The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!

[UncleBuck]

here is the data for the taylor dome ice core: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/taylor/taylor.html

here is the data for the law dome ice core: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html

here is the data for the mauna loa measurements: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/


#LMC

 

[Dr Kynes]

the last 10,000 years were pretty steady at about 280 PPM.

on case you were wondering, the source for this graph is NOAA.

wild suppositions and a timeline stretching back 800,000 years to make your bullshit seem plausible

step back a little further and youll see co2 shoot up like a rcoket, but that doesnt suit your narrative.

 

[nontheist]

the last 10,000 years were pretty steady at about 280 PPM.

on case you were wondering, the source for this graph is NOAA.

thats bullshit and you know it
http://www.rfsu.se/Bildbank/Dokument/Praktikor/praktika-masturbation-guide2010.pdf?epslanguage=en

 

[UncleBuck]

yeah you read that whole thing and shat out this reply in 9 minutes.

youre full of shit.

if you cant even read a simple 3 page summary like that then youre hopeless.

you can't even do exponents.

 

[UncleBuck]

wild suppositions and a timeline stretching back 800,000 years to make your bullshit seem plausible

step back a little further and youll see co2 shoot up like a rcoket, but that doesnt suit your narrative.

so NOAA is not a good source anymore?

 

[nontheist]

you can't even do exponents.

Where did your wife go?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I couldn't tell you one way or another Padawanbater2 and to be honest I don't care. China's going to do what China's going to do so it don't fucking matter. Increasing prices in putting more sanctions on our manufacturing process on are already fragile economy is retarded though, we shipping all over dirty work to china and they still pumping co2 in the atmosphere. The fact that you guys think US can do anything about global emissions it comical beyond belief.

"Environmental protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive goals. The EPA has not always been able to reach a state of perfect equilibrium, I think we'll all agree to that. It has however consistently struck a reasonable balance that protects both the health of the environment and the health of the economy. From 1980 to 2012, the total emissions in the United States of six common air pollutants in the United States dropped 67%. At the same time, our population grew by 38%. Our energy consumption increased by 27% and our GDP more than doubled in constant dollars. So more people, consuming more energy, admitted much less pollution without sacrificing economic growth."

-Christine Todd Whitman

"The People's Republic of China is an active participant in the climate change talks and other multilateral environmental negotiations, and claims to take environmental challenges seriously but is pushing for the developed world to help developing countries to a greater extent. It is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, although China is not required to reduce its carbon emissions under the terms of the present agreement.

The Chinese national carbon trading scheme was announced in November 2008 by the national government to enforce a compulsory carbon emission trading scheme across the country's provinces as part of its strategy to create a "low carbon civilisation". The scheme would allow provinces to earn money by investing in carbon capture systems in those regions that fail to invest in the technology.

In 2004, Premier Wen Jiabao promised to use an “iron hand” to make China more energy efficient. China has surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other renewable energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas kilometrage for cars. With $34.6 billion invested in clean technology in 2009, China is the world's leading investor in renewable energy technologies. China produces more wind turbines and solar panels each year than any other country.

Coal is predicted to remain the most important power source in the near future but China has been seen as the world leader in clean coal technology.

Nuclear power is planned to be rapidly expanded. By mid-century fast neutron reactors are seen as the main nuclear power technology which allows much more efficient use of fuel reources.

China should push electric cars to curb its dependence on imported petroleum (oil) and foreign automobile technology, although they offer smaller cuts in carbon emissions than alternatives like hybrid electric vehicles, consulting firm McKinsey & Co says.

A 2011 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report predicted that Chinese CO2 emissions will peak around 2030. This because in many areas such as infrastructure, housing, commercial building, appliances per household, fertilizers, and cement production a maximum intensity will be reached and replacement will take the place of new demand. Carbon emission intensity may decrease as policies become strengthened and more effectively implemented, including by more effective financial incentives, and as less carbon intensive energy supplies are deployed. In a "baseline" computer model CO2 emissions were predicted to peak in 2033; in an "Accelerated Improvement Scenario" they were predicted to peak in 2027."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_China

"The 12th Five-Year Plan (FYP) adopted by the Chinese government in March 2011 devotes considerable attention to energy and climate change and establishes a new set of targets and policies for 2011-2015. While some of the targets are largely in line with the status quo, other aspects of the plan represent more dramatic moves to reduce fossil energy consumption, promote low-carbon energy sources, and restructure China’s economy. Among the goals is to "gradually establish a carbon trade market." Key targets include:

• A 16 percent reduction in energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of GDP);
• Increasing non-fossil energy to 11.4 percent of total energy use; and
• A 17 percent reduction in carbon intensity (carbon emissions per unit of GDP)."

http://www.c2es.org/international/key-country-policies/china

"China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the largest energy consumer and has the second largest economy in the world. China’s actions on climate change matter for Australia and for the world. This fact sheet shows China is taking serious climate action and laying the foundations for a low carbon economy."

