MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Yes, they did. It's right in front of your face.
Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So LA times = IPCC...
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
The underlined quote was pulled DIRECTLY from the 2013 SPM released in June of that year.
You are done sir.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Apparently you missed the DIRECT QUOTE from the 2013 SPM.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
never said hiatus and only talked about surface warming. made no reference to other types of warming we know are occurring.
good job on declaring victory though.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
lolZ, I don't take directives from people beneath me. Find it yourself.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
there you go, trying to pretend someone is beneath you.
that's a move that only someone who knows they are on the bottom tries to pull.
and no, i won't find it myself. you made the claim, you get to back it up. that's how burden of proof works you homicidal racist loser.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Why Don't Climate Change Deniers Publish Papers?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Good to see you, man!Why Don't Climate Change Deniers Publish Papers?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html
I'm afraid the climate change pseudo-debate is more polarizing than the creation/evolution debate, and the skeptics might as well be just as religious..
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Why Don't Climate Change Deniers Publish Papers?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html
yeah yeah yeah we get it, the popular press and lefty blogs agree, flawed metastudies by history teachers and the cartoonists/bloggers who plaigiarize them all agree, global warming is a doomsday scenario
'So this is happening while Sen. Inhofe fiddles.'
(from your own "citation" in the "peer reviewed Journal" Slate.com)
unfortunately this doesnt make the case that "the science is settled" ot that "Theories are Facts made up of Facts", or that there is any real consensus beyond general agreement that in fact there has been some warming over the last 100 years or so, and SOME of it can be attributed to human action.
none of this equates to the cassandra doomsday scenarios laid out by the IPCC's press arm (counting on nobody reading the actual reports since it is in fact unintelligible by their own admission)
nor does it in any way refute the fact that even if SOME of the warming is man made, the remainder of the warming is NATURAL, and expecting human civilization to undiscover fire wont stop the natural warming which makes up ~50% of the warming (according to the IPCC's own claims)
nor does any of this excuse the shocking lapses in judgement, ethics, and basic record keeping of the CRU and Michal Mann and the Global Warming Funk Band
further, these arguments from the popular press (and the most vehemently leftist arm of that press in fact) are simply presenting conveniently bite sized prepackaged talking points to argue against assertions nobody made, so that dipshits can try to convince their hypothetical (and presumably extremely ignorant, bigoted and homophobic) uncle that he is wrong over a thanksgiving meal of dry turkey and tinned cranberry jelly.
the last article created a very specific and nearly insurmountable test for "peer reviewed denialism" which is ludicrous.
that they found even one paper that refutes the entire theory of "global warming" from soup to nuts is surprising, since their criteria was akin to searching for "Peer Reviewed" research establishing evidence of Jesus' assumption into heaven after the resurrection.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, another meltdown from the guy who says increasing CO2 levels are because marxism.yeah yeah yeah we get it, the popular press and lefty blogs agree, flawed metastudies by history teachers and the cartoonists/bloggers who plaigiarize them all agree, global warming is a doomsday scenario
'So this is happening while Sen. Inhofe fiddles.'
(from your own "citation" in the "peer reviewed Journal" Slate.com)
unfortunately this doesnt make the case that "the science is settled" ot that "Theories are Facts made up of Facts", or that there is any real consensus beyond general agreement that in fact there has been some warming over the last 100 years or so, and SOME of it can be attributed to human action.
none of this equates to the cassandra doomsday scenarios laid out by the IPCC's press arm (counting on nobody reading the actual reports since it is in fact unintelligible by their own admission)
nor does it in any way refute the fact that even if SOME of the warming is man made, the remainder of the warming is NATURAL, and expecting human civilization to undiscover fire wont stop the natural warming which makes up ~50% of the warming (according to the IPCC's own claims)
nor does any of this excuse the shocking lapses in judgement, ethics, and basic record keeping of the CRU and Michal Mann and the Global Warming Funk Band
further, these arguments from the popular press (and the most vehemently leftist arm of that press in fact) are simply presenting conveniently bite sized prepackaged talking points to argue against assertions nobody made, so that dipshits can try to convince their hypothetical (and presumably extremely ignorant, bigoted and homophobic) uncle that he is wrong over a thanksgiving meal of dry turkey and tinned cranberry jelly.
the last article created a very specific and nearly insurmountable test for "peer reviewed denialism" which is ludicrous.
that they found even one paper that refutes the entire theory of "global warming" from soup to nuts is surprising, since their criteria was akin to searching for "Peer Reviewed" research establishing evidence of Jesus' assumption into heaven after the resurrection.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
He still blathers on about climategate, too, even after multiple independent investigations cleared everybody involved of any wrongdoing
Do you think he was this adamant about Wilsons case going to trial?
..
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's especially funny since he has not only been caught being completely unable to do a fucking exponent, but he also got caught dead to rights lying about "missing a decimal" in a calculation which involved no decimal at all.
i wonder how kynes' load of shit would fare against 8 independent investigations?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
yeah yeah yeah we get it, the popular press and lefty blogs agree, flawed metastudies by history teachers and the cartoonists/bloggers who plaigiarize them all agree, global warming is a doomsday scenario
'So this is happening while Sen. Inhofe fiddles.'
