Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Yes new study on global cooling by the UN,s own global warming sceintist.

  1. #11
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Would you say that NASA is a good scientific place to go for facts? Do you have any other scientific places to view info?

    If 80% of climate scientists believe something is a fact would you automatically assume they are wrong? Just trying to understand your thought processes and how you arrive at your conclusions. Is it purely based on ideology?

  2. #12
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Atypical View Post
    "Mojib Latifs study directly contradicts what Mojib Latif has said about global warming."

    Science is an ongoing process that CHANGES IF NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS LEARNED. You want an opinion about a complicated subject to remain unchanged?You don't understand science, apparently, because you consider new information AN ERROR!

    "Once again what has the UN been saying for the past 10 years thats right that tempitures will rise. That has not only not happen but they have gone down in the totally opposite direction as the UN has said they would."

    Apparently you can't read.

    He said, "The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted. Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm".


    "Now that the fact that not only over the last 10 years have the tempitures gone down and not up as the UN and the rest of the global warming alarmist have been saying they would but that every other prediction they have made about future rising tempitures will also be wrong."

    I'll write slowly. S E E A B O V E.

    You should be embarassed. Do you know what a decade is??? Do you know what words actually mean???

    What the scientist said in TOTALITY is he thinks there could be only an INTERRUPTION in warming. That's it. Are you able to understand that?

    Never mind. Probably not, based on your anti-intellectualism.
    Very well put Atypical
    In John's world ideology trumps science. If 99.99% of all climate scientists said that the world is warming due to CO2 emissions largely caused by man John would have to continue to disagree.
    A scientist goes where the facts are.
    Rigid ideologists only go where their beliefs tell them to go.

  3. #13
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    So you are saying that the earth's temperature in the next 10 to 20 years will be goinng down? ( So from now to 2029 the earths temperature will be on a downward slope? Correct?) I just want to get in your own words so we can check it against NASA measurments in the coming years.

    Are you still also saying that the economic and technical feasibility of hybrids, hybrid electrics, and electrics wont happen for at least 20 years?
    Correct me if i am wrong on your statement. I want to get it down on paper in your own words so we can all check your facts in the coming years.

    Yes the average tempitures have gone down in the last 10 years. You cant argue with historys facts draw a line down the graph of tempitures and it clearly shows tempitures have gone down (it is exactly what they do to show the main direction (trend) of stocks while you may have a spike in ether direction it is the trend that matters). I also said that in the next and here we go **10** to 20 years the average tempitures will also go down (even your own guy (Mojib Latif) has come around more to my think then yours). That is because even the solar scientist will not go any further in their projections.

    Now as for your NASA projections I think when they have been found to purposely mislead people when they said that out of the last hundred years that out of the 10 hotest years 7 of them have been in between the years1998 to 2006 and the hottest year was 1998 have been proven to be wrong and they had to say (quietly), OPPs we are sorry, we F-ed up, you have some real problems.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09...the-millenium/

    "According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is. Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900."


    Please everyone goto the link and then follow the links it provides for even more conformation on NASAs frick up. I call it that because it shows they had to almost blatantly done so.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------


    Now as for hybrids you dont need me to say it again because I have been clear on this several times. I will for you say it again, that hybrids will not be economically for at least 10 to 20 years. I also will say something I have been saying in PMs to people, that I dont think they will ever because I think hydrogen will be the way to go and by the time hybrids are economical, hydrogen will have come to be the replacement for them all. There has been one car company (Honda or Nisson) that thinks the same way. They are not putting any real money in hybrids but into hydrogen instead.

    You see Lloyd anyone that knows me also knows I am a futurest I believe that things like Space elevators (and nano Carbon tubes) and in things like nano tech that will have little robots that will be able to search out and destroy cancer cells are **possible**. The difference though, is I am also a reallist and do not buy all the hype that is out there that is not supported by facts. What is possible and what is real are the facts that support them.

