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

Who has the most affect on global warming?

  • Total voters
    19
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's odd, I agree with everything that was said. He even quoted some of your arguments. He was talking about you
Click to expand...
really?

i quoted the IPCC, published research papers, and did some math.

you resorted to repeating your old saw about "34 national science academies" and implied that their lukewarm support for the IPCC's conclusions in principle somehow supported the claims of hysterical know nothings like al gore and james cook of "Skeptical Science" infamy.

rmember, the IPCC's position, once you strip away the weasel words is " ~51% of the 0.4 degree C increase between 1951 and 2010 is 70-80% likekly to be caused by human actions"

this in no way jibes with the claims of the hysterical bullshit artists, and even this claim is questioned by SEVERAL well respected scientists.

meanwhile, inside the IPCC's WG1, the science is being defended by NON-SCIENTIFIC MEANS:

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

trying to stifle research that shows they are wrong, even on a minor detail to protect their agenda and their reputations is NOT Science!


 
Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
really?

i quoted the IPCC, published research papers, and did some math.

you resorted to repeating your old saw about "34 national science academies" and implied that their lukewarm support for the IPCC's conclusions in principle somehow supported the claims of hysterical know nothings like al gore and james cook of "Skeptical Science" infamy.

rmember, the IPCC's position, once you strip away the weasel words is " ~51% of the 0.4 degree C increase between 1951 and 2010 is 70-80% likekly to be caused by human actions"

this in no way jibes with the claims of the hysterical bullshit artists, and even this claim is questioned by SEVERAL well respected scientists.

meanwhile, inside the IPCC's WG1, the science is being defended by NON-SCIENTIFIC MEANS:

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

trying to stifle research that shows they are wrong, even on a minor detail to protect their agenda and their reputations is NOT Science!
Click to expand...
Did you not just see hecklers post? This thread is over, man. It's done. All the awesome has been already done. Still wanna be cool, go to the beard thread.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-beard-thread.833242/
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
really?

i quoted the IPCC, published research papers, and did some math.

you resorted to repeating your old saw about "34 national science academies" and implied that their lukewarm support for the IPCC's conclusions in principle somehow supported the claims of hysterical know nothings like al gore and james cook of "Skeptical Science" infamy.

rmember, the IPCC's position, once you strip away the weasel words is " ~51% of the 0.4 degree C increase between 1951 and 2010 is 70-80% likekly to be caused by human actions"

this in no way jibes with the claims of the hysterical bullshit artists, and even this claim is questioned by SEVERAL well respected scientists.

meanwhile, inside the IPCC's WG1, the science is being defended by NON-SCIENTIFIC MEANS:

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

trying to stifle research that shows they are wrong, even on a minor detail to protect their agenda and their reputations is NOT Science!
Click to expand...
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
is he Lying?
Click to expand...
Yep
Dr Kynes said:
is he untrustworthy?
Click to expand...
Yes
Dr Kynes said:
are his starements dubious?
Click to expand...
They sure are
Dr Kynes said:
or are you making an assumption based on your FEELS and how he looks?
Click to expand...
Funny, Potholer just spent nearly 20 minutes explaining how you base all of your beliefs on emotion..

I think what we have here is an obvious case of "see what I wanna see, believe what I wanna believe". You see things but constantly misinterpret them thinking they somehow side with you when they clearly don't (e.g NASA, and your attempt to prove ACC is a hoax by citing a study conducted by them you perceived opposed it..). Again, Potholer went into detail about that very thing.. You obviously didn't watch the clip or you wouldn't have made that comment.. He's pinpointing you to the T!

Meanwhile, Mr. Bell's credentials are dubious at best, disingenuous at worst..

"I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax"."

Lets see what one of the reviews of his book have to say..

"I started reading this book and it took 3 sentences to find the first misrepresentation of science: Bell makes the (unsubstantiated) claim that scientists predicted an Ice Age a few decades ago. Yet this assertion is pure fantasy. Analysis of the scientific literature from the 1970s (and you can verify this for yourself if you want), shows that more than 60% of scientific studies predicted warming and only 10% predicted cooling... and only a fraction of those predicted a so-called 'Ice Age'.

In the 5th paragraph of the preface, Bell gives his credentials: none. Oh wait... he's a friend of semi-qualified professional passive-smoking denliast S Fred Singer."

