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

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just like I said, you are a dumbass denialist, just like Kynes. Denying it at this point is tantamount to denying evolution or tobacco causes cancer

Harrekin said:
The Earth has warmed and cooled before, so I'm reserving judgement like any other sane person should.
Click to expand...
Not at this rate in over 800,000 years beginning at exactly the same time of the industrial revolution, dumbass

Harrekin said:
how do we get off carbon based fuels without even a workable prototype technology to replace it?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of viable alternatives to fossil fuels, you're just too stupid to understand how they work, and too politically biased to care
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Just like I said, you are a dumbass denialist, just like Kynes. Denying it at this point is tantamount to denying evolution or tobacco causes cancer



Not at this rate in over 800,000 years beginning at exactly the same time of the industrial revolution, dumbass



There are plenty of viable alternatives to fossil fuels, you're just too stupid to understand how they work, and too politically biased to care
Click to expand...
Wow, 800,000 years?

That's only like 0.01% of the planet's age, thats a fucking HUGE sample size.

EDIT: For a dumbass like you who cant handle numbers, that'd be like judging the weather of a entire day by only looking at 14 seconds of it that day.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
They ranked researcher's expertise based on the amount of papers they've published, and the amount of times their papers were referenced...

The circle jerk continues...
Click to expand...
honestly that is a fairly objective way to gauge a scientist's credibility, as long as the "citations" are examined to make sure they

1 : accurately reflect the opinion of the paper cited
2 : are not actually debunking his claims (all the times i have had to talk about COOK, one might think i place some weight behind his assertions...)
3 : are actually real publications, not pay for print "journals" that are really worthless garbage (like I-sis dot org, which is laughable)
4 : the clown is not citing himself endlessly (see I-sis dot org and "skeptical science" ..lulz)
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
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
Click to expand...
Goddamn you are dumb beyond belief

Your goddamn dumb ass is sitting there arrogantly claiming you are smarter than hundreds of thousands of scientists, people who get paid to study what the fuck the climate is doing day in day out. Every single day you're on RIU getting off on being dumber than people, they're out there taking measurements, acquiring data, solving equations.. fixing real world shit.

You can deny til the cows come home Kynes because science doesn't give a shit about your opinions or beliefs

 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
kinetic said:
So you don't believe in peer reviews as a process?
Click to expand...
Did it state they were all peer reviewed?

Did it state that they were published in relevant, valid and reliable journals?

Your willingness to accept any and all statements on face value without examining the underlying content is disturbing, especially considering you dont seem like the usual dumb-dumbs on here.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
kinetic said:
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.
Click to expand...
This paper is one that caught my eye when it came out.
If you want I have a rebuttal and response, too. But I don't think the rebuttal was well made (from what I remember when I read it) perhaps because it was done by a chemist who did not address the physics--which is the main argument of the paper--and the response was bordering on petulant (or RIU-worthy).
 

Attachments

Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Goddamn you are dumb beyond belief

Your goddamn dumb ass is sitting there arrogantly claiming you are smarter than hundreds of thousands of scientists, people who get paid to study what the fuck the climate is doing day in day out. Every single day you're on RIU getting off on being dumber than people, they're out there taking measurements, acquiring data, solving equations.. fixing real world shit.

You can deny til the cows come home Kynes because science doesn't give a shit about your opinions or beliefs
Click to expand...
If by acquiring data you mean erroneously assigning quantative methods to qualitative data (from only fucking abstracts of all things) using a made-up formula to reach a 97% consensus figure, then its not science its pseudoscience, like psychology or biblical studies.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Goddamn you are dumb beyond belief

Your goddamn dumb ass is sitting there arrogantly claiming you are smarter than hundreds of thousands of scientists, people who get paid to study what the fuck the climate is doing day in day out. Every single day you're on RIU getting off on being dumber than people, they're out there taking measurements, acquiring data, solving equations.. fixing real world shit.

You can deny til the cows come home Kynes because science doesn't give a shit about your opinions or beliefs
Click to expand...
apparently i am smarter than you cuz i can read the actual report and see that it is radically different from previous reports and radically different from the wikipedia claims about the report. yet you continue to defend the indefensible

apparently i'm smarter than bucky cuz i can read the report "cited" in his cartoon, discover that the cartoon's "citation is fake, and prove it, yet he continues to defend it vigorously.

apparently im smarter than Cook, cuz i know you cant cite yourself again and again, cite wikipedia, and then cite Goddamned Hot Topic and expect to be taken seriously
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
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. ,
Click to expand...
the walmart employee is talking credentials now.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
If by acquiring data you mean erroneously assigning quantative methods to qualitative data (from only fucking abstracts of all things) using a made-up formula to reach a 97% consensus figure, then its not science its pseudoscience, like psychology or biblical studies.
Click to expand...
hey now. biblical studies is a real science, full of dedicated researchers, tireless seekers of truth and ... fuck i cant go on.

 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
hey now. biblical studies is a real science, full of dedicated researchers, tireless seekers of truth and ... fuck i cant go on.

Click to expand...
why are you making fun of bible thumpers when your "well respected scientist" roy spencer is a signatory to an evangelical pledge on AGW and ardent creationist?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
apparently i am smarter than you cuz i can read the actual report and see that it is radically different from previous reports and radically different from the wikipedia claims about the report. yet you continue to defend the indefensible

apparently i'm smarter than bucky cuz i can read the report "cited" in his cartoon, discover that the cartoon's "citation is fake, and prove it, yet he continues to defend it vigorously.

apparently im smarter than Cook, cuz i know you cant cite yourself again and again, cite wikipedia, and then cite Goddamned Hot Topic and expect to be taken seriously
Click to expand...
Token. Fuckin'. Kook.

Congratulations, have fun with that!

Thank you for providing some comic relief to the politics section :)
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
even NASA says 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.

does the walmart employee who reads "thenewamerican" know better than NASA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top