Discussion:
58 Scientific Studies Prove That People Who Don?t Believe In Climate Change Are Morons
(too old to reply)
Dellingpole 65
2017-08-02 01:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A new scientific study held by researchers at Harvard
University and Yale University has definitively proven that
people that don’t believe that climate change is real are of
extremely low intelligence.

“This study confirms what everyone already knew,” said Paul
Mosely, author of the study and a research scientist at Harvard
University. “At this point, if someone doesn’t believe that
climate change has been proven to be a legitimate concern by
scientific community, then that person is most likely an
idiot.”

The study of 10,232 Americans found that people who were
climate change deniers had an average IQ score of 85.

“Research proves that time and time again, if someone doubts
that climate change is real and caused by human activity, that
person is within the 80-90 range of IQ known as ‘dull.’ I don’t
want to stupid shame, that’s not what we do here. But, well,
people who don’t think climate change is real are stupid and
they should be ashamed of themselves.”

The study was published last week in the journal Scientific
American.

Data from the study came from the National Intelligence Survey
of Youth 2010 (NISY10), a national survey of people who were
between 18-32 years old when they were first interviewed in
2010.

In 2012, all participants were asked, “Do you believe that
climate change is real and caused by human activity?”

Some conservative critics have suggested that this was a
‘loaded gotcha question’ and that the correlation is merely a
coincidence.

Mosely said that despite the expected backlash, the major
finding was almost certainly still true: people who don’t
respect the overwhelming conclusion of the scientific community
that climate change is real are most likely morons.
AlleyCat
2017-08-02 02:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 01:06:05 +0000 (UTC), Dellingpole 65 says...
Post by Dellingpole 65
A new scientific study held by researchers at Harvard
University and Yale University has definitively proven that
people that don?t believe that climate change is real are of
extremely low intelligence.
NO ONE believes that "climate change" isn't real. We "deniiiiiierrrrrs"
believe that man isn't responsible for the MINUTE .08°C the temperature
has risen over the course of the last 140 years.

Climate change is real.. the climate changes about 4 times a year, in most
places. And every now and then it changes completely. Nature... love it
and accept it.

http://tinypic.com/r/2mht209/8
--
Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated
Temperature Data"

"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data"

"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee"

"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation"

"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000"

"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA"

"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim - Concede
2014 NOT "Hottest Year"

"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C
Per Century Trend"

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=noaa+nasa+caught

**********************************************************

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/
*****
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
*****
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/
*****
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
*****
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
2017-08-02 04:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Oh, climate change is real. AGW isn't.
7
2017-08-02 08:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dellingpole 65
A new scientific study held by researchers at Harvard
University and Yale University
With no peer reviewed data of course.


2017 The Hootiest Year on Record (THYoR)
----------------------------------------


I plotted Amerikkka's hootiest climate trolls cum scientits, and produced
a graph that shows 2017 is the most hootiest climate change year
of all years.

I cannot reveal the numbers because it is personal intellectual property
like this NASA scientit

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

even though I was funded by the tax payer to do this work.
In Amerikkka, the land of the free,
I can commit any kind of fraudulent research and round it off by
fabricating data, and claim it is personal intellectual
property without anyone peer reviewing the data of
my work until it is published in some official looking Hoot mongering
journal with my fabricated data hidden from peer review process.

My work involved secretly lowering Hooting levels of climate workers
on various pretext pre-1969 so that you can't obviously go back and
check the data, and so when you plot the graph now, every year is now
the most Hootiest climate change year on record!

$$$!! Mission accomplished!


Amrikkkan fsckwit researchers and NASA glow ball wamming trolls
-----------------------------------------------------------------

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

None of the organizations mentioned from NASA to these below:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

have seen Hanson's fake data used to fabricate
glow ball wamming - so if they did not see
Hanson's data, these Amerikkkan institutes are fakers
without seeing any data from Hanson troll to back them up.

The judge wanted to see it:

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

But the fcktard refused claiming it is personal intellectual property.

There is no such thing as personal intellectual property
when science is funded by the public purse, and
at the very least it is dishonest to take such a position,
which means all the *FSCKING* AMERIKKKAN institutes
who supported Hanson have *NEVER* seen Hanson's data
and fraudulently support fake science which they
themselves have not peer reviewed!!!!!

What a fscking result for Amrikkkan fraud science
and the glow ball wamming meme!!

Glow ball wammers are desperate to keep their meme alive
so they then engage in utterly stuupppidd malpractice
to deceive the public.


How glow ball wamming fraudsters use malpractice to adjust data
---------------------------------------------------------------

There two patterns that glow ball wammers and their
data fiddle methods follow.

It has been repeated enough to be noticed.

1. First part of the fraud is to
adjust older data to make it appear cooler
and then draw the graph. Recent data is left
untouched otherwise you will spot the fraud.
So when the graph is plotted, every years is
now the hottest year on record.

The utter fscking asssholes!!

2. The second part of the fiddle is to claim that
the data they used is personal intellectual
data and cannot be revealed
which may wash in Amerikkka, but it is
fraud in any other country, particularly if
the research is paid for by the tax payer.

Hiding your fraudulent data converts all Amerikkkan
researchers into fraudsters and they should not
be allowed to publish whilst they claim all
their fraudulent data is personal intellectual
data - because it has not been peer reviewed.

A professional scientific peer review process
relies on reviewing the data for checks and balances,
like an accountant relies on the books to check
sample invoices to match up numbers to detect fraud.

So any scientific peer reviewed publisher
is now obligated to check the original data, and
if there has been a fiddle, decline publishing,
and if the data is being withheld, then the
publisher MUST indicate that the data has been
withheld, the reason must be given, and offer
to publish with caveat to the readers that the
entire data set has NOT BEEN CHECKED, so that that
paper did not pass the usual quality checks
needed to be a work of scientific merit that has
been fully peer reviewed.


All this hooting malpractice is making me feel baked!

Climate change now accelerated to 1 degree per HOUR!!!!

As the Sun cums up, the earth's temperature goes up
average 1 degree per hour. And when then Sun cums
down, the globe cools 1 degree per hour.

Climate is changing every hour!

Awe noooo! This is making me crispy and toasted.

Can I have a bacon sandwich to top it all off?
Bill Steele
2017-08-03 16:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Seaview
2017-08-03 17:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Dumb fuck!

The climate is in constant change, always has been, always will be.

Enjoy our coming ice age, shitbag.
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-06 14:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?

Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
abelard
2017-08-06 18:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...

nobody sane denies man made global warming....

except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
--
www.abelard.org
Scout
2017-08-06 23:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were still
less than 1% of their former expanse.

From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.

Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.

After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
Post by abelard
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
You mean like those people who push for solar power and wind
power....building the stuff in China and producing a lot of pollution so
that they can pretend that the pollution didn't occur because it occurred
elsewhere?

Same can be said for the wonderful 'green' electric cars. Lot's of
pollution, but if it doesn't have a tail pipe then suddenly the pollution
from it no longer counts.
abelard
2017-08-07 00:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 19:06:24 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were still
less than 1% of their former expanse.
so what? do you know the trend records over the last 800,000 years...
of course you don't...
do you know how so-called ice-ages develop and recede?

of course you don't
Post by Scout
from your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
so you don't understand the difference between correlation and
causation and you don't understand the physics of forcing...
what a surprise
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
no they don't...those who try to minimise agw, but who actually know
anything, invariably put in some sort of codicil that 'of
course there is global warming' in para 4 or 6...
but then go on to minimise it...
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
why should i waste time with an ignoramus like you?
why should anyone?
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
You mean like those people who push for solar power and wind
power....building the stuff in China and producing a lot of pollution so
that they can pretend that the pollution didn't occur because it occurred
elsewhere?
Same can be said for the wonderful 'green' electric cars. Lot's of
pollution, but if it doesn't have a tail pipe then suddenly the pollution
from it no longer counts.
you are the typical ignoramus...wind and pv won't solve the problems..
why are you so ignorant as to suppose they will??

looks like you've been swallowing the filthy fossil media propaganda

the only way you will solve the problems such as they may be, is clean
safe nuclear power...not bluddy wind mills

go study and stop wasting the time of people who have and do

please go away, you're embarrassing yourself
--
www.abelard.org
Scout
2017-08-07 03:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 19:06:24 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were still
less than 1% of their former expanse.
so what?
So, the fact they are still getting smaller, means little to nothing.
Post by abelard
do you know the trend records over the last 800,000 years...
of course you don't...
Yes, it's called an interglacial period because there is this thing called
global warming...

Man, however, hasn't even been around for most of that. So I don't see how
man can be blamed for it.
Post by abelard
do you know how so-called ice-ages develop and recede?
No, and neither does anyone else.
Post by abelard
of course you don't
Never claimed to. So congratulations you disproved something I've never
claimed.

Bet you feel like a winner now that you've beaten up your strawman.
Post by abelard
Post by Scout
from your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
so you don't understand the difference between correlation and
causation
I know that correlation doesn't imply causality.

I know you can have all sorts of correlations without any causality at all.

I know that a true causality always results in a correlation.
Post by abelard
and you don't understand the physics of forcing...
I know the physics of force, but the manner you're trying to use would seem
to indicate something other than physics are involved.
Post by abelard
what a surprise
Surprise that you can't address my comments, but can only attack your own
strawmen?

