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

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
You think global forest fires are out of the question?
Click to expand...
i'm just pointing out to our scientifically illiterate, exponent buggling idiot friend that forest fires may only cause LOCAL cooling, not global cooling.

which is why he has to change the claim to "GLOBAL forest fires", as if we were arguing about that to begin with.

just pointing out a dishonest buffoon when i see one.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i'm just pointing out to our scientifically illiterate, exponent buggling idiot friend that forest fires may only cause LOCAL cooling, not global cooling.

which is why he has to change the claim to "GLOBAL forest fires", as if we were arguing about that to begin with.

just pointing out a dishonest buffoon when i see one.
Click to expand...
So things that cause local cooling are not part of global cooling?

What about things that cause local warming? Are they not part of global warming??

Careful, your foot is really close to your mouth...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
So things that cause local cooling are not part of global cooling?

What about things that cause local warming? Are they not part of global warming??

Careful, your foot is really close to your mouth...
Click to expand...
local =/= global

it's pretty simple to understand.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i'm just pointing out to our scientifically illiterate, exponent buggling idiot friend that forest fires may only cause LOCAL cooling, not global cooling.

which is why he has to change the claim to "GLOBAL forest fires", as if we were arguing about that to begin with.

just pointing out a dishonest buffoon when i see one.
Click to expand...
yep, i BUNGLED the exponent operation, and you stared at it for ~300 posts before your first attempt to say my math was wrong, AFTER numerous other fallacious claims.

bucky's wife's math was right and mine was wrong, but NOBODY believed you cuz you spent ~300 posts slinging bullshit.

lulz.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
yep, i BUNGLED the exponent operation, and you stared at it for ~300 posts before your first attempt to say my math was wrong, AFTER numerous other fallacious claims.

bucky's wife's math was right and mine was wrong, but NOBODY believed you cuz you spent ~300 posts slinging bullshit.

lulz.
Click to expand...
another way to say it would be to say that for over 300 posts, you kept on insisting that you were correct while i insisted you were a liar.

turns out i was right, you are a liar.

maybe brag some more about that.
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
another way to say it would be to say that for over 300 posts, you kept on insisting that you were correct while i insisted you were a liar.

turns out i was right, you are a liar.

maybe brag some more about that.
Click to expand...

Actually, he kept insisting he was wrong and he challenged you to find his error. You failed miserably. I watched it all unfold. Thank you once again for all the lulz. Pure comedy.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
another way to say it would be to say that for over 300 posts, you kept on insisting that you were correct while i insisted you were a liar.

turns out i was right, you are a liar.

maybe brag some more about that.
Click to expand...
you mean for 300 posts you sdaid i was a liar, but your claims were all lies, THEN your wife showed you my math was wrong, on a study that was selected because it was the LOWBALL figure out of all the published studies i examined.

and it turns out, it only dealt with ONE of the thousands of species of termites on the planet

this one:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563.abstract

says 50 gigatonnes of co2 from all species combined, but ,my math error made it look like 500 gigatonnes so i discarded it as a typo, and thus unsuitable for citation.
(5x10 to the 16th grams per year)

but since you corrected my math, here it is AGAIN, in all it's glory.

what do you know, it's a study, it's published, it's Peer Reviewed and has been cited numerous times, and has NOT been withdrawn from publication (as it would be, if it were found invalid) since it was published in 1982.

yep. it's "Settled Science" (lulz) , termites make more co2 than humans, and back in the 80's when this was published they made more than twice what human activity did back then.
 
