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

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
It's you, and a handful of creationists and tobacco enthusiasts against everybody else..
you'd think these people would not be so stupid and transparent as to use the EXACT SAME organizations that used to muddy the science behind the harmful effects of smoking just decades ago, but that's what they're doing.

and a handful of hopelessly stupid idiots are just dumb enough to fall for it unquestioningly.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
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

NUH UH! BULLSHIT! WIKIPEDIA!

oh, wait. netherlands environmental assessment agency. must be a commie plot.

COMMIE! MARXIST! KENYAN USURPER!
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
you'd think these people would not be so stupid and transparent as to use the EXACT SAME organizations that used to muddy the science behind the harmful effects of smoking just decades ago, but that's what they're doing.

and a handful of hopelessly stupid idiots are just dumb enough to fall for it unquestioningly.
Well.. Kynes is a special kind of stupid, after all..

I like to call it 'militantly stupid' :)
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
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..
A number of agencies have said its already too late to fix it, now its damage mitigation time.

Are you gonna just keep blending truth and bullshit in that ghey green font?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
A number of agencies have said its already too late to fix it, now its damage mitigation time.

Are you gonna just keep blending truth and bullshit in that ghey green font?
Doesn't believe when they say "it's a problem"

Does believe every word as soon as he hears "we can't fix it so fuck it.."

Why do you want to be this stupid?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
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..
and i clearly demonstrated that wikipedia's assertions were MARKEDLY different from those found in IPCC report 5, which is in fact MARKEDLY different from previous IPCC reports, and the undisputed, uncorrected claims by touts like you, who made wild assertions with Wikipedia-like disregard for the actual text of the report.

but then, when the IPCC says "extremely likely" (see previous discussion of weasel words and uncertainty) "that more than 50%" (which means exactly 51%) "of the warming between 1951 and 2010" (previously 1880 and 2000, with more than twice the warming over exactly twice the timescale) "was anthopogenic", what that actually means in wikipedia-ese is:

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."

which is VERY different in substance and tone from the actual report itself, and the "increased confidence" is based on reducing the "anthropogenicness" of the now reduced observed warming. .

but when the IPCC report and Wikipedia disagree...

Advantage: Wikipedia!
 

kinetic

Well-Known Member
Has anyone got a scholarly article I can read through that denies climate change and the implications of Carbon Dioxide? If you only have access to an abstract I'm sure I can gain access to the full article. I would like it to have a method section as well.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
and i clearly demonstrated that wikipedia's assertions were MARKEDLY different from those found in IPCC report 5, which is in fact MARKEDLY different from previous IPCC reports, and the undisputed, uncorrected claims by touts like you, who made wild assertions with Wikipedia-like disregard for the actual text of the report.
IPCC 1-5 conclusions; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-8.html

Direct from the study itself, of which ALL 34 international science academies in the world agree with


Deny deny deny...
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
doesnt support any of the assertions made by bucky or pada, assertions that they cloak in fake "citations" and robe in the trappings of "science" to fool idiots into thinking they know what they are talking about.

i have DEMONSTRATED that these two shills just repeat whatever they see, and expect everyone to accept it, but even when i prove their claims are based on lies, they defend them still.


Protip: i am not a "Climate Denier", though they love to cast those sorts of ad hominems about. i am just dubious of the claims made by people who think they have to LIE (often inexplicably) to move their agenda forward.

if the evidence is so good, why all the deception?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Doesn't believe when they say "it's a problem"

Does believe every word as soon as he hears "we can't fix it so fuck it.."

Why do you want to be this stupid?
I dont believe or disbelieve, I have taken no position due to inadequate models (with no predictive value whatsoever) and a TINY relative sample size.

The Earth has warmed and cooled before, so I'm reserving judgement like any other sane person should.

But you just continue your little religious rants, all whilst getting key talking points from your own sources wrong.

So Padawanraper, how do we get off carbon based fuels without even a workable prototype technology to replace it?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Has anyone got a scholarly article I can read through that denies climate change and the implications of Carbon Dioxide? If you only have access to an abstract I'm sure I can gain access to the full article. I would like it to have a method section as well.
Nope, because they don't exist

No academic or scholarly papers exist inside the scientific community that seriously deny the anthropogenic factor of climate change

Yet these fanatical deniers will argue they do till the end of the Earth (but won't produce one, lol!). But that 97% number is bullshit I guess...
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
IPCC 1-5 conclusions; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-8.html

Direct from the study itself, of which ALL 34 international science academies in the world agree with

Deny deny deny...
and it does NOT say what wikipedia claims.

instead of "more than half" (which would be better served by the more accurate 51% anyhow) they use the scary loaded phrase "dominant cause" and so on and so on.

even the dumbed down "executive summary for policy makers" didnt beat the war drum that vigorously.

and you are the one now denying the content of IPCC 5.

funny how that works when you are confronted on your LIES
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
that's a question you should be asking to your sources (newamerican.com, roy spencer, john birch society, so on and so forth).
actually i would be more interested in asking your dopey cartoonist and his unsupported claims and fake citations.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Has anyone got a scholarly article I can read through that denies climate change and the implications of Carbon Dioxide? If you only have access to an abstract I'm sure I can gain access to the full article. I would like it to have a method section as well.
there are quite a few.

just go to "skeptical science" and check out their Name and Shame page of "climate deniers" then examine the data that cook so casually dismisses with his mighty Bachelors Of Communication Powers and the scientician authority it grants him. ,
 
Top