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/international/actions/countries-acting-now/china-acting-climate-change

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/international/13029WEBchina013May.pdf

 

[UncleBuck]

thats bullshit and you know it
http://www.rfsu.se/Bildbank/Dokument/Praktikor/praktika-masturbation-guide2010.pdf?epslanguage=en

you have good company, kynes.

maybe you two can get together and discuss your hatred of minorities during a rousing circle jerk.

 

[UncleBuck]

Where did your wife go?

where did your nonstop 16 hour days go?

illegal immigrants take all your work because you are so incompetent?

i bet most of them have a better command on the english language than you do.

 

[nontheist]

"Environmental protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive goals. The EPA has not always been able to reach a state of perfect equilibrium, I think we'll all agree to that. It has however consistently struck a reasonable balance that protects both the health of the environment and the health of the economy. From 1980 to 2012, the total emissions in the United States of six common air pollutants in the United States dropped 67%. At the same time, our population grew by 38%. Our energy consumption increased by 27% and our GDP more than doubled in constant dollars. So more people, consuming more energy, admitted much less pollution without sacrificing economic growth."

-Christine Todd Whitman
"The People's Republic of China is an active participant in the climate change talks and other multilateral environmental negotiations, and claims to take environmental challenges seriously but is pushing for the developed world to help developing countries to a greater extent. It is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, although China is not required to reduce its carbon emissions under the terms of the present agreement.

The Chinese national carbon trading scheme was announced in November 2008 by the national government to enforce a compulsory carbon emission trading scheme across the country's provinces as part of its strategy to create a "low carbon civilisation". The scheme would allow provinces to earn money by investing in carbon capture systems in those regions that fail to invest in the technology.

In 2004, Premier Wen Jiabao promised to use an “iron hand” to make China more energy efficient. China has surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other renewable energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas kilometrage for cars. With $34.6 billion invested in clean technology in 2009, China is the world's leading investor in renewable energy technologies. China produces more wind turbines and solar panels each year than any other country.

Coal is predicted to remain the most important power source in the near future but China has been seen as the world leader in clean coal technology.

Nuclear power is planned to be rapidly expanded. By mid-century fast neutron reactors are seen as the main nuclear power technology which allows much more efficient use of fuel reources.

China should push electric cars to curb its dependence on imported petroleum (oil) and foreign automobile technology, although they offer smaller cuts in carbon emissions than alternatives like hybrid electric vehicles, consulting firm McKinsey & Co says.

A 2011 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report predicted that Chinese CO2 emissions will peak around 2030. This because in many areas such as infrastructure, housing, commercial building, appliances per household, fertilizers, and cement production a maximum intensity will be reached and replacement will take the place of new demand. Carbon emission intensity may decrease as policies become strengthened and more effectively implemented, including by more effective financial incentives, and as less carbon intensive energy supplies are deployed. In a "baseline" computer model CO2 emissions were predicted to peak in 2033; in an "Accelerated Improvement Scenario" they were predicted to peak in 2027."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_China

"The 12th Five-Year Plan (FYP) adopted by the Chinese government in March 2011 devotes considerable attention to energy and climate change and establishes a new set of targets and policies for 2011-2015. While some of the targets are largely in line with the status quo, other aspects of the plan represent more dramatic moves to reduce fossil energy consumption, promote low-carbon energy sources, and restructure China’s economy. Among the goals is to "gradually establish a carbon trade market." Key targets include:

• A 16 percent reduction in energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of GDP);
• Increasing non-fossil energy to 11.4 percent of total energy use; and
• A 17 percent reduction in carbon intensity (carbon emissions per unit of GDP)."

http://www.c2es.org/international/key-country-policies/china

"China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the largest energy consumer and has the second largest economy in the world. China’s actions on climate change matter for Australia and for the world. This fact sheet shows China is taking serious climate action and laying the foundations for a low carbon economy."

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/international/actions/countries-acting-now/china-acting-climate-change

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/international/13029WEBchina013May.pdf

Chinese aren't going to do shit as long as we keep handing them our jobs. China will do as they want like they always have. They give two fucks about pollution.

