Kerry Says "The Bible" is why we must save the Muslims from Global Warming/Climate Change

[Padawanbater2]

Did you get a load of ginwilly earlier? "I accept the scientific consensus!" ..."this is the scientific consensus...".... "That's bullshit! Scientists still don't know how much or how far or who or when or why or this or that or that other thing... they don't know shit!.... but I still agree with the scientific consensus!"

"...alright then..."

 

[ginwilly]

You are like a dishonest child who got his feelings hurt.

Did you really just run to buck to save you? pathetic man, pathetic.

Was NoDrama right about the variance? Is the high end of the variance used in an emotional argument to prove a point? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about that's not helping.

 

[Padawanbater2]

If you bothered at all to understand, you would know. Your question signifies you don't, not that it was needed. Earlier you asked bullshit questions that could be easily answered by viewing the 5th report, you said you did, but you didn't..

Bottom line, we know the temps are increasing, we know why, we still have questions as to how exactly, but why, if, and is are no longer up for debate. That's where you come in, constantly asking "how much?" "how bad?" "are you sure?"... nobody has time for that, read the fucking data. Get on board or keep treading water. Makes no difference to progress.

You and NSXL and your ilk, sitting there treading water are about as important/helpful as the idiots still asking for "the missing link".

Get over yourselves, put your fucking pride behind you and work for something other than yourselves for a fucking change.

Howbout that?

Nobody's here to coddle you fucks into the future. Pick up your britches, man the fuck up and walk the fucking line.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up because nobody in science gives a shit about your "what if's".

 

[UncleBuck]

Did you get a load of ginwilly earlier? "I accept the scientific consensus!" ..."this is the scientific consensus...".... "That's bullshit! Scientists still don't know how much or how far or who or when or why or this or that or that other thing... they don't know shit!.... but I still agree with the scientific consensus!"

"...alright then..."

i would say ginwilly speaks out of both sides of his mouth, but that is not true since he is two faced.

 

[UncleBuck]

Was NoDrama right about the variance?

no, and you are a pathetic two faced hypocrite.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

If you bothered at all to understand, you would know. Your question signifies you don't, not that it was needed. Earlier you asked bullshit questions that could be easily answered by viewing the 5th report, you said you did, but you didn't..

Bottom line, we know the temps are increasing, we know why, we still have questions as to how exactly, but why, if, and is are no longer up for debate. That's where you come in, constantly asking "how much?" "how bad?" "are you sure?"... nobody has time for that, read the fucking data. Get on board or keep treading water. Makes no difference to progress.

You and NSXL and your ilk, sitting there treading water are about as important/helpful as the idiots still asking for "the missing link".

Get over yourselves, put your fucking pride behind you and work for something other than yourselves for a fucking change.

Howbout that?

Nobody's here to coddle you fucks into the future. Pick up your britches, man the fuck up and walk the fucking line.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up because nobody in science gives a shit about your "what if's".

Translation: Believe what I believe and who I believe, because I believe. Waaaaaaaah.(sucks pacifier) [throws temper tantrum]


Actually, EVERYTHING is still up for debate. It doesn't matter how many liberal douchebags make the claim, we'll just chuckle and continue the very debate they seem to be oblivious of, despite being in the middle of it.

And you couldn't be any more wrong, all the scientists pushing the MMGW THEORY
do give a shit about our "what ifs" and "our ilk" are very important. We're the ones that influence the politicians who represent us into voting against all the horseshit legislation that the zealots try to push in the name of MMGW. We're the ones that are giving the finger to the Eco-Loons and their agenda, influencing public opinion that it's overblown hype not worth worrying about, preventing a deluge of suicidal legislation, AND WE'RE WINNING.

So, you need to put on your big boy pants and hunker down for a very long fight that will most likely end in disappointment for you.

How 'bout that?

 

[earnest_voice]

If you bothered at all to understand, you would know. Your question signifies you don't, not that it was needed. Earlier you asked bullshit questions that could be easily answered by viewing the 5th report, you said you did, but you didn't..

Bottom line, we know the temps are increasing, we know why, we still have questions as to how exactly, but why, if, and is are no longer up for debate. That's where you come in, constantly asking "how much?" "how bad?" "are you sure?"... nobody has time for that, read the fucking data. Get on board or keep treading water. Makes no difference to progress.

You and NSXL and your ilk, sitting there treading water are about as important/helpful as the idiots still asking for "the missing link".

Get over yourselves, put your fucking pride behind you and work for something other than yourselves for a fucking change.

Howbout that?

Nobody's here to coddle you fucks into the future. Pick up your britches, man the fuck up and walk the fucking line.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up because nobody in science gives a shit about your "what if's".

Oh your rhetoric is hilarious. Very scientific of you...

 

[NoDrama]

25%, 0.01%, almost the same thing but not quite.

Yeah, but concentrations in the atmosphere have only increased by .01%
300PPM =.03% of the atmosphere 400PPM = .04% of the atmosphere
.04% - .03%= .01% increase.

You are counting the CO2 by itself not as a concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 presents no problems unless its in the atmosphere.

 

[ginwilly]

no, and you are a pathetic two faced hypocrite.

