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

[greasemonkeymann]

we should have a warning on threads like this.
---WARNING, this thread goes NOWHERE----
read when time is absolutely stopped.

 

[Dr Kynes]

As from the start I'm asserting that this is nothing more than a red herring

Yeah not brave enough to make assertions just weak insinuations to the "fact"

You assume we old you qualified to make such judgements
it's an old spiel your preaching there

God of the gaps...

There will always be extrapolations in science it simply is not possible to track every mol of co2

Every new study fits a new piece to the puzzle and the data is not going in your favour
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

i dont claim to have the answers, and there is significant disagreement among the ACTUAL experts on whether the IPCC's numbers are good or not, in the details, in the broad stokes, not so much.

but if the details are wrong, the broad stokes are merely an impressionist painting, which looks convincing from a distance, but as you look closer it loses cohesion.

but you deny the basic concepts of science, and prefer the simple appeals to authority and assumed infallibility of the IPCC, and... for some reason, Wikipedia.

youre laughably stupid to assume i think MY opinion means a squirt of piss, but youre fucking retarded if you think YOUR opinion matters any more.

the EXPERTS are the ones who will sort it out, and they dont agree on anything at all so far except:

Observed warming over the last 120 years: 1.5 - 2 degrees C +/- 0.5 degrees C
Co2 increases since 1959 when direct observations started: + 81 ppm on mona loa
Does Co2 act as a greenhouse gas? YES
is it super powerful in that regard? NO
is this increase in Co2 concentrations directly attributable to human action? at least some, maybe a lot, possibly most of it
is the sun's radiance increasing? Yep, for the last 200+ years.
does this mean all of the warming since 1950's is man made? nope, maybe 51%, more likely, less than half.
do geologic sources make significant co2? Yep.
how much co2 do geologic processes produce? on land, estimates vary wildly, under the seas, one geologist's guess is as good as any other
are the IPCC's numbers accurate? the IPCC says yes, other scientists say NO, some say they over estimate, other say they under estimate, others say they are spot on, others say they are fucking dead ass wrong.

if you want to believe the IPCC's numbers are infallible, then youre a fool.

i think the ipcc's numbers are a fair average of the general consensus of scientists, but averages dont mean shit


a chemist, a biologist and a statistician go hunting
the chemist shoots at a deer and misses by 5 feet to the left
the biologist shoots at another deer and misses 5 feet to the right
the statistician shouts "Yeah! we got one!"
and a wikipedia editor jumps out of the bushes and says "so how are we gonna carry all three deer back to camp?"

 

[UncleBuck]

i dont claim to have the answers, and there is significant disagreement among the ACTUAL experts on whether the IPCC's numbers are good or not, in the details, in the broad stokes, not so much.

but if the details are wrong, the broad stokes are merely an impressionist painting, which looks convincing from a distance, but as you look closer it loses cohesion.

but you deny the basic concepts of science, and prefer the simple appeals to authority and assumed infallibility of the IPCC, and... for some reason, Wikipedia.

youre laughably stupid to assume i think MY opinion means a squirt of piss, but youre fucking retarded if you think YOUR opinion matters any more.

the EXPERTS are the ones who will sort it out, and they dont agree on anything at all so far except:

Observed warming over the last 120 years: 1.5 - 2 degrees C +/- 0.5 degrees C
Co2 increases since 1959 when direct observations started: + 81 ppm on mona loa
Does Co2 act as a greenhouse gas? YES
is it super powerful in that regard? NO
is this increase in Co2 concentrations directly attributable to human action? at least some, maybe a lot, possibly most of it
is the sun's radiance increasing? Yep, for the last 200+ years.
does this mean all of the warming since 1950's is man made? nope, maybe 51%, more likely, less than half.
do geologic sources make significant co2? Yep.
how much co2 do geologic processes produce? on land, estimates vary wildly, under the seas, one geologist's guess is as good as any other
are the IPCC's numbers accurate? the IPCC says yes, other scientists say NO, some say they over estimate, other say they under estimate, others say they are spot on, others say they are fucking dead ass wrong.

if you want to believe the IPCC's numbers are infallible, then youre a fool.

i think the ipcc's numbers are a fair average of the general consensus of scientists, but averages dont mean shit


a chemist, a biologist and a statistician go hunting
the chemist shoots at a deer and misses by 5 feet to the left
the biologist shoots at another deer and misses 5 feet to the right
the statistician shouts "Yeah! we got one!"
and a wikipedia editor jumps out of the bushes and says "so how are we gonna carry all three deer back to camp?"

still no citation for those 3000 volcanoes, so just bury it under a regurgitation of your retarded gibberish.

well done.

