you aGWers (aka nut jobs) used to use "peer review" as some type of scientific holy grail until it was proven that a leading IPCC scientist used that argument about a glacier that was melting but was later found out it was not...in his peer reviewed article?So, no confirmation of discredit from Speedy. Just "people chose the sources they like" truism.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...blundere2809d/ Originally Posted by gnadfly
Wrong and right. Iiffy originally brought up a NASA report in post #67 in this thread that stated "more ice than ever" to support his POV that global warming is a myth. All I did at that time was say that if one read the WHOLE NASA article, it went on to say that the ice growth had slowed decade to decade and in the next 20 or 30 years there will be a DECREASE in the amount of ice in Antarctica.
Then I brought up a different meme from NASA. Caught manipulating data? Snopes found that allegation to be false, it being based on an article in the British tabloid "Mail" written by a David Rose.
http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noa...e-change-data/
And here are several more articles on whether or not the data was manipulated. If you can find another source of disagreement please post a link. I would not be surprised in the least if there were other dissenters.
http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...records#page-2
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/s...tudy-data.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/noaa-...t-faked-2017-2
People are going to choose the data that supports their POV and look to discredit the data that goes contrary to their POV. Especially on this forum. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX