The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!

[Dr Kynes]

this is just getting sad now.

a man (manness under review) who can't do exponents is denying NOAA's findings.

at least he has nontheist to help him, just like the white supremacists had nontheist to help them.

woooops, kynes IS a white supremacist. so no change really.

change the subject, cry out "That's Racist!!", and retread bullshit that was settled last week in a different thread.

yeah, i fucked up on the math.
and you spent 2 days and 300 posts saying everything EXCEPT "you did the math wrong" before finally laying that claim down.

and i also, due to my fuckup on the math, cited the lowest number i could find from any scientific publication cuz the others seemed way too high, and i suspected a typo on the 50 gigatonne one.

i erred, and in erring, i made a second mistake, cuz that one was for ONE species of termite, not all of em.

but that has NOTHING to do with your posting of bullshit unsourced graphs that bear no relationship to the purported source.

 

[Dr Kynes]

you're an idiot

as much as i enjoy a good pissing match, bucky is using this to dodge the facts, and as he has snared himself tightly with his own bullshit, and is currently trying to gnaw off his own balls to escape the trap, could you stifle it for a while?

 

[UncleBuck]

One of you will have to dump your account, RIU has one retard per house policy.

can you point me to a single post you made where you spoke out against the holocaust denying white supremacists?

 

[UncleBuck]

change the subject, cry out "That's Racist!!", and retread bullshit that was settled last week in a different thread.

yeah, i fucked up on the math.
and you spent 2 days and 300 posts saying everything EXCEPT "you did the math wrong" before finally laying that claim down.

and i also, due to my fuckup on the math, cited the lowest number i could find from any scientific publication cuz the others seemed way too high, and i suspected a typo on the 50 gigatonne one.

i erred, and in erring, i made a second mistake, cuz that one was for ONE species of termite, not all of em.

but that has NOTHING to do with your posting of bullshit unsourced graphs that bear no relationship to the purported source.

so NOAA doesn't have CO2 at about 280 PPM for the last 10,000 years?

 

[UncleBuck]

as much as i enjoy a good pissing match, bucky is using this to dodge the facts, and as he has snared himself tightly with his own bullshit, and is currently trying to gnaw off his own balls to escape the trap, could you stifle it for a while?

nontheist is not posting any facts.

i posted facts showing that the manhattan institute once worked with tobacco companies like RJ Reynolds to deny the harmfulness of tobacco, and they are now funded by exxonmobil and the koch brothers, doing the exact same thing for AGW.

sadly enough, they come to the same 3-4% number for manmade percentage of CO2 that you do.

no wonder you want him to stop, he is exposing your game.

 

[UncleBuck]

this is too easy.

 

[Padawanbater2]

this is too easy.

It really is..

I know Wendy doesn't see it, or understand it.. and he'll never admit it. But how could you possibly think you're winning the debate with so much evidence against you? Same thing with creationists when they deny evolution

I'm glad the guy is here though, unlimited entertainment!

He's probably whacking it before bed right now though. Hey Wendy, what's your schedule like? I'd like to be on when you're on, this is fun as fuck

 

[Dr Kynes]

nontheist is not posting any facts.

i posted facts showing that the manhattan institute once worked with tobacco companies like RJ Reynolds to deny the harmfulness of tobacco, and they are now funded by exxonmobil and the koch brothers, doing the exact same thing for AGW.

sadly enough, they come to the same 3-4% number for manmade percentage of CO2 that you do.

no wonder you want him to stop, he is exposing your game.

and yet my shit is sourced DIRECTLY from the IPCC and a hysterical website on YOUR side.

i even posted the relevant links.

if the Cato numbers are correct, and even the IPCC agrees, then what are you bitching about?

and no, noaa does NOT show co2 stable like your bullshit graph full of lies does. noaa shows a steady increase in co2 for 7000 years with a few minor setbacks here and there representing cold climates (despite rising co2...) which then rebounded when the cold snap was over.

again, this does not explain why you constantly post that bullshit grpoah from skeptical science, despite having been shown that it is nonsense repeatedly, yet every time you go to a new thread, here it comes again, like it's fresh and new.

you are a LIAR, you post KNOWN FICTIONS and claim they are truth, then when shamed AGAIN over the same lie, you trot it out again later.

you hurl calumny against "the cato institute and big tobacco" when my numbers came from the motherfucking IPCC, and in a few days or even hours, youll say it again as if it has somehow become true.

you are deliberately falsifying data, spreading lies, and slinging calumny, and when confronted with truths, you cry "That's Racist!!" start a pissing match and try to get the thread closed so you can start all over again later.

i may suck at math, but you are a despicable liar.