    Facts about Hybrids: I have shown that a Ford Focas cost 6,000 less then the Prius, and that it would take AT LEAST 12 YEARS to get your money back.

    Facts about Hybrids: While the life span of the batteries has gone up so has the cost of them and by the same or even more. So the cost basis has stayed the same, IT TOOK HOW MANY YEARS FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. (for the twits out there, I am saying it took how many years for nothing to change, because THE COST BASIS IS STILL THE SAME.)

  4. #14
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Would you say that NASA is a good scientific place to go for facts? Do you have any other scientific places to view info?

    If 80% of climate scientists believe something is a fact would you automatically assume they are wrong? Just trying to understand your thought processes and how you arrive at your conclusions. Is it purely based on ideology?

    You better get your facts checked because your losing scientist every day it is down to 40% I count all the ones that have changed the saying from global warming to global climate change. Dhaa there is a reason they took the word "warming" out of global warming. Some of them have even totally switched and now think we are headed for another "little Ice Age". The fact and funny thing is that while they switched that part they still think man is responcible for it. I LOL every time I see that one.

  5. #15
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Very well put Atypical
    In John's world ideology trumps science. If 99.99% of all climate scientists said that the world is warming due to CO2 emissions largely caused by man John would have to continue to disagree.
    A scientist goes where the facts are.
    Rigid ideologists only go where their beliefs tell them to go.

    Wrong dumbass did you see the facts


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDqfX...layer_embedded



    P.S. Hey Lloyd (I laugh every time I think about you using another name to agree with yourself, sounds just like someone I can trust (I say that sarcastically)) did NASA lie about the tempitures or not did they get it wrong or not? BTW I knew they fricked up because I watched FOX and they where the only ones that reported about it. That is why this news about NASA comes as such a surprise to you.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09...the-millenium/
    Last edited by john; 09-26-2009 at 12:56 PM.

  6. #16
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Let me pin this down again. So in 19 years from now hybrids will still not be economically or technically ( i thought you had argued they were technically feasible as well) feasibile? This despite showing you a comprehensive study that shows that some hybrids are ALREADY economical.
    Remember you initially argued that less factors are better in determining economic feasibility and rejected a very fair and reputable study that was more comprehensive than anything you cited.
    I was just curious if you would ever accept any study that didnt agree with what you believed?

    You make your argument despite the fact that all car companies are investing heavily in hybrids, hybrid plug-ins and electrics (Renault/Nissan are going all in on electrics). You say Honda is not "spending any real money on hybrids". Are you sure about that? What about hybrid plug-ins?

    You called people that purchase hybrids now "laughable" . Toyota estimates they will be selling 500,000 or more hybrids a year. All laughable i quess. The former head of the CIA drives a hybrid plug-in. He's laughable too i quess.

    Once again i showed you a comprehensive study (if you want i can post it again for all to see?) that refutes your arguments on hybrid economics. It clearly shows that the Prius and other hybrids will save you money over the long term (and not very long term) if you buy them now. it doesnt fit with your argument so of course you automatically reject it.

    Oh by the way i love the part about NASA purposefully misleading people.
    I suggest you read NASA and all other scientific journals. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DISAGREE WITH YOU.
    Do you write your own scientific journal? You have a degree in climate scientology? Oh yeah i forgot your common sense lets you be all knowing.lol.

  7. #17
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    Wrong dumbass did you see the facts


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDqfX...layer_embedded



    P.S. Hey Lloyd (I laugh every time I think about you using another name to agree with yourself, sounds just like someone I can trust (I say that sarcastically)) did NASA lie about the tempitures or not did they get it wrong or not? BTW I knew they fricked up because I watched FOX and they where the only ones that reported about it. That is why this news about NASA comes as such a surprise to you.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09...the-millenium/
    Not everyone agrees with you about FOX. LOL. Please read.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200907010013

    I laugh every time i think of i had more commone sense than Lloyd.
    Just trying to have a little fun with you John. I know, i know your not really known for your sense of humor. Too bad.