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Corruption-Politics-Behind-Warming/product-reviews/1608320839/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Dude is a hack, and pretty obviously.. all it takes is reading his Forbes page you linked to.. Which means you read that and couldn't distinguish between crackpot political tards with agendas to push over credible scientists working deep in the field.. No surprise.. again..
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
yep i posted that picture.

but you declared that shit was from the Koch Brothers
Click to expand...
i declared that your omission of half the equation matched the exxon mobil/koch brothers' finding touted by the CATO institute, a political front group.

why? because math.

Dr Kynes said:
dont you have something not tainted by Big Oil and Big Tobbacco's lobbying machine?
Click to expand...
besides your own citation, which you purposely omitted half of?

:lol:

Dr Kynes said:
he wasnt talking about NET emissions, his words conveyed the implication that GROSS emissions were 90% human, 10% natural.
Click to expand...
your claim was about NATURAL co2 versus MANMADE co2.

you purposely omitted half of the natural co2 equation.

that's called fraud.

fraud is the only card you have left, ever since it was discovered that you are too retarded to do exponents. and now, you are also apparently too retarded read graphs too.

but you are just smart enough to attempt fraud, in your own retarded way.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Yep

Yes

They sure are

Funny, Potholer just spent nearly 20 minutes explaining how you base all of your beliefs on emotion..

I think what we have here is an obvious case of "see what I wanna see, believe what I wanna believe". You see things but constantly misinterpret them thinking they somehow side with you when they clearly don't (e.g NASA, and your attempt to prove ACC is a hoax by citing a study conducted by them you perceived opposed it..). Again, Potholer went into detail about that very thing.. You obviously didn't watch the clip or you wouldn't have made that comment.. He's pinpointing you to the T!

Meanwhile, Mr. Bell's credentials are dubious at best, disingenuous at worst..

"I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax"."

Lets see what one of the reviews of his book have to say..

"I started reading this book and it took 3 sentences to find the first misrepresentation of science: Bell makes the (unsubstantiated) claim that scientists predicted an Ice Age a few decades ago. Yet this assertion is pure fantasy. Analysis of the scientific literature from the 1970s (and you can verify this for yourself if you want), shows that more than 60% of scientific studies predicted warming and only 10% predicted cooling... and only a fraction of those predicted a so-called 'Ice Age'.

In the 5th paragraph of the preface, Bell gives his credentials: none. Oh wait... he's a friend of semi-qualified professional passive-smoking denliast S Fred Singer."

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Corruption-Politics-Behind-Warming/product-reviews/1608320839/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Dude is a hack, and pretty obviously.. all it takes is reading his Forbes page you linked to.. Which means you read that and couldn't distinguish between crackpot political tards with agendas to push over credible scientists working deep in the field.. No surprise.. again..
Click to expand...
hmm yes... so because you dont agree with his Personal Opinion, he must be lying about SUBSTANTIVE assertions, like, the above e-mails and ON THE RECORD quotes in his article.

and guess what dickless, he isnt a scientist, he is a JOURNALIST, he reports on shit that others do, and his report is accurate.

did you check to see if the statements are accurate before making your bold assertion that he is lying?

Mauirice Strong: "We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.” Confirmed

Tim Wirth: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Confirmed

Christine Stewart: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Confirmed

Mikhail Gorbachev: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” Confrimed
i could go on but your petulant and childish attitude shows youre not worth the effort

as to the e-mails:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009

read em yourself.

it's all in there.

so YOU are the one lying.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
really?

i quoted the IPCC, published research papers, and did some math.

you resorted to repeating your old saw about "34 national science academies" and implied that their lukewarm support for the IPCC's conclusions in principle somehow supported the claims of hysterical know nothings like al gore and james cook of "Skeptical Science" infamy.

rmember, the IPCC's position, once you strip away the weasel words is " ~51% of the 0.4 degree C increase between 1951 and 2010 is 70-80% likekly to be caused by human actions"

this in no way jibes with the claims of the hysterical bullshit artists, and even this claim is questioned by SEVERAL well respected scientists.

meanwhile, inside the IPCC's WG1, the science is being defended by NON-SCIENTIFIC MEANS:

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

trying to stifle research that shows they are wrong, even on a minor detail to protect their agenda and their reputations is NOT Science!
Click to expand...
i would report it as spam, but kynes is just so desperate that it is cute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top