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

Who has the most affect on global warming?


  • Total voters
    19

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
you left out half of the natural CO2 emission/absorption equation, specifically absorption.
That was inconsequential to the debate at that time. As usual, you brought your meaningless bullshit into a discussion and then expected everyone to accept it. Then you repeat it endlessly thinking repetition breeds legitimacy. You should stop now, you look like an idiot every time you repeat it.

whatever your malfunction is, shut the fuck up. you are an idiot.
Whatsamatter John, gonna cry? I understand why you want him to stop, watching you get your ass handed to you so thoroughly has actually been hard to watch at a few points. Cringe worthy beat down.

Almost as bad as the total decimation of Hymen or whatever the "ice bridge" guy's name is. One of the few times I've actually laughed reading a series of posts on this forum.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
the AGW relies on wildeyed screaming fanatics like you, and mushbrained acolytes like hyroot, and venomous toads like ginja to propagate the meme through exaggerations, nonsense statements based on an inability to read the material, and assumptions that whatever you heard from a guy who heard from a guy who saw on a show, that "humans are destroying the planet" is factual.
keynes argues for 20 pages about redherrings and made up math

claims he's beaten agw

noble prize in the post shortly
 

beans davis

Well-Known Member
Global warming data faked by government to fit climate change fictions
June 24, 2014
Mike Adams
naturalnews.com
When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that’s how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a “climate change narrative” that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), “NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models.”
Because the actual historical temperature record doesn’t fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using “computer models” and then published as fact.

Here’s the proof of the climate change fraud
Here’s the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930′s, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:



The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA’s website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, “Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.”

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:



The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA’s servers. (4)

This new, altered chart shows that historical data — especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930′s — are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970′s to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.
EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax
What’s even more interesting is that even the EPA’s “Heat Wave Index” data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930′s than it is today.

The following chart, published on the EPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930′s. In fact, the seemingly “extreme” heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900′s or 1950′s.


Tags: Global warming, Global warming data, Global warming data faked
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
keynes argues for 20 pages about redherrings and made up math

claims he's beaten agw

noble prize in the post shortly
Ginchy scuttles into thread like cockroach, makes numerous ad homs, zero substantive arguments, begins awarding nobel prizes

cant spell nobel.

thinks everybody cares about his opinion.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Global warming data faked by government to fit climate change fictions
June 24, 2014
Mike Adams
naturalnews.com
When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that’s how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a “climate change narrative” that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), “NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models.”
Because the actual historical temperature record doesn’t fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using “computer models” and then published as fact.

Here’s the proof of the climate change fraud
Here’s the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930′s, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:



The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA’s website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, “Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.”

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:



The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA’s servers. (4)

This new, altered chart shows that historical data — especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930′s — are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970′s to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.
EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax
What’s even more interesting is that even the EPA’s “Heat Wave Index” data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930′s than it is today.

The following chart, published on the EPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930′s. In fact, the seemingly “extreme” heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900′s or 1950′s.


Tags: Global warming, Global warming data, Global warming data faked
thats from "Natural News", which means it's 100% pure bullshit.

the supermarket checkout stand has more informative and reliable publications than "Natural News"

 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Natural News huh... lets see what else Mike believes from that same article...

"These people are experts at lying with bad science, hiding their deceptions behind the cover of "scientific thinking" and making outlandish claims such as saying that anyone who doesn't believe their fabricated data must also believe the Earth is flat. Remember, the people who are telling you that burning fossils fuels is causing runaway global warming are the very same people who also claim mercury in vaccines is safe to inject in unlimited quantities, toxins in GMOs are safe to eat, chemotherapy works great for cancer patients and that there's no such thing as any food or nutrient that prevents disease."

So not only is he a climate change denier, he's also an anti-vaccer, a GMO denier, and a chemotherapy denier for fucks sake..
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Natural News huh... lets see what else Mike believes from that same article...

"These people are experts at lying with bad science, hiding their deceptions behind the cover of "scientific thinking" and making outlandish claims such as saying that anyone who doesn't believe their fabricated data must also believe the Earth is flat. Remember, the people who are telling you that burning fossils fuels is causing runaway global warming are the very same people who also claim mercury in vaccines is safe to inject in unlimited quantities, toxins in GMOs are safe to eat, chemotherapy works great for cancer patients and that there's no such thing as any food or nutrient that prevents disease."

So not only is he a climate change denier, he's also an anti-vaccer, a GMO denier, and a chemotherapy denier for fucks sake..
slow your roll there playboy.

"Natural News" is Chock-o-Block full of lies, but not a damned one is "Science", not even bad science.

observe phenomena
gather data
postulate a hypothesis
gather more data
test the hypothesis
gather more data
test the hypothesis again, and if it passes, then upgrade it to "Theory"
let everybody see what they did
let everybody throw rocks at the theory
watch as everybody tries to knock it over
if it passes all those tests, still call it a "Theory"
if it stands without being overturned for 200 years or so, you still only get to call it a "Theory"

nope. "Natural News" goes straight from "Observe Phenomena" to "Declaration of Fact" with no stops in between.
in this case they didnt even need to observe the phenomena, they just invented it.
kinda like they do with their GMO hysteria.

sweet holy mother of gods

thats not even "Natural News" Bullshit, thats SECOND HAND "Natural News" Bullshit!!!1!11!1!!one!!1!!!uno!!!!11!11!!!!

look at that underlined title, it's a muthafuggin LINK SON!

hit it, i dare you.

i double dawg dare you to hit that link and see whence Beans gets his information...

dont be chicken

Bawk Bawk Bawk!