  8. #18
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Lets try that again.

    I laugh every time i think of you saying i had more common sense than Lloyd.
    Still funny a 2nd time. Relax John i was just having a little bit of fun at your expense. You think so much of your skills you practically annointed yourself the nextSherlock Holmes. It was as obvious as Fox news bias.

  9. #19
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    You better get your facts checked because your losing scientist every day it is down to 40% I count all the ones that have changed the saying from global warming to global climate change. Dhaa there is a reason they took the word "warming" out of global warming. Some of them have even totally switched and now think we are headed for another "little Ice Age". The fact and funny thing is that while they switched that part they still think man is responcible for it. I LOL every time I see that one.
    Can you please show me where only 40% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS believe in global warming? Only INDEPENDENT studies please. No conservative think tanks like heritage foundation and or Fox News in the tank, think tanks.

  10. #20
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Let me pin this down again. So in 19 years from now hybrids will still not be economically or technically ( i thought you had argued they were technically feasible as well) feasibile? This despite showing you a comprehensive study that shows that some hybrids are ALREADY economical.
    Remember you initially argued that less factors are better in determining economic feasibility and rejected a very fair and reputable study that was more comprehensive than anything you cited.
    I was just curious if you would ever accept any study that didnt agree with what you believed?

    You make your argument despite the fact that all car companies are investing heavily in hybrids, hybrid plug-ins and electrics (Renault/Nissan are going all in on electrics). You say Honda is not "spending any real money on hybrids". Are you sure about that? What about hybrid plug-ins?

    You called people that purchase hybrids now "laughable" . Toyota estimates they will be selling 500,000 or more hybrids a year. All laughable i quess. The former head of the CIA drives a hybrid plug-in. He's laughable too i quess.

    Once again i showed you a comprehensive study (if you want i can post it again for all to see?) that refutes your arguments on hybrid economics. It clearly shows that the Prius and other hybrids will save you money over the long term (and not very long term) if you buy them now. it doesnt fit with your argument so of course you automatically reject it.

    Oh by the way i love the part about NASA purposefully misleading people.
    I suggest you read NASA and all other scientific journals. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DISAGREE WITH YOU.
    Do you write your own scientific journal? You have a degree in climate scientology? Oh yeah i forgot your common sense lets you be all knowing.lol.

    I have already made my opinions clear on what you think about man made global warming you have yet to give me one answer on the questions I asked and ho yes said the reason was that you are not replieing to my comments anymore. Here is a little reminder of your excuse to me (second post down):

    http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2603

    Now does that excuse make any sense, NO IT DOESN'T. So will you finally answer the questions in that thread.



    You are talking about the same study I ripped to pieces (goto post 15)

    http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2483


    You think you prove your point because car companies are spending alot of money on hybrids, That proves nothing when the government is forcing them to do so with mileage standards and subsidys. How much do you think they would without such things. I will not even get into all the other money wasted by them following other ideas that did not pan out. Hey you remember a car called the Edsol, you remember the Pinto, you remember the Chevet. I THINK I PROVED MY POINT.


    You say I think it is laughable becuase the head of the CIA drives a hybrid so do you think it is also laughable that almost every democrat congressmen and senators doesn't drive a hybrid, I think I made my point if you want to use him as an example again, I will bring up the REST of congress as an example.

    You have been schooled.



    You say you showed me a study first I will say it again I ripped it to pieces go back to that link I then also showed in plan english how a hybrid when compared to a normal gas burning car does dont pan out and it will take forever to get your money back goto the 13 post (I used the old life spans of 7 years of battery banks, that has changed in the new hybrids to 12 years)

    http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showthre...?t=2442&page=2



    Now as to NASA they ADMITTED IT THEMSELVES they made a MISTAKE. NASA then CHANGED their OWN FINDINGS. The difference is it was not reported by the MSM and only FOX covered the change and the mistake NASA made. You really are a tard aren't you.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •