Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, in the real world..

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus



"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"

"The scientific community has reached a strong consensus that global temperatures are rising rapidly as a direct result of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human-made sources."

http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_scientificconsensus.php

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article





"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.

Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.

The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.

The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."

"2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” :

A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability."

"As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change."

"Establishing the mainstream scientific assessment, climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming were as follows:

-The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.

-"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.

-If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

"Peter Christoff, writing an opinion piece in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships"

"Efforts to downplay the significance of climate change resemble the determined efforts of tobacco lobbyists, in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation. Lobbyists attempted to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. They worked to discredit the scientists involved, to dispute their findings, and to create and maintain an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. ""Doubt is our product," boasted a now infamous 1969 industry memo. Doubt would shield the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades to come." In 2006, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian about similarities between the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
your "97%of scientists" is actually ~36%
your "global warming is happening and it's mostly our fault" is really "~90% agree, global warming is happening, and ~36% think it MIGHT be PARTLY our fault
your "almost all of the 1 degree C warming between 1880 and 2000 is our fault" becomes "~50% of the 0.4 degree C warming between 1951 and 2010 might be our fault"
your "IPCC report 5 says..." becomes "Wikipedia claims the IPCC report 5 says..." and it doesnt say that at all
your "Wikipedia is right, the IPCC report itself is wrong" becomes **Crickets**
your "The IPCC is right" (lulz, see above) becomes "the UN cant even accurately ascertain how many people in Jamaica smoke weed" (the answer is "Most Of Em")

when the facts arent on your side, you make shit up, or guilelessly accept the statements of others who Make Shit UP (note the Hockey Stick Graph Fiasco and Climate Gate)

when confronted with evidence that your statements are WRONG (and demonstrably substantially, catastrophically wrong, yet easy to check based on the "citations", to boot) you scream DENIER! LUDDITE! and SHILL FOR BIG OIL!

then, when your ass is chafed and sore from the paddling, you start a new thread and make the same claims all over again as if they are somehow new and fresh.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
your "97%of scientists" is actually ~36%
your "global warming is happening and it's mostly our fault" is really "~90% agree, global warming is happening, and ~36% think it MIGHT be PARTLY our fault
your "almost all of the 1 degree C warming between 1880 and 2000 is our fault" becomes "~50% of the 0.4 degree C warming between 1951 and 2010 might be our fault"
your "IPCC report 5 says..." becomes "Wikipedia claims the IPCC report 5 says..." and it doesnt say that at all
your "Wikipedia is right, the IPCC report itself is wrong" becomes **Crickets**
your "The IPCC is right" (lulz, see above) becomes "the UN cant even accurately ascertain how many people in Jamaica smoke weed" (the answer is "Most Of Em")

when the facts arent on your side, you make shit up, or guilelessly accept the statements of others who Make Shit UP (note the Hockey Stick Graph Fiasco and Climate Gate)

when confronted with evidence that your statements are WRONG (and demonstrably substantially, catastrophically wrong, yet easy to check based on the "citations", to boot) you scream DENIER! LUDDITE! and SHILL FOR BIG OIL!

then, when your ass is chafed and sore from the paddling, you start a new thread and make the same claims all over again as if they are somehow new and fresh.
there he goes with the "~50%" lie again since he got caught lying so often about what is actually in the IPCC report, which clearly says "more than half".

there he goes with "climategate" again, even though they were completely exonerated by 8 different investigations.

let's see if he tries to stick to the "6 billion tonnes" lie. this should be interesting folks.

i'm gonna start a thread to keep a running tally of how many lies kynes has to tell in a day to desperately cling to his demonstrably false worldview.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, in the real world..

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus



"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"

"The scientific community has reached a strong consensus that global temperatures are rising rapidly as a direct result of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human-made sources."

http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_scientificconsensus.php

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article





"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.

Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.

The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.

The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."

"2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” :

A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability."

"As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change."

"Establishing the mainstream scientific assessment, climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming were as follows:

-The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.

-"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.