No, I can't say I find that surprising.
Post by abelard
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
no they don't...
Actually they do.
Post by abelard
those who try to minimise agw, but who actually know
anything, invariably put in some sort of codicil that 'of
course there is global warming' in para 4 or 6...
But that's not an admission that man caused it.
Post by abelard
but then go on to minimise it...
Minimize what? That man's impact on climate has not been show to be at all
significant or relevant to the findings because the error factor exceeds the
level of man's possible influence on the global climate?
Post by abelard
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
why should i waste time with an ignoramus like you?
Because otherwise, you're left looking like you're running away from an
established fact that your position can't deal with?
Post by abelard
why should anyone?
For the same reason.
Post by abelard
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
You mean like those people who push for solar power and wind
power....building the stuff in China and producing a lot of pollution so
that they can pretend that the pollution didn't occur because it occurred
elsewhere?
Same can be said for the wonderful 'green' electric cars. Lot's of
pollution, but if it doesn't have a tail pipe then suddenly the pollution
from it no longer counts.
you are the typical ignoramus...wind and pv won't solve the problems..
Of course not, because all evidence would indicate that man isn't the cause,
thus we're not the solution either.
Post by abelard
why are you so ignorant as to suppose they will??
Nope, but some people are.
Post by abelard
looks like you've been swallowing the filthy fossil media propaganda
Which would seem to indicate you are among such people.
Post by abelard
the only way you will solve the problems such as they may be, is clean
safe nuclear power...not bluddy wind mills
I would tend to agree that would be a step towards reducing our pollution,
but not that it would have any impact on global warming.
Post by abelard
go study and stop wasting the time of people who have and do
please go away, you're embarrassing yourself
You mean I should go away because I'm embarrassing you.
abelard
2017-08-07 10:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 23:44:45 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 19:06:24 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were still
less than 1% of their former expanse.
so what?
So, the fact they are still getting smaller, means little to nothing.
i'm not wasting time on you...you ignorance is monumental...
--
www.abelard.org
Scout
2017-08-08 01:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 23:44:45 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 19:06:24 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were still
less than 1% of their former expanse.
so what?
So, the fact they are still getting smaller, means little to nothing.
i'm not wasting time on you...you ignorance is monumental...
IOW, you can't argue or even refute the points I'm making, so you're going
to pull your skirts over your head and live with your ignorance and
delusions because you don't want to discuss the truth.
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-09 02:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
so what? do you know the trend records over the last 800,000 years...
of course you don't...
do you know how so-called ice-ages develop and recede?
of course you don't
Which kinda proves his point.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Scout
2017-08-09 03:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
so what? do you know the trend records over the last 800,000 years...
of course you don't...
do you know how so-called ice-ages develop and recede?
of course you don't
Which kinda proves his point.
DING DING DING!

We have a winner, just pick something from the top shelf.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-08 00:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
You mean like those people who push for solar power and wind
power....building the stuff in China and producing a lot of pollution so
that they can pretend that the pollution didn't occur because it
occurred elsewhere?
Same can be said for the wonderful 'green' electric cars. Lot's of
pollution, but if it doesn't have a tail pipe then suddenly the
pollution from it no longer counts.
**That would depend on where the power is obtained. That said, electric
vehicles make a compelling case in a number of areas:

* A high number of kms driven involve very short trips, where an IC
engine is barely warmed up. Until it is warm, an IC engine is
spectacularly inefficient. Large amounts of CO2 and other pollutants are
released before operating temperature is reached. An electric motor
operates are around 90% efficiency, whether it is cold or hot (slightly
less efficient at elevated temperatures). IC engines operate at less
than 35% efficiency (45% for Diesel) AT BEST.
* Almost all electric vehicles recover considerable amounts of energy
through regenerative braking. IC engined vehicles do not (unless they
have supplementary electric propulsion - aka: Toyota Prius, et al)
* The average miles driven by Americans each day is around 37. Sure,
some drive much more, but many drive much less. For those who drive
small numbers of miles each day and who own electric vehicles, it would
be possible to (say) install Solar PV cells on the roof of the residence
and/or garage and dedicate that power to recharging the EV. Thus, the EV
could be driven without any pollution issues.
* There are a number of US power companies that supply electricity
through renewable energy sources.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Scout
2017-08-08 02:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
BFD.

Geologically speaking 150 years isn't even a blip.

Heck, it's barely a blip on recorded human history, which if you bothered to
look at would show that the global temperatures have been warmer than they
are now. Oh, I bet all the industrialization of preindustrial man caused all
that massive global warming way back then.

Temperatures go up, temperatures go down, temperatures go back
up......welcome to the natural cycle of climate.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
I take this to mean you're left without a rebuttal?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2 is
causing the present warming.
Sorry, but science is showing that CO2 is trailing global temperatures, just
as it has historically.

Temperatures go up....then CO2 goes up.....not the other way around.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
Is that based on the actual raw data, or the manipulated data?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
You mean like those people who push for solar power and wind
power....building the stuff in China and producing a lot of pollution so
that they can pretend that the pollution didn't occur because it occurred
elsewhere?
Same can be said for the wonderful 'green' electric cars. Lot's of
pollution, but if it doesn't have a tail pipe then suddenly the pollution
from it no longer counts.
**That would depend on where the power is obtained.
Doesn't matter in the least.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/19/tesla-motors-dirty-little-secret-is-a-major-proble.aspx
Sure, they allow fools to spend lots of extra money with the illusion they
are "helping to save the planet".
Post by Trevor Wilson
* A high number of kms driven involve very short trips, where an IC engine
is barely warmed up. Until it is warm, an IC engine is spectacularly
inefficient. Large amounts of CO2 and other pollutants are released before
operating temperature is reached. An electric motor operates are around
90% efficiency, whether it is cold or hot (slightly less efficient at
elevated temperatures).
Yep, and you loss another 10% or more in taking power from the battery

and another 10-20% to return the power to the battery

Then another 10-15% to convert ac to dc

and another 5-10% for the transformer hanging on the pole supplying your
home

an another for the substation transformer

Then add in line loses, generation loses, and the emissions require to
supply not only all the power you actually use, but all the power lost in
all the inefficiencies in the system.

Oh, but that's right, we're not suppose to look all the way back to the
source.

And this is the point where you claim it's going to be solar power, or wind
farms....and wanting to stop right there, rather than tracking those back to
see how much energy and pollution they require to build and install.
Post by Trevor Wilson
IC engines operate at less than 35% efficiency (45% for Diesel) AT BEST.
And care to consider the loses from the fuel your local power plant uses to
what is actually used for driving?

Oh, that's right, again, we're not suppose to look past the car itself,
because all those other loses aren't suppose to count.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Almost all electric vehicles recover considerable amounts of energy
through regenerative braking.
regenerative braking does recover some energy, but most of it is still lose,
and even assuming total driver commitment to regenerative braking, the
amount of power actually recovered is minor. You can save far more by simply
controlling your right foot.
Post by Trevor Wilson
IC engined vehicles do not (unless they have supplementary electric
propulsion - aka: Toyota Prius, et al)
* The average miles driven by Americans each day is around 37.
And yet above you claimed most trips occur before the engine reaches
operating temperature.

You need to make up your mind.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Sure, some drive much more, but many drive much less. For those who drive
small numbers of miles each day and who own electric vehicles, it would be
possible to (say) install Solar PV cells on the roof of the residence
and/or garage and dedicate that power to recharging the EV.
I knew you would claim solar in there somewhere.

Now care to look up how much pollution and how much energy it takes to
produce your EV units?

Free hint. Until very recently it took more power to produce an EV unit that
they would produce in their operational life, and the pollution would make
what comes out of a tailpipe seem minor in comparison.

But that's ok, as long as the energy consumption and pollution doesn't occur
where the consumer sees it, then we can safely ignore the impact because
after all, it's not like we share the same atmosphere, hydrosphere,
biosystem or anything like that
Post by Trevor Wilson
Thus, the EV could be driven without any pollution issues.
Other than all the pollution required to produce them, and to dispose of
them when you're done with it.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* There are a number of US power companies that supply electricity through
renewable energy sources.
Yea, and have you checked the costs?
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-08 03:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the
past 150 years.
BFD.
Geologically speaking 150 years isn't even a blip.
**Irrelevant. The past 150 years have seen a rapid increase in CO2
levels and a consequent rapid increase in temperatures.
Post by Scout
Heck, it's barely a blip on recorded human history, which if you
bothered to look at would show that the global temperatures have been
warmer than they are now.
**Sure. CO2 levels were higher too. What's your point?


Oh, I bet all the industrialization of
Post by Scout
preindustrial man caused all that massive global warming way back then.
**Clearly, they did not. That would, of course, be a non-sequitur. In
ancient times, temperatures did rise higher than they are today. Since
humans were not around, then the cause was something other than human
CO2 release. However, over the past 150 years, we have seen a very rapid
release of CO2 via human emissions. As a consequence, the planet has
warmed more rapidly than at any time in the past million years (at least).
Post by Scout
Temperatures go up, temperatures go down, temperatures go back
up......welcome to the natural cycle of climate.
**There's the problem. The present warming is not 'natural'. It has been
caused by human actions. Unless you consider coal fired power plants and
automobiles 'natural'?
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and
the generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
I take this to mean you're left without a rebuttal?
**Rebut what?
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that
man made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Sorry, but science is showing that CO2 is trailing global temperatures,
just as it has historically.
**And you you actually cared to study the data, you would realise just
how wrong you are. Over the past million years or so, proxy measurements
have shown that CO2 levels have led and lagged temperature levels. And
that's the rub: When one goes up, the other ALWAYS follows. Right now,
we have a CO2 led temperature rise. In the near future (within, say, the
next 100 ~ 200 years) we will probably witness a temperature led CO2
rise, as CO2 is outgassed from the oceans and methane is released in
huge amounts from permafrost regions (methane breaks down into CO2 quite
rapidly).

