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

[hyroot]

mm hmm, tell me more about this mysterious ice bridge, and why you havent provided a link to this bullshit

googles says NO, wikipedia says it is IMAGINARY and no results indicating that "nasa" is on this mythical "bridge" conducting "science".

if you look a the thread Numbnuts, youll see all my graphs are sourced, except the first one, which was a trap for bucky.

my sources are the motherfucking IPCC, nasa, noaa, and a wide array of published scientists.

your sources are......
USE GOOGLE! I KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS!!! I HEARD SOMEWHERE!!!

you are shrill, ignorant and hilariously weak minded.

you are full of shit. If those were your sources you would know better. You just quote wiki like all the other idiots. 30 seconds of googling found this from nasa

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/news/spr14/index.html

 

[Red1966]

I suppose such an approximate estimation of the number of CO2 emitted via geological processes is impossible because you said so.. You should let all those scientists know..



You're incapable of having a civil conversation with somebody you disagree with. I haven't said anything inflammatory towards you this entire thread and every post you add something like this into it. Why can't you just state your opinion and leave the emotion at the door? You cry about how Buck responds to you and other members all the time and yet you're the exact same way, it's completely hypocritical. The difference is he does it to troll, you're actually an asshole.

So if you want to have dialogues like you and Buck do with me, you're going to be expending a lot of energy for no benefit. I don't read half the long winded posts you make already.

People with points don't need pages to prove them

"Trolling" is simply excusing bad behavior. Yes, we know as one the most pious of your religion, you will not listen to blasphemy.

 

[UncleBuck]

more people have died due to red1966 than benghazi.

 

[Red1966]

You're an idiot then I guess

People with points don't take pages to make them

Clearly, you've never read a scientific treaty. People with no thought behind there statements can usually fit them on a bumper sticker. Except conspiracy theorists. They go on forever.

 

[Dr Kynes]

you are full of shit. If those were your sources you would know better. You just quote wiki like all the other idiots. 30 seconds of googling found this from nasa

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/news/spr14/index.html

but that is about a research project on the ice between canada and GREENLAND!

thats nowhere near alaska, and nowhere near russia.

only through the most absurd contortions can you connect alaska and russia the LONG WAY ROUND

care to try your luck again?

you are a fool

 

[Dr Kynes]

Clearly, you've never read a scientific treaty. People with no thought behind there statements can usually fit them on a bumper sticker. Except conspiracy theorists. They go on forever.

nah, pada doesnt read much, just wikipedia and bucky's posts.

you know, the important shit.

 

[Red1966]

Perhaps you have some evidence to show the RIU court that your allegation that I make the same arguments in different threads after they've been proven wrong is true?

The jury has already ruled on that and found you guilty as charged

 

[Red1966]

this thread is stupid. Who ever thinks global warming is not real is an idiot. For one all volcanoes in the world only make up 2% of the co2 emitted into the atmosphere. Man made machines account for over 90% of co2 emmissions. If all the forests weren't chopped down for lumber. They would be able to process more co2. Now Obama was a dumbass for giving a speech about global warming I front of air force one and using to hop from airport to airport and back that's only a 2 hour drive each way.. Spending 5 million of tax payer money on his weekend that should be for another thread. Al gore is a dumbass and Obama is the worst president in history. Global warming is real.

You clearly pulled those numbers out of your ass.

 

[UncleBuck]

You clearly pulled those numbers out of your ass.

we saw where you pulled you "less than 3%" numbers from (hint: it was the CATO institute and an exxon mobil funded group).

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

but that is about a research project on the ice between canada and GREENLAND!

thats nowhere near alaska, and nowhere near russia.

only through the most absurd contortions can you connect alaska and russia the LONG WAY ROUND View attachment 3186125

care to try your luck again?

you are a fool

I can see Sarah Palin!

 

[Dr Kynes]

You clearly pulled those numbers out of your ass.

keep reading, it gets better.

bucky falls into a trap and has to gnaw his own leg off
bucky impeaches the IPCC, their numbers, their models, and their conclusions, and calls it fraud
bucky discovers his silly graph is bullshit (again) and vainly tries to defend it
bucky tries to argue that the IPCC is both WRONG and NOT WRONG on the same assertion.
bucky becomes confused.
hilarity ensues

 

[UncleBuck]

keep reading, it gets better.

it's nice to see you and red sharing some delusion.

 

[Red1966]

Dogshit. They presented "Climate-gate" the same way you do, failing to realize 8 independent investigations found no wrongdoing or misuses of science at all


This is a good example of your fanatical denial in light of all the evidence against you, you simply choose to ignore it and keep bringing it back up again and again and again. Also another great example of my previous point about how you're the one that does that bullshit, not me. You still have yet to cite any example of me doing it, there's 2 against you already.

If you're found not guilty in a murder case in 8 different courts and some dummy still thinks you're guilty... I mean, what logical argument are you going to convince someone with who doesn't value logic?

Funny you should bring up courts. A court found the assertions of climate-gate to be true and your "independent investigators" to be less than "independent".

 

[UncleBuck]

Funny you should bring up courts. A court found the assertions of climate-gate to be true and your "independent investigators" to be less than "independent".

now all you need is a citation of that.

don't cite the koch brothers, cato institute and exxon mobil again, like you did last time.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Funny you should bring up courts. A court found the assertions of climate-gate to be true and your "independent investigators" to be less than "independent".