Maybe I'm wrong about you guys lying and I apologize, it could be that you just don't know. Maybe you think levels are static. Don't know why you would think that, but you report it as fact, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt you think it's true.

When I was skeptical and searching, I looked at 6 different models. What I noticed was they all used the same variable. I can't remember how they came up with it, but I remember being convinced it was solid. Each model had a built in variance. The models predict a range. The reports used in the argument for funding or on internet forums use the highest end of those ranges.

Instead of reporting best/worst case or even median, you are showing worst case and comparing it to the median estimations of history. All we can know about about the measurements taken from ice cores is what the levels were at that point.

Like now, we know readings can be between around 280-400, we can't know the variance back then, just make educated guesses. There is no way of knowing that the 200 found in the ice core was the low end or high end or median. The only way to know would be to take samples from various places around the globe which as you know is impossible. We have models that can guesstimate historical variance based what we know today. We try to show medians historically.

We are advancing the tech at a rapid pace and within a few decades we have a much better handle.

If you think we already have the answers, the science is settled.. then let's stop funding, wouldn't that make sense?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Actually, EVERYTHING is still up for debate.

LOL! OK, you keep sitting there asking for the missing link, twaddling your thumbs while progress continues.. I'm sure we'll find it someday...

AND WE'RE WINNING.

LOL! If this is you winning, I wonder what you losing looks like?

All 34 national science academies, tens of thousands of scientists, millions of hours of observations...

The fuck have you got?

 

[UncleBuck]

Yeah, but concentrations in the atmosphere have only increased by .01%
300PPM =.03% of the atmosphere 400PPM = .04% of the atmosphere
.04% - .03%= .01% increase.

You are counting the CO2 by itself not as a concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 presents no problems unless its in the atmosphere.

going from a 0.3% atmospheric concentration to a 0.4% atmospheric concentration is a 33% increase.

 

[UncleBuck]

Maybe I'm wrong about you guys lying and I apologize, it could be that you just don't know. Maybe you think levels are static. Don't know why you would think that, but you report it as fact, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt you think it's true.

When I was skeptical and searching, I looked at 6 different models. What I noticed was they all used the same variable. I can't remember how they came up with it, but I remember being convinced it was solid. Each model had a built in variance. The models predict a range. The reports used in the argument for funding or on internet forums use the highest end of those ranges.

Instead of reporting best/worst case or even median, you are showing worst case and comparing it to the median estimations of history. All we can know about about the measurements taken from ice cores is what the levels were at that point.

Like now, we know readings can be between around 280-400, we can't know the variance back then, just make educated guesses. There is no way of knowing that the 200 found in the ice core was the low end or high end or median. The only way to know would be to take samples from various places around the globe which as you know is impossible. We have models that can guesstimate historical variance based what we know today. We try to show medians historically.

We are advancing the tech at a rapid pace and within a few decades we have a much better handle.

If you think we already have the answers, the science is settled.. then let's stop funding, wouldn't that make sense?

claims to be a proponent of human caused global warming, makes denier arguments and claims endlessly.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

All 34 national science academies, tens of thousands of scientists, millions of hours of observations...
The fuck have you got?

Just the ability to thwart every attempt you Eco-Loons make to pass suicidal legislation based on your delusional beliefs. That's all the fuck we got?

What's a matter John, gonna cry?

 

[UncleBuck]

lol, the skewed polls guy is calling other people delusional.

oversampling.

can't decipher simple polling data, has the complex climate data all buttoned down.

54-40.

 

[ginwilly]

claims to be a proponent of human caused global warming, makes denier arguments and claims endlessly.

I refuse to think you believe air particles are a static number. I think you just present it that way because it's make a better emotional argument.

I said the lowest figures would be in slightly higher than historical figures, the highest figures paints a really bad picture.

You claim that's denial. Welp, unclebuck folks!

 

[Padawanbater2]

MuyLoco doesn't seem to understand how politics works either

Science, politics, religion, pussy..

What else?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I refuse to think you believe air particles are a static number. I think you just present it that way because it's make a better emotional argument.

I said the lowest figures would be in slightly higher than historical figures, the highest figures paints a really bad picture.

You claim that's denial. Welp, unclebuck folks!

Serious question, man..

Do you not think the tens of thousands of scientists who study the shit would have accounted for that?

 

[ginwilly]

Serious question, man..

Do you not think the tens of thousands of scientists who study the shit would have accounted for that?

Can't speak for all of them, but the ones I looked at did.

I've never seen you report that variance though. Every report you have posted that I've noticed (I can't claim to read them all) shows a static number that is the high end of that variance.

Why is that Pad? Why wouldn't you include the variance in your arguments, were unaware or just purposefully misleading?

 

[NLXSK1]

25%, 0.01%, almost the same thing but not quite.

I am going to laugh my ass off if that volcano blow's it's top...

 

[UncleBuck]

I am going to laugh my ass off if that volcano blow's it's top...

there is no apostrophe in "blows" or "its".

apostrophes indicate possession.

please remedy your 3rd grade grammar errors before attempting to outsmart the world's leading climatologists.