Study the data, BEFORE you make your ignorance known to all.
Post by Scout
Temperatures go up....then CO2 goes up.....not the other way around.
**Incorrect. Several times in the past million years CO2 has led
temperature rise. Right now, we are seeing a CO2 led temperature rise,
so how you can claim it doesn't occur (when it is occurring right now)
is simply insanity.
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
Is that based on the actual raw data, or the manipulated data?
**Actual, real, measured data. Go look at the data.
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
You mean like those people who push for solar power and wind
power....building the stuff in China and producing a lot of pollution
so that they can pretend that the pollution didn't occur because it
occurred elsewhere?
Same can be said for the wonderful 'green' electric cars. Lot's of
pollution, but if it doesn't have a tail pipe then suddenly the
pollution from it no longer counts.
**That would depend on where the power is obtained.
Doesn't matter in the least.
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/19/tesla-motors-dirty-little-secret-is-a-major-proble.aspx
Sure, they allow fools to spend lots of extra money with the illusion
they are "helping to save the planet".
Post by Trevor Wilson
* A high number of kms driven involve very short trips, where an IC
engine is barely warmed up. Until it is warm, an IC engine is
spectacularly inefficient. Large amounts of CO2 and other pollutants
are released before operating temperature is reached. An electric
motor operates are around 90% efficiency, whether it is cold or hot
(slightly less efficient at elevated temperatures).
Yep, and you loss another 10% or more in taking power from the battery
**Try around 30% efficiency loss. Try not to argue things that you don't
understand. You just look stupid.
Post by Scout
and another 10-20% to return the power to the battery
Then another 10-15% to convert ac to dc
**Why would you convert AC to DC. Take as much space as you need to
answer.
Post by Scout
and another 5-10% for the transformer hanging on the pole supplying your
home
an another for the substation transformer
Then add in line loses, generation loses, and the emissions require to
supply not only all the power you actually use, but all the power lost
in all the inefficiencies in the system.
Oh, but that's right, we're not suppose to look all the way back to the
source.
**Happy to look all the way back to the source, just as you will be
happy to look all the way back to the source of power losses in the
fossil fuel industry.
Post by Scout
And this is the point where you claim it's going to be solar power, or
wind farms....and wanting to stop right there, rather than tracking
those back to see how much energy and pollution they require to build
and install.
Post by Trevor Wilson
IC engines operate at less than 35% efficiency (45% for Diesel) AT BEST.
And care to consider the loses from the fuel your local power plant uses
to what is actually used for driving?
**Typical coal fired power plants run at over 40% efficiency. 24/7. An
IC engine operates at around 35% efficiency WHEN WARM. Cold, that figure
falls way below 10%.
Post by Scout
Oh, that's right, again, we're not suppose to look past the car itself,
because all those other loses aren't suppose to count.
**Not at all. I have no problem discussing ALL the inputs into a system.
In fact, it is essential.
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Almost all electric vehicles recover considerable amounts of energy
through regenerative braking.
regenerative braking does recover some energy, but most of it is still
lose, and even assuming total driver commitment to regenerative braking,
the amount of power actually recovered is minor. You can save far more
by simply controlling your right foot.
**Figures please.
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
IC engined vehicles do not (unless they have supplementary electric
propulsion - aka: Toyota Prius, et al)
* The average miles driven by Americans each day is around 37.
And yet above you claimed most trips occur before the engine reaches
operating temperature.
You need to make up your mind.
**Don't be a fuckwit. Read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
Sure, some drive much more, but many drive much less. For those who
drive small numbers of miles each day and who own electric vehicles,
it would be possible to (say) install Solar PV cells on the roof of
the residence and/or garage and dedicate that power to recharging the EV.
I knew you would claim solar in there somewhere.
Now care to look up how much pollution and how much energy it takes to
produce your EV units?
Free hint. Until very recently it took more power to produce an EV unit
that they would produce in their operational life, and the pollution
would make what comes out of a tailpipe seem minor in comparison.
**Solar PV cells have an energy payback period, here in Australia, of
between 6 months and 18 months. In parts of the US (like Cal, the figure
would likely be in the sub-12 months) and in other parts (like Oregon)
the payback would be more than 24 months. With a 25 year typical
life-span, it would seem you are just sprouting your customary ignorant
bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power#Energy_payback
Post by Scout
But that's ok, as long as the energy consumption and pollution doesn't
occur where the consumer sees it, then we can safely ignore the impact
because after all, it's not like we share the same atmosphere,
hydrosphere, biosystem or anything like that
**Non-sequitur. Solar PV cells should be subject to exactly the same
industrial practices as any other manufactured product. Coal and oil,
OTOH, ARE damaging this planet and their use needs to be reduced
dramatically.
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
Thus, the EV could be driven without any pollution issues.
Other than all the pollution required to produce them, and to dispose of
them when you're done with it.
**See above.
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
* There are a number of US power companies that supply electricity
through renewable energy sources.
Yea, and have you checked the costs?
**Not in the US. The costs here, are not onerous. I know, because that's
where my power comes from.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Kresch
2017-08-08 03:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:20:18 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
No, they aren't.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Sane people know that such is a lie.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
No it hasn't.



Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-08 03:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:20:18 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
No, they aren't.
**It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you morons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Sane people know that such is a lie.
**Every single climatologist on the planet tells us that more CO2 in the
atmosphere leads to higher temperatures.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
No it hasn't.
**Prove it, smartarse.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Kresch
2017-08-08 12:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:56:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:20:18 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
No, they aren't.
**It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you morons
That's nice; you're still wrong.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Sane people know that such is a lie.
**Every single climatologist on the planet tells us that more CO2 in the
atmosphere leads to higher temperatures.
No, no they don't. But it's nice of you to have bought into
that lie.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
No it hasn't.
**Prove it, smartarse.
You made the claim, smartass. I do not have to disprove your
unproven claim, smartass.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
k***@gmail.com
2017-08-08 14:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bunch of lying fools.

Temperatures of the thirties were about the same as now in US statistics. Even proof of this is when Hansen got caught doing a double correction which although only changed temperatures by tenths of a degree, changed the status of the present temperatures as warmer than thirties.

Caught in the mathematical 'error' both NASA and Hasen had to admit to the mistake. Hansen blamed it on a Y2k error with the computers.

Temperatures fell into the fifties, which caused climatologist to hysterically warn of impending return of the ice age.
And then rose to present levels which is about the same as the thirties.

Now this rise back to 30's levels is claimed to be evidence of AGW.

Even from greenie forged and twisted temperature ststistics, the trend line for increased average temperature in this century so far is , 0.01 degreeC per century.

This is in contradiction to theory. As noted by K Trenberth in the collected emails from E Anglia CRU,

'The lack of global warming signal is a "TRAVESTY". There must be something wrong with the observational ssystem'.

What does he mean? The need to correct in the afterfact the data which does not show the global warming? Or scatter a few more thermometers around to see if they can detect the global warming signal.
k***@gmail.com
2017-08-08 15:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia
Loading Image...

All these scientists should have to take courses in remedial algebra and statistics of world emissions.

The statistics of the Paris Accord were deliberately forged in order to hide the fact that any emissions reductions are absolutely FUTILE in mitigating emitted co2 or atmospheric concentrations or any supposed effect from human emissions.

It does not even matter what the 'science' is.
There are no emission cuts that can be effective.

The 'tipping' point is past. No whining about western energy producers will do any good.

If global warming is happening or caused by humans there is no carbon tax or reduction regime that can change this.

This IS settled science.

Your whining is FUTILE
Prepare for DOOMSDAY SCENARIO
k***@gmail.com
2017-08-08 17:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
However, over the fifteen years to 2016 the HadCRUT4v5 and Cowtan & Way GMST trends, of 0.138°C /century and 0.160°C /century respectively, are equally close to the 0.149°C /century ERAinterim trend; the GISTEMP and NOAAv4.0.1 trends are both above 0.17°C /century

My correction.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-08 21:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:56:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:20:18 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
No, they aren't.
**It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you morons
That's nice; you're still wrong.
**OK then, YOU provide your counter-evidence. Here's mine that you
snipped, you dumb shit-for-brains:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Sane people know that such is a lie.
**Every single climatologist on the planet tells us that more CO2 in the
atmosphere leads to higher temperatures.
No, no they don't. But it's nice of you to have bought into
that lie.
**Cite 10 climatologists who deny that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes
higher temperatures on this planet.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
No it hasn't.
**Prove it, smartarse.
You made the claim,
**Actually, dickhead, YOU made the claim. Here are your words:

"After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?"

Prove it, or shut the fuck up.



smartass. I do not have to disprove your
Post by Don Kresch
unproven claim, smartass.
**Indeed. You have to prove YOUR insane claims. Over to you.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Kresch
2017-08-08 23:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 07:03:25 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:56:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:20:18 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
No, they aren't.
**It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you morons
That's nice; you're still wrong.
**OK then, YOU provide your counter-evidence. Here's mine
It's not evidence.

By the way: how's that debunked hockey-stick graph working for
you? How about the emails showing that there was a conspiracy to
stonewall and not let any data get out--in complete violation of basic
scientific principles! YOU ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS SHOW YOUR FUCKING
DATA. ALWAYS. And they refused. They had something to hide, i.e. the
fact that AGW is on-par with "intelligent design" as far as actual
science goes.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Sane people know that such is a lie.
**Every single climatologist on the planet tells us that more CO2 in the
atmosphere leads to higher temperatures.
No, no they don't. But it's nice of you to have bought into
that lie.
**Cite 10 climatologists who deny that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes
higher temperatures on this planet.
Don't need to. Your claim. You prove.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
No it hasn't.
**Prove it, smartarse.
You made the claim, smartass. I do not have to disprove your
unproven claim, smartass.
**Indeed.
So get to proving your unproven claim, smartass.

Over to you, smartass.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-08 23:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 07:03:25 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:56:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:20:18 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
No, they aren't.
**It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you morons
That's nice; you're still wrong.
**OK then, YOU provide your counter-evidence. Here's mine
It's not evidence.
**Then YOU submit your counter-evidence. Here is what you snipped:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
Post by Don Kresch
By the way: how's that debunked hockey-stick graph working for
you?
**Strawman duly noted. We're discussing glacial retreat. I supplied the
evidence. You need to supply your counter-evidence.


How about the emails showing that there was a conspiracy to
Post by Don Kresch
stonewall and not let any data get out--in complete violation of basic
scientific principles! YOU ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS SHOW YOUR FUCKING
DATA. ALWAYS. And they refused. They had something to hide, i.e. the
fact that AGW is on-par with "intelligent design" as far as actual
science goes.
**More strawman arguments don't help you cause. Supply your evidence.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Sane people know that such is a lie.
**Every single climatologist on the planet tells us that more CO2 in the
atmosphere leads to higher temperatures.
No, no they don't. But it's nice of you to have bought into
that lie.
**Cite 10 climatologists who deny that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes
higher temperatures on this planet.
Don't need to. Your claim. You prove.
**I just did. Every climatologist on the planet accepts AGW theory. Even
those employed by The Heartland Institute. Since there are none that
dispute the theory, it is impossible for me to present a null result.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
No it hasn't.
**Prove it, smartarse.
You made the claim, smartass. I do not have to disprove your
unproven claim, smartass.
**Indeed.
So get to proving your unproven claim, smartass.
**Actually, dickhead, YOU made the claim. Here are your words:

"After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?"