-If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

"Peter Christoff, writing an opinion piece in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships"

"Efforts to downplay the significance of climate change resemble the determined efforts of tobacco lobbyists, in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation. Lobbyists attempted to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. They worked to discredit the scientists involved, to dispute their findings, and to create and maintain an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. ""Doubt is our product," boasted a now infamous 1969 industry memo. Doubt would shield the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades to come." In 2006, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian about similarities between the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
A "consensus" based on abstracts...

Cool story bro.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
i think it is sad that dunces like kynes try to put out obviously false numbers that are begging for correction since he has no real argument anyway.

just like when he lies about what is in IPCC reports, gets caught, repeats the lie a few more times, gets caught again every time, and then starts using a "~" instead of "more than" or "less than".
the "Summary for Policy Makers" clearly states "extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming between 1951 and 2010 is anthropogenic" the fine print declares that the weasel words "Extremely Likely" means (variously) 85-90% and "More than 50%" means "51%"


"The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement
1. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in afinding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment
2. Where appropriate, findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. (See Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details about the specific language the IPCC uses to communicate uncertainty). The basis for substantive paragraphs in this Summary for Policymakers can be found in the chapter sections of the underlying report and in the Technical Summary. These references are given in curly brackets."
~Ipcc reort 5, direct from WG1's "Summary For Policy Makers"

those with better math than me have looked at it, and agree:
as the % of anthropogenicness drops, the probability of confidence increases. at "almost certainly"(more than 95% confidence), we are looking at LESS THAN 50% anthropogenicness.

reading the above excerpt direct from IPCC Report 5's "Summary For Policy Makers" even a fool can spot the "Uncertainty" and "Expert Judgement" (which is fancy talk for "Opinion" not Empirical Data)

you can stop your lies anytime you like
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
the "Summary for Policy Makers" clearly states "extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming between 1951 and 2010 is anthropogenic" the fine print declares that the weasel words "Extremely Likely" means (variously) 85-90% and "More than 50%" means "51%"


"The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement
1. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in afinding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment
2. Where appropriate, findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. (See Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details about the specific language the IPCC uses to communicate uncertainty). The basis for substantive paragraphs in this Summary for Policymakers can be found in the chapter sections of the underlying report and in the Technical Summary. These references are given in curly brackets."
~Ipcc reort 5, direct from WG1's "Summary For Policy Makers"

those with better math than me have looked at it, and agree:
as the % of anthropogenicness drops, the probability of confidence increases. at "almost certainly"(more than 95% confidence), we are looking at LESS THAN 50% anthropogenicness.

reading the above excerpt direct from IPCC Report 5's "Summary For Policy Makers" even a fool can spot the "Uncertainty" and "Expert Judgement" (which is fancy talk for "Opinion" not Empirical Data)

you can stop your lies anytime you like
I'm sure you don't care, but you are embarrassing yourself.. It would be sad if it wasn't so funny

I'll be back soon with a hilarious update regarding your consistent stupidity...
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
"Skeptical Science" is a blog, and both words in it's URL are lies.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18300-climategate-3-0-university-threatens-blogger-for-exposing-97-consensus-fraud

Cook has a direct interest in supporting his own assertions (he is the one who popularized the "97%" claim)
his claims are based entirely on Naomi Oreskes' metastudy (the weakest kind of study), of published papers on "climate change"which has been found deeply flawed, and has ZERO credibility

Oreskes isnt even a climate scientist, her field of study is The History Of Science, with a minor in Mining Geology

thats right, a History Professor is lecturing climatologists on how much they all agree (to the shock of many of them) with AGW.
she falsely attributed "agreement" to studies that took no opinion, and even some that objected. she mischaracterized the statements of real climatologists, and more than a few called her out on it.

you used Cook's own blog as proof that Cook's assertions were correct. what did you expect him to say?
"i committed academic fraud, but the cause is so important you should just accept it anyhow." isnt very persuasive.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I'm sure you don't care, but you are embarrassing yourself.. It would be sad if it wasn't so funny

I'll be back soon with a hilarious update regarding your consistent stupidity...
you have no substantive argument, so you mutter some vague imprecations and pretend you have succeeded, when you have demonstrated over and over that you are Utterly, Unremittingly Inferior.