 

[nontheist]

you have good company, kynes.

maybe you two can get together and discuss your hatred of minorities during a rousing circle jerk.

Invite your wife she can give us some pointers. schuylaar where art thou?

 

[Dr Kynes]

here is the data for the taylor dome ice core: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/taylor/taylor.html

here is the data for the law dome ice core: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html

here is the data for the mauna loa measurements: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/


#LMC

ohh is that where your graph came from?

cuz that graph aint in none of those links...
well what do you know.. that graph came from "Skeptical Science", and ONLY from "Skeptical Science".
a BLOG run by a communications undergrad, who publishes his "scholarly works" on i-sis.org, an "e-journal" dedicated to homeopathy, "water memory" and lamarckian evolution nonsense

i see why youre so reluctant to share the ultimate source of your graph.

it also explains why your graph looks NOTHING like the one i posted from noaa, the reputed source for Cook's nonsensical horseshit.

and now youre off to the races with a new line of bullshit, actually tagged with noaa's logo (but still no link...) but this one needs an extra 790,000 years of timeline and a wildly improbable future projection for 100 years in the future to make your case look sufficiently "Hockey Stickish"

keep flailing maybe youll find a punctuation error somehwere that vindicates your lies.

 

[Dr Kynes]

so NOAA is not a good source anymore?

did i say that? no.

noaa is a fine source for facts, but assumptions stretching off into 100 years in the future?

bullshit.

they should stick to measuring data and reporting the facts.

that shit is guesswork.

 

[Padawanbater2]

ohh noooooooo!!! a typo!!!

not gonna complain about the Umlauts too are ya?

LOL a typo? Is that the argument you're going to stick with? I just want to make sure..

And the "They show an increasing trend since the beginning of the industrialization mainly due to increasing anthropogenic sources." bit? Was that all a typo too?

look closely dingleberry, see that big DROP in co2 up on the left followed by a sharp rise? thats anything but "static" and the trend for the last 10'000 years us UP, not flat like bucky's unsourced graph displays."

Analogy... science... add "flat" to that list I guess..

 

[UncleBuck]

Invite your wife she can give us some pointers. schuylaar where art thou?

weren't you a member of shotgun420's "free speech" group?

 

[Dr Kynes]

you can't even do exponents.

is that some butthurt over your inane gabbling about the koch briothers and big tobacco being my source for co2 emissions?

cuz that was some hilarious shit.

natural sources: 771 gigatonnes per year
man made sources 34 gigatonnes a year.

yep. we are small potatoes
even termites beat us like suckers at 50 gigatonnes a year.

 

[Padawanbater2]

yeah you read that whole thing and shat out this reply in 9 minutes.

youre full of shit.

if you cant even read a simple 3 page summary like that then youre hopeless.

If a source you cite continues to bitch and complain about "Climate-gate" in order to make the point that "the scientists fudged the numbers!!", they're automatically discredited, just like you were when you attempted to use that same argument 3 different times and got shot down to the Mariana trench, you know, that place we've never mapped or explored before..., each time

 

[UncleBuck]

ohh is that where your graph came from?

cuz that graph aint in none of those links...
well what do you know.. that graph came from "Skeptical Science", and ONLY from "Skeptical Science".
a BLOG run by a communications undergrad, who publishes his "scholarly works" on i-sis.org, an "e-journal" dedicated to homeopathy, "water memory" and lamarckian evolution nonsense

i see why youre so reluctant to share the ultimate source of your graph.

it also explains why your graph looks NOTHING like the one i posted from noaa, the reputed source for Cook's nonsensical horseshit.

and now youre off to the races with a new line of bullshit, actually tagged with noaa's logo (but still no link...) but this one needs an extra 790,000 years of timeline and a wildly improbable future projection for 100 years in the future to make your case look sufficiently "Hockey Stickish"

keep flailing maybe youll find a punctuation error somehwere that vindicates your lies.

so what data did they mess up?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Chinese aren't going to do shit as long as we keep handing them our jobs. China will do as they want like they always have. They give two fucks about pollution.

Welp, you've sure convinced me! I guess we should just bet our future on it for no reason at all..

 

[UncleBuck]

did i say that? no.

noaa is a fine source for facts, but assumptions stretching off into 100 years in the future?

bullshit.

they should stick to measuring data and reporting the facts.

that shit is guesswork.

so if the NOAA is a good source, why do you not accept their finding that CO2 levels were at about 280 PPM for the last 10,000 years and recently rocketed up to 400 PPM?