Most of science is about correlation. And I didn't use the word prove or proof anywhere in my post. Bitch.
The Para wodna is clearly falsified, you can tell that by looking at the Metan and the Tlenki azotu. barfo
For example, if we were to plot the times PapaG shit his pants we'd find a very strong correlation to posts made about trading LaMarcus. You could analyze other potential causes and find little to no correlation. The causual link becomes even more apparant if you understand the mechanism by which it operates. In the case of global warming, we've known that Co2 is a greenhouse gas for a long time. That's how climate scientists are able to make the educated assertion than human produced Co2 is largely behind the increase in temperature. And I think they understand their craft a lot better than PapaG.
It seems like you make a lot of the issues discussed here divided between who posters voted for during the presidential election. This is about global warming, not who posters voted for during the election.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008 "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..." http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html
So for you, this link shows that: if you believe global warming is increasing because of mankind, you voted for Obama.
No I did not vote for him. I can't believe a sane man would speak like that, messiah like, contrary to science. But I think many of my countryman did buy it, and voted for him and continue to push for stopping the ocean from rising. It is slowing and Obama has nothing to do with it. Chart from Scripps
Anyone on this thread ever read Oceanography and Seamanship by William Van Dorn? http://www.amazon.com/William-Van-Dorn/e/B0034PLJ2G/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1 http://www.amazon.com/Oceanography-Seamanship-William-Van-Dorn/dp/0870334344 Mr. Van Dorn was the head of the Oceanography department at Scripps, a great guy, a real bona fide expert.
At some point, even though I'll be paying more for dreams of unicorn energy grids, I admit it will be fun watching those who adhere to the religion of AGW gladly turn over their hard-earned money to a bunch of snake oil salesmen. They will then buy their books, pay for their lectures, etc. etc. It's AGW evangelicalism, except the AGW disciples don't realize their belief is faith-based, unlike religious nuts who are confident enough in their faith to know it's faith-based, and don't try to shout down skeptics on this board. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
A BBC article from 2007. At what point do the idiots who believe the "models" just realize they've been duped??? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
Arctic ice at record high http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ I just can't take anyone who insists that AGW if a fact seriously, just as I can't take anyone who says God is a fact seriously.
I only looked at your link for 30 seconds, so maybe I missed something, but it seems to say the opposite of what you claim. How does 'third lowest May' translate to 'record high'? barfo
Did you read the 2007 doomsday article I posted? Probably not, since it blows your silly theories about accurate modeling to bits. Stick to making fun of kids with Lupus. That's your thing.
No, why would I? I was busy with MarAzul's 1991 article about sewers. Do you guys have a fetish for really old news? I'm not sure which theories those are, but I doubt it. And I notice you ignored the fact that you were wrong about the Arctic. Surprising error for a noted climate scientist like yourself... barfo