perhaps you can regale us with more Munchhausian tales of Wikipedia's grand victory over the foolish IPCC report, or explain why they felt the need to edit the UN's drugs report to a shockingly specific 9.9% of jamaicans using weed in 2006, from the equally absurd 10.7% they reported.

perhaps the Wikipedia page dealing with Wikipedia could help you out..
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
"Skeptical Science" is a blog, and both words in it's URL are lies.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18300-climategate-3-0-university-threatens-blogger-for-exposing-97-consensus-fraud

Cook has a direct interest in supporting his own assertions (he is the one who popularized the "97%" claim)
his claims are based entirely on Naomi Oreskes' metastudy (the weakest kind of study), of published papers on "climate change"which has been found deeply flawed, and has ZERO credibility

Oreskes isnt even a climate scientist, her field of study is The History Of Science, with a minor in Mining Geology

thats right, a History Professor is lecturing climatologists on how much they all agree (to the shock of many of them) with AGW.
she falsely attributed "agreement" to studies that took no opinion, and even some that objected. she mischaracterized the statements of real climatologists, and more than a few called her out on it.

you used Cook's own blog as proof that Cook's assertions were correct. what did you expect him to say?
"i committed academic fraud, but the cause is so important you should just accept it anyhow." isnt very persuasive.

nuh uH! bullshit!
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
china alone emits more than 6 billion tonnes of co2 annually, you fucking stooge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

maybe if you didn't hate reality so much, it wouldn't hate you so much in response.
really?

your cartoon claimed to cite a report that i read AND posted a link to, with an invitation for you to look for yourself, and that report did not support the claims made.
so now you want to use WIKI-MOTHERFUCKING-PEDIA to refute your own "citation" with another unsupported citation from a source that i have proved cant even get the facts right when the details are super easy to check?

yeah, your really showin me who's boss...

maybe you should check the facts (someplace besides wikipedia) before you post any more dopey cartoons which try to make factual assertions with fake "citations"
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
nuh uH! bullshit!
ya got a Wikipedia page to back that up too i bet...

or maybe a cute little cartoon with a fake citation leading to a report that makes you a LIAR?

you should get together with AC and devise a strategy to switch the meanings of "Correct" and "Incorrect", that way you can claim to be "Correct" without being a LIAR
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
WIKI-MOTHERFUCKING-PEDIA
lol, too easy.

wikipedia just compiles the data and provides citations to their sources, you relentlessly dumb fedora donner.

  1. Schrooten, L; De Vlieger, Ina; Int Panis, Luc; Styns, R. Torfs, K; Torfs, R (2008). "Inventory and forecasting of maritime emissions in the Belgian sea territory, an activity based emission model". Atmospheric Environment - 42(4)667-676(2008) 42 (4): 667–676.
  2. Jump up^ "China now no. 1 in CO
    2 emissions; USA in second position"
    . Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Retrieved 2007-06-22.
  3. Jump up^ "China Overtakes U.S. as No. 1 Emitter of Carbon Dioxide". NPR. 2008-03-14.
  4. Jump up^ "China CO
    2 Emissions Growing Faster Than Anticipated"
    . National Geographic. 2008-03-18.
  5. Jump up^ "Forecasting the Path of China’s CO
    2 Emissions Using Province Level Information"
    . Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UCB. CUDARE Working Paper 97. 2008-03-14.
  6. Jump up^ "China Passes U.S., Leads World in Power Sector Carbon Emissions - CGD". Center for Global Development. 2008-08-27.
  7. Jump up^ EDGAR: CO2 time series 1990-2011 per region/country
  8. Jump up^ EDGAR: CO2 time series 1990-2011 per capita for world countries
  9. ^ Jump up to:a b EDGAR: Trends in CO2 emissions per region/country 1990-2012 per region/country
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ya got a Wikipedia page to back that up too i bet...
maybe i should try "thenewamerican" instead, that way i can also keep up with the bilderberg conspiracy and impending illuminati one world order in which our freedom will perish as we all get agenda-21'ed into FEMA camps.

also, LIAR!

