Who still believes in Global Warming?

[poker_dummy101]

I can put up pretty graphs too:

[CarpeDime]

That's because there is more grass grown now with the ground not being frozen for more time in the year.

dude polar bears live on SNOW

if theirs more polar bears its because theirs MORE SNOW

if theirs MORE SNOW its because the world is getting COLDER not warmer

think about it

[DrStale]

Well done dummy, you put up a a very complex graph based on the last 10 years. I put up a simple graph showing that increase in average temperature over 150 years, but your minuscule sample size is far more convincing.

[DwightShrute]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

good article

[poker_dummy101]

Well done dummy, you put up a a very complex graph based on the last 10 years. I put up a simple graph showing that increase in average temperature over 150 years, but your minuscule sample size is far more convincing.

Read the other stuff, pal. Go read how NASA is changing data to fit their criteria while nowhere else are they coming with such differences.

Ignorance is a killer.

[Sam Odom]

The changing of the official LEFTY Mantra from Global Warming to Climate Change should answer this question

[rdo37]

ahhh, so now we will conveniently alter the name to climate change, got it. something that only has been happening on Earth for billions of years. i think you are grossly over-estimating the importance of the human race and our impact. we are fleas on the back of mother earth and if she decides to shake us off, so be it.

BUT, YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT....

this thread is not to be used by the knuckle-draggers on both sides to insult one another, it is to illustrate that lacking the ability to think for yourself, you should not invest time nor money into capping or betting.

if you choose to ignore the decline in temps over years, you probably choose to ignore that Top 20 Defenses in Bowl Games this year ar 12-2 SU/ATS. part of why i slammed Iowa last night.

if you ignore articles from 1922 that warned of melting ice caps and rising oceans, you probably ignore data such as only 2 teams have won a SB since 2000 while having a defense not ranked in the Top 10 in the NFL.

if you choose to listen to Gore on weather and believe him, you are gullible enough to listen to Lang when capping games.

if you trust the MSM as being 'experts' on the climate, you probably trust ESPN, Fox Sports, my avatar and any other 'expert' on who will win and/or cover games.

you cannot be blinded by the people 'presenting' the data. you have to find that shit on your own, analyze it and reach a logical conclusion. people are going to lie to you, as statisticians are fond of saying

In God we Trust, All Others Bring DATA

For being a stat nerd you should know one key ingredient for anaylzing statistical data...It's called SAMPLE SIZE.

wow you found that top 20 defenses are 12-2 su/ats this year, huuuge sample size to base your wagers on.

And your SB stat, the 10 year sample size is insignificant, the next 10 sb's could go the other way and shit on your stat...

Now on to our "climate change"/global warming BS, the human species are a mere spec on the historic timeline for Earth. I don't feel like finding the graph-timeline, but there's proof that there are warming trends and cooling trends throughout Earth's history.

/devil's advocate
[ ] feel strongly about this subject

[DrStale]

You're right, good article on the NASA thing here:

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0817-nasa_snafu.html

I especially like the graph at the bottom.

[blueghost]

figures can lie and liars can figure..dont know who said that first..but it sure fits here

[MJFtheGenius]

Idk but it's pretty dam cold out right now and it is supposed to get colder

[poker_dummy101]

You're right, good article on the NASA thing here:

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0817-nasa_snafu.html

I especially like the graph at the bottom.

But I am not here to argue if its getting hotter or colder, I am just saying its not man-made.

[DrStale]

But I am not here to argue if its getting hotter or colder, I am just saying its not man-made.

Well agree to disagree then, but the stuff you posted about NASA never had anything to do with it being man-made, it had to do with increasing temperatures, which you were apparently refuting.

[pavyracer]

dude polar bears live on SNOW

if theirs more polar bears its because theirs MORE SNOW

if theirs MORE SNOW its because the world is getting COLDER not warmer

think about it

Less snow means more food for the polar bears. The only side effect is polar bears coat gets darker.

[DwightShrute]

But I am not here to argue if its getting hotter or colder, I am just saying its not man-made.

well said.

