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

[Dr Kynes]

good job on repeating your eggo box calculations and harebrained paranoia.

now try to address the other 7 independent investigations that completely exonerated abd cleared of all wrong doing the scientists behind that manufactured climategate scandal that was invented out of thin air.

those are not my calculations, they are from the IPCC report itself

they explain in detail what the words "extremely likely" actually mean. (70-80% cconfidence)

they also explain in detail what "more than half" means (literally, 51%)

and focus EXCLUSIVELY on the 0.4 degrees C warming since 1951.

nice job burying your head in a dung pile and pretending you know what youre talking about.

your definition of "exonerated" is as shitty as AC's definition of "volunteer"

they werent dragged before a magistrate and clapped in irons, and thats the best you can say about those shits.

they schemed to subvert research they ADMIT was correct to protect their agenda and their personal reputations
they plotted to oust members of scientific boards and journal editors who expressed any heretical doubt or uncertainty over AGW
they discussed "tricks" and "careful wording" to ensure that politicians bureaucrats and the press repeated blatantly unsupported claims, while ensuring they wouldnt have to face any questions
they schemed to conceal evidence of their malfeasance from investigators, and to conceal the flaws in their own research from those who fund them
they deliberately and falsely undermined the reputations of others, to improve their own standing
they deliberately falsified data, eliminated data that didnt agree with their assumptions, and cherry picked from the remaining data to get the results they desired.


and you think there either is NOT a conspiracy, or that this Conspiracy Fact is a Conspiracy Theory

youre an idiot, but anyone who has read your collected works knows that.

 

[UncleBuck]

those are not my calculations, they are from the IPCC report itself

they explain in detail what the words "extremely likely" actually mean. (70-80% cconfidence)

they also explain in detail what "more than half" means (literally, 51%)

and focus EXCLUSIVELY on the 0.4 degrees C warming since 1951.

nice job burying your head in a dung pile and pretending you know what youre talking about.

your definition of "exonerated" is as shitty as AC's definition of "volunteer"

they werent dragged before a magistrate and clapped in irons, and thats the best you can say about those shits.

they schemed to subvert research they ADMIT was correct to protect their agenda and their personal reputations
they plotted to oust members of scientific boards and journal editors who expressed any heretical doubt or uncertainty over AGW
they discussed "tricks" and "careful wording" to ensure that politicians bureaucrats and the press repeated blatantly unsupported claims, while ensuring they wouldnt have to face any questions
they schemed to conceal evidence of their malfeasance from investigators, and to conceal the flaws in their own research from those who fund them
they deliberately and falsely undermined the reputations of others, to improve their own standing
they deliberately falsified data, eliminated data that didnt agree with their assumptions, and cherry picked from the remaining data to get the results they desired.


and you think there either is NOT a conspiracy, or that this Conspiracy Fact is a Conspiracy Theory

youre an idiot, but anyone who has read your collected works knows that.

8 independent investigations, all exonerated and cleared of all wrong doing.

kynes' rebuttal: NUH UH! BULLSHIT!

 

[Dr Kynes]

If you're not going to bother to even read the evidence, how can you possibly think you've come to the correct conclusion? I just posted the UK Parliament's conclusions in the exact post you quoted, here they are again;

UK Parliament report

"Conclusions

135. Consideration of the complaints and accusations made against CRU has led us to three broad conclusions.

136. Conclusion 1 The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

137. Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline"—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity".[184] It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.

138. Conclusion 3 A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable."

So when you say "that was a parliamentary BEATDOWN of the dishonesty, and shabby tactics of the CRU", you are lying. You can deny that all you want, but anyone who reads the actual conclusions and what you said can see it for themselves.


Your argument amounts to "I don't understand how it works so it's not possible"

The IPCC says the amount of increase is significant enough to warrant action, and all the scientists who study the climate are in unanimous agreement . Nobody cares what you say, you deny ACC exists under the cloak of skepticism. You are taken as seriously as creationists are in debates about human origins.

A consistent claim you can never seem to find a credible source to back up..

Give me the name of the new laws that were added/changed as a direct result of climategate

Also, dailymail is the UK's breitbart, so not so sure I'd believe... anything they say

ohh youre fucking hopeless.

you read the parliamentary conclusion and imagine smileyfaces and pretty flowers and puppies frolicking.

there were no smiley faces, there were no flowers and there were no puppies in the proceedings.

and now you expect me to become a british barrister to explain how THEIR laws work?

you dont even understand how OUR system works

you see "70-80% chance human action caused 0.2 degrees c warming over 60 years" and think "Wow! thats a lot of numbers! it must be important!" when in fact there was ANOTHER 0.2 degrees c warming that was NOT caused by human action.

the remaining warming remains UNEXPLAINED, which is a problem you dolt.

even the part they TRIED to say was human caused, was only a 70-80% confidence level.

thats shitty even for statistical analysis.