NUH UH!

BULLSHIT!
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i'm glad you finally came to your senses.

man, partial quotes are super easy aint they.

less than half, more than half, same thing really.

and you accuse others of switching the meanings of words.

LIAR!

NUH UH!

BULLSHIT!

WIKIPEDIA OMGZ!



 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
you have no substantive argument, so you mutter some vague imprecations and pretend you have succeeded, when you have demonstrated over and over that you are Utterly, Unremittingly Inferior.

perhaps you can regale us with more Munchhausian tales of Wikipedia's grand victory over the foolish IPCC report, or explain why they felt the need to edit the UN's drugs report to a shockingly specific 9.9% of jamaicans using weed in 2006, from the equally absurd 10.7% they reported.

perhaps the Wikipedia page dealing with Wikipedia could help you out..
You are simply stuck in the delusion that you've convinced yourself exists that the IPCC report and Wikipedia are inconsistent. I've repeatedly shown and cited that they both in fact say the exact same thing, and have been consistent with each other since IPCC 1.

You are, in total lack of respect, a fanatical climate change denier, not a skeptic. You lack all ability to objectively review any of the data or look at the facts, you dismiss all credible published scientific peer reviewed data in favor of political and financial conflicts of interest

Face it, you're way outmatched. It's you, and a handful of creationists and tobacco enthusiasts against everybody else..

You're the 9/11 truther of anthropogenic climate change, that's about as much credibility you have

You're the creationist crying about evolution being taught instead of "Gawd dun it!"..


You don't belong anywhere near science


CO2 PPM goes up about 2 per year because of human activity, the higher it goes the harder/more expensive it'll be to fix it. Once it reaches a certain point we won't be able to fix it, that number is estimated at about 600PPM (currently at 400PPM), so think of it like this; We have approximately 100 years before the Earth falls into the Sun, it's moving closer at about 2' per year, the gravitational 'point of no return' limit is 200' away...

So we have a century to fix it. The good thing is that people like you don't really matter in the grand scheme of things because you're so small a minority nobody really gives a shit.. It is fun to come to places like RIU and make fun of you though..
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
lol, too easy.

wikipedia just compiles the data and provides citations to their sources, you relentlessly dumb fedora donner.

  1. Schrooten, L; De Vlieger, Ina; Int Panis, Luc; Styns, R. Torfs, K; Torfs, R (2008). "Inventory and forecasting of maritime emissions in the Belgian sea territory, an activity based emission model". Atmospheric Environment - 42(4)667-676(2008) 42 (4): 667–676.
  2. Jump up^ "China now no. 1 in CO
    2 emissions; USA in second position"
    . Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Retrieved 2007-06-22.
  3. Jump up^ "China Overtakes U.S. as No. 1 Emitter of Carbon Dioxide". NPR. 2008-03-14.
  4. Jump up^ "China CO
    2 Emissions Growing Faster Than Anticipated"
    . National Geographic. 2008-03-18.
  5. Jump up^ "Forecasting the Path of China’s CO
    2 Emissions Using Province Level Information"
    . Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UCB. CUDARE Working Paper 97. 2008-03-14.
  6. Jump up^ "China Passes U.S., Leads World in Power Sector Carbon Emissions - CGD". Center for Global Development. 2008-08-27.
  7. Jump up^ EDGAR: CO2 time series 1990-2011 per region/country
  8. Jump up^ EDGAR: CO2 time series 1990-2011 per capita for world countries
  9. ^ Jump up to:a b EDGAR: Trends in CO2 emissions per region/country 1990-2012 per region/country
so why praytell, ohh master of the edited quote, lord of the wikipedos, why, ohh why, cant they get their facts straight?

why must they fabricate claims about published reports, manufacture NEW numbers out of whole cloth, and then create a false "Citation" that leads to entirely different data than they displayed?

ohh yeah, it's cuz Wikipedia aint credible, and only dolts rely on it for information.

wait a minit...

YOU rely on it for information, and stand by it's claims even when they are proved WRONG, so that must mean you are a DOLT
 
Top