Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

UncleBuck · May 26, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
yes the IPCC's reports are pretty debunkable, quite evangelical, and full of psuedo-science.

i mean really, who would believe a crazy story like this:

first, "almost all of 1 degree C warming over 120 years is man-made", then a few years later, they retconn that to "~50% of 0.4 degree C warming over 60 years is man-made", but they still insist their story hasnt changed, and their projections are as good as they ever were...

perplexingly wacky indeed

i'm confused now.

you and your science hating buddies have been labeling AGW a "religion", which implies faith, absolutism, and no predictive value.

yet you then take the IPCC to task for allowing new information to influence their statements (not so absolute) and jump on any prediction which was not spot on (most are pretty spot on though, so predictive value).

you sad little people are so eager to add talking points that you don't even care if they make sense.

Dr Kynes · May 26, 2014

UncleBuck said:
i'm confused now.

you and your science hating buddies have been labeling AGW a "religion", which implies faith, absolutism, and no predictive value.

yet you then take the IPCC to task for allowing new information to influence their statements (not so absolute) and jump on any prediction which was not spot on (most are pretty spot on though, so predictive value).

you sad little people are so eager to add talking points that you don't even care if they make sense.

for years now, the IPCC and it's cadre of liliputians (like yourself) have been parroting their bullshit exaggerations, and shitting all over anyone who disagreed, even in the mildest terms.

you yourself persist in squawking "denier" and slinging personal attacks against all who dare question your divine fatwas, and now, the IPCC has drastically reduced their previous claims, without a peep of apology for those it has smeared, and not a whiff of regret for their DECADES of elaborate doomsday predictions which were based on guesswork, shabby science and a political agenda.

so yeah, when they finally admit that their shit was wrong, their doomsday scenarios were all smoke and oakum, and their calumny against real scientists was shameful, THEN i might begin to forgive them for being wrong, but since they maintain their smug superiority, even when backpedalling (just as you do) then fuck em.

they can eat a bag of dicks.

UncleBuck · May 26, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
for years now, the IPCC and it's cadre of liliputians (like yourself) have been parroting their bullshit exaggerations, and shitting all over anyone who disagreed, even in the mildest terms.

you yourself persist in squawking "denier" and slinging personal attacks against all who dare question your divine fatwas, and now, the IPCC has drastically reduced their previous claims, without a peep of apology for those it has smeared, and not a whiff of regret for their DECADES of elaborate doomsday predictions which were based on guesswork, shabby science and a political agenda.

so yeah, when they finally admit that their shit was wrong, their doomsday scenarios were all smoke and oakum, and their calumny against real scientists was shameful, THEN i might begin to forgive them for being wrong, but since they maintain their smug superiority, even when backpedalling (just as you do) then fuck em.

they can eat a bag of dicks.

there was almost nothing in there that was even remotely close to true, the only thing that sniffed truth as it went by was covered in hyperbole.

the IPCC has not "drastically" reduced their previous claims, but they have taken into account new evidence as it is discovered, as happens in good science.

so much for the "AGW is religion" meme you and your buddies in denialism keep yapping about.

Dr Kynes · May 26, 2014

UncleBuck said:
there was almost nothing in there that was even remotely close to true, the only thing that sniffed truth as it went by was covered in hyperbole.

the IPCC has not "drastically" reduced their previous claims, but they have taken into account new evidence as it is discovered, as happens in good science.

so much for the "AGW is religion" meme you and your buddies in denialism keep yapping about.

what besides a religion insists that only it's anointed and approved Council of Experts can opine on it's doctrines?

what besides religion (and disney) aggressively defends it's every detail as sacred writ, then simply changes it without explanation and expects everyone to just pretend there have been no changes, and accept it?

what but a religion can drastically alter it's inviolate dogma overnight and dismiss the discrepancy as "New Revelations"?

what besides religion can drive muttonheaded know-nothings (like yourself) to the streets in defense of it's dogma, and when that dogma changes, the muttonheads keep right on rockin and rollin without even admitting the changes occured?

yep Anthropogenic Climate Disruption/Change/Global Warming/The Coming Of Gozer the Gozarian is a religion, and a pretty shitty one to boot.

it's a doomsday cult, just like the Thuggee.

how many people have to die this year to forestall the coming of Nibiru The Destroyer, the all powerful God Of Climate Change?

UncleBuck · May 26, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
what besides a religion insists that only it's anointed and approved Council of Experts can opine on it's doctrines?

anyone is free to showcase their ignorance. your buddies can keep calling AGW a "hoax" all they want.

even roy spencer gets funding from NASA and NOAA.

so much for that retarded and demonstrably false talking point of yours.

