More Global Warming

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Not to mention 0% of models being accurate and 0% of the dire predictions of the last 20+ years coming to pass.

<citation unecessary>
Click to expand...
in this case, the citation is not necessary because your claim is patently false.

as stupid and scientifically illiterate as your claim of a 14 point romney lead, 54-40.



those pesky "for all" statements only need one counterexample to disprove, and i just gave you the counterexample.

you dumb shit.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
67% of papers make no comment whatsoever about whether it is humans, whether it isn;t humans, or whether they don't know.

but of the 33% that do say human, not human, or don't know, 97% say it is caused by humans.

the mere fact that you have gone from outright lying to subtly lying betrays the cognitive dissonance you harbor.

by the way, i have you on record saying that it is humans.
Click to expand...
Hmm, if there is such a consensus in the scientific community AND this shit is so obvious and demonstrable, why don't the papers written by the "undeclared" 67% come to such an easy to see conclusion. Why are they sitting on the fence? Are they flat-earthers? I know, THOSE fuckers are all on the payroll of big oil, the Koch brothers, Fox News and last but not least...Rush Limbaugh.

Or, is it more likely that the smaller percentage claiming the science is settled, did in fact, jump the shark?

Hmm, quite a conundrum.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
why don't the papers written by the "undeclared" 67% come to such an easy to see conclusion. Why are they sitting on the fence?
Click to expand...
there was actually a small percentage of people sitting on the fence who were uncertain as to the causes of warming. about 1%.

there was also a small percentage of people claiming the science is settled, that human activities cannot possibly be contributing to warming. about 2%.

there was a much larger percentage of people claiming the science is settled, that human activities are contributing to warming. about 30%.

about 67% of papers did not sit on the fence, or either side of the fence as to the warming.

care to demonstrate your misunderstanding in any other combination of words?
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
there was actually a small percentage of people sitting on the fence who were uncertain as to the causes of warming. about 1%.

there was also a small percentage of people claiming the science is settled, that human activities cannot possibly be contributing to warming. about 2%.

there was a much larger percentage of people claiming the science is settled, that human activities are contributing to warming. about 30%.

about 67% of papers did not sit on the fence, or either side of the fence as to the warming.

care to demonstrate your misunderstanding in any other combination of words?
Click to expand...
Bullshit. Word salad.

There are only three positions in this debate.

Humans - Unsure - Not Humans

All liberal excuse making and double talk aside...that's it.

~ 30% - Humans (supports your argument)
~ 70% - Unsure/Not Humans - (doesn't support your argument)

Any rational person looks at it that way, because that's the way it works. If 70% can't conclude humans are definitively the cause, then they aren't on "TEAM HUMANS ARE TO BLAME" (that's you). They're on either "TEAM WHO THE FUCK KNOWS" (that's some of members arguing against you zealots) or "TEAM LOL, HUMANS" (that's me and many arguing against you)

Care to demonstrate your misunderstanding in any other combination of words?
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
WOOHAA!! 13" of freshly grated Polar Vortex dust has fallen on Pot Mountain in the last 24 hours. Over 300" on the year already! We're going to get the wife some new skis later today.



GORE RULES!
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
If 70% can't conclude humans are definitively the cause, then they aren't on "TEAM HUMANS ARE TO BLAME" (that's you).
Click to expand...
If 100% in opposition of the scientific consensus can't explain what they would accept as proof of ACC, then they're not interested in the real science
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I KNOW!! Cow farts remind me of the flaming water from fraking scam.

OH YEAH!!! I will add Anti-Fraking to the list of Evil Saganisms in this world.
Click to expand...
Of course you would, that's something requiring knowing how science works, no doubt you'd be wrong about it

kelly4 said:
WOOHAA!! 13" of freshly grated Polar Vortex dust has fallen on Pot Mountain in the last 24 hours. Over 300" on the year already! We're going to get the wife some new skis later today.



GORE RULES!
Click to expand...
Nope, that certainly doesn't sound like extreme weather to me...

See how misinformed you are? You think bad weather means climate change isn't happening when every single scientific model predicts more extreme weather patterns because of climate change. So when we see patters of less extreme weather conditions, that's when you retards should be screaming about how there's no climate change. See, you're too ignorant of how you should even react when you perceive it to be real, it's hilarious! It's like you're standing outside in the rain saying "see I told you I wouldn't need an umbrella!"
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Bullshit. Word salad.

