Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you tell me, beenthere.
let me know if you're ever gonna cite your own claims or just keep quoting holocaust deniers and white supremacists.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
That's how they fool the retarded mass populace. Evidence doesn't mean proof, lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of proof likewise.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Would it not be better to quote a white supremacist with a background in climatology than quoting from a Cartoonists blog considering race isn't a factor?you tell me, beenthere.
let me know if you're ever gonna cite your own claims or just keep quoting holocaust deniers and white supremacists.
Unless you're gonna try tell me the skeptics are actually trying to wipe out Africa with Climate Change in which case I'll respectfully ask you to put your meth pipe down.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Not only does UB use a chart from a cartoonist (fact) who no degree what so ever in science.
He uses the wrong projection.
Hansens massive failure of a prediction was in 1988 not 1981.
Like I said, you can piss into the wind all you want, all your gonna do is get wet
You're losing the battle, you're going to lose the war, and eventually, even you are going to get on board with it and say you always supported it in the first place
Get used to that template, you'll be repeating it a lot over the coming years
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the cartoonist, who has a degree in physics and a post-grad in solar physics, just posts the work or NASA scientists.
your logival fallacy only exposes how stupid you are, and no one else.
good job sinking to beenthere levels of stupidity though.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Not only does UB use a chart from a cartoonist (fact) who no degree what so ever in science.
He uses the wrong projection.
Hansens massive failure of a prediction was in 1988 not 1981.
why do you keep posting falsified graphs from right wing sources like "thenewamerican.com"?
why not post the actual graph without falsifications?
He didn't graduate, so he would be a dropout, or lazy college quitter or drunk, all names for ASU alumn.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
LOL This is hansens chart, I suppose that UAH is also a right wing website according to UB.
Can some please show me how scenario B is remotely the closest to the true observed temperature?
This must be extremely embarrassing to Hansen and UncleBuck.
scenario B most closely matches CO2 emissions. do you not fucking get this while you go on posting this anyway?
that graph has also been falsified, as "reality" was added on with no reference.
post the website you got that exact image from.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nevermind, found it.
beenthere got it from some euro blog.
http://inge09.blog.de/2011/10/22/harter-winter-12054171/
beenthere got it from some euro blog.
http://inge09.blog.de/2011/10/22/harter-winter-12054171/
There is no scientific evidence that any of these storms were caused by a slight rise in global temperatures.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
See the divergence point between B & C in 2000 whereafter the mean of the observations follows Scenario C?why do you keep posting falsified graphs from right wing sources like "thenewamerican.com"?
why not post the actual graph without falsifications?
How much money did you waste attending University?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
observed temps are closest to scenario B though, they shoot right up to scenario B.
scenario B and scenario C diverge because scenario C supposes a massive reduction in CO2 starting in 2000. we are exceeding that supposition, as we have not curbed CO2 emissions at all. hence why we are closest to scenario B in temps.
Surely a Euro Blog has less credibility than a person who draws cartoons.
If you were given the choice between a surgeon taking your appendix out or a cartoonist, you would pick the guy with the crayons right?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Did you even look at the fourth chart you posted?