 

[UncleBuck]

see the BIG arrows pointing up in that image? those are NATURAL co2 emissions and the NATURAL emissions of co2 tot up to ~771.4 gigatonnes per anum

771.4 gigatonnes
vs
34 gigatonnes..

it doesnt take a math wiz to figure out that your full of shit.

are you forgetting that natural emissions of CO2 (771.4 GT/y) are negated by natural absorption of CO2 (788.9 GT/y), for a net total of -17.5 GT/y, meaning net CO2 absorption?

you still wanna stick with that 3-4% number?

 

[UncleBuck]

It really is..

I know Wendy doesn't see it, or understand it.. and he'll never admit it. But how could you possibly think you're winning the debate with so much evidence against you? Same thing with creationists when they deny evolution

I'm glad the guy is here though, unlimited entertainment!

He's probably whacking it before bed right now though. Hey Wendy, what's your schedule like? I'd like to be on when you're on, this is fun as fuck

who's wendy?

edit: if we're calling kynes 'wendy' from now on, i'm down with that.

 

[UncleBuck]

and no, noaa does NOT show co2 stable like your bullshit graph full of lies does.

that's not what i asked.

i asked you if the NOAA is wrong about CO2 being at about 280 PPM over the last 10,000 years. even the graph you posted shows this.

see how that is pretty steady over 10,000 years at about 280 PPM or so? that is your graph.

can we agree on this?

 

[nontheist]

nontheist is not posting any facts.

i posted facts showing that the manhattan institute once worked with tobacco companies like RJ Reynolds to deny the harmfulness of tobacco, and they are now funded by exxonmobil and the koch brothers, doing the exact same thing for AGW.

sadly enough, they come to the same 3-4% number for manmade percentage of CO2 that you do.

no wonder you want him to stop, he is exposing your game.

None of which you have disprove. you ramble on about stupid tobacco companies but yet to post a single

who's wendy?

not your sock puppet wife

 

[UncleBuck]

None of which you have disprove. you ramble on about stupid tobacco companies but yet to post a single

a single what?

i showed that your source was biased and therefore untrustworthy.

even kynes would not try to cite that source, even if he were making the same claim (and he is).

cite a better source to back up your claim. like NOAA or NASA or an agreed upon trustworthy source.

this is one thread that actually does stay relatively on topic, despite some insults back and forth.

 

[nontheist]

So if co2 is the driving factor of global warming how to explain a 4000ppm glaciation period in Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods?

 

[Dr Kynes]

are you forgetting that natural emissions of CO2 (771.4 GT/y) are negated by natural absorption of CO2 (788.9 GT/y), for a net total of -17.5 GT/y, meaning net CO2 absorption?

you still wanna stick with that 3-4% number?

i never gave ANY 3-4% NUMBER.

all that shit happened inside your head.

if you have issues with the numbers, then youll have to follow the links provided, they go right to the IPCC's own publications.

if the IPCC is wrong, then you gots some 'splainin to do.

plus youll have to prove it, which should be funny.

 

[nontheist]

a single what?

i showed that your source was biased and therefore untrustworthy.

fact proving otherwise. No you didn't show my source was bias you just went on a bullshit tirade without posting any evidence the co2 claims are fictional.

 

[nontheist]

i never gave ANY 3-4% NUMBER.

all that shit happened inside your head.

i foy have issues with the numbers, then youll have to follow the links provided, they go right to the IPCC's own publications.

if the IPCC is wrong, then you gots some 'splainin to do.

plus youll have to prove it, which should be funny.

hmmm

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources

 

[Dr Kynes]

hmmm

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources

shhhh

hes trying to find a way to impeach the IPCC, without derailing the entire AGW movement, which is based on the infallibility of those claims...

i am eagerly awaiting his next play.

 

[nontheist]

So IPCC is a group that jobs depends on reporting of dangerous co2 levels and to achieve this goal can use any published literature they want, from any group they want while having 100 percent deny-ability. sounds legit.

 

[UncleBuck]

So if co2 is the driving factor of global warming how to explain a 4000ppm glaciation period in Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods?

he can't use the english language correctly, but now he wants us to believe he is an expert on certain climate periods.

i can only imagine where he copied and pasted this from.

it appears to be an ian plimer claim which has been thoroughly debunked. the story on the guy who made the claim is hilarious enough, but all that shall be left as an exercise to the reader.