Last edited:
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
sheskunk said:
Actually, he kept insisting he was wrong and he challenged you to find his error. You failed miserably. I watched it all unfold. Thank you once again for all the lulz. Pure comedy.
Click to expand...
meh, i hate to support bucky, but i did insist my math was right, but that was after 300 posts of other attempts to claim the citation was invalid.i only had ONE post where i granted that my math might be off (before bucky's wife helped him with his "5th Grade Math"), but that was just one post, bucky probably didnt even see it, while he was dumping out a mountain of Shitposts claiming The Journal of Geophysics; Atmospheres was a right wing think tank

the "OOps I made An Error, Can You Find It " challenge was about a citation error, where i linked to the wrong image, which was in fact a much milder indictment of his perfidy than the real image of co2 concetrations.

cuz satellites are racist, and they are trying to blame blacks chicanos and asians for global warming...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
sheskunk said:
Actually, he kept insisting he was wrong and he challenged you to find his error. You failed miserably. I watched it all unfold. Thank you once again for all the lulz. Pure comedy.
Click to expand...
really?

were you in a delirious state due to lack of gravy?

Dr Kynes said:
as an ASU Dropout Alumnist, you may not recognize this thing:

http://web2.0calc.com/

but it does mathie things when you hit the squareish little buttony things

i will walk you through it:

4x10e15 (four times ten to the fifteenth power) =40000000000000000 grams per year
now take a snack break. drink some juice and have a cookie, that was hard!
Click to expand...
Dr Kynes said:
by "Dispassionately", you must mean "Incorrectly".

or does your dispassion always make your math come up wrong?
if so, you might wanna have a cat scan, cuz your "dispassion" might actually be a brain tumor
Click to expand...
Dr Kynes said:
you are aware that a gigatonne is a million tonnes right? or did you drop out before ASU covered the metric system?

mental note: never trust bucky's maths
Click to expand...
Dr Kynes said:
ok, lets make it Super Easy.

4x10 = 40.
4x10 to the first = 400
4x10 to the second = 4000
4x10 to the third = 40,000

see how that works?

4x10 = 40 then you add X number of zeroes, where X is the little number in superscript above
thats why X times 10 to the Yth is used, to make the math easy.

only assholes use a number other than 10 before they initiate exponentiation cuz then you arent adding zeros or multiplying by ten, youre multiplying Z by Z, and thats a dick move.
Click to expand...
Dr Kynes said:
OMG!!

Ten multiplied by Ten equals TEN!!!

you have just invented a new form of math

i shall call it Buckulus, in honor of you.

whole new fields of being wrong just opened up

now we can launch rockets that fly into mountains instead of going into bothersome Space, and we can drop satellites directly into the sea, saving us from having to learn that subsaharan africa makes more Co2 than the US

we can build skyscrapers that dont require a jumbo jet strike to initiate their collapse, and construct bridges that fall down without the need for earthquakes!

Huzzah!

teach us more about Buckulus professor.
Click to expand...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
you mean for 300 posts you sdaid i was a liar, but your claims were all lies, THEN your wife showed you my math was wrong, on a study that was selected because it was the LOWBALL figure out of all the published studies i examined.

and it turns out, it only dealt with ONE of the thousands of species of termites on the planet

this one:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563.abstract

says 50 gigatonnes of co2 from all species combined, but ,my math error made it look like 500 gigatonnes so i discarded it as a typo, and thus unsuitable for citation.
(5x10 to the 16th grams per year)

but since you corrected my math, here it is AGAIN, in all it's glory.

what do you know, it's a study, it's published, it's Peer Reviewed (in both the real way and the way you believe it's done) and has been cited numerous times, and has NOT been withdrawn from publication (as it would be, if it were found invalid) since it was published in 1982.

yep. it's "Settled Science" (lulz) , termites make more co2 than humans, and back in the 80's when this was published they made more than twice what human activity did back then.
Click to expand...


yeah, we all believe you.

just changing your claim to make it nearly 13 times stronger than your previous claim, which was found to be an outright lie.

that's why your claim appears solely on websites like "iloveCO2.com" and "wattsupwiththat" (but only borrowed from "iloveCO2.com").

that's pretty fucking desperate. you'll need "desperation" for little girls to get any more desperate than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top