Prove it, or shut the fuck up.
Post by Don Kresch
Over to you, smartass.
**YOU made the claim:

"After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?"

Prove it, or shut the fuck up. Your pitiful attempt at snipping comments
is duly noted.
Post by Don Kresch
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Kresch
2017-08-09 00:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:45:27 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 07:03:25 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:56:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:20:18 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
No, they aren't.
**It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you morons
That's nice; you're still wrong.
**OK then, YOU provide your counter-evidence. Here's mine
It's not evidence.
**Then
You need to submit evidence.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
By the way: how's that debunked hockey-stick graph working for
you?
**Strawman duly noted.
No strawman at all. Please learn how to identify a strawman.
Post by Trevor Wilson
How about the emails showing that there was a conspiracy to
Post by Don Kresch
stonewall and not let any data get out--in complete violation of basic
scientific principles! YOU ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS SHOW YOUR FUCKING
DATA. ALWAYS. And they refused. They had something to hide, i.e. the
fact that AGW is on-par with "intelligent design" as far as actual
science goes.
**More strawman
Your inability to be honest is noted.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Sane people know that such is a lie.
**Every single climatologist on the planet tells us that more CO2 in the
atmosphere leads to higher temperatures.
No, no they don't. But it's nice of you to have bought into
that lie.
**Cite 10 climatologists who deny that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes
higher temperatures on this planet.
Don't need to. Your claim. You prove.
**I just did.
No, no you didn't.

btw: AGW is a "theory" if and only if "intelligent design" is
as well. And ID isn't a theory.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
No it hasn't.
**Prove it, smartarse.
You made the claim, smartass. I do not have to disprove your
unproven claim, smartass.
**Indeed.
So get to proving your unproven claim, smartass.
**Actually
Get to proving your unproven claim, smartass.

Not enjoying being told that you have to prove your claim? Not
enjoying that someone isn't kowtowing to your anti-science bullshit?
Tough shit.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-09 01:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:45:27 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 07:03:25 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:56:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:20:18 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
No, they aren't.
**It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you morons
That's nice; you're still wrong.
**OK then, YOU provide your counter-evidence. Here's mine
It's not evidence.
**Then
You need to submit evidence.
**Already done, fuckwit:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

Keep snipping it if it makes you feel better.

Where is your counter-evidence?
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
By the way: how's that debunked hockey-stick graph working for
you?
**Strawman duly noted.
No strawman at all. Please learn how to identify a strawman.
**It most certainly is a strawman. We're discussing receding glaciers,
you moron. YOU introduced another topic. You can discuss it all you
want. I will continue to press you on your lack of evidence to support
your nonsensical notions about expanding glaciers.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
How about the emails showing that there was a conspiracy to
Post by Don Kresch
stonewall and not let any data get out--in complete violation of basic
scientific principles! YOU ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS SHOW YOUR FUCKING
DATA. ALWAYS. And they refused. They had something to hide, i.e. the
fact that AGW is on-par with "intelligent design" as far as actual
science goes.
**More strawman
Your inability to be honest is noted.
**You introduce strawman arguments and you call me dishonest?
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Sane people know that such is a lie.
**Every single climatologist on the planet tells us that more CO2 in the
atmosphere leads to higher temperatures.
No, no they don't. But it's nice of you to have bought into
that lie.
**Cite 10 climatologists who deny that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes
higher temperatures on this planet.
Don't need to. Your claim. You prove.
**I just did.
No, no you didn't.
btw: AGW is a "theory" if and only if "intelligent design" is
as well. And ID isn't a theory.
**Natural Selection is a theory. An highly credible one. Intelligent
Design is just stupid.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
No it hasn't.
**Prove it, smartarse.
You made the claim, smartass. I do not have to disprove your
unproven claim, smartass.
**Indeed.
So get to proving your unproven claim, smartass.
**Actually
Get to proving your unproven claim, smartass.
**Here, again, is the claim that you have failed miserably to prove:

"After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?"

Prove it, or shut the fuck up.
Post by Don Kresch
Not enjoying being told that you have to prove your claim?
**YOU are the one who made the claim:

"After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?"


Not
Post by Don Kresch
enjoying that someone isn't kowtowing to your anti-science bullshit?
**Unfortunately (for you), you have failed to substantiate your claim:

"After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?"

Prove it, or shut the fuck up.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Kresch
2017-08-09 01:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:28:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:45:27 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 07:03:25 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:56:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:20:18 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
Which has all occurred before. After all, glaciers in the 1700's were
still less than 1% of their former expanse.
**And they are retreating MUCH faster today than at any time in the past
150 years.
No, they aren't.
**It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you morons
That's nice; you're still wrong.
**OK then, YOU provide your counter-evidence. Here's mine
It's not evidence.
**Then
You need to submit evidence.
**Already done
You keep posting that which is not evidence.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
By the way: how's that debunked hockey-stick graph working for
you?
**Strawman duly noted.
No strawman at all. Please learn how to identify a strawman.
**It most certainly is a strawman.
No, it's not. Learn what a strawman is, fuckwit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
How about the emails showing that there was a conspiracy to
Post by Don Kresch
stonewall and not let any data get out--in complete violation of basic
scientific principles! YOU ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS SHOW YOUR FUCKING
DATA. ALWAYS. And they refused. They had something to hide, i.e. the
fact that AGW is on-par with "intelligent design" as far as actual
science goes.
**More strawman
Your inability to be honest is noted.
**You introduce strawman
And yet I do not. Please stop lying.

I posted some facts. I didn't say that you said anything about
them. I asked you about them. Now if I had said that you had said
anything about them and attributed them to you, then it would be a
strawman. But I didn't. So no strawman, fuckwit.

Fuck, you are fucking stupid. Galactically fucking stupid.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
From your 'science' I might assert that one can look at flowers and the
generation of seeds as proof that fairies exist.
Simply asserting a link doesn't PROVE the link.
Post by abelard
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
Sane people know that such is a lie.
**Every single climatologist on the planet tells us that more CO2 in the
atmosphere leads to higher temperatures.
No, no they don't. But it's nice of you to have bought into
that lie.
**Cite 10 climatologists who deny that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes
higher temperatures on this planet.
Don't need to. Your claim. You prove.
**I just did.
No, no you didn't.
btw: AGW is a "theory" if and only if "intelligent design" is
as well. And ID isn't a theory.
**Natural Selection is a theory.
Yes it is. But ID isn't. Nor is AGW. They are both garbage.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
After all.....if it were, then why did it stop for most of the last 2
decades?
**Rhetorical question. The observed warming has not 'stopped'. It has
continued, although at a slower rate.
No it hasn't.
**Prove it, smartarse.
You made the claim, smartass. I do not have to disprove your
unproven claim, smartass.
**Indeed.
So get to proving your unproven claim, smartass.
**Actually
Get to proving your unproven claim, smartass.
Not enjoying being told that you have to prove your claim?
Nope. Not me.

Prove your claim or shut the fuck up.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
abelard
2017-08-09 09:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
By the way: how's that debunked hockey-stick graph working for
you? How about the emails showing that there was a conspiracy to
stonewall and not let any data get out--in complete violation of basic
scientific principles! YOU ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS SHOW YOUR FUCKING
DATA. ALWAYS. And they refused. They had something to hide, i.e. the
fact that AGW is on-par with "intelligent design" as far as actual
science goes.
as the fellow says...strawman...

you may as well claim the 'intelligent design theory' or 'darwinian
evolution theory' disproves agw or receding glacier series....

there is no point in your immature arguing as long as you remain
intellectually unarmed...
--
www.abelard.org
Siri Cruise
2017-08-08 10:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
I willing to accept sane people and wingnuts as different partitions.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Same can be said for the wonderful 'green' electric cars. Lot's of
pollution, but if it doesn't have a tail pipe then suddenly the
pollution from it no longer counts.
**That would depend on where the power is obtained. That said, electric
Also big fossil fuel generators are at fixed location and a single point of
exhaust. This makes possible carbon capture that is impossible with millions of
exhausts over the entire countryside. It possible to capture all the carbon
dioxide from natural gas or even coal at a generator, cool it to a liquid, and
then sequester it underground or undersea. Eventually pressure will release
oxygen and anything else, creating new coal or hydrocarbon deposits. I don't
think has done this affordably yet, but people are trying.
Post by Trevor Wilson
operates are around 90% efficiency, whether it is cold or hot (slightly
less efficient at elevated temperatures). IC engines operate at less
than 35% efficiency (45% for Diesel) AT BEST.
And fixed generators provide a small number of sites to update as technology
innovates. They also operate under more predictable loads to allow increased
operating efficiency.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
You mean like those people who push for solar power and wind
power....building the stuff in China and producing a lot of pollution so
that they can pretend that the pollution didn't occur because it
occurred elsewhere?
Innovations that make fossil fuels cleaner would like inspire innovations to
make everything else cleaner. Taxes based on pollution during manufacture, use,
and decommision would normalise the cost of each kind of generator to the
biosphere and provide incentives to reduce.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* The average miles driven by Americans each day is around 37. Sure,
some drive much more, but many drive much less. For those who drive
And a miniscule number of fossil fuel vehicles with no viable alternative can be
accomodated by the biosphere. I feel no need to accomodate other people who
pollute because they want impressive sounding motors (install bass speakers) or
they want to stick it the hippies (only you are still angry Sally ran off to
Woodstock).
Post by Trevor Wilson
* There are a number of US power companies that supply electricity
through renewable energy sources.
And some jurisdictions accept the costs of forcing this, incidentally funding
innovations for other jurisdictions.

