bu$hleaguer
Well-Known Member
How did they measure CO2 levels 800,000 years ago?
are you serious?How did they measure CO2 levels 800,000 years ago?
No not completely, but yes in that it makes me wonder how accurate any information is about it.are you serious?
as the foremost authority on what i have and have not read, perhaps you can explain why i know where to find said documents?11 independent investigations read the entirety of the documents and all of them independently found no criminal, moral or ethical wrongdoing.
Buh buh Penn State, and pedophiles, and Jerry Sandusky and fail.. Yeah, been over that one a dozen times too. You're consistent in your denial of reality to suit the truthers narrative. 11 investigations clear it, Nah, but 1 conspiracy theorist blog spins the conversations between scientists to mean what they don't actually mean, YEP!! GOT EM!!!!
You're a retard. You haven't read the emails, you've only read right wing sources that are already morally and politically against doing anything about climate change, then attempt to use that as evidence of some global conspiracy (meanwhile not realizing even if climategate was absolutely true, the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of ACC independent of it is still far beyond enough to accurately conclude it's validity).
You're doing what creationists do with evolution. Somebody fakes a fossil and gets figured out and condemned (by the scientific community), creationists find out and say "SEE!! SEE!!! EVOLUTION IS BULLSHIT!!! THAT PROVES IT!!"...
Except when it comes from Cook and Skepticalscience, huh...
STFU
CONSPIRACEEEEE!!
Dumbass
He's a bonafide crackpotlol, meltdown from the 9/11 truther guy.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/climate-what.850475/page-4#post-11053714No not completely, but yes in that it makes me wonder how accurate any information is about it.
which is of course only an opinionHighest levels in 800k yrs? I wouldn't lay money on that bet since it doesn't appear hard(er) science supports that opinion very well.
another meltdown = another manifestoas the foremost authority on what i have and have not read, perhaps you can explain why i know where to find said documents?
most of the archived browser accessible sources have been closed down by threats of lolsuits, and offering up a dowenload link for a zip archive or PDF is of course just an excuse for you to claim "but, Context!!"
mann, et al engaged in blackballing of scientists, and even tried to get entire publications put on their Thuper Theekrit Deniers List
mann and his cronies' e-mails (which themselves detail the illegal means by which they sought to conceal those very emails from legal scrutiny) are Real and Actual Evidence, while oreskes and cook's bullshit claims, the entirety of the "skeptical science blog" and pretty much everything you say have been demonstrated point by point to be fiull of shit, but that doesnt stop you from trotting it out again and again, as if the previous demonstrations of your fecal content never happened.
pointing at yet another posting of "97% consensus" and "skeptical science blog" graphs and charts and other such twaddle which has been previously refuted is NOT dismissing the source, it is dismissing your deceptive repetition of previously rejected bullshit.
on rare occasions "skeptical science blog" shits out a valid argument, but that has proven to be so uncommon as to be likely the result of pure chance.
publication of a claim on "skeptical science blog" does not automatically prove the falsity of a claim, but cook publishing on I-sis.org and claiming that this is a "Peer Reviewed Journal" is laughable.
see the difference?
nah. you cant see anything but your deliriously delusional dreams of "winning" this argument as well.
now that you have inserted yourself into this issue, perhaps you can explain why the journals Climate Research, Geophysical Letters, and Energy & Environment were all declared to be infiltrated by "The Baddies" by Mann, after they published some papers he didnt approve of, despite his own previous publication in those same journals?
perhaps you can detail why none of these jokers keeps records of their Thuper Important Data, which is so very important for the future of the planet, but apparently not important enough to put in a box for later use...
perhaps you can explain why they felt that their emails on IPCC business, using govt funded university computers and networks, while receiving govt grants for their "research" were so terribly personal, that they must be concealed, or even destroyed to prevent FOIA requests from obtaining them?
perhaps you can shed some light on Mann's current embroilment in a FRAUD INVESTIGATION in which he refuses to answer subpoenas for his documents relating to his alleged fraud in obtaining govt research grants...
nah, you would rather call me dumb, and imply that theres some wild conspiracy to manufacture the appearance of conspiracy, when Mann and co. did that very nicely all by themselves.
also, have you figured out the diffrenece between Theory and Fact yet?
or Observation and Fact?
or how Hypothesis + Observation = Theory?
or do you still assert that Fact + Fact = Theory (which is a fancy word for Fact) ?