 

[canndo]

Teh Fux You Say?

volcanoes are ANYTHING but a constant.

if you think the IPCC has adequately accounted for volcanic co2 (even excluding eruptions and offgassing events) then you obviously havent read (Gerlach 1991) and his oft quoted yet highly dubious claim that surface volcanism emits 300 megatonnes of co2 a year because he examined the results from SEVEN volcanoes out of 3000, and undersea volcanism curiously matches surface volcanism exactly because he examined data from THREE undersea volcanoes out of an UNKNOWN number...

hell, read it yourself.

http://gerlach1991.geologist-1011.mobi/

yes a constant. It doesn't matter what the output is, volcanic activity has been roughly the same over long spans.

it is background noise. Unless you can point to a measurable span of time when there was no such activity, and you can't, it does not have a differing effect. It has always been there, the average output is always about the same and so it cannot be factored as having any more effect than it ever had.

suppose you had a small heater in your house, it ran all the time. You started measuring temperatures, not absolute temperatures but temperatures relative to temperatures at different times. It got hotter in the summer, colder in the winter.

then someone said "wait, what about that little heater"

bit that heater was a constant, it made no effective difference to the relative temperature.

it is like adding a one to both sides of an equation.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

yes a constant. It doesn't matter what the output is, volcanic activity has been roughly the same over long spans.

it is background noise. Unless you can point to a measurable span of time when there was no such activity, and you can't, it does not have a differing effect. It has always been there, the average output is always about the same and so it cannot be factored as having any more effect than it ever had.

suppose you had a small heater in your house, it ran all the time. You started measuring temperatures, not absolute temperatures but temperatures relative to temperatures at different times. It got hotter in the summer, colder in the winter.

then someone said "wait, what about that little heater"

bit that heater was a constant, it made no effective difference to the relative temperature.

it is like adding a one to both sides of an equation.

I don't know if that is factual, or not. If it is, that's a well thought out point that passes the common sense "sniff test".

 

[Ra$p0tin]

you are still wrong. Making up numbers.. Like I said read. I already put up. Do you have short term memory issues.. Smack your fore head again. You need a reboot

And have a V8!

 

[Dr Kynes]

yes a constant. It doesn't matter what the output is, volcanic activity has been roughly the same over long spans.

it is background noise. Unless you can point to a measurable span of time when there was no such activity, and you can't, it does not have a differing effect. It has always been there, the average output is always about the same and so it cannot be factored as having any more effect than it ever had.

suppose you had a small heater in your house, it ran all the time. You started measuring temperatures, not absolute temperatures but temperatures relative to temperatures at different times. It got hotter in the summer, colder in the winter.

then someone said "wait, what about that little heater"

bit that heater was a constant, it made no effective difference to the relative temperature.

it is like adding a one to both sides of an equation.

and if you have 3000 candles burning all the time, some tiny little birthday candles other huge citronella tiki torches and a few that are basically a large knot of paraffin soaked rags tied to a shovel handle how hot will your house be then?

well you can find out by measuring SEVEN of the candles, just seven, selected maybe at random, maybe because they are the ones closest to you, or because they are ones that already have thermometers near them, meh. who cares, then multiplying by 1500, cuz thats how many "candles" you have according to the National Candle Survey (which doesnt count birthday candles tiki torches or oil soaked rags on a shovel handle). surely your numbers will be accurate right?

oh and the big cauldron of bubbling soup on the stove? yeah, thats not a candle, so dont count it in youre heat sources figures. after all theres no flames coming off the top of the cauldron, so it must therefore be giving off no heat...

now doesnt that sound silly?

you cant claim that "humans are the cause" of anything until you establish not only "how much of it are humans doing" but "how much is naturally occurring"

otherwise youre just guessing.

 

[Dr Kynes]

still no citation for those 3000 volcanoes, so just bury it under a regurgitation of your retarded gibberish.

well done.

previously cited.

not interested in repeating myself for you or The Ginch

go pound sand.