Most important: end all imported oil and we don't have to give a shit what one
middle east (or south american or russian) hellhole does to another middle east
hellhole, and no longer send young people halfway around the world to kill and
be killed.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Scout
2017-08-09 06:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Actually a lot of sane people seriously question the assertions that man
made global warming is even a thing.
**Incorrect. Sane people examine the science that shows how excess CO2
is causing the present warming.
I willing to accept sane people and wingnuts as different partitions.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Same can be said for the wonderful 'green' electric cars. Lot's of
pollution, but if it doesn't have a tail pipe then suddenly the
pollution from it no longer counts.
**That would depend on where the power is obtained. That said, electric
Compelling cases like this one?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764208/Child-miners-aged-four-living-hell-Earth.html
Just Wondering
2017-08-07 09:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Pollution control is a different issue entirely. If you want to
advocate against pollution, the whole world will be with you. But do it
in the name of pollution control for its own sake, not in the name of
trying to control the climate. And carbon dioxide is not pollution.
abelard
2017-08-07 10:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Pollution control is a different issue entirely. If you want to
advocate against pollution, the whole world will be with you. But do it
in the name of pollution control for its own sake, not in the name of
trying to control the climate. And carbon dioxide is not pollution.
why would i do that...

agw is a fact and a factor...

of course carbon dioxide is a pollutant relative to humans
if it lowers the holding capacity of the earth

i wish you idiots would stop trading in babble and sound bites
and turn to analysis instead
--
www.abelard.org
Just Wondering
2017-08-07 22:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Just Wondering
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Pollution control is a different issue entirely. If you want to
advocate against pollution, the whole world will be with you. But do it
in the name of pollution control for its own sake, not in the name of
trying to control the climate. And carbon dioxide is not pollution.
why would i do that...
Why would you want to advocate against pollution in the name of
pollution control for its own sake? Are you saying you don't give a
shit about pollution unless you think it affects the climate?
Post by abelard
agw is a fact and a factor...
Nope. Just a theory, which relies largely on models that do not track
reality very well.
Post by abelard
of course carbon dioxide is a pollutant relative to humans
if it lowers the holding capacity of the earth
What does "holding capacity of the earth" even mean? Do you imply that
a slight increase in atmospheric CO2 would reduce the capacity of the
earth to support homo sap? If that's what you're claiming, I'd sure
like to see the evidence. But you won't provide the evidence, because
you can't, because it doesn't exist.
Post by abelard
i wish you idiots would stop trading in babble ands
sound bite and turn to analysis instead
That's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
abelard
2017-08-07 23:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by abelard
Post by Just Wondering
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Pollution control is a different issue entirely. If you want to
advocate against pollution, the whole world will be with you. But do it
in the name of pollution control for its own sake, not in the name of
trying to control the climate. And carbon dioxide is not pollution.
why would i do that...
Why would you want to advocate against pollution in the name of
pollution control for its own sake? Are you saying you don't give a
shit about pollution unless you think it affects the climate?
Post by abelard
agw is a fact and a factor...
Nope. Just a theory, which relies largely on models that do not track
reality very well.
Post by abelard
of course carbon dioxide is a pollutant relative to humans
if it lowers the holding capacity of the earth
What does "holding capacity of the earth" even mean?
incredible
Post by Just Wondering
Do you imply that
a slight increase in atmospheric CO2 would reduce the capacity of the
earth to support homo sap? If that's what you're claiming, I'd sure
like to see the evidence. But you won't provide the evidence, because
you can't, because it doesn't exist.
Post by abelard
i wish you idiots would stop trading in babble ands
sound bite and turn to analysis instead
That's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
--
www.abelard.org
Scout
2017-08-08 01:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Just Wondering
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Pollution control is a different issue entirely. If you want to
advocate against pollution, the whole world will be with you. But do it
in the name of pollution control for its own sake, not in the name of
trying to control the climate. And carbon dioxide is not pollution.
why would i do that...
agw is a fact and a factor...
So you claim but so far I'm not aware of any real evidence that shows the
global warming is a result of man's activities.

So agw is at best a theory.
Post by abelard
of course carbon dioxide is a pollutant relative to humans
if it lowers the holding capacity of the earth
Actually, it increases the holding capacity, by increasing plant growth,
increasing fresh water supplies, increasing the amount of arable lands, and
allowing more land for people and wild life to habitat.
Post by abelard
i wish you idiots would stop trading in babble and sound bites
and turn to analysis instead
Says the man who resorted to sound bites rather than analysis.
abelard
2017-08-08 10:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:50:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
Post by Just Wondering
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Pollution control is a different issue entirely. If you want to
advocate against pollution, the whole world will be with you. But do it
in the name of pollution control for its own sake, not in the name of
trying to control the climate. And carbon dioxide is not pollution.
why would i do that...
agw is a fact and a factor...
So you claim but so far I'm not aware of any real evidence that shows the
global warming is a result of man's activities.
you low level of 'awareness' is not my problem...

i'm amazed to see anyone is patient with your immature babbling
Post by Scout
So agw is at best a theory.
you know nothing...your best policy therefore is to shut up
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
of course carbon dioxide is a pollutant relative to humans
if it lowers the holding capacity of the earth
Actually, it increases the holding capacity, by increasing plant growth,
increasing fresh water supplies, increasing the amount of arable lands, and
allowing more land for people and wild life to habitat.
Post by abelard
i wish you idiots would stop trading in babble and sound bites
and turn to analysis instead
Says the man who resorted to sound bites rather than analysis.
--
www.abelard.org
Scout
2017-08-09 03:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:50:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
Post by Just Wondering
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Pollution control is a different issue entirely. If you want to
advocate against pollution, the whole world will be with you. But do it
in the name of pollution control for its own sake, not in the name of
trying to control the climate. And carbon dioxide is not pollution.
why would i do that...
agw is a fact and a factor...
So you claim but so far I'm not aware of any real evidence that shows the
global warming is a result of man's activities.
you low level of 'awareness' is not my problem...
And apparently you're ignorant of any data to show that agw actually exists.
Post by abelard
i'm amazed to see anyone is patient with your immature babbling
So asking to see the evidence that supports your claims is 'immature'?
Post by abelard
Post by Scout
So agw is at best a theory.
you know nothing...your best policy therefore is to shut up
Really? Then you can show me where it's been established as occuring with
irrefutable proof?
Post by abelard
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
of course carbon dioxide is a pollutant relative to humans
if it lowers the holding capacity of the earth
Actually, it increases the holding capacity, by increasing plant growth,
increasing fresh water supplies, increasing the amount of arable lands, and
allowing more land for people and wild life to habitat.
I see you decided to take your own advice.
Post by abelard
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
i wish you idiots would stop trading in babble and sound bites
and turn to analysis instead
Says the man who resorted to sound bites rather than analysis.
Still taking your advice I see.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-08 22:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
Post by Just Wondering
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indutrial
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot are the
scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Pollution control is a different issue entirely. If you want to
advocate against pollution, the whole world will be with you. But do it
in the name of pollution control for its own sake, not in the name of
trying to control the climate. And carbon dioxide is not pollution.
why would i do that...
agw is a fact and a factor...
So you claim but so far I'm not aware of any real evidence that shows
the global warming is a result of man's activities.
**You're kidding, aren't you?
Post by Scout
So agw is at best a theory.
**Yes. Just as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is "just a
theory" too. Do you use a GPS? That GPS depends on Einstein's Special
Theory of Relativity. Still, it's just a theory. AGW theory presently
has around 97% confidence. IOW: It's a fact. If AGW theory had a 50%
confidence, you would have a point. It doesn't and you don't.
Post by Scout
Post by abelard
of course carbon dioxide is a pollutant relative to humans
if it lowers the holding capacity of the earth
Actually, it increases the holding capacity, by increasing plant growth,
increasing fresh water supplies, increasing the amount of arable lands,
and allowing more land for people and wild life to habitat.
**Australia's CSIRO has determined that many plants consume more water
under higher atmospheric CO2 levels. Additionally and more importantly,
more CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to changes in weather patterns.
Some areas are suffering desertification and others are experiencing
heavier rainfalls. Worse, some areas will be unfit for human survival,
due to very high temperatures.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
SeaSnake
2017-08-12 16:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
**I repeat the science. Nothing more.
BULLSHIT!

You deny reality:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
place your faith in the same people that told you smoking is not dangerous.
Really?

The same bunch is doing global warming now?

Cites?
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Now, if you want to present some proper, peer-reviewed science, I'm
always ready to read it and discuss.
Silence, Auztard!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
if it has not received peer-review, it is of dubious scientific value.
--
Iow if the grant-hungry HERD rejects it morons like you will too.

Nuff said.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 16:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post bullshit and you'll treated as
you deserve.
Hey asshat, serious question. What do you do for a living?
He's a pommy bastid.

They're ALL on the dole.

Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-09 02:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-09 03:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
**And anyone with a functioning brain understands that CO2 levels
contribute to planetary temperatures.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-09 10:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You
lot are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and
cooling cycles were occuring long before man came along.
**And anyone with a functioning brain understands that CO2 levels
contribute to planetary temperatures.
As I said.

My suggestion to you, boy, is to stop breathing.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
abelard
2017-08-09 11:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:58:49 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
**And anyone with a functioning brain understands that CO2 levels
contribute to planetary temperatures.
As I said.
My suggestion to you, boy, is to stop breathing.
just another comment born of your indomitable ignorance...

even your mouth breathing is part of a natural cycle in
current balance
--
www.abelard.org
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-10 02:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:58:49 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
**And anyone with a functioning brain understands that CO2 levels
contribute to planetary temperatures.
As I said.
My suggestion to you, boy, is to stop breathing.
just another comment born of your indomitable ignorance...
even your mouth breathing is part of a natural cycle in
current balance
Since your argument is based on 100 years out of 4.5 billion who really is
the fool?
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Scout
2017-08-10 09:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:58:49 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
**And anyone with a functioning brain understands that CO2 levels
contribute to planetary temperatures.
As I said.
My suggestion to you, boy, is to stop breathing.
just another comment born of your indomitable ignorance...
even your mouth breathing is part of a natural cycle in
current balance
Since your argument is based on 100 years out of 4.5 billion who really is
the fool?
Heck, he can't even be bothered to look at the last 10,000 which we have
pretty solid evidence for what the exact global temperatures were.