Hit It!!

also the "tags" links at the bottom are a lolercaust.
 
Last edited:

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Ginchy scuttles into thread like cockroach, makes numerous ad homs, zero substantive arguments, begins awarding nobel prizes

cant spell nobel.

thinks everybody cares about his opinion.
I have had to chuckle about this.

You've gotten "you so stupid" from noble prize and nobel prise people in this thread.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I have had to chuckle about this.

You've gotten "you so stupid" from noble prize and nobel prise people in this thread.

yeah, since even barry seotoro has one of those things, i doubt the Nobel Committee is particularly clever

it wouldnt surprise me in the least if Ginchy actually was on the nomination panel.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
wow thats some mighty strong butthurt.

Primus: "human machines produce 90% of the co2 emitted"
Secundus: no, all human activity produces 34 gigatonnes of co2, the NATURAL emissions are ~771 gigatonnes, therefore the human emissions do NOT equal 90% of all emissions.
Tertius: Liar Fraud Bullshit!! Koch Brothers Big Oil Conspiracy! Heritage Institute! conspiracy! plotters! Denialists!!
Secundus: that number came from the IPCC
Tertius: backpedal, goalpost mobilization, declare fraud some more, claim shit was faked, rage, flail, scream, cry, but what about Natural Removal of co2!! see!!
Secundus: co2 sinks were not at issue.
Tertius: Liar! Liar! Liar! whatever i want to talk about is always at issue!! this entire forum is all about me!!
Secundus: no, neither primus nor secundus mentioned the mechanisms by which co2 is removed from the atmosphere
Tertius! No, you didnt remove anything! you omitted the other half of the equation!!
Secundus: Ha Ha Ha Ha

the fact that niether i nor hyroot made any reference to any mechanism for the removal of co2 from the atmosphere is NOT proof of some vast conspiracy by the Koch Brothers to conceal the Troof, you gibbering fool, it was Non Sequitur.

even in my first response to hyroot i made clear that the claim he THOUGHT he was making was about the emissions OVER THE BASELINE, go ahead, take a look, ill wait...

no i wont, cuz youre a moron.

the AGW relies on wildeyed screaming fanatics like you, and mushbrained acolytes like hyroot, and venomous toads like ginja to propagate the meme through exaggerations, nonsense statements based on an inability to read the material, and assumptions that whatever you heard from a guy who heard from a guy who saw on a show, that "humans are destroying the planet" is factual.

it's a giant game of Telephone that starts with a carefully worded, cautious statement by researchers and ends up in wailing poisonous withchunters like you, searching for heresy under every haystack and in every root cellar.

look at how insane you are getting over the IPCC's OWN NUMBERS for total c02 emitted from all sources.

it's the IPCC's OWN FUCKING NUMBERS and youre losing your damned mind.

i approve.
keep on trying to justify your fraudulent omission of HALF THE FUCKING EQUATION.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
That was inconsequential to the debate at that time.
that NATURAL co2 emissions are canceled out by NATURAL co2 absorption is not inconsequential, it is the whole fucking point.

leaving it out is fraudulent.

but like i said, i knew some idiots would fall for it. congrats.
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Every breath one takes releases ~100 times the CO2 that went in.
Average tidal breath = 500mL
15 times per minute.
4% CO2 = 300mL CO2/min = ~20.4E-3 mol/min = ~12.3E+21 molecules of CO2/min.person (@298K & 1atm using Ideal Gas Law for approximation)
7Bn people.
...
142.8E+6 mol CO2/min and 12.011+2(15.998 ) = 44.007 g/mol
-----> 6284 tonnes of CO2 per minute is breathed out by humans 24-7
3.3 Gigatonnes per annum...

meh...termites fart more.

Today's episode brought to you by,
the number R,
the letter

and the absorbative noble prise cumity
 
Last edited:

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
that NATURAL co2 emissions are canceled out by NATURAL co2 absorption is not inconsequential, it is the whole fucking point.

leaving it out is fraudulent.

but like i said, i knew some idiots would fall for it. congrats.
Sounds like some Intelligent Design bullshit there Buckster.



you got a citation detailing this magical relationship?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
yep.



there it is.

you purposely left out half the equation, on your own citation no less.

pathetic.

mmmhmmm

yep i posted that picture.

but you declared that shit was from the Koch Brothers

dont you have something not tainted by Big Oil and Big Tobbacco's lobbying machine?

after all, this should be some big news, it should make the ID frootcakes dance in the streets.

im waitin for a Specific Citation describing exactly how this alchemical relationship occurs.

if you cant provide it, then we can just assume that your full of beans again.

Addendum:
especially delightful s the way you accuse me of fraud, but in that very post you claim is so rife with fraud, i clearly said that hyroot was mistating, and what he he SHOULD have said is :
"human activity makes up 100% of the co2 emissions ABOVE THE BASELINE"

and then i posted tyhe image to demonstrate that hsi assertion of humans producing 90% of the Gross Emissions was wrong.

lets take a look again shall we?
Man made machines account for over 90% of co2 emmissions.
to which i replied:

you forgot the main thrust of that (made up) statistic, and that is "ABOVE THE BASELINE"

(...and then some details explaining why the assertion by hyroot is Fucking Wrong)
WHOOPS!

looks like your reading compensation failed you again.

he wasnt talking about NET emissions, his words conveyed the implication that GROSS emissions were 90% human, 10% natural.

and even you cant believe that bullshit, no matter how hard you torture the language.
 
Last edited:
Top