Dr Kynes said:
what besides religion (and disney) aggressively defends it's every detail as sacred writ, then simply changes it without explanation and expects everyone to just pretend there have been no changes, and accept it?

what but a religion can drastically alter it's inviolate dogma overnight and dismiss the discrepancy as "New Revelations"?

what besides religion can drive muttonheaded know-nothings (like yourself) to the streets in defense of it's dogma, and when that dogma changes, the muttonheads keep right on rockin and rollin without even admitting the changes occured?

good job on reiterating the same retarded talking point in three different ways.

can you go ahead and tell me when scientists who accept AGW "drastically altered their inviolate dogma overnight", or do you want to just admit that you get carried away with hyperbole because you're not getting laid and need an outlet for your frustration?

Dr Kynes said:
yep Anthropogenic Climate Disruption/Change/Global Warming/The Coming Of Gozer the Gozarian is a religion, and a pretty shitty one to boot.

it's a doomsday cult, just like the Thuggee.

how many people have to die this year to forestall the coming of Nibiru The Destroyer, the all powerful God Of Climate Change?

more yawning hyperbole to compensate for a history of lying, citing creationists, and siding with "hoaxers" and heartland institute believers.

religion has no predictive value. climate science has massive predictive value.

religion is absolute. climate science changes as new evidence and facts are discovered.

see how i can destroy your demonstrably false talking points so simply, and without 8 pages of hyperbole that notify the members of this forum how long it's been since getting laid?

MuyLocoNC · May 26, 2014

And by "facts", UB means the latest absurd exaggerations.

The good news is the MMGW zealots are frantic. You can smell their fear at the imminent "tabling" of this manufactured crisis. They smell their chance at passing any meaningful legislation slipping away for 8-12 years. And as we all know, time is the death knell for this latest Progressive contrivance.

Dr Kynes · May 26, 2014

UncleBuck said:
anyone is free to showcase their ignorance. your buddies can keep calling AGW a "hoax" all they want.

even roy spencer gets funding from NASA and NOAA.

so much for that retarded and demonstrably false talking point of yours.

good job on reiterating the same retarded talking point in three different ways.

can you go ahead and tell me when scientists who accept AGW "drastically altered their inviolate dogma overnight", or do you want to just admit that you get carried away with hyperbole because you're not getting laid and need an outlet for your frustration?

more yawning hyperbole to compensate for a history of lying, citing creationists, and siding with "hoaxers" and heartland institute believers.

religion has no predictive value. climate science has massive predictive value.

religion is absolute. climate science changes as new evidence and facts are discovered.

see how i can destroy your demonstrably false talking points so simply, and without 8 pages of hyperbole that notify the members of this forum how long it's been since getting laid?

as i have, in my own words, with citations from well respected scientists *(including roy spencer who still publishes, despite his religious views, which you abhor cuz "tolerance" is only for things you can tolerate) detailing why i think the IPCC was exaggerating in report 4, (not that they were 100% wrong, just they deliberately overstated their case far beyond any evidence or reason) and now, when they start backpedalling like a motherfucker, you want to (as is the case with all fundamentalist believers) mischaracterize, and exaggerate to opponents' position to manufacture a strawman that you can more easily attack.

Bravo, well done Don Quixote, those giants will be defeated in no time.

Dr Kynes · May 26, 2014

MuyLocoNC said:
And by "facts", UB means the latest absurd exaggerations.

The good news is the MMGW zealots are frantic. You can smell their fear at the imminent "tabling" of this manufactured crisis. They smell their chance at passing any meaningful legislation slipping away for 8-12 years. And as we all know, time is the death knell for this latest Progressive contrivance.

well according to IPCC report 4 we should be nearly 0.5 degrees C warmer than in 1997.

it didnt happen, so they "adjusted" their "predictions" so they could be "accurate" while drastically reducing the "anthropogenicness" of the "crisis" because they got caught cooking the data, AGAIN.

Padawanbater2 · May 26, 2014

MuyLocoNC said:
And by "facts", UB means the latest absurd exaggerations.

The good news is the MMGW zealots are frantic. You can smell their fear at the imminent "tabling" of this manufactured crisis. They smell their chance at passing any meaningful legislation slipping away for 8-12 years. And as we all know, time is the death knell for this latest Progressive contrivance.

Tassid admission that the fabricated "controversy" is completely political, not scientific. The funny thing about that is the science doesn't care what your opinion, or political affiliation is.

It's not as if when Reagan and Bush were president climate science just stopped, then Clinton came along and it all started up again.. That's not how science works, you not knowing that is just more evidence that you don't know how science works

It's funny the deniers think they've somehow won something when 34 national science academies and the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists accept the evidence for anthropogenic climate change

The science has won.