thats a 20-30% margin for error, with an inverse relationship between confidence in their numbers and the "anthropogenicness" of the warming

(in other words, if you want more confidence in their numbers, the amount of human caused warming drops)

but they used "Careful Wording" and specious graphs so that dolts like you would assume that they were blaming almost all of the 1 degree c warming between 1855 and 2000 on humanity.

it convinced Al Gore, and he is MUCH less stupid than you.

and Al Gore dropped out of Divinity College, a school with ONE textbook, and the answer to every test question is "because the bible said so"

 

[UncleBuck]

ohh youre fucking hopeless.

you read the parliamentary conclusion and imagine smileyfaces and pretty flowers and puppies frolicking.

there were no smiley faces, there were no flowers and there were no puppies in the proceedings.

and now you expect me to become a british barrister to explain how THEIR laws work?

you dont even understand how OUR system works

you see "70-80% chance human action caused 0.2 degrees c warming over 60 years" and think "Wow! thats a lot of numbers! it must be important!" when in fact there was ANOTHER 0.2 degrees c warming that was NOT caused by human action.

the remaining warming remains UNEXPLAINED, which is a problem you dolt.

even the part they TRIED to say was human caused, was only a 70-80% confidence level.

thats shitty even for statistical analysis.

thats a 20-30% margin for error, with an inverse relationship between confidence in their numbers and the "anthropogenicness" of the warming

(in other words, if you want more confidence in their numbers, the amount of human caused warming drops)

but they used "Careful Wording" and specious graphs so that dolts like you would assume that they were blaming almost all of the 1 degree c warming between 1855 and 2000 on humanity.

it convinced Al Gore, and he is MUCH less stupid than you.

and Al Gore dropped out of Divinity College, a school with ONE textbook, and the answer to every test question is "because the bible said so"

 

[Dr Kynes]

8 independent investigations, all exonerated and cleared of all wrong doing.

kynes' rebuttal: NUH UH! BULLSHIT!

8 bullshit investigations, stonewalled by the subjects, from toothless bureaucracies who all had a vested interest in dropping the issue.

yep.

move along, nothin to see here.

our security is tight as a drum.

 

[UncleBuck]

8 bullshit investigations

as predicted.

NUH UH!

BULLSHIT!

 

[heckler73]

What's this about grant fraud? Tell me more, please...

 

[Padawanbater2]

ohh youre fucking hopeless.

you read the parliamentary conclusion and imagine smileyfaces and pretty flowers and puppies frolicking.

there were no smiley faces, there were no flowers and there were no puppies in the proceedings.

and now you expect me to become a british barrister to explain how THEIR laws work?

you dont even understand how OUR system works

So then you can't find a single law that was added or changed as a direct result of climategate?

You said;

as to the new laws in britain:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...used-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

that loophole has been plugged, and there will be more investigations of the chicanery at CRU and the met office.

The article you posted didn't mention any new laws being added or any old laws being changed. No "loophole has been plugged", as you say as no wrongdoing was discovered

you see "70-80% chance human action caused 0.2 degrees c warming over 60 years" and think "Wow! thats a lot of numbers! it must be important!" when in fact there was ANOTHER 0.2 degrees c warming that was NOT caused by human action.

Tell me, why, despite all that does the IPCC still agree with my conclusion?

the remaining warming remains UNEXPLAINED, which is a problem you dolt.

Yeah yeah, just like there's still gaps in the evolution record.. I guess that case still isn't settled either, right?

 

[Padawanbater2]

What a dumb claim, all the graphs on both sides of the argument show the increases begin right after the industrial revolution began, exactly as one would expect. According to Kynes, all of a sudden massive amounts of increased geological activity would have had to happen at exactly the same time, there is no other explanation. The orbit of the planet remained stable during that time, the only thing that changed was the composition of the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels. The concept is so basic I bet kids in middle school could understand it.

 

[NLXSK1]

What a dumb claim, all the graphs on both sides of the argument show the increases begin right after the industrial revolution began, exactly as one would expect. According to Kynes, all of a sudden massive amounts of increased geological activity would have had to happen at exactly the same time, there is no other explanation. The orbit of the planet remained stable during that time, the only thing that changed was the composition of the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels. The concept is so basic I bet kids in middle school could understand it.

How do you explain all the increases and decreases before the industrial revolution??

 

[Dr Kynes]

Tell me, why, despite all that does the IPCC still agree with my conclusion?

the IPCC doesnt agree with you.

YOU "agree" with the IPCC, but only after you change their carefully worded statement into a doomsday scenario.

if the IPCC had made the claims YOU make, then they would be laughed at by the very scientific community that is currently tolerating them, because they give a lot of funding to a previously impoverished branch of science.

between you, al gore, bucky, the various lefty politicians and career bureaucrats who rely on wild exaggerations of the IPCC's reports to justify their existence, the actual assertions by the IPCC are remarkably tame, and non hysterical.

but i guess citing the ACTUAL claims of the IPCC makes me a Climate Denier.

a 70-80% chance that humans caused 0.36 degrees F of warming over 60 years.

i mean, if these trends continue... Katie Bar The Door!