I have no vested interest if it's man-made climate change or just the natural cycle of the Sun solar rays influencing the warning/cooling of the planet.

I, like many, looked at both sides of the debate and come to that conclusion.

Plus Al Gore is a fvckin hypocrite, so having him on the man-made global warming side doesn't help that argument

[poker_dummy101]

Well agree to disagree then, but the stuff you posted about NASA never had anything to do with it being man-made, it had to do with increasing temperatures, which you were apparently refuting.

Yes I am refuting man-made global warming. I agree in climate changes.. whether hotter or colder.

Any data I showed that disproves global warming only helps my side of the argument which is what those charts/graphs were doing, even though it was not the nucleus of my points.

But yes, agree to disagree.

[poker_dummy101]

Plus Al Gore is a fvckin hypocrite, so having him on the man-made global warming side doesn't help that argument

Al Gore sure did change his house after people attacked him about it.

[statnerds]

For being a stat nerd you should know one key ingredient for anaylzing statistical data...It's called SAMPLE SIZE.

wow you found that top 20 defenses are 12-2 su/ats this year, huuuge sample size to base your wagers on.

if you suggest sample size than you most certainly must be aware that 30 is a. i'll just give you the L2 years than, and you can see the pattern emerging and go do some fukking work on your own.

Top 20 Defenses in Bowl Game when not facing another top 20:

19 - 6 SU

20 - 5 ATS

now if you go back and do the 2007 Bowl Season you will hit your required sample size.

you can simply google defense winning championships and see how often SB teams and winners rank in the top 10 defensively. and again you miss the point as well, and THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT ON THIS THREAD....

WHY DID NO ONE QUESTION MY 12-2 ATS FIGURE?!?!

is it accurate? how the fukk would any of you know, you didn't check it.

[smitch124]

I think its impossible to accurately estimate the extent to which man is affecting the long term climate, we just don't have enough historical data. I would think its prudent, though, to try to limit the man-made change in concentration of any of the atmospheric component as much as possible.

[poker_dummy101]

[MaInIsLe]

No such thing, and in my lifetime its fo sho not a problem

[Mac4Lyfe]

I'm not going to debate Global Warming because people are too emotional on both sides. I'm going to mention something I'm very informed about and that is the end of "easy" oil. We use to get oil seeping out of the ground but today we have to extract it out of rocks and drill a half mile deep in frigid waters. Our thirst for oil will soon run out in most of our life time. If you don't believe me, just sit back and wait.

[poker_dummy101]

Oil is the least of my concerns

[smitch124]

I'm not going to debate Global Warming because people are too emotional on both sides. I'm going to mention something I'm very informed about and that is the end of "easy" oil. We use to get oil seeping out of the ground but today we have to extract it out of rocks and drill a half mile deep in frigid waters. Our thirst for oil will soon run out in most of our life time. If you don't believe me, just sit back and wait.

Interesting book on the subject:

[aceking]

AL Gore is a dumbass

[statnerds]

[quote=pavyracer;2890127]

why is it hotter at the Equator than either Pole?
quote]

This is easy. The earth is a sphere like a tennis ball. The sun is a sphere like a basketball. Now the sun is the hot potato. Go in your garage and take a tennis ball and a basketball and place them a few feet apart on the floor. Then take a measuring tape and measure the distance between the tops of balls and the sides of the balls. Then you have your answer.

so the Sun is the biggest factor in whether or not it is zero at the North Pole and 110 degrees at the Equator? hmmm, that's strange seeing as how everyone seems to think man has more effect than the Sun....

[KKoz9]

How could it possibly be a hoax? It was 9 degrees last night here near Dallas.

[pavyracer]

[QUOTE=statnerds;2909914]

so the Sun is the biggest factor in whether or not it is zero at the North Pole and 110 degrees at the Equator? hmmm, that's strange seeing as how everyone seems to think man has more effect than the Sun....