HOW DARE YOU!!!??!!https://www.rollitup.org/t/climate-what.850475/page-4#post-11053714
CO2 will diffuse through ice, smoothing out decadal peaks. If there was a period in history with 1500ppm, we wouldn't be able to see it directly in ice cores. After 40k years, the CO2 levels will mix with the other layers to such an extent it will be blotted out to half its value, spread over decades (presumably with a t+ bias due to buoyancy effects, which does correlate with the "record").
And as you can see (hopefully) the further back one goes, the worse it gets.
Highest levels in 800k yrs? I wouldn't lay money on that bet since it doesn't appear hard(er) science supports that opinion very well.
stating a position, and supporting it with evidence is a "meltdown"?another meltdown = another manifesto
Goes several pages trying to diminish the veracity of scientific theory then insists he's stating a position and supporting it with facts...stating a position, and supporting it with evidence is a "meltdown"?
i guess thats why you keep your position secret, because youre so darned cool.
nah, nobody believes that, its because every time you open your gob and try to take a stand, your position is so demonstrably retarded.
did i say i was supporting shit with "Facts"? nope. i provided EVIDENCEGoes several pages trying to diminish the veracity of scientific theory then insists he's stating a position and supporting it with facts...
has been answered, and you simply cant stand that.Cite something relevant. Show that research which has been pivotal was biased. Be sure to notify NASA.
I answered you about Mann et al. The journal published a study contradicting previous research by them and they weren't given a chance to be a part of the peer review process, resulting in the publication of bad science. So Mann et al is opposed to the journal ever publishing again and I agree, the journal should be black balled by scientists if it publishes with out proper peer review.did i say i was supporting shit with "Facts"? nope. i provided EVIDENCE
Mann &co. drafted those emails themselves, illegally refused to provide them under a FIOA request, lied about their existence, deleted a shitload of em, and those that remain are inexcusable.
Mann and the lads DID try to blackball entire publications for publishing studies they didnt like.
Mann and the boys DIDNT keep records of the data that they claim is so conclusive, ensuring that their results can never be reproduced (and claims that cannot be reproduced are universally invalid)
Mann and his cohorts DID demonstrate intellectual dishonesty, over and over and over
Mann IS currently facing fraud charges and is stonewalling subpoenas from the DA over his grants
this is EVIDENCE, and since they didnt keep records of their data, making their results untestable and un-reproducable, this is all that is left, and these emails scream Bad Science and Bullshit to anyone who reads em.
as such, your earlier demand:
has been answered, and you simply cant stand that.
so now you will try to change the subject, start with the usual ad homs, and claim that the only reason you cant explain the oxymoron "Libertarian Socialist" is cuz everybody else on the planet is just too dumb to understand your genius.
you posted some unattributed, uncited emails with no context or reference. then you cited some 9/11 truther site.did i say i was supporting shit with "Facts"? nope. i provided EVIDENCE
gonna need something better than a 9/11 truther site and your word to believe anything you say.Mann &co. drafted those emails themselves
...said none of the 7+ independent investigations.Mann and his cohorts DID demonstrate intellectual dishonesty, over and over and over
...said none of the 7+ independent investigations....these emails scream Bad Science and Bullshit to anyone who reads em.
you provided evidence of nothing, merely (possible) existence of emails which have been investigated 7+ times over and found perfectly within all standards of science.stating a position, and supporting it with evidence is a "meltdown"?
so, even in the very emails you have not read, the article that caused Mann to declare Climate Science to be overrun by "The Baddies" was evaluated by several peer reviewers, and the process was determined to be solid, yet you contend that Mann and his back up dancers should have a veto on every study published anywhere, because they demand it?I answered you about Mann et al. The journal published a study contradicting previous research by them and they weren't given a chance to be a part of the peer review process, resulting in the publication of bad science. So Mann et al is opposed to the journal ever publishing again and I agree, the journal should be black balled by scientists if it publishes with out proper peer review.
No, but I agree with them for wishing the aforementioned publication be blackballed by scientists.you contend that Mann and his back up dancers should have a veto on every study published anywhere, because they demand it?