It's the Winds Man, It's the Winds Fault

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
If something is gaining in size it is not shrinking. I know you want to COMPLETELY DISREGARD the data by trying to fold it in with data over time and saying it is not significant. Which was my original point.

What happens if the ice cap gains this year like last year? Will it simply be a 2 year anomaly? What happens after 10 years? Are you still going to call it a fluke? I mean, after all, global temperatures have been level or decreasing for over a decade and you guys still wont shut up...

Rest your case because you lost it a long time ago...
Click to expand...
It is NOT gaining in size. Reread post #101. Record ice gains in a single year refer to AREA. However, over the course of years the ice caps have lost VOLUME.
 
Last edited:
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
It is NOT gaining in size. Reread post #100. Record ice gains in a single year refer to AREA. However, over the course of years the ice caps have lost VOLUME.
Click to expand...
Yes, again you refer to the course of years and disregard the data. I get it... You dont want to address the gains, simply gloss them over and tell us all the ice will continue to shrink after this brief change...

I am not trying to take your religion away from you, I just dont want it foisted upon me.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Yes, again you refer to the course of years and disregard the data. I get it... You dont want to address the gains, simply gloss them over and tell us all the ice will continue to shrink after this brief change...

I am not trying to take your religion away from you, I just dont want it foisted upon me.
Click to expand...
Oh I see, you're fucking with me. Good one lol.

Seriously though, I addressed the argument with a concise argument on post #101. Learn the difference between area and volume dipshit.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Does an area have volume?
Click to expand...
I actually understand where AC is coming from (and am throwing a mini party).

You can increase surface area, but if the depth decreases enough, the overall volume can too.

I don't see any claims that the volume decreased last year, or if I did, I ignored them. The claims are an overall decrease over the last x years.

One year is such a small sample size, as is 10, 20 or 100 when comparing historical data. It won't stop either side from using it though if it fits the argument.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I actually understand where AC is coming from (and am throwing a mini party).

You can increase surface area, but if the depth decreases enough, the overall volume can too.

I don't see any claims that the volume decreased last year, or if I did, I ignored them. The claims are an overall decrease over the last x years.

One year is such a small sample size, as is 10, 20 or 100 when comparing historical data. It won't stop either side from using it though if it fits the argument.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can increase area while decreasing volume. However, the area that increased also has volume. AC is arguing like the area that increased has no volume because volume is different from Area. Any 4th grader would look at him like an idiot yet he continues to parrot it.

Yes, one year is an incredibly small sample size. As is the 150 years of global climate data we have. However, the left seems content to ignore over a decade of flat or cooling temperatures in an effort to continue to wage war against capitalism, power, wealth, and industrialization.

So Ginwilly... How long do you want to wait for them to stop discounting what they do not choose to believe?? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years?? In the 70's we were facing an oncoming ice age so if it flips every 40-50 years they should be getting ready to warn us that we are going to become an ice cube unless we stop burning fossil fuels.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
=AC is arguing like the area that increased has no volume because volume is different from Area. Any 4th grader would look at him like an idiot yet he continues to parrot it.
=.
Click to expand...
Keep demonstrating that you don't understand the argument, keep getting called an idiot.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Says the guy pointing to area ice gains in a single year...
Click to expand...
I didnt point to them, I said you were overlooking them. I also said that 1 year is too small of a sample along with 150 years. You overlooked that too. You are excellent at overlooking what you do not want to see which was my ORIGINAL POINT....

Thanks for playing!!
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
I didnt point to them, I said you were overlooking them. I also said that 1 year is too small of a sample along with 150 years. You overlooked that too. You are excellent at overlooking what you do not want to see which was my ORIGINAL POINT....

Thanks for playing!!
Click to expand...
See post #101, you know, the one you spent so long overlooking. You'll find I did not overlook your original point. I have explicated your arguments.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
See post #101, you know, the one you spent so long overlooking. You'll find I did not overlook your original point. I have explicated your arguments.
Click to expand...
So your contention now is that you are the left and/or you speak for the left? I didnt realize we had such a powerful person on the forum...
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
So your contention now is that you are the left and/or you speak for the left? I didnt realize we had such a powerful person on the forum...
Click to expand...
You are willing to point out local ice core data because it supports your theory. You are willing to discount over a decade of cooling because it does not support your theory. You are willing to show a graph of 35 years of ice when it suits you but point to thousands of years of ice cores when that data fits your agenda better.

I shouldnt argue with you anymore, again, it is a religion, not science...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
So your contention now is that you are the left and/or you speak for the left? I didnt realize we had such a powerful person on the forum...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're talking about. You replied to my comment to someone else, so as far as I know, we started debating on your post, #100. I replied to you on post #101. You're not making much sense, which is why I called you words like dumb and idiot and so forth.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
You are willing to point out local ice core data because it supports your theory. You are willing to discount over a decade of cooling because it does not support your theory. You are willing to show a graph of 35 years of ice when it suits you but point to thousands of years of ice cores when that data fits your agenda better.

I shouldnt argue with you anymore, again, it is a religion, not science...
Click to expand...
You're not making much sense. You're also not understanding my arguments. Please cite your arguments.

Also, the graph was an illustration to point how you misunderstand data, not to point to a specific data set, although it uses a specific data set. The point was how you misuse data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top