The REAL Inconvenient Truth....

In the 1800s houses heated by fires put forward far more carbon into the air than our automobiles do today. The smog over London was famous, as well as detrimental to the health of her citizens.
 
DIXIE: The data is still relevant, it can't change, the chart is not inaccurate, it doesn't lie.


I hate to tell you this "Doctor Science", but yes, charts can and do indeed "lie" and misrepresent data.

Evidently you are unaware that charts like this one, don't really show the actual observational data. More commonly, they are statistical representations of the underlying physical observations.

This particular chart you posted in from a 1990 study. Way old and outdated compared to the newer climate science.

And your chart's been debunked. The statisical methodoloy the author used, has been shown to be dubuious, and unrepresentative of the underlying physical observations and data.


http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf
 
Prissy, I am sorry but the data I posted is not inaccurate, nor have you proven it is by your link. The data was researched using the growth rings in trees and studying ice cores in the arctic, as well as other geological findings that just don't lie. The fact that some pinhead re-worked some magical pinhead calculations on the data, doesn't prove anything, except the fact that pinheads will go to whatever extreme to keep supporting their lunacy.
 
Prissy, I am sorry but the data I posted is not inaccurate, nor have you proven it is by your link. The data was researched using the growth rings in trees and studying ice cores in the arctic,


Wrong again, Doctor Science. You just lost all credibility. Its no wonder you think evolution is an evil liberal theory.

The data in the study you cite is from 1860 to 1990.

They weren't even drilling ice cores in the arctic for most, if not all, of that time frame.
 
They weren't even drilling ice cores in the arctic for most, if not all, of that time frame.

LMFAO!! You are kidding, right? Do you even comprehend in your little pea-sized brain, what is meant by drilling ice cores? It is a process by which they look for barium deposits in the ice layers, which were formed hundreds of years ago. What you said is essentially the same as saying... Hooey on carbon dating, they weren't even close to carbon dating things before Christ was born! What a moron!
 
Its no wonder you think evolution is an evil liberal theory.

LOL... another Prissy LIE. I've never claimed any such thing, and have in fact gone on record numerous times stating I fully believe in evolution. You just don't pay good attention, do ya?
 
LOL... another Prissy LIE. I've never claimed any such thing, and have in fact gone on record numerous times stating I fully believe in evolution.


http://fullpolitics.com/misc.php?action=search

Fullpolitics search function:


Type Username: "Dixie"

Word search: "Evolution"


Hit enter.


Dozens of threads appear, where Dixie is arguing against evolution.



Conclusion: Dixie has no credibility in talking about science
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
They weren't even drilling ice cores in the arctic for most, if not all, of that time frame.

LMFAO!! You are kidding, right? Do you even comprehend in your little pea-sized brain, what is meant by drilling ice cores? It is a process by which they look for barium deposits in the ice layers, which were formed hundreds of years ago. What you said is essentially the same as saying... Hooey on carbon dating, they weren't even close to carbon dating things before Christ was born! What a moron!
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

First, the paper you posted was from a 1990 study. There were few compreshensive climatological ice core studies from the artic before then.

Second, what the fuck does barium have to do with anything? Its not a temperature proxy.

Third, I'm more familiar with the study you posted, than you are yourself. The authors used sunspot activity and ground based temerature measurements.

And their data and methods have been debunked in the last 15 years.
 
Cypress said:
LOL... another Prissy LIE. I've never claimed any such thing, and have in fact gone on record numerous times stating I fully believe in evolution.


http://fullpolitics.com/misc.php?action=search

Fullpolitics search function:


Type Username: "Dixie"

Word search: "Evolution"


Hit enter.


Dozens of threads appear, where Dixie is arguing against evolution.



Conclusion: Dixie has no credibility in talking about science
Click to expand...

HAHA... Is SR paying you to solicit traffic to his website now? Has it gotten that bad? Tell you what asshole, post the fucking quote from me that argues againt evolution, or you are fucking liar. I have never argued against evolution, I have often argued against evolution being the explanation for origin of man, but I fully believe evolution has taken place, and have never argued otherwise. You are a fucking lying ass idiot, who likes to run around starting fires with your fucking lies and distortions, and this is just one more classic example of that. FUCK YOU!
 
what the fuck does barium have to do with anything? Its not a temperature proxy.

