MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Yes, they did. It's right in front of your face.then stfu, the IPCC never acknowledged the "warming hiatus"
Yes, they did. It's right in front of your face.then stfu, the IPCC never acknowledged the "warming hiatus"
So LA times = IPCC...Yes, they did. It's right in front of your face.
The underlined quote was pulled DIRECTLY from the 2013 SPM released in June of that year.lol, we all know you only talk out of your ass.
that's why you so consistently embarrass yourself.
i asked for a "hiatus" in the IPCC report, not in a newspaper article you blithering fucktard.
Apparently you missed the DIRECT QUOTE from the 2013 SPM.So LA times = IPCC...
where?Yes, they did. It's right in front of your face.
never said hiatus and only talked about surface warming. made no reference to other types of warming we know are occurring.The underlined quote was pulled DIRECTLY from the 2013 SPM released in June of that year.
You are done sir.
lolZ, I don't take directives from people beneath me. Find it yourself.where?
cite it from the IPCC report where you claimed it exists.
there you go, trying to pretend someone is beneath you.lolZ, I don't take directives from people beneath me. Find it yourself.
Good to see you, man!Why Don't Climate Change Deniers Publish Papers?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html
Why Don't Climate Change Deniers Publish Papers?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html
lol, another meltdown from the guy who says increasing CO2 levels are because marxism.yeah yeah yeah we get it, the popular press and lefty blogs agree, flawed metastudies by history teachers and the cartoonists/bloggers who plaigiarize them all agree, global warming is a doomsday scenario
'So this is happening while Sen. Inhofe fiddles.'
(from your own "citation" in the "peer reviewed Journal" Slate.com)
unfortunately this doesnt make the case that "the science is settled" ot that "Theories are Facts made up of Facts", or that there is any real consensus beyond general agreement that in fact there has been some warming over the last 100 years or so, and SOME of it can be attributed to human action.
none of this equates to the cassandra doomsday scenarios laid out by the IPCC's press arm (counting on nobody reading the actual reports since it is in fact unintelligible by their own admission)
nor does it in any way refute the fact that even if SOME of the warming is man made, the remainder of the warming is NATURAL, and expecting human civilization to undiscover fire wont stop the natural warming which makes up ~50% of the warming (according to the IPCC's own claims)
nor does any of this excuse the shocking lapses in judgement, ethics, and basic record keeping of the CRU and Michal Mann and the Global Warming Funk Band
further, these arguments from the popular press (and the most vehemently leftist arm of that press in fact) are simply presenting conveniently bite sized prepackaged talking points to argue against assertions nobody made, so that dipshits can try to convince their hypothetical (and presumably extremely ignorant, bigoted and homophobic) uncle that he is wrong over a thanksgiving meal of dry turkey and tinned cranberry jelly.
the last article created a very specific and nearly insurmountable test for "peer reviewed denialism" which is ludicrous.
that they found even one paper that refutes the entire theory of "global warming" from soup to nuts is surprising, since their criteria was akin to searching for "Peer Reviewed" research establishing evidence of Jesus' assumption into heaven after the resurrection.
He still blathers on about climategate, too, even after multiple independent investigations cleared everybody involved of any wrongdoinglol, another meltdown from the guy who says increasing CO2 levels are because marxism.
it's especially funny since he has not only been caught being completely unable to do a fucking exponent, but he also got caught dead to rights lying about "missing a decimal" in a calculation which involved no decimal at all.He still blathers on about climategate, too, even after multiple independent investigations cleared everybody involved of any wrongdoing
yeah yeah yeah we get it, the popular press and lefty blogs agree, flawed metastudies by history teachers and the cartoonists/bloggers who plaigiarize them all agree, global warming is a doomsday scenario
'So this is happening while Sen. Inhofe fiddles.'
(from your own "citation" in the "peer reviewed Journal" Slate.com)
unfortunately this doesnt make the case that "the science is settled" ot that "Theories are Facts made up of Facts", or that there is any real consensus beyond general agreement that in fact there has been some warming over the last 100 years or so, and SOME of it can be attributed to human action.
none of this equates to the cassandra doomsday scenarios laid out by the IPCC's press arm (counting on nobody reading the actual reports since it is in fact unintelligible by their own admission)
nor does it in any way refute the fact that even if SOME of the warming is man made, the remainder of the warming is NATURAL, and expecting human civilization to undiscover fire wont stop the natural warming which makes up ~50% of the warming (according to the IPCC's own claims)
nor does any of this excuse the shocking lapses in judgement, ethics, and basic record keeping of the CRU and Michal Mann and the Global Warming Funk Band
further, these arguments from the popular press (and the most vehemently leftist arm of that press in fact) are simply presenting conveniently bite sized prepackaged talking points to argue against assertions nobody made, so that dipshits can try to convince their hypothetical (and presumably extremely ignorant, bigoted and homophobic) uncle that he is wrong over a thanksgiving meal of dry turkey and tinned cranberry jelly.
the last article created a very specific and nearly insurmountable test for "peer reviewed denialism" which is ludicrous.
that they found even one paper that refutes the entire theory of "global warming" from soup to nuts is surprising, since their criteria was akin to searching for "Peer Reviewed" research establishing evidence of Jesus' assumption into heaven after the resurrection.
1 : the dendrochronology methodology published in a study under peer review demonstrated the inferiority (which is to say, SHITTINESS) or Man et al's methods, thus prompting Mann et al to seek ways to suppress that paper (in direct violation of the peer review process) and the eventual attempt to undermine several entire journals for publishing material they felt challenged the CRU's work.Despite the reiterations of red herrings, you seemed to miss the point. Scientific consensus can be bought, but the only currency it will accept is evidence. If someone wants to change things, this is the path they must take. Merely rejecting answers is not good enough, no matter how much you trump it up with accusations of conspiracy and bias. There must be a rejection of methodology and a suggestion of a more accurate methodology.
you still insist that this ONE example of "independent investigations" is above reproach, but every other investigation is fraught with scheming plotting and nefarious shadowy republican cabals trying to keep "Teh 1%" in powerHe still blathers on about climategate, too, even after multiple independent investigations cleared everybody involved of any wrongdoing
Do you think he was this adamant about Wilsons case going to trial?
..
8 examples, here's what the cce review had to say;you still insist that this ONE example of "independent investigations" is above reproach, but every other investigation is fraught with scheming plotting and nefarious shadowy republican cabals trying to keep "Teh 1%" in power
1.3 Findings
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards
of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific
allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their
rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of
advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of
behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display
the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the
part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory
requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to
the credibility of UK climate science.
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf
Source?you forget Sandusky was also "exonerated" by UPenn,
97% of scientists accept anthropogenic climate change, if you don't, you deny the scientific consensus, that makes you a climate change denieryou yourself respond to every citation of every paper which calls into question even the smallest portion of Climate Change Catechism with accusations of "Climate Denier"
dont give a shit what the whitewashes claim, i read that shit myself, and if my GC did that kind of shit on a kitchen remodel i would have him in court, and his license would be yanked.8 examples, here's what the cce review had to say;
Source?
Also, I wonder where you "thought" up that comparison...
https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/official-probe-shows-climategate-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/
Also false comparison, both investigations are completely independent of each other and UPenn is backed up by 7 other independent investigations. You believe in another conspiracy to cover all of that up.
97% of scientists accept anthropogenic climate change, if you don't, you deny the scientific consensus, that makes you a climate change denier