DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
they're
Dudley Do-wrongs.......now
Dudley Do-wrongs.......now
The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so you find nothing curious about the oft-quoted (Gerlach 1991) assumption that based on 7 out of 3000 surface volcanoes, the entire volcanic contribution is 300 megatonnes per year, and based on THEE underwater volcanoes out of an unknown number, that oceanic volcanoes produce EXACTLY the same amount?
i read lotsa geology, and every time another volcano's co2 is measured, gerlach's assumptions get shakier and shakier, but the IPCC continues on, undaunted, with their assertions based on "peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed" literature.
are you arguing that we dont need More Science?
we need More Assumptions?
like These Guys?
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.
A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”
Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”
Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”
Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”
Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”
A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”
A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”
Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”
Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”
Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”
Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…”
In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”
Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”
One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”
~http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i have to disagree,Orbits don't lie.
We got onto all this, wondering, back in 60s, why are we not cooling.
Orbits don't lie. Gas measurements since the 1960s from all over the world are not lies. Observations from space are not lies.
It doesn't matter why we are not cooling, but we need to know the extent of it, the parameters, etc.
Only big babies will get upset about something like this. Too Large of a long term problem to pee blood about. But, blood is already being spilled over it. You think these Islamist don't know all about this at the top?
This is already, "who will survive." And it doesn't matter Why, at this point. I don't think it can be reversed. It is kinda like WW2 didn't seem so bad at first. It looked like we could just sit that one out. Instead we almost lost.
We are not cooling off. The CO2 is rising.
But, you can't very well, call it, Global not cooling. can you?And really Warming is not the ultimate problem. It is that we are not cooling as the Orbit plainly show we should be.
Maybe not our fault, but there it is.
Piss blood over that.
the maunder cycle, the milancovick cycle, the glacial cycle, and the current projections for the holocene epoch all say Moar Warming for another 200-2000 years (depending on who you ask and how they weight different evidence) before the next cooling trend begins.
the AGW crowd is running around with assumptions masquerading as facts, they impeach their "science" from their own mouths, and are currently backpedaling away from their previous claims as fast as they can,
co2 started rising NOT in 1885, but 7000 years ago, in 5000 BC.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/flueckiger2002/flueckiger2002.html
one must therefore consider the possibility that The Pyramids are causing global warming...
actual photo, not retouched... no really. why are you laughing? Stop Laughing!! this is Science!
see! i got links!
http://www.pyramid-cafe.in/Power.html
http://www.powerofpyramids.com/
and heres why the oceans are warming!
another totally real, not fake photograph... from the abyssal pains off the azores...
2 giant crystal pyramids each 3x larger than Kufu's Pyramid in the middle of the atlantic ocean!
https://angellucci.wordpress.com/tag/pyramids/
behold Science! (sort of...)
meanwhile in the world of reality...
the farcical claim by Bucky, Pada, Cook, IPCC, et al that co2 was "stable" before 1855 is bullshit.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140429/ncomms4723/full/ncomms4723.html?message-global=remove
every assertion they make seems to unravel.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
co2 started rising NOT in 1885, but 7000 years ago, in 5000 BC.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/flueckiger2002/flueckiger2002.html
more outright fraud from the retard who can't even do an exponent.
you should probably include the part where it actually starts rising from 280 PPM up to 400 PPM in a mere century or so, you fucking fraudster.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
That it does.
It's grade school tee-ball versus the New York Yankees up in this bitch.
By the way, the trap was pure gold.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
lmao! You're right for completely the opposite reason
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Just remember Pad, try to hit the ball, not the tee.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
I have all the cardinals of the church and holy writ behind me, what do you have? ~Pope Vs Galilleo
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
more outright fraud from the retard who can't even do an exponent.
you should probably include the part where it actually starts rising from 280 PPM up to 400 PPM in a mere century or so, you fucking fraudster.
ohh thats rich
but at least your new shit has a logo from Noaa on it.
you are still in denial. the Noaa graph i provided proved (again) that your bullshit crayola picture from "Skeptical Science" was horseshit, NOT because they included new data from mona loa, but because they FABRICATED 10,000 years of previous data and removed all the variations to create their "hockeystick" graph cuz you clowns LOOOOVE graph that are shaped like hockey sticks, even when crating them requires fraud.
and now you got a new one.
this one is only "hockey stickish" when you add on prognostications of future events 100 years in the future.
and you wonder why so many people are starting to disbelieve your lies.
if you cant sell your agenda with the truth, then your agenda isnt worth buying.
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
~http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
a typical post from you,
edit the quote to make it mean what you wish, then post an image of the author cited, cuz his moustache lacks credibility, and he isnt wearing a tie, so he is obviously a liar.
plus he is white, middle aged and male so he must be evil.
but you dont have the balls to SAY it, you simply imply it with your usual smug ignorance and unwarranted self satisfaction.
bucky at least steps into the ring with some evidence, shakey and out of context though it may be, you charge into the area, acting like billy badass, and seconds after the bell rings you get carried away on a stretcher
you should start selling advertising space on the soles of your shoes.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i coated the Punji Sticks on the bottom with Facts.
it's in his bloodstream now, and before long he is gonna come down with a nasty case of I'm-In-The-Wrong-Gang-Garene
only a lengthy and powerful dose of Lefty-Echo-Chamber-micin can save him from the amputation of his Bullshit Gland, but that will leave him crippled and unable to function
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Interesting you would cite an organization who doesn't understand or require the scientific method to demonstrate your point..
Truly interesting, indeed!
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
His point sailed over your head...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you mean the "trap" where kynes purposely and fraudulently left out half the equation?
i knew some idiot would fall for that.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
if it was horseshit, then why does it say the exact same thing as your graph?
if it was fabricated and fraudulent, then why do my graph and your graph both say that CO2 was between 265 and 280 PPM over the last 10,000 years?
i know you can't do exponents, now we know you also can not read a graph.
give up, retard.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Assumptions are bad... like the assumptions on your echo box or your assumption that it was relevant or even you assuming your knowledgebase is great enough to comment on here without making yourself look a fool
Assumptions are bad keynes