Red1966
Well-Known Member
So now it's "tens of thousands of people with advanced scientific degrees"? You are so full of bullshit
Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Yet you keep pretending those who said co2 is a insignificant greenhouse gas are verifying AGW.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Except people without insecurities don't get flustered by projection unless it's true
See how you keep calling my dick small? I'm more than satisfied with what I've got, not even a twitch in the feathers
Post a pic of your mass for all to see with a note that says 'sheskank 11/1/14' to prove it, or you could just ask nice to stop referencing your girth
I predict you'll be kicking and screaming til your scientifically illiterate ass croaks
What's funny to me is why you think anyone needs your opinions anyway? Environmental protection is getting better, first world nations are all in unanimous agreement to cut carbon emissions and every single national science institute on earth and the worlds overwhelming majority of scientists are all in agreement about climate change and how to fix it. The plan is well underway, it's been going on for decades and it'll continue to go on and get better in the future. In short, nobody needs or wants your opinion.
You're like the guy sitting in the meeting advocating tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer, when every other expert next to you says it does
Your grasp on the overwhelming odds against your position are hilarious to me!
You're not going to win this, there are so many more important people than you already miles and miles ahead of your bullshit it would take hundreds of lifetimes for you to catch up.
Keep arguing for the 'missing link'
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Oh sweetheart, you are far from flustering me.
If you insist on claiming I am fat I think it is YOU who needs to supply the proof. Otherwise you are just making shit up. You are the one making the claim, you are the one required to prove it.
I keep calling your dick small because you keep sending me pictures of it. Please stop messaging me.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Turns out the "worlds majority of climate experts" are nearly all basket weaving major students who answered the question "Is co2 a greenhouse gas?" with a "yes". So not "experts". ACC? What happened to AGW? Oh yeah, no warming, so you now call it "climate change". Isn't that changing the changing the rules after the game is played? Lowest score wins now?That's why every single thing about it is transparent, huh...
Must be why the worlds majority of climate experts accept ACC...
CONSPIRACZY!!!! COVERUP!@@@@ 9/11!!!!!!
HOAXORZ!!!!!
FYI, nobody who says that is "well respected" in the scientific community
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAXES!!!!!
None of those says that those storms were caused by global warming pad, no correlation, no causation, nada. Every decade will be worse than the last due to population growth and construction, even if the storms get less severe.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Just for amusement, let's revisit the stupidity of the self proclaimed intellect.
A "recent decades" trend and one year of measurements is hardly enough data to make any kind of rational conclusion
See how dumb you sound when you post shit like this?
That's why I consistently tell you you don't understand how science works
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Look at the frequency of the hurricanes
On average there are 2-3x's more from 00-10 than in 1850-60. Not only that the strength of the storms increases as well. Tropical storms are off the charts. If you look at the wiki page those numbers came from, the trend continues like that from 1850 to now, consistent with the industrial revolution and ACC
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
heckler73
Well-Known Member
And yet, it is a good reflection of human psychology, as far as fundamental economics is concerned. It is a primal function that we measure our receipts against those of others.
My crop is better than your crop, etc.
Whatever the physiological root, it is probably the source of our general, competitive natures in markets.
But then I am left asking the question, why does Hansen get the grape when Salby gets the cucumber, if not the shaft? I read critiques of his work, but note that they make mistakes in their assumptions, too. Especially with linear regressions and dynamics.
Now THIS is a useful site (I got it from Roy Spencer.
)http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/carbonbudget/2013/
So, are the natural dynamics of the carbon-cycle greater than our efforts to enforce our will upon it?
Look what one can make with the data...
9 models, averaged to one std.dev.
What does it mean?
The plants are trying to kill us! Now here's the weird part. Note that data is for GtC, not GtCO2...to get that, they say "multiply by 3.664" (the molecular mass scalar).
That right there causes me to pause in contemplation over what the data is actually saying. However, that comes down to the individual model constructions.
I suppose a next step would be to overlay the above data with GISStemp, or some reasonable facsimile, to see what kind of short-term correlations there are (if any).
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
You posted a chart and the numbers were clearly there. Therefore they were NOT "off the charts". Your statements and opinions are grandiose. Which only goes to show how FALSE they all are. You're a fraud. Every time you post you get owned. LOL
What is sheskanks weight, Alex?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You can't read a fuckin' thermometer, why would anyone expect you to be able to understand something more complicated?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Working towards a BS in biology, thanks for playing though
What was your area of study again, potatoes? lol the irony..
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
says the guy who quotes jared taylor and victor thorn, but refuses to cite his own claims about NASA or his own falsified graphs.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Again, correlation is not causation. You could just as well say that the weather is actually being caused by a shift in the earth's magnetic field http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/magnetic-north-shifting-by-40-miles-a-year-might-signal-pole-r
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they more closely match scenario B, which is closest to our CO2 output levels.
unless, of course, you are reading beenthere's uncited, unattributed, falsified graph.
it wouldn't be the first time you idiots got duped by someone purposely falsifying hansen's work out of anal anguish.