Was it funded by the CATO institute or the Heritage Foundation?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Was it funded by the CATO institute or the Heritage Foundation?

the scientific community was NOT pleased with Climategate.

that the perpetrators were not sent to prison is irrelevant, since they didnt break any LAWS.

britain has changed their laws, and if they did the same scheme again they would be standing in the Old Bailey and on their way to prison in short order.

the investigation by penn state was horseshit, and anyone who reads their report will agree.

they did a similar "investigation" into the pederasty scandal and "exonerated" that clown too, shortly before the feds threw his ass in prison for boytouching.

your arguments are pathetically transparent.

 

[Red1966]

"Environmental protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive goals. The EPA has not always been able to reach a state of perfect equilibrium, I think we'll all agree to that. It has however consistently struck a reasonable balance that protects both the health of the environment and the health of the economy. From 1980 to 2012, the total emissions in the United States of six common air pollutants in the United States dropped 67%. At the same time, our population grew by 38%. Our energy consumption increased by 27% and our GDP more than doubled in constant dollars. So more people, consuming more energy, admitted much less pollution without sacrificing economic growth."

-Christine Todd Whitman

"The People's Republic of China is an active participant in the climate change talks and other multilateral environmental negotiations, and claims to take environmental challenges seriously but is pushing for the developed world to help developing countries to a greater extent. It is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, although China is not required to reduce its carbon emissions under the terms of the present agreement.

The Chinese national carbon trading scheme was announced in November 2008 by the national government to enforce a compulsory carbon emission trading scheme across the country's provinces as part of its strategy to create a "low carbon civilisation". The scheme would allow provinces to earn money by investing in carbon capture systems in those regions that fail to invest in the technology.

In 2004, Premier Wen Jiabao promised to use an “iron hand” to make China more energy efficient. China has surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other renewable energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas kilometrage for cars. With $34.6 billion invested in clean technology in 2009, China is the world's leading investor in renewable energy technologies. China produces more wind turbines and solar panels each year than any other country.

Coal is predicted to remain the most important power source in the near future but China has been seen as the world leader in clean coal technology.

Nuclear power is planned to be rapidly expanded. By mid-century fast neutron reactors are seen as the main nuclear power technology which allows much more efficient use of fuel reources.

China should push electric cars to curb its dependence on imported petroleum (oil) and foreign automobile technology, although they offer smaller cuts in carbon emissions than alternatives like hybrid electric vehicles, consulting firm McKinsey & Co says.

A 2011 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report predicted that Chinese CO2 emissions will peak around 2030. This because in many areas such as infrastructure, housing, commercial building, appliances per household, fertilizers, and cement production a maximum intensity will be reached and replacement will take the place of new demand. Carbon emission intensity may decrease as policies become strengthened and more effectively implemented, including by more effective financial incentives, and as less carbon intensive energy supplies are deployed. In a "baseline" computer model CO2 emissions were predicted to peak in 2033; in an "Accelerated Improvement Scenario" they were predicted to peak in 2027."

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

"The 12th Five-Year Plan (FYP) adopted by the Chinese government in March 2011 devotes considerable attention to energy and climate change and establishes a new set of targets and policies for 2011-2015. While some of the targets are largely in line with the status quo, other aspects of the plan represent more dramatic moves to reduce fossil energy consumption, promote low-carbon energy sources, and restructure China’s economy. Among the goals is to "gradually establish a carbon trade market." Key targets include:

• A 16 percent reduction in energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of GDP);
• Increasing non-fossil energy to 11.4 percent of total energy use; and
• A 17 percent reduction in carbon intensity (carbon emissions per unit of GDP)."

http://www.c2es.org/international/key-country-policies/china

"China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the largest energy consumer and has the second largest economy in the world. China’s actions on climate change matter for Australia and for the world. This fact sheet shows China is taking serious climate action and laying the foundations for a low carbon economy."

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/international/actions/countries-acting-now/china-acting-climate-change

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/international/13029WEBchina013May.pdf

China is not bound by the Kyoto accords, but supports them for everyone else. China is the largest polluter in the world, but "promises" to do better in the future. But won't submit to standards that it supports for everyone else. Yeah.

 

[UncleBuck]

the scientific community was NOT pleased with Climategate.

that the perpetrators were not sent to prison is irrelevant, since they didnt break any LAWS.

britain has changed their laws, and if they did the same scheme again they would be standing in the Old Bailey and on their way to prison in short order.

the investigation by penn state was horseshit, and anyone who reads their report will agree.

they did a similar "investigation" into the pederasty scandal and "exonerated" that clown too, shortly before the feds threw his ass in prison for boytouching.

your arguments are pathetically transparent.

how about the 7 other independent investigations that exonerated and cleared them of all wrongdoing then?

 

[Red1966]

Welp, you've sure convinced me! I guess we should just bet our future on it for no reason at all..

You ARE betting your future on it. You just don't know it. Well, maybe not. Your future looks pretty bleak either way.

 

[Dr Kynes]

now all you need is a citation of that.

don't cite the koch brothers, cato institute and exxon mobil again, like you did last time.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/02/147815329/va-supreme-court-denies-state-attorneys-request-for-climategate-records

funny it seems the university of virginia is doing it's damnedest to prevent an investigation into FRAUD by Mann, in his grant applications

they are covering their asses, and demanding that scientists be "free from government pressure" while they have their hands out.