 

[Dr Kynes]

How do you explain all the increases and decreases before the industrial revolution??

what increases and decreases?

bucky already "proved" that the climate was flat and unchanging for thousands of years, up till the invention of the steam engine, and then the earth became a pressure cooker and we all died in a fiery conflagration 6 months ago when the mayan calendar ran out.

 

[Dr Kynes]

What's this about grant fraud? Tell me more, please...

Prof Mann is currently stonewalling subpoenas from the virginia state attorney general over his GRANT FRAUD when he worked at a univ in virginia.

he feels that his notes on his methodology are protected from government inquiry, when his funding came from the govt.

 

[Dr Kynes]

What a dumb claim, all the graphs on both sides of the argument show the increases begin right after the industrial revolution began, exactly as one would expect. According to Kynes, all of a sudden massive amounts of increased geological activity would have had to happen at exactly the same time, there is no other explanation. The orbit of the planet remained stable during that time, the only thing that changed was the composition of the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels. The concept is so basic I bet kids in middle school could understand it.

"All The Graphs" show no such thing.

i already posted the Noaa graph that shows co2 rising quite steadily since 5000 bc

but youre not very smart.

and no, "according to me" no such thing happened. you are creating a pathetic strawman based on your own stupidity and your demonstrated inability to understand plain english.

the orbit of the planet was not "stable" and is still not "stable". you are a fool. if the earths obit were "stable" we would have no seasons, no milankovick cycles, no ice ages, no great melts, and no holocene epoch.

the mini ice age that ended in the 1780's, and caused the thames river to freeze over, and had swiss government officials calling in exorcists to pray the glaciers away was ANYTHING but stable you dolt.

the "only thing that changed" was the maunder cycle of the sun, causing increased solar radiation over the Maunder minimum (look it up dumbass) that caused the mini ice age continues, and HAS continued raising solar radiation levels gradually for the last 300 years or so, and it will continue to do so for some time, how long nobody knows cuz we dont have observations far enough back in time to guess the cycle.
http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182h/Climate/Solar/Maunder Minimum.pdf

 

[Pinworm]

This is a shout out to Finshaggy's Ego Loss thread, right? Eggo Loss. Leggo my ego.

 

[canndo]

The other side of the story.

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

Born

12 February 1946 (age 67)

Residence

Australia

Nationality

Australian

Fields

Earth Science,Geology, Mining Engineering

Institutions

University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of Melbourne,University of Adelaide

Alma mater

University of New South Wales,Macquarie University

Thesis

The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia(1976)

Notable awards

Eureka Prize(1995,2002), Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)



Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland .. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50p light bulbs with £5 light bulbs ..... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it!!!!

Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.

Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"

same misunderstanding of science and global warming. Volcanoes are noise, nothing more, they are a CONSTANT, so are forest fires.

 

[Dr Kynes]

same misunderstanding of science and global warming. Volcanoes are noise, nothing more, they are a CONSTANT, so are forest fires.

Teh Fux You Say?

volcanoes are ANYTHING but a constant.

if you think the IPCC has adequately accounted for volcanic co2 (even excluding eruptions and offgassing events) then you obviously havent read (Gerlach 1991) and his oft quoted yet highly dubious claim that surface volcanism emits 300 megatonnes of co2 a year because he examined the results from SEVEN volcanoes out of 3000, and undersea volcanism curiously matches surface volcanism exactly because he examined data from THREE undersea volcanoes out of an UNKNOWN number...

hell, read it yourself.

http://gerlach1991.geologist-1011.mobi/

 

[UncleBuck]

what increases and decreases?

bucky already "proved" that the climate was flat and unchanging for thousands of years, up till the invention of the steam engine, and then the earth became a pressure cooker and we all died in a fiery conflagration 6 months ago when the mayan calendar ran out.

i demonstrated that CO2 held between 265 and 280 PPM over the last 10,000 years. your graph showed the same, despite your whiny pussy protestations and inability to read simple graphs.

then CO2 went up to 400 PPM over a mere century or so, coinciding with the onset of the industrial revolution.

your lies are wearing thin.

 

[UncleBuck]

Prof Mann is currently stonewalling subpoenas from the virginia state attorney general over his GRANT FRAUD when he worked at a univ in virginia.

he feels that his notes on his methodology are protected from government inquiry, when his funding came from the govt.

lol, still riding that ken cucinelli dick?

go ahead and keep riding right wing politician dick and then complain about politicizing AGW.

 

[UncleBuck]

i already posted the Noaa graph that shows co2 rising quite steadily since 5000 bc

how many lies you going for tonight?