Actually, I misspoke, Barium deposits in the ocean core samples are an indicator of CO2 in the atmosphere at different points of history. This is a form of scientific data and study, just not directly related to what we're discussing, and I was in error. I apologize for my mistake.

Ice core samples reveal levels of beryllium-10, which indicates warming and cooling cycles. Layers with a higher beryllium-10 content, indicate a cooler period, where lower levels indicate a warmer period. The same can be studied in Carbon-14 taken up by trees, and revealed in their growth rings. So, the data presented is correct and accurate, the tree rings and ice cores don't lie.

Third, I'm more familiar with the study you posted, than you are yourself. The authors used sunspot activity and ground based temerature measurements.

No, the authors of your findings used ground-based temps to refute this study, and those are flawed due to an inherent warming which always occurs around metropolitan areas. The authors of my findings used ice core samples and tree rings to determine their data and confirm it. Apparently you are confused.
 
Dixie, you are such a dingbat.

No-one disputes that the climate changes in cycles. Not one person. What we are discussing is the extent to which man's activity in creating greenhouse gases is altering that cycle.

Jeez, try to keep up....
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
In the 1800s houses heated by fires put forward far more carbon into the air than our automobiles do today. The smog over London was famous, as well as detrimental to the health of her citizens.
Click to expand...

Hmm, and what caused the reductions of smog in southern CA ?
 
uscitizen said:
Hmm, and what caused the reductions of smog in southern CA ?
Click to expand...
My point was that it is getting better, producing a result that cements my point is helpful to me, but doubtful that was your aim. What are you attempting to ask me here?

In Mexico City, there are literally no birds or insects because of the detrimental pollution, in the US we cleaned emissions, name one city in the US without those two types of creatures.

We do work toward improvement, in almost all things all the time and I am glad for that...

Humans used to release more per capita than now. In the future it will be the same. Hopefully we are smart enough to work towards cleaner energy, and by everything I see we are.
 
uscitizen said:
Hmm been reading about the missing honeybees in the USA Damo ?
Click to expand...
I have, but one type of insect everywhere is different than all insects in one place. What is your point?

First they need to figure out what is causing the bees to die before we assume it is pollution. The idea that bees in the more rural areas are dying off from the pollution is refutable be showing that the pollution in the area is minimal.
 
Damocles said:
I have, but one type of insect everywhere is different than all insects in one place. What is your point?

First they need to figure out what is causing the bees to die before we assume it is pollution. The idea that bees in the more rural areas are dying off from the pollution is refutable be showing that the pollution in the area is minimal.
Click to expand...

umm we talking global warming or honeybees dissappearing ? Or global warming, sounds like same song , differnet verse :)
anyway they are not even sure they are dying, just dissappearing. Perhapos they know something we don't and are moving out ?
The big one for CA ?
 
uscitizen said:
umm we talking global warming or honeybees dissappearing ? Or global warming, sounds like same song , differnet verse :)
anyway they are not even sure they are dying, just dissappearing. Perhapos they know something we don't and are moving out ?
The big one for CA ?
Click to expand...
Not according to a recent report on our local news. When spring comes and they are coming out of dormancy many have died over the winter, many more than normally. They aren't just "disappearing" they are dying for some reason that is unexplained at this moment. They will be doing necropsies on them this spring to ascertain the cause.

Anyway, that is why I asked what you point was with it. It really doesn't fit into the discussion at hand.
 
Damocles said:
Not according to a recent report on our local news. When spring comes and they are coming out of dormancy many have died over the winter, many more than normally. They aren't just "disappearing" they are dying for some reason that is unexplained at this moment. They will be doing necropsies on them this spring to ascertain the cause.

Anyway, that is why I asked what you point was with it. It really doesn't fit into the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...
I recall hearing something about a parasitic infection, viral agent, bacteria, etc and honeybees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top