Oh, but that would mean we're still recovering from The Little Ice Age, so
of course global temperatures could be expected to be increasing.
Scout
2017-08-10 09:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
**And anyone with a functioning brain understands that CO2 levels
contribute to planetary temperatures.
And SOB, science tells us that when temperatures warm up.....CO2 levels also
increase......

So, what's your point?
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-10 20:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
**And anyone with a functioning brain understands that CO2 levels
contribute to planetary temperatures.
And SOB, science tells us that when temperatures warm up.....CO2 levels
also increase......
**You finally got something right.
Post by Scout
So, what's your point?
**Humans are causing the temperature of the planet to reach levels that
may lead to a 'runaway' effect, where increased temperatures cause
increased amounts of CO2 to be released from the oceans (and methane to
be released from permafrost regions), thus causing temperatures to rise
higher still, causing more CO2 and methane to be released and so on.
Average temperatures could rise by as much as 10 degrees C or more. This
would be catastrophic for much of the planet as it will, inevitably lead
to large scale glacial melt and conditions in many parts of the planet
that will be hostile to human life.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
SeaSnake
2017-08-10 21:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
So, what's your point?
**Humans are causing the temperature of the planet to reach levels that
may lead to a 'runaway' effect, where increased temperatures cause
increased amounts of CO2 to be released from the oceans (and methane to
be released from permafrost regions), thus causing temperatures to rise
higher still, causing more CO2 and methane to be released and so on.
Average temperatures could rise by as much as 10 degrees C or more. This
would be catastrophic for much of the planet as it will, inevitably lead
to large scale glacial melt and conditions in many parts of the planet
that will be hostile to human life.
Nope.

You have NO CLUE what you're whinging about.

LEARN:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-12 07:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
So, what's your point?
**Humans are causing the temperature of the planet to reach levels
that may lead to a 'runaway' effect, where increased temperatures
cause increased amounts of CO2 to be released from the oceans (and
methane to be released from permafrost regions), thus causing
temperatures to rise higher still, causing more CO2 and methane to be
released and so on. Average temperatures could rise by as much as 10
degrees C or more. This would be catastrophic for much of the planet
as it will, inevitably lead to large scale glacial melt and conditions
in many parts of the planet that will be hostile to human life.
Nope.
You have NO CLUE what you're whinging about.
**Wanna bet?
**How curious that you choose a news organisation for your science,
Post by SeaSnake
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
**BZZZZTT!

Gray has had his theories on AGW rejected during the peer-review
process. He is employed by The Heartland Institute to peddle lies about
AGW. The Heartland Institute has a long history of peddling lies for
cash. It began with tobacco and has now moved onto defending the fossil
fuel industry against the overwhelming science.

The real question is this:

Why don't you read the PEER-REVIEWED science surrounding AGW theory?

Gray is a liar-for-hire.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
SeaSnake
2017-08-12 16:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Why don't you read the PEER-REVIEWED science surrounding AGW theory?
Peer reviewed = peer grant-hetrded.

HTH

You insolent sheople.
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-13 14:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Why don't you read the PEER-REVIEWED science surrounding AGW theory?
I have. it's a socialist wet dream. And full of lies.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?
q=hide+the+decline&view=detail&mid=FF63861ED1AE77756605FF63861ED1AE77756605
&FORM=VIRE
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-13 15:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Why don't you read the PEER-REVIEWED science surrounding AGW theory?
Would that be the data that Micheal Mann refused to produce in his libel suit
against his detractors when in fact that data would have proved his case?
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-11 01:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
news:goGdncAvcsPQyB7EnZ2dnUU7-
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
**And anyone with a functioning brain understands that CO2 levels
contribute to planetary temperatures.
And SOB, science tells us that when temperatures warm up.....CO2 levels
also increase......
**You finally got something right.
Post by Scout
So, what's your point?
**Humans are causing the temperature of the planet to reach levels that
may lead to a 'runaway' effect, where increased temperatures cause
increased amounts of CO2 to be released from the oceans (and methane to
be released from permafrost regions), thus causing temperatures to rise
higher still, causing more CO2 and methane to be released and so on.
Average temperatures could rise by as much as 10 degrees C or more. This
would be catastrophic for much of the planet as it will, inevitably lead
to large scale glacial melt and conditions in many parts of the planet
that will be hostile to human life.
Unadulterated bullshit.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
k***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 02:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You always integrate your doomsday whining with the notion that there is anything that can be done.

Actual statistics on world emissions show that any cuts can only slightly reduce the time until same rate and quantities are reached.

OF NO VALUE

This is why for the Paris Accord, the statistics and the statement, 'world and China's emmisions have "stabilized "',
WERE.FORGED.

Pure lie. The greenies wont accept that their AGW horse is DEAD. No amunt of beating will make it get up and carry them to town.


Greenies actually see this and justify their fraud for their true goal of annihilating 90% of world population and ALL OF CO2.

Even doing this, there would be no mitigation of climate. Warming caused by humans or not.

Resistance is FUTILE
Prepare to be assimilated
k***@gmail.com
2017-08-11 03:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
carbon-infographics2016.jpg (1200×1694)
Loading Image...

This is from E Anglia,CRU, principle contributor and editor for the IPPC.

Notice it shows China at 6.5 billion tons per yr in the year 2000. This forgery is done to lessen the true rate of China's growth.

It depicts Chins as increasing output ratd by 4 billion tons per yr in 15yrs.

The true rate is 10-12% that of US steady rate of about 5 billion tons per yr.

The statement that world and China's emissions have stabilized is false.

Greenies dont even take themselves seriously.

There is no reason for anyone else to either.
Scout
2017-08-09 03:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.

And how did man cause the ice caps on Mars to melt?
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-09 04:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Post by Scout
And how did man cause the ice caps on Mars to melt?
**Strawman. Mars is a different planet to Earth, with completely
different conditions. However, if you are genuinely interested in
ascertaining why the the Mars ice caps may be shrinking, here are some
references:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm
https://www.space.com/33001-mars-ice-age-ending-now.html

Our knowledge of the precise mechanisms that affect Martian climate is
not well understood. OTOH, it is well understood here on Earth. We KNOW
that excessive CO2 levels causes warming.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-09 11:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-09 20:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
**I requested proof of this claim:

"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."

NO proof has been submitted. Therefore, it can be regarded as a lie.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Kresch
2017-08-09 22:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:25:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."
NO proof has been submitted. Therefore, it can be regarded as a lie.
And yet it has been submitted.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-09 23:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:25:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."
NO proof has been submitted. Therefore, it can be regarded as a lie.
And yet it has been submitted.
**Nope. Not once, not ever.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Kresch
2017-08-10 01:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:29:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:25:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."
NO proof has been submitted. Therefore, it can be regarded as a lie.
And yet it has been submitted.
**Nope. Not once, not ever.
Liar. I submitted it.

Here: I'll repost the whole fucking thing...

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:53:20 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

Specifically:

https://i1.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/graphs.jpg?resize=550%2C398


Also, this part is great:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for
February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always
grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court
settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions.
The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including
computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the
deadline.”

Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the
court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could
reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that
Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true
statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth
Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the
court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must
then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and
his team.


Know why Mann hides his data? Because it shows that he's a
lying scumbag. He's on-par with Kent Hovind.
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-10 02:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:29:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:25:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."
NO proof has been submitted. Therefore, it can be regarded as a lie.
And yet it has been submitted.
**Nope. Not once, not ever.
Liar. I submitted it.
**Lying, in an attempt to prove a lie, is not smart. This is the comment
I asked for proof of:

"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."

No proof has been submitted.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Kresch
2017-08-10 12:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:16:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:29:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:25:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."
NO proof has been submitted. Therefore, it can be regarded as a lie.
And yet it has been submitted.
**Nope. Not once, not ever.
Liar. I submitted it.
**Lying,
is what you're doing.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-10 20:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:16:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:29:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:25:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."
NO proof has been submitted. Therefore, it can be regarded as a lie.
And yet it has been submitted.
**Nope. Not once, not ever.
Liar. I submitted it.
**Lying,
is what you're doing.
**Lying, in an attempt to prove a lie, is not smart. This is the comment
I asked for proof of:

"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."

No proof has been submitted.

Keep squirming moron.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
SeaSnake
2017-08-10 21:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Keep squirming moron.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Kym Horsell
2017-08-10 21:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:16:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:29:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:25:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."
NO proof has been submitted. Therefore, it can be regarded as a lie.
And yet it has been submitted.
**Nope. Not once, not ever.
Liar. I submitted it.
**Lying,
is what you're doing.
**Lying, in an attempt to prove a lie, is not smart. This is the comment
"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."
No proof has been submitted.
Keep squirming moron.
...
I allays get uncomfortable when people start throwing around the P word.
In the real world there is only evidence, not proof. Some of the evidence might
be good enough to convince most people that research and area; some evidence
might not be enough to convince any reasonable person.

Recently the good folks at PAGES put all the temperature reconstructions
of the past 2000 y (a couple go further back) onto a web site. In all there
are 2000+ proxies in the data that can be used to calculate the temps
going back to 1AD.

The best strategy is to average them all together because temp proxies are
notorious for inaccuracies. Not the least of which is they usually
refer to what the temp was like 4 km up a glacier at extreme N or extrem S
latutudes -- not temps for anywhere normal in th eworld.

Anyway, various people have been churning through this new dataset.

Here's one set of graphs using different assumptions about how the
different regions and different types of proxies should be combined:

Max Galka @galka_max 01 Aug 2017 01:58Z
New research reconstructs the global temperature record going back 2,000
years https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788 # via @ScientificData
<Loading Image...>

I'm more a data scientists than a natural scientist so my job is to have
an algorithm determine the appropriate assumptions and combine the data
to avoid these wishy-washy choices and give you a single target.

My version of combining all the proxies is:

<kym.sdf-eu.org/graphs/wtavgadj.gif>

All seems very clear. The current global temps are not like anything seen
in the past 2000 years. The rate of change is not like anything seen
in the last 2000 y.

