Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

[UncleBuck]

I've never had much trust in our government, they've been caught many times screwing us one way or another, in fact I don't know anyone personally who disagrees with my on this.

But Buckroast includes himself in the people represented in the dark green line, he believes just about anything the media and government tells him, I'd consider this a radical view myself.

really shows how much bush fucked up all the goodwill clinton ushered in.

i don't believe "anything the media and government" tell me, but i do place plenty of confidence in NASA. 73% of people do.

beenthere is in that radical, marginal fringe of 15% who do not have much confidence in NASA, but he does have a lot of confidence in white supremacist jared taylor and holocaust denier victor thorn.

in fact, that puts beenthere in an extremely radical group of americans who believes in holocaust denial. only 1% of americans.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/ocpa/pdf/HolocaustDenialPAE.pdf

beenthere, why are you such a radical extremist?

 

[sheskunk]

 

[heckler73]

that's great and all, but neglects to address that CO2 levels have skyrocketed to levels not seen in 800,000 years.

Eh? You want to argue over the validity of 2 ice core samples? Perhaps if the diffusion of CO2 in ice was negligible, I'd give it more thought. This was one of the points Salby was trying to get across in his (wonkish) presentation. Hell, AC keeps talking about "averages hide extremes" IIRC. That is the precise point when dealing with CO2 in ice. It diffuses within the ice over a few decades, which destroys any chance of us getting reliable accuracy in the data beyond 10000 years. The "spikes" are smoothed out in the record, as such, we cannot compare fairly. At best, one can get a feeling for cycles and relative averages, that's it.

Read this, it has been pre-highlighted, but there are good points between them, too, especially the graphs:
www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/.../CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf

those "thinly weighted arrows on the left" sure do add up quickly! some might say that CO2 levels higher than they have been in 800,000 years is quite the cause for alarm.

If those little ones add up "quickly", then those large ones must add up at "relativistic speeds"

since we are doing the same with water vapor, as you claim, then why are water vapor levels not similarly skyrocketing to levels not seen in the last half a million years?

How does one measure water vapour levels from 800k yrs ago? With "fire" cores? I presume you consider 2km of ice over the land as being a condition of "low water vapour", except in the case of some minor sublimation at high-noon?

You actually got me thinking about something. I wonder if your (new?) congressman knows half of what you do? You know, if I can consistently bring up counterpoints to your claims, and your rep doesn't even have a grasp of half of what you know, then would you want that person making "enlightened" decisions on your behalf when it comes to environmental matters?

 

[UncleBuck]

Eh? You want to argue over the validity of 2 ice core samples? Perhaps if the diffusion of CO2 in ice was negligible, I'd give it more thought. This was one of the points Salby was trying to get across in his (wonkish) presentation. Hell, AC keeps talking about "averages hide extremes" IIRC. That is the precise point when dealing with CO2 in ice. It diffuses within the ice over a few decades, which destroys any chance of us getting reliable accuracy in the data beyond 10000 years. The "spikes" are smoothed out in the record, as such, we cannot compare fairly. At best, one can get a feeling for cycles and relative averages, that's it.

Read this, it has been pre-highlighted, but there are good points between them, too, especially the graphs:
www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/.../CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf

woah there cowboy. we have very accurate records of CO2 measurements over the last half a million years.

If those little ones add up "quickly", then those large ones must add up at "relativistic speeds"

i believe the large ones that point up are accompanied by large ones that point in the opposite direction.

which brings me back to my original point: what makes you think we can take millions of years of sequestered CO2 and release it into the air over a couple centuries with no consequences, specifically warming since CO2 is a greehouse gas?

How does one measure water vapour levels from 800k yrs ago? With "fire" cores? I presume you consider 2km of ice over the land as being a condition of "low water vapour", except in the case of some minor sublimation at high-noon?

You actually got me thinking about something. I wonder if your (new?) congressman knows half of what you do? You know, if I can consistently bring up counterpoints to your claims, and your rep doesn't even have a grasp of half of what you know, then would you want that person making "enlightened" decisions on your behalf when it comes to environmental matters?

i was just being a smartass about the water vapor levels. the fact is that water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, does not have the same properties as CO2 in regards to staying power.

and cory gardner does not make any decisions about the environment, the koch brothers do and he is just their stooge.

 

[heckler73]

woah there cowboy. we have very accurate records of CO2 measurements over the last half a million years.