 

[UncleBuck]

previously cited.

then it should be no problem for you to tell me where or cite it again.

 

[sheskunk]

then it should be no problem for you to tell me where or cite it again.

If you want people to do things for you you should be more polite and respectful. You should try to relax. Don't act so hateful and offended over things you don't understand. People will be more eager to help you with the things you are seeking help with if you simply show a little humility. It's not a bad thing. All the good people do it. Give it a try and see if it works. I'll check up on you later.

 

[Dr Kynes]

If you want people to do things for you you should be more polite and respectful. You should try to relax. Don't act so hateful and offended over things you don't understand. People will be more eager to help you with the things you are seeking help with if you simply show a little humility. It's not a bad thing. All the good people do it. Give it a try and see if it works. I'll check up on you later.

he's not interested in the citation, he wont even read it, he will just impugn the author with some specious claim that implies he's not a REAL geologist cuz his research doesnt agree with the accepted narrative.

cuz thats how "science" works now, you accept the "consensus" or are declared a crackpot, while those like James "Skeptical Science"Cook who IS a crackpot, and is NOT a scientist are regarded as geniuses for their name and shame blog posts, and fake graphs.

 

[Pinworm]

he's not interested in the citation, he wont even read it, he will just impugn the author with some specious claim that implies he's not a REAL geologist cuz his research doesnt agree with the accepted narrative.

cuz thats how "science" works now, you accept the "consensus" or are declared a crackpot, while those like James "Skeptical Science"Cook who IS a crackpot, and is NOT a scientist are regarded as geniuses for their name and shame blog posts, and fake graphs.

Lols @ geology. The fat Kardashian sister of the science community,,,

 

[UncleBuck]

If you want people to do things for you you should be more polite and respectful. You should try to relax. Don't act so hateful and offended over things you don't understand. People will be more eager to help you with the things you are seeking help with if you simply show a little humility. It's not a bad thing. All the good people do it. Give it a try and see if it works. I'll check up on you later.

no need to come to kynes' rescue here. he can't provide a citation and i am teasing him now.

he is overweight and sports a fedora though, so you two might be able to get something going.

 

[Pinworm]

If you want people to do things for you you should be more polite and respectful. You should try to relax. Don't act so hateful and offended over things you don't understand. People will be more eager to help you with the things you are seeking help with if you simply show a little humility. It's not a bad thing. All the good people do it. Give it a try and see if it works. I'll check up on you later.

Ewww there is NO way you just pounded you fat fingers on the keyboards enough to post this returdedness.

 

[sheskunk]

he's not interested in the citation, he wont even read it, he will just impugn the author with some specious claim that implies he's not a REAL geologist cuz his research doesnt agree with the accepted narrative.

cuz thats how "science" works now, you accept the "consensus" or are declared a crackpot, while those like James "Skeptical Science"Cook who IS a crackpot, and is NOT a scientist are regarded as geniuses for their name and shame blog posts, and fake graphs.

I've been working with him a little on how to be a nicer person. He isn't practicing much of it yet, but he is listening to it all. It's just going to take some time. Slow and steady wins the race.

 

[sheskunk]

no need to come to kynes' rescue here. he can't provide a citation and i am teasing him now.

he is overweight and sports a fedora though, so you two might be able to get something going.

I am here to rescue you silly.

 

[sheskunk]

Ewww there is NO way you just pounded you fat fingers on the keyboards enough to post this returdedness.

I use a stick on the end of my foot. My hands are too busy feeding my face.

 

[UncleBuck]

I've been working with him a little on how to be a nicer person. He isn't practicing much of it yet, but he is listening to it all. It's just going to take some time. Slow and steady wins the race.

i'm actually going out of my way to do the opposite of whatever you say. i feel that's the wisest thing to do.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Lols @ geology. The fat Kardashian sister of the science community,,,

yeah, geology isnt very sexy, but it's still more popular than unemployable dope peddlers who sponge off their old lady and waste their time stalking people on the interwebs and ratting out other dope growers.

 

[Pinworm]

yeah, geology isnt very sexy, but it's still more popular than unemployable dope peddlers who sponge off their old lady and waste their time stalking people on the interwebs and ratting out other dope growers.

So what? This your bush? You the king of forest?