There is reasonable evidence those 2 ideas can be pushed back 400k and maybe
4 mn years with some of the latest extreme long-run proxy data.
Don Kresch
2017-08-11 01:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 06:27:51 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:16:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:29:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:25:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."
NO proof has been submitted. Therefore, it can be regarded as a lie.
And yet it has been submitted.
**Nope. Not once, not ever.
Liar. I submitted it.
**Lying,
is what you're doing.
**Lying
is what you're doing.

Keep lying and squirming, moron.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Just Wondering
2017-08-10 00:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
news:euviq6F6tvqU1
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
"Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration."
NO proof has been submitted. Therefore, it can be regarded as a lie.
http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/
Scout
2017-08-10 09:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
news:euviq6F6tvqU1
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous eras?
Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a 4.5 billion
year span?
Apparently that is his contention, and further it makes you wonder how much
he actually knows about the climate since apparently he only knows the last
few years.

Apparently he's not aware of the Medieval Warm Period, or Roman Warm Period,
or the Minoan Warming....

Heck, he apparently isn't even aware that when the Vikings settled
Greenland.....you could actually grow crops there....something you can't do
today because IT'S TOO COLD.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Of course, you need a scale of thousands of years....not just the last 150
years. After all, we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
abelard
2017-08-10 10:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 05:32:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Of course, you need a scale of thousands of years....not just the last 150
years. After all, we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
how is this 'recovering' indicated?

is it like thawing out a chicken just taken out from the fridge?
--
www.abelard.org
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-11 01:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 05:32:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Of course, you need a scale of thousands of years....not just the last 150
years. After all, we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
how is this 'recovering' indicated?
is it like thawing out a chicken just taken out from the fridge?
Since you were unaware of any of the thing he cited who gives a fuck what you
want?
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
abelard
2017-08-11 01:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 01:08:51 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 05:32:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Of course, you need a scale of thousands of years....not just the last 150
years. After all, we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
how is this 'recovering' indicated?
is it like thawing out a chicken just taken out from the fridge?
Since you were unaware of any of the thing he cited who gives a fuck what you
want?
try translating that into english
--
www.abelard.org
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-11 01:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 01:08:51 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 05:32:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Of course, you need a scale of thousands of years....not just the last
150 years. After all, we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
how is this 'recovering' indicated?
is it like thawing out a chicken just taken out from the fridge?
Since you were unaware of any of the thing he cited who gives a fuck
what you want?
try translating that into english
It is in English, asswipe. You aren't.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Scout
2017-08-11 02:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 05:32:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Of course, you need a scale of thousands of years....not just the last 150
years. After all, we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
how is this 'recovering' indicated?
is it like thawing out a chicken just taken out from the fridge?
Something like that. Temperatures go down, and they take time to go back up.
Wile E. Coyote
2017-08-11 01:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
news:euviq6F6tvqU1
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and
long before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous
eras? Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a
4.5 billion
year span?
Apparently that is his contention, and further it makes you wonder how
much he actually knows about the climate since apparently he only knows
the last few years.
Apparently he's not aware of the Medieval Warm Period, or Roman Warm
Period, or the Minoan Warming....
Heck, he apparently isn't even aware that when the Vikings settled
Greenland.....you could actually grow crops there....something you can't
do today because IT'S TOO COLD.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cYxW6D5ebrs/TasMDH04yLI/AAAAAAAAAFU/abWuVnAhx7k
/s1600/greenlandice_fig5.png
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/global-temperature-la
st-10000-years.jpg
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Of course, you need a scale of thousands of years....not just the last
150 years. After all, we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
Gives new meaning to the term short sighted.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Scout
2017-08-11 03:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Scout
news:euviq6F6tvqU1
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and
long before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Is it your contention that we do not know tempratures from previous
eras? Then how does 100 years of data constitute proof of anything in a
4.5 billion
year span?
Apparently that is his contention, and further it makes you wonder how
much he actually knows about the climate since apparently he only knows
the last few years.
Apparently he's not aware of the Medieval Warm Period, or Roman Warm
Period, or the Minoan Warming....
Heck, he apparently isn't even aware that when the Vikings settled
Greenland.....you could actually grow crops there....something you can't
do today because IT'S TOO COLD.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cYxW6D5ebrs/TasMDH04yLI/AAAAAAAAAFU/abWuVnAhx7k
/s1600/greenlandice_fig5.png
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/global-temperature-la
st-10000-years.jpg
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Of course, you need a scale of thousands of years....not just the last
150 years. After all, we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
Gives new meaning to the term short sighted.
Apparently climatology is something that ignores the past beyond 150 years
ago.

Then Trevor claims that we understand the mechanisms. Mechanisms he won't
even look at because they are further back than his artificial date limit.
Don Kresch
2017-08-09 12:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:53:20 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

Specifically:

Loading Image...


Also, this part is great:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for
February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always
grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court
settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions.
The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including
computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the
deadline.”

Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the
court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could
reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that
Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true
statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth
Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the
court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must
then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and
his team.


Know why Mann hides his data? Because it shows that he's a
lying scumbag. He's on-par with Kent Hovind.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
abelard
2017-08-09 15:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:53:20 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
https://i1.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/graphs.jpg?resize=550%2C398
“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for
February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always
grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court
settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions.
The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including
computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the
deadline.”
Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the
court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could
reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that
Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true
statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth
Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the
court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must
then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and
his team.
Know why Mann hides his data? Because it shows that he's a
lying scumbag. He's on-par with Kent Hovind.
i'm unsure why anyone would take 'dendroclimatology' seriously
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php
let alone mann's attempt
--
www.abelard.org
Scout
2017-08-10 09:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Scout
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by abelard
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:56:02 -0000 (UTC), "Wile E. Coyote"
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no
climate change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we
can actually do something about it?
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Indutrial man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time. You lot
are the scientifically challenged ones.
then look at the effects on the glacier series
and
the physics of forcing...
nobody sane denies man made global warming....
except the filthy fossil fuel industry...among the wealthiest
corporations in the world on the back of externalising their
pollution
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming and cooling
cycles were occuring long before man came along.
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history and long
before industrialization was even a consideration.
**Prove it.
Post by Scout
And how did man cause the ice caps on Mars to melt?
**Strawman. Mars is a different planet to Earth, with completely different
conditions.
No shit Sherlock....

But the question remains is how exactly is man causing global warming on
Mars.
Post by Trevor Wilson
However, if you are genuinely interested in ascertaining why the the Mars
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm
https://www.space.com/33001-mars-ice-age-ending-now.html
Which is just what has been happening on Earth......which means that
according to your claims, man must be causing the global warming on
Mars....or you're going to have to come up with something else as your cause
that effects BOTH planets.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Our knowledge of the precise mechanisms that affect Martian climate is not
well understood. OTOH, it is well understood here on Earth.
Hardly. I'm sure you THINK we really understand it, but given the fact that
global warming is occurring on Mars as the same time man is being blamed for
global warming on Earth would suggests that we really don't understand the
mechanisms.
Post by Trevor Wilson
We KNOW that excessive CO2 levels causes warming.
So how exactly did the CO2 from Earth get all the way to Mars?
Just Wondering
2017-08-09 07:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Nobody with a functioning brain doesn't understand that warming
and cooling cycles were occuring long before man came along.
Heck, the planet has been warmer within recorded human history
and long before industrialization was even a consideration.
And how did man cause the ice caps on Mars to melt?
Mad scientists launching huge fresnel lenses into orbit?
Basil Jet
2017-08-09 07:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
And how did man cause the ice caps on Mars to melt?
The Scots deep-fried them in batter.
Just Wondering
2017-08-07 09:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Better question still: Who would benefit (financially - follow the
dollars) from the FORCED changes in human behavior that GW/climate
change alarmists are trying to push on everyone??
abelard
2017-08-07 10:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Better question still: Who would benefit (financially - follow the
dollars) from the FORCED changes in human behavior that GW/climate
change alarmists are trying to push on everyone??
why on earth have you been 'forced' to use modern medicine...

it is an outrage
--
www.abelard.org
Just Wondering
2017-08-07 22:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
Better question still: Who would benefit (financially - follow the
dollars) from the FORCED changes in human behavior that GW/climate
change alarmists are trying to push on everyone??
why on earth have you been 'forced' to use modern medicine...
I haven't been forced to use modern medicine. If I had a disease and
wanted to treat it with leaches and poultices, or witch doctor
incantations, instead of prescription medications, I have that right.
Trevor Wilson
2017-08-07 22:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
**That would be a rhetorical question, you moron. Let's try and
re-phrase it in a way that you can understand:

* The average climate scientist makes around US$50,000.00 PA.
* People like Lindzen (who does not deny AGW, BTW) is on record earning
as much as US$2,500.00 PER DAY from Exxon.
* The Heartland Institute (the denier's go-to organisation) operates the
same way that big tobacco operated in years past. They no longer reveal
the sources of their funding. They keep it secret, but we can assume
that it comes from the usual sources - Exxon, Koch Industries, et al.

So, let's follow the money. Let's see who is funding and how much money
is going to people like Lindzen, Plimer and the others who publish
material to fool morons like you.
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Yah retard, the claimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
**Yes, the claimate (sic) has been changing for 4.5 billion years. It
has been changing due to a wide variety of influences. Right now, the
major influence on the claimate (sic) is CO2 emissions released by human
activity.


Indutrial
Post by Wile E. Coyote
man has been around for a tiny fraction of that time.
**Yes, indutrial (sic) man has only been influencing the climate for a
few hundred years. Nonetheless, we know that CO2 levels AND temperature
levels have risen around 100 times more rapidly in the past 100 years,
than at any time in (at least) the past 1 million years.