No it's not the Sun. The Sun being the bigger ball has no effect. The distance between the Sun and area in question is the difference. It's not as hot being 20 ft away from a fireplace as being 10 ft away.

[smitch124]

[QUOTE=pavyracer;2910486]

No it's not the Sun. The Sun being the bigger ball has no effect. The distance between the Sun and area in question is the difference. It's not as hot being 20 ft away from a fireplace as being 10 ft away.

It has nothing to do with the distance from the sun, the difference after 90 Million miles is negligible. Its the angle of incidence thats important, as the greater the angle (closer to 90 Degrees) the larger the heat load. When it is summer in each of the hemispheres it is due to that hemisphere being tilted toward the sun thus increasing the angle of incidence.

[donjuan]

Yes, NYG +13 and the ML for the SB.

You might want to keep quiet about this one. Betting NYG ML in the 2007 SB is pretty much instant retard status.

[HenPrivilege]

LAST WARNING: STAY FOCUSED!!!!!!!

FUKK THE DEBATE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

THINK BIG PICTURE:

Consider the hype behind global warming and think of what that translates to in sports?

my example?

the '07 Pats. all the hype in the world and how many games did they cover after the -24 line vs Philly (a game had Philly +24 and the ML!!!!!). but for all the hype and all the offense, they lost the Superbowl. because during the craze, no one checked their emotions at the door and picked up on the fact that they had an aging defense that sucked, except this guy. Yes, NYG +13 and the ML for the SB.

how do you cap a game? how did you form your stance on global warming?

unless you have a critical thinking process in place with steps to follow, you might have reached an incorrect solution.

You sound like a college professor. You remind me of my FIN136 (modern portfolio theory) professor. That SOB had unanswerable questions and you had to justify your response as if you were in the Supreme Court.

The real question is.. Jets or Bengals? and why?

[Chuck Sims]

Apparently we got some brainwashed posters

MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX.

Hundreds of millions of dollars of our tax dollars have been going to scientists that promote man made global warming.

The earth has been cooling for more than a decade. The leaked e-mails talk about this and the scientists also talked about how they were going to put in false data to make it look like the earth was heating up.

The ice age is a coming. Always does. Climate change is cyclical.

[Cappy]

That graph is retarded, it has 3 variables but only two dimensions. That makes it an erroneous graph, I guess your a facts dummy too

[20Four7]

You might want to keep quiet about this one. Betting NYG ML in the 2007 SB is pretty much instant retard status.

That is true, I posted back then about why I liked the Giants and was called much worse than a retard.......

[Mr KLC]

Whether you believe in global warming (climate change) or not, countries like China and India are not going to change from traditional energy anytime soon. It seems to me that the best way to solve the problem is to use our resources off shore and in Alaska to lower the cost of energy at this time, while at the same time implementing clean energy resources in portions across the country. This way we're not as dependant on foreign sources, and the progressives will still get their clean energy over the long haul.

[Cougar Bait]

I think I might be the only one who understands what he was trying to say in the initial post. I think. My best friend is a scientist and works in the field publishing papers, etc. at a major university. From what I understand, all of this "data" (on both sides) is tweaked to alter the proposed publisher's argument. It has a lot to do with something called the "peer review process." See when you want a paper published in a journal you have to submit it to "experts" for review. If they don't agree with your premise, you are rejected, or you have to alter your data in order to get published. The "experts/reviewers" would probably send you something requesting "modification" to your article. But what they are really saying is, "I don't agree with your premise or your data, so if you want it published by me you'll need to go ahead and change it up."

The reason I feel this is important to what statnerds was trying to convey earlier is that the same thing goes on with these touts. They are basically adjusting the data to fit their pick. So if the Patriots are their play today, they give you a million ATS reasons why that's the play. Meanwhile there are just as many reasons statistically why they aren't the play but your opinion has been altered by the tout so you'll tell everyone you know about how this is a lock because of XYZ. The only problem is ABC is just as important as XYZ but since it was left out of the discussion altogether you failed to recognize the significance.

Peer review process = tout