There are only three positions in this debate.

Humans - Unsure - Not Humans

All liberal excuse making and double talk aside...that's it.

~ 30% - Humans (supports your argument)
~ 70% - Unsure/Not Humans - (doesn't support your argument)

Any rational person looks at it that way, because that's the way it works. If 70% can't conclude humans are definitively the cause, then they aren't on "TEAM HUMANS ARE TO BLAME" (that's you). They're on either "TEAM WHO THE FUCK KNOWS" (that's some of members arguing against you zealots) or "TEAM LOL, HUMANS" (that's me and many arguing against you)

Care to demonstrate your misunderstanding in any other combination of words?
Click to expand...
oh, you poor dumbass.

there was a group that said they were uncertain of the causes, they made up less than one percent.

the 67% group made no statement whatsoever. they didn't say uncertain, or anthropogenic, or not anthropogenic. they said no position.

of those who did express certainty as to a cause, 97% of them said humans were part of the cause.

last time you went off the delusional end of things, you predicted 14 point romney leads based on your inability to interpret the simplest of data. this is no different, except you are deluding yourself by much, much higher percentages.

i suppose practice makes perfect after all!

:lol:
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
oh, you poor dumbass.

there was a group that said they were uncertain of the causes, they made up less than one percent.

the 67% group made no statement whatsoever. they didn't say uncertain, or anthropogenic, or not anthropogenic. they said no position.

of those who did express certainty as to a cause, 97% of them said humans were part of the cause.

last time you went off the delusional end of things, you predicted 14 point romney leads based on your inability to interpret the simplest of data. this is no different, except you are deluding yourself by much, much higher percentages.

i suppose practice makes perfect after all!

:lol:
Click to expand...
This keeps getting better and better. If MMGW is so obvious and incontrovertible, why oh why would someone or some group taking the time to author a paper on climate change, not come to the conclusion that agrees with the ~30% that did? Are they all paid for oil company shills?

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

Pathetic attempt to dodge reality, but you're showing your ass worse than your endless arithmetic errors.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
If MMGW is so obvious and incontrovertible, why oh why would someone or some group taking the time to author a paper on climate change, not come to the conclusion that agrees with the ~30% that did?
Click to expand...
if MMGW is such a hoax and so phony, why do only 1-2% of papers come to that conclusion?

if the science is so unsettled, who do less than 1% say they're uncertain?

:lol:

i see you've finally realized that taking no position whatsoever is quite different from saying they're uncertain.

let's play a game: for every paper you can show me that says global warming is not caused by human activities, i'll show you 30 more that state the exact opposite!

wanna play? or are you too busy trying to figure out what happened to that 14 point romney lead?
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Of course you would, that's something requiring knowing how science works, no doubt you'd be wrong about it



Nope, that certainly doesn't sound like extreme weather to me...

See how misinformed you are? You think bad weather means climate change isn't happening when every single scientific model predicts more extreme weather patterns because of climate change. So when we see patters of less extreme weather conditions, that's when you retards should be screaming about how there's no climate change. See, you're too ignorant of how you should even react when you perceive it to be real, it's hilarious! It's like you're standing outside in the rain saying "see I told you I wouldn't need an umbrella!"
Click to expand...
13 INCHEZ!!!


BTW, my wife's new sticks are gonna ski great tomorrow.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
The climate changes constantly. Don't be an idiot. Oh, never mind.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the attitudes are cooling already. We are the law on these hot heads. This is Fraud, because, as usual people think they cannot be lied to...they are too smart. :)

Thanks PetFlora...you are a good egg. This belongs in politics since there is no science to it. BACKLASH what?? We can't just sue you if you speak against our rip-off.????? OH GOD!!! I mean Gaia!!! Help!!

They sued us back, oh no.... now what?

No science, politics don' need no facts, but damn!....the courts do want fact and proof. HA Haaa.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/...-collapse.html
Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.

See the beauty of RIU is that it is a standing wave of Ganja Power. And when these frauds are exposed and the power grabs are opposed and one side seems the worse that was the better, the PARTS will abandon this forum. And by then the generations will change, 10 years, and they quietly more on.

Guys like Buck will simply disappear. Rabid PARTs, and you know who you are, will have nothing to say, Being beat down by FACTS.

Yet if I live I will be here, to see it turn around, and point out to the newbs how silly people can get.

Some will ask, who was Buck? I will say....never mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top