Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
So how close is the average of those data sets to the actual observed temperature rise in that period?
you tell me, beenthere.



let me know if you're ever gonna cite your own claims or just keep quoting holocaust deniers and white supremacists.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
you tell me, beenthere.



let me know if you're ever gonna cite your own claims or just keep quoting holocaust deniers and white supremacists.
Would it not be better to quote a white supremacist with a background in climatology than quoting from a Cartoonists blog considering race isn't a factor?

Unless you're gonna try tell me the skeptics are actually trying to wipe out Africa with Climate Change in which case I'll respectfully ask you to put your meth pipe down.
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member


Not only does UB use a chart from a cartoonist (fact) who no degree what so ever in science.
He uses the wrong projection.
Hansens massive failure of a prediction was in 1988 not 1981.
 

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
Is she serious?

This dumb cunt doesn't understand the phrase "off the charts"?

She can't be this fucking dumb can she?

Can she, really?! Holy shit our education system is in shambles..

Calm down, honey. Have a seat. Try taking slow deep breaths. You'll be OK.

LOL
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member


Not only does UB use a chart from a cartoonist (fact) who no degree what so ever in science.
He uses the wrong projection.
Hansens massive failure of a prediction was in 1988 not 1981.
Like I said, you can piss into the wind all you want, all your gonna do is get wet

You're losing the battle, you're going to lose the war, and eventually, even you are going to get on board with it and say you always supported it in the first place

Get used to that template, you'll be repeating it a lot over the coming years


:)
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member


Not only does UB use a chart from a cartoonist (fact) who no degree what so ever in science.
He uses the wrong projection.
Hansens massive failure of a prediction was in 1988 not 1981.
why do you keep posting falsified graphs from right wing sources like "thenewamerican.com"?

why not post the actual graph without falsifications?

 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member


LOL This is hansens chart, I suppose that UAH is also a right wing website according to UB.
Can some please show me how scenario B is remotely the closest to the true observed temperature?
This must be extremely embarrassing to Hansen and UncleBuck.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Are you literally so retarded that you can't see the mean of the two observations almost exactly follows Scenario C?

You'd think a math grad would be able to read a chart.
He didn't graduate, so he would be a dropout, or lazy college quitter or drunk, all names for ASU alumn.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member


LOL This is hansens chart, I suppose that UAH is also a right wing website according to UB.
Can some please show me how scenario B is remotely the closest to the true observed temperature?
This must be extremely embarrassing to Hansen and UncleBuck.
scenario B most closely matches CO2 emissions. do you not fucking get this while you go on posting this anyway?

that graph has also been falsified, as "reality" was added on with no reference.

post the website you got that exact image from.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
why do you keep posting falsified graphs from right wing sources like "thenewamerican.com"?

why not post the actual graph without falsifications?

See the divergence point between B & C in 2000 whereafter the mean of the observations follows Scenario C?

How much money did you waste attending University?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
See the divergence point between B & C in 2000 whereafter the mean of the observations follows Scenario C?

How much money did you waste attending University?
observed temps are closest to scenario B though, they shoot right up to scenario B.

scenario B and scenario C diverge because scenario C supposes a massive reduction in CO2 starting in 2000. we are exceeding that supposition, as we have not curbed CO2 emissions at all. hence why we are closest to scenario B in temps.
 
Top