61% of republicans accept it, 84% of democrats accept it, 64% of independents accept it, and you fringe tea party patriots promoting the English language as official and standing guard with shotguns at the border are the only minority in America who believe it's a hoax

Color me shocked!

UncleBuck · May 27, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
as i have, in my own words, with citations from well respected scientists *(including roy spencer...)

is he the same roy spencer who said:

" I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism."

is he the same roy spencer who said to rush limbaugh:

"i don't believe catastrophic manmade global warming is occurring" right before the hottest decade on record?

is he the same roy spencer who is on the board of directors of the george marshall institute, a political think tank funded by exxon-mobil and once pumped out pseudoscience denying the carcinogenic effects of smoking?

is he the same roy spencer who took the following evangelical pledge on AGW?

We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

only an idiot would point to roy spencer as a well respected scientist. his job, as he is paid to do, is to trump up phony pseudo science for the monied interests he works for. his work is political and has a track record exactly like the heartland institute, right down to the denial of smoking's harmful effects.

really, only someone who is so dumb as to think that rushton is not a racist would also think that roy spencer is a well respected scientist.

Dr Kynes · May 27, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
Tassid admission that the fabricated "controversy" is completely political, not scientific. The funny thing about that is the science doesn't care what your opinion, or political affiliation is.

It's not as if when Reagan and Bush were president climate science just stopped, then Clinton came along and it all started up again.. That's not how science works, you not knowing that is just more evidence that you don't know how science works

It's funny the deniers think they've somehow won something when 34 national science academies and the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists accept the evidence for anthropogenic climate change

The science has won.

61% of republicans accept it, 84% of democrats accept it, 64% of independents accept it, and you fringe tea party patriots promoting the English language as official and standing guard with shotguns at the border are the only minority in America who believe it's a hoax

Color me shocked!

and again, you conflate "Climate Change" (which everyone but you recognizes as real cuz it has happened many times in the past) with "Anthropogenic Climate Change", the political agenda.

and now, youre trying to blame BOOoOOoOOOoOSh for "stopping climate research" despite THE UN's WORLD WIDE NATURE.

man i guess Boo0o00o000o0sh was a supervillain.

killemsoftly · May 27, 2014

UncleBuck said:
i'm confused now...
... you don't even care if they make sense.

I ripped kkkynes posts about non-existent Palestinians and marxist social democracies about last night Buck.
He be cray cray.
We have to find him a good Rabbi , a hooker and a nice jewish psychiatrist soon before he chokes to death on his froth. We owe him for the hiliarity, the inanity and the sheer beauty of his undeserved victory dances. It is the least we can do buck.

It is time to pass the hat.

Dr Kynes · May 27, 2014

killemsoftly said:
I ripped kkkynes posts about non-existent Palestinians and marxist social democracies about last night Buck.
He be cray cray.
We have to find him a good Rabbi , a hooker and a nice jewish psychiatrist soon before he chokes to death on his froth. We owe him for the hiliarity, the inanity and the sheer beauty of his undeserved victory dances. It is the least we can do buck.

It is time to pass the hat.

this from the assclown who thinks the International Workingmen's Association is not a marxist organization, every historical document from the british mandatory period is a lie, and countries that are ruled by avowed marxist parties are not marxist...

Padawanbater2 · May 27, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
and again, you conflate "Climate Change" (which everyone but you recognizes as real cuz it has happened many times in the past) with "Anthropogenic Climate Change", the political agenda.

and now, youre trying to blame BOOoOOoOOOoOSh for "stopping climate research" despite THE UN's WORLD WIDE NATURE.

man i guess Boo0o00o000o0sh was a supervillain.

The climate fluctuates naturally and it also fluctuates because of human activity - this is what 97% of climate scientists conclude

You refuse to admit the human factor, which makes you a denier by definition. You're denying the accepted science of anthropogenic climate change

You clearly misunderstood my reply to MuyLoco; he said "They smell their chance at passing any meaningful legislation slipping away for 8-12 years.", implying legislation regarding anthropogenic climate change only gets passed when a democrat or liberal is in office. I said climate change legislation has no bearing on which political party holds the presidency because that's not how science works citing Reagan and Bush (Sr., dispshit) as examples. The first IPCC report was in 1990, how the hell did that happen with 2 back to back republican presidents if no climate science ever happens unless a liberal is in office?

Dr Kynes · May 27, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
The climate fluctuates naturally

true.

Padawanbater2 said:
and it also fluctuates because of human activity -

and the question remains "HOW MUCH?"

i particularly love the way you combine two disparate arguments in a manner that requires dismantling your sentences, just to help you with your deceptive conflation.

Padawanbater2 said:
this is what 97% of climate scientists conclude

and as has already been demonstrated, thats NOT the facts.