You lot are the
Post by Wile E. Coyote
scientifically challenged ones.
**Really? Tell us: What are your scientific credentials that suggest we
should trust you idiotic opinions over that of every climatologist on
the planet?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Scout
2017-08-08 02:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wile E. Coyote
Post by Bill Steele
$$$!
There you have it. Who stands to gain by pretending there is no climate
change?
Better question: Who benefits by pretending that man caused it and we can
actually do something about it?
**That would be a rhetorical question, you moron. Let's try and re-phrase
* The average climate scientist makes around US$50,000.00 PA.
"So global warming professors are the tenth highest paid profession in the
nation and the third highest paid profession in the public sector. In terms
of median earnings, they are paid as much as the average private sector
CEO."

http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/03/02/climate-science-10th-highest-paid-profession/

"Workers in an environmental-related field are in high demand, due to the
rising commitment to protecting the natural world. "

"Geoscientists: $90,890
Atmospheric Scientists: $89,260"

http://www.environmentalsciencedegree.com/average-salary-in-environmental-science/
* People like Lindzen (who does not deny AGW, BTW) is on record earning as
much as US$2,500.00 PER DAY from Exxon.
And not denyng AGW is a far different thing that denying AGW.

It simply means he's willing to listen, but hasn't seen any real evidence to
either support or refute AGW.

But of course, in your binary world, if you don't deny AGW that has to mean
you support AGW.

PS, your attempt to apply an average as a counterpoint to an individual
shows nothing.

Further care to tell us how much Dr. Kevin Trenberth makes?
* The Heartland Institute (the denier's go-to organisation) operates the
same way that big tobacco operated in years past. They no longer reveal
the sources of their funding. They keep it secret, but we can assume that
it comes from the usual sources - Exxon, Koch Industries, et al.
So, let's follow the money. Let's see who is funding and how much money is
going to people like Lindzen, Plimer and the others who publish material
to fool morons like you.
Well, we know that Dr. Kevin Trenberth has gotten MILLIONS from the US
government.....

So who's the fool?
James McGinn
2017-08-10 12:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dellingpole 65
A new scientific study held by researchers at Harvard
University and Yale University has definitively proven that
people that don’t believe that climate change is real are of
extremely low intelligence.
“This study confirms what everyone already knew,” said Paul
Mosely, author of the study and a research scientist at Harvard
University. “At this point, if someone doesn’t believe that
climate change has been proven to be a legitimate concern by
scientific community, then that person is most likely an
idiot.”
The study of 10,232 Americans found that people who were
climate change deniers had an average IQ score of 85.
“Research proves that time and time again, if someone doubts
that climate change is real and caused by human activity, that
person is within the 80-90 range of IQ known as ‘dull.’ I don’t
want to stupid shame, that’s not what we do here. But, well,
people who don’t think climate change is real are stupid and
they should be ashamed of themselves.”
The study was published last week in the journal Scientific
American.
Data from the study came from the National Intelligence Survey
of Youth 2010 (NISY10), a national survey of people who were
between 18-32 years old when they were first interviewed in
2010.
In 2012, all participants were asked, “Do you believe that
climate change is real and caused by human activity?”
Some conservative critics have suggested that this was a
‘loaded gotcha question’ and that the correlation is merely a
coincidence.
Mosely said that despite the expected backlash, the major
finding was almost certainly still true: people who don’t
respect the overwhelming conclusion of the scientific community
that climate change is real are most likely morons.
Mafiosa justify their criminal activity on the basis that they are smarter than the fools they steal from.

This is no different.

Climate alarmist are not smarter, they are just less honest.
Wally W.
2017-08-10 12:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Dellingpole 65
A new scientific study held by researchers at Harvard
University and Yale University has definitively proven that
people that don’t believe that climate change is real are of
extremely low intelligence.
“This study confirms what everyone already knew,” said Paul
Mosely, author of the study and a research scientist at Harvard
University. “At this point, if someone doesn’t believe that
climate change has been proven to be a legitimate concern by
scientific community, then that person is most likely an
idiot.”
The study of 10,232 Americans found that people who were
climate change deniers had an average IQ score of 85.
“Research proves that time and time again, if someone doubts
that climate change is real and caused by human activity, that
person is within the 80-90 range of IQ known as ‘dull.’ I don’t
want to stupid shame, that’s not what we do here. But, well,
people who don’t think climate change is real are stupid and
they should be ashamed of themselves.”
The study was published last week in the journal Scientific
American.
Data from the study came from the National Intelligence Survey
of Youth 2010 (NISY10), a national survey of people who were
between 18-32 years old when they were first interviewed in
2010.
In 2012, all participants were asked, “Do you believe that
climate change is real and caused by human activity?”
Some conservative critics have suggested that this was a
‘loaded gotcha question’ and that the correlation is merely a
coincidence.
Mosely said that despite the expected backlash, the major
finding was almost certainly still true: people who don’t
respect the overwhelming conclusion of the scientific community
that climate change is real are most likely morons.
Mafiosa justify their criminal activity on the basis that they are smarter than the fools they steal from.
This is no different.
Climate alarmist are not smarter, they are just less honest.
Is "honor among climastrologists" a thing?
Wally W.
2017-08-10 12:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by James McGinn
Post by Dellingpole 65
A new scientific study held by researchers at Harvard
University and Yale University has definitively proven that
people that don’t believe that climate change is real are of
extremely low intelligence.
“This study confirms what everyone already knew,” said Paul
Mosely, author of the study and a research scientist at Harvard
University. “At this point, if someone doesn’t believe that
climate change has been proven to be a legitimate concern by
scientific community, then that person is most likely an
idiot.”
The study of 10,232 Americans found that people who were
climate change deniers had an average IQ score of 85.
“Research proves that time and time again, if someone doubts
that climate change is real and caused by human activity, that
person is within the 80-90 range of IQ known as ‘dull.’ I don’t
want to stupid shame, that’s not what we do here. But, well,
people who don’t think climate change is real are stupid and
they should be ashamed of themselves.”
The study was published last week in the journal Scientific
American.
Data from the study came from the National Intelligence Survey
of Youth 2010 (NISY10), a national survey of people who were
between 18-32 years old when they were first interviewed in
2010.
In 2012, all participants were asked, “Do you believe that
climate change is real and caused by human activity?”
Some conservative critics have suggested that this was a
‘loaded gotcha question’ and that the correlation is merely a
coincidence.
Mosely said that despite the expected backlash, the major
finding was almost certainly still true: people who don’t
respect the overwhelming conclusion of the scientific community
that climate change is real are most likely morons.
Mafiosa justify their criminal activity on the basis that they are smarter than the fools they steal from.
This is no different.
Climate alarmist are not smarter, they are just less honest.
Is "honor among climastrologists" a thing?
For slow greenies, compare with:
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/honour_among_thieves>
Such people will observe honour among thieves because, within a closed
group, failure to keep one's word is soon detected and leads to
exclusion from the group, which conflicts with one's particular
interests.

Oh, wait ... what does this sound like: within a closed group ...
leads to exclusion from the group?

Maybe "the consensus?"

What if one substitutes "play ball" for "keep one's word"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/play_ball
To work together; to cooperate.

Where has that been grounds for "exclusion from the group?"
gordo
2017-08-10 17:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by James McGinn
Post by Dellingpole 65
A new scientific study held by researchers at Harvard
University and Yale University has definitively proven that
people that don’t believe that climate change is real are of
extremely low intelligence.
“This study confirms what everyone already knew,” said Paul
Mosely, author of the study and a research scientist at Harvard
University. “At this point, if someone doesn’t believe that
climate change has been proven to be a legitimate concern by
scientific community, then that person is most likely an
idiot.”
The study of 10,232 Americans found that people who were
climate change deniers had an average IQ score of 85.
“Research proves that time and time again, if someone doubts
that climate change is real and caused by human activity, that
person is within the 80-90 range of IQ known as ‘dull.’ I don’t
want to stupid shame, that’s not what we do here. But, well,
people who don’t think climate change is real are stupid and
they should be ashamed of themselves.”
The study was published last week in the journal Scientific
American.
Data from the study came from the National Intelligence Survey
of Youth 2010 (NISY10), a national survey of people who were
between 18-32 years old when they were first interviewed in
2010.
In 2012, all participants were asked, “Do you believe that
climate change is real and caused by human activity?”
Some conservative critics have suggested that this was a
‘loaded gotcha question’ and that the correlation is merely a
coincidence.
Mosely said that despite the expected backlash, the major
finding was almost certainly still true: people who don’t
respect the overwhelming conclusion of the scientific community
that climate change is real are most likely morons.
Mafiosa justify their criminal activity on the basis that they are smarter than the fools they steal from.
This is no different.
Climate alarmist are not smarter, they are just less honest.
Is "honor among climastrologists" a thing?
Is Wallybot a thing?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
JTEM is super wealthy!
2017-08-10 17:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dellingpole 65
A new scientific study held by researchers at Harvard
University and Yale University has definitively proven that
people that don’t believe that climate change is real are of
extremely low intelligence.
A lot of propaganda works this way: Negative
association.

The media is telling you that fuel sources which
are rapidly running out anyway are causing
temperatures to slightly rise during an ice age,
though well below what they were in the past, and
this is reason enough to get utterly hysterical...

This is what normal people refer to as "A hard sell."

Nobody will buy it.

So, instead of selling them such a retarded idea,
you sell them something else...

Liberals hate right wingers. Sell them the idea
that right wingers "Deny" that this is an issue.

There. That's it. Now you've got everyone left of
center automatically sympathetic towards the
"Global Warming" mantra. You've associated disbelief
in the climate hysterics with the people they always
disagree with, so their natural impulse is to leap
towards the opposite of what those people are saying.

Doesn't always work though. Not everyone is quite
so partisan. So you create other associations...

"Smart people wet their bed, stupid aren't concerned
with temperature rises during an ice age."

There. Now who wants to be stupid? Nobody? Well,
PROVE you're smart by believing everything the nice
media tells you. Because, that IS the yardstick here.
Only people who obey the tv, or google news or,
better yet, social media are the ones who are smart.

....sheep are smart, wolves are dumb. Right?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/163999461578
James McGinn
2017-08-11 03:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dellingpole 65
A new scientific study held by researchers at Harvard
University and Yale University has definitively proven that
people that don’t believe that climate change is real are of
extremely low intelligence.
It only shows how desperate those that do believe it are to minimize those that don't.
Loading...