2 ice cores + that paper I linked = smoooooooooooooooth approximations... not accurate in the sense you are trying to compare with (Δt = ~100 yrs).

 

[Dr Kynes]

Then prove there's no invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage

cuz dragons eat virgins, thus you would have been consumed already.

 

[Padawanbater2]

cuz dragons eat virgins, thus you would have been consumed already.

3 things..

1. I'm not a virgin

2. If I were a virgin, someone pointing out that fact to me would be meaningless

3. If I were a virgin, you pointing out that fact to me would be even less than meaningless

Go learn Keynesian economics and get back to me, sport

 

[UncleBuck]

cuz dragons eat virgins, thus you would have been consumed already.

weren't you working at walmart when you were pada's age?

 

[Dr Kynes]

3 things..

1. I'm not a virgin

2. If I were a virgin, someone pointing out that fact to me would be meaningless

3. If I were a virgin, you pointing out that fact to me would be even less than meaningless

Go learn Keynesian economics and get back to me, sport

 

[sheskunk]

weren't you working at walmart when you were pada's age?

Aren't you an illegitimate dope pusher?

 

[UncleBuck]

Aren't you an illegitimate dope pusher?

Nope. Never had to push in the slightest.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Go learn Keynesian economics and get back to me, sport

Says the special needs student to the prof who just schooled him.

That's some embarrassing denial you got going there.

 

[abandonconflict]

muypoco calls kkkynes the prof after one too many manifestos

 

[MuyLocoNC]

It's really not a fair fight. Kynes is eloquent, interesting and has style in his writing. The dolts that try to tussle with him are boorish, lack much of a vocabulary and appear to be mildly retarded.

The fact that Kynes destroys them on substance, while they think they're belittling him due to the quantity of "likes" they give themselves, is precious.

I actually feel embarrassed for them every once in awhile. It's kinda sad and pathetic.

 

[potroastV2]

Wow!

Love all of these delusions, you guys.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Sounds to me like you're the butthurt one, being what, a 55 year old who hasn't tasted pussy in decades?

I dig the projection though

I'm in my prime while you're sitting there with your hands on your wrinkled twig n berries, I bet that sucks..

 

[Padawanbater2]

Says the special needs student to the prof who just schooled him.

That's some embarrassing denial you got going there.

Do you mean that thread where Kynes butchered Keynesian economics, then I corrected the everloving shit out of him, then he came back with "tl:dr, copy/paste! same old tired bullshit butchered idea of what he thinks the economic theory actually says", that thread?

If that's the case, you're even more retarded than he is (as if more evidence was necessary...)

 

[Dr Kynes]

It's really not a fair fight. Kynes is eloquent, interesting and has style in his writing. The dolts that try to tussle with him are boorish, lack much of a vocabulary and appear to be mildly retarded.

The fact that Kynes destroys them on substance, while they think they're belittling him due to the quantity of "likes" they give themselves, is precious.

I actually feel embarrassed for them every once in awhile. It's kinda sad and pathetic.

AC is just pissed that somebody clearly state their position without weasel words, and then defends it, w2hile he keeps his actual position carefully concealed behind a fog of Nebulism and Chompskyisms and distracts, retreats and repeats his slogans when challenged, or even asked for clarification.

it makes him look like he is hiding something

Pssst... he is hiding his Zapatismo which is a senseless mashup of stalinist authoritarianism, trotskyite perpetual revolution populism and maoist agrarian vangardism, and those 3 things are incompatible, hence zapatismo's popularity only among the stupidest of marxists.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Do you mean that thread where Kynes butchered Keynesian economics, then I corrected the everloving shit out of him, then he came back with "tl:dr, copy/paste! same old tired bullshit butchered idea of what he thinks the economic theory actually says", that thread?

If that's the case, you're even more retarded than he is (as if more evidence was necessary...)

unrelated copy/paste of snippets from the wikipage on keynesian theory which do not refute the bullet points asserted, and in fact reinforce the accuracy of my statements is "correcting the everloving shit out of me" ???

how droll.

 

[Padawanbater2]

unrelated copy/paste of snippets from the wikipage on keynesian theory which do not refute the bullet points asserted, and in fact reinforce the accuracy of my statements is "correcting the everloving shit out of me" ???

Your inability to comprehend information is your problem, and seems to be a pretty big one at that. Everything I posted refutes your bullshit and proves you don't know shit about Keynesian economics. That's why you can't refute any of it.

Stay tuned for the dismantling and destruction of supply side economics