"97%" only appears when you conflate "anthropogenic climate change" and "natural climate change" in a desperate attempt to fake a consensus:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18300-climategate-3-0-university-threatens-blogger-for-exposing-97-consensus-fraud

lulz.
pretending evidence doesnt exist is pretty weak, even by religious zealot standards.

Padawanbater2 said:
You refuse to admit the human factor, which makes you a denier by definition. You're denying the accepted science of anthropogenic climate change

i "refuse to admit" ?????
so why am i constantly asking "How Much?", just before you
call me a "Denier" for the trillionth time?

Padawanbater2 said:
You clearly misunderstood my reply to MuyLoco; he said "They smell their chance at passing any meaningful legislation slipping away for 8-12 years.", implying legislation regarding anthropogenic climate change only gets passed when a democrat or liberal is in office. I said climate change legislation has no bearing on which political party holds the presidency because that's not how science works citing Reagan and Bush (Sr., dispshit) as examples. The first IPCC report was in 1990, how the hell did that happen with 2 back to back republican presidents if no climate science ever happens unless a liberal is in office?

i took his comment to mean "as the evidence for significant AGW continues to erode, the AGW High Priests see their chance at installing their faith as the state religion slipping away" which is pretty accurate.

killemsoftly · May 27, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
this from the assclown who thinks the International Workingmen's Association is not a marxist organization, every historical document from the british mandatory period is a lie, and countries that are ruled by avowed marxist parties are not marxist...

Keep dreaming kkk boy.
Never said the organization wastn't marxist.
Your shit comprehension of history is due to lack of critical thinking skills. I'm guessing the same for reality
Democracies get to elect who they want: Denmark and Uruguay are liberal social democracies with private ownership predominantly. Learn your basic terms and read historians; wiki and rushton can't help you.

Polemics, hysterics, victory dance.
Bu-bye kray kray

Dr Kynes · May 27, 2014

killemsoftly said:
Keep dreaming kkk boy.
Never said the organization wastn't marxist.
Your shit comprehension of history is due to lack of critical thinking skills. I'm guessing the same for reality
Democracies get to elect who they want: Denmark and Uruguay are liberal social democracies with private ownership predominantly. Learn your basic terms and read historians; wiki and rushton can't help you.

Polemics, hysterics, victory dance.
Bu-bye kray kray

so your snide comment about my "Marxist Sniffing Powers" was intended to convey a non-sarcastic agreement that in facy i can smell a marxist from 100 yards away?

no, you feeble minded catamite, it was a snide allusion to mcarthyism, intended to imply that they were NOT marxists (despite the fact that they most demonstrably ARE) in an attempt to increase the size of your E-Peen with a deceptive remark which, despite it's appearances, took no substantive position vis a vis the Marxism of the organization at question.

and you think you are "winning"... so sad.

Padawanbater2 · May 27, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
and the question remains "HOW MUCH?"

The question remains to you because you refuse to accept the answer; enough to warrant doing something

Dr Kynes said:
."97%" only appears when you conflate "anthropogenic climate change" and "natural climate change" in a desperate attempt to fake a consensus:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18300-climategate-3-0-university-threatens-blogger-for-exposing-97-consensus-fraud

lulz.
pretending evidence doesnt exist is pretty weak, even by religious zealot standards.

To prove anthropogenic climate change is a politicized hoax, he cites the founding member of the John Birch society..

Guys, you can't make this shit up.. LOL!

Dr Kynes said:
i "refuse to admit" ?????
so why am i constantly asking "How Much?", just before you call me a "Denier" for the trillionth time?

Yes. You deny "how much". You can ask a million times and you'll receive the same answer to deny. You refuse to admit "how much"

Dr Kynes said:
i took his comment to mean "as the evidence for significant AGW continues to erode, the AGW High Priests see their chance at installing their faith as the state religion slipping away" which is pretty accurate.

Well, you're not too smart, so that doesn't really surprise me, but that's not what he meant, ask him yourself..

killemsoftly · May 27, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
no, you feeble minded catamite, it was a snide allusion to mcarthyism,

and you think you are "winning"... so sad.

Fuck you, Kynes. Your a lying, delusional, ranting asshole. You distort the truth about everything because you can barely read.. You don't even know famous historians works in an area of history and make idiot and absurd claims that I debunked in 20 minutes.
Go get your GED. STFD AND stfu, the adults are talking.

killemsoftly · May 27, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
The question remains to you because you refuse to accept the answer; enough to warrant doing something
Well, you're not too smart, so that doesn't really surprise me, but that's not what he meant, ask him yourself..

Another day, another phenomenal demonstration by kynes of his ignorance and stupidity.
Total fail. Get ready, his victory dance is coming soon.
What a loser.

Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member