(from your own "citation" in the "peer reviewed Journal" Slate.com)
unfortunately this doesnt make the case that "the science is settled" ot that "Theories are Facts made up of Facts", or that there is any real consensus beyond general agreement that in fact there has been some warming over the last 100 years or so, and SOME of it can be attributed to human action.
none of this equates to the cassandra doomsday scenarios laid out by the IPCC's press arm (counting on nobody reading the actual reports since it is in fact unintelligible by their own admission)
nor does it in any way refute the fact that even if SOME of the warming is man made, the remainder of the warming is NATURAL, and expecting human civilization to undiscover fire wont stop the natural warming which makes up ~50% of the warming (according to the IPCC's own claims)
nor does any of this excuse the shocking lapses in judgement, ethics, and basic record keeping of the CRU and Michal Mann and the Global Warming Funk Band
further, these arguments from the popular press (and the most vehemently leftist arm of that press in fact) are simply presenting conveniently bite sized prepackaged talking points to argue against assertions nobody made, so that dipshits can try to convince their hypothetical (and presumably extremely ignorant, bigoted and homophobic) uncle that he is wrong over a thanksgiving meal of dry turkey and tinned cranberry jelly.
the last article created a very specific and nearly insurmountable test for "peer reviewed denialism" which is ludicrous.
that they found even one paper that refutes the entire theory of "global warming" from soup to nuts is surprising, since their criteria was akin to searching for "Peer Reviewed" research establishing evidence of Jesus' assumption into heaven after the resurrection.
Despite the reiterations of red herrings, you seemed to miss the point. Scientific consensus can be bought, but the only currency it will accept is evidence. If someone wants to change things, this is the path they must take. Merely rejecting answers is not good enough, no matter how much you trump it up with accusations of conspiracy and bias. There must be a rejection of methodology and a suggestion of a more accurate methodology.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
1 : the dendrochronology methodology published in a study under peer review demonstrated the inferiority (which is to say, SHITTINESS) or Man et al's methods, thus prompting Mann et al to seek ways to suppress that paper (in direct violation of the peer review process) and the eventual attempt to undermine several entire journals for publishing material they felt challenged the CRU's work.
2 : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but Mann and the boys didnt even keep records of their data.
3 : existing non-controversial evidence demonstrates that the "unprecedented warming" or the late 20th century was NOT unprecedented, but the meme remains in play
4 : the issue has been obviously, and grossly politicized (on both sides)
5 : this entire thread (and most of the discussion among the academy as well) has been nothing but Global Warming Touts slinging ad homs and moving the goalposts
6 : there are more than a few well respected scientists and numerous peer reviewed papers which call into question many different parts of the Official Party Line, yet each of these is met with a hail of brickbats and accusations of "Climate Denier" or "Infiltrated by The Baddies"
7 : you CAN buy "consensus" , i agree but there are many currencies at play, pressure to conform to a social norm, fear of stigmatization, millions of dollars in grants for anything with the magic talisman "climate change" appended to it, and of course the fear of being exposed as a dupe when the facts of the issue come to light and the political agenda is pointed out.
8 : the shrillest cries and most outre' claims come from NON SCIENTISTS in non-peer reviewed sources, yet those who political opportunists like Gore claim to cite, never say "oy now mate, thats not what i said!", thus giving tacit approval to the wild exaggerations.
9 : the amateurish bullshit and careful parsing in the IPCC reports are designed to make "climate change" sound like a catastrophe while actually taking a very tepid stance on the science, and the projected results.
this shit would not be permitted in a PHILOSOPHY CLASS, yet in "climate change science" it is accepted without comment, lest you be branded a "Climate Denier" and you find yourself put on blast in "Skeptical Science Blog's" Name & Shame section.
this kind of bullshit is not "science" forming a theory, thats Plain Old Dirty Politics.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you still insist that this ONE example of "independent investigations" is above reproach, but every other investigation is fraught with scheming plotting and nefarious shadowy republican cabals trying to keep "Teh 1%" in power
you forget Sandusky was also "exonerated" by UPenn, "Silent Spring" is still treated like science despite the author's admission that she made the whole thing up "for the greater good" (same goes for "the Population Bomb" and "the Great garbage Crisis" too) and even one of the founders of Greenpeace says the whole issue has been blown out of proportion by political opportunists.
you yourself respond to every citation of every paper which calls into question even the smallest portion of Climate Change Catechism with accusations of "Climate Denier" and wild straw men, red herrings, ad homs and appeals to authority.
your position, even if it turns out the be correct is tainted because you came to it through floolish blind faith rather than reason, and you defend it with fallacy, not logic.
youre pinched sunshine.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.” ~ Omar Khayyam, on why you should Cry Moar.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
8 examples, here's what the cce review had to say;
Source?
Also, I wonder where you "thought" up that comparison...
https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/official-probe-shows-climategate-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/
Also false comparison, both investigations are completely independent of each other and UPenn is backed up by 7 other independent investigations. You believe in another conspiracy to cover all of that up.
97% of scientists accept anthropogenic climate change, if you don't, you deny the scientific consensus, that makes you a climate change denier
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
dont give a shit what the whitewashes claim, i read that shit myself, and if my GC did that kind of shit on a kitchen remodel i would have him in court, and his license would be yanked.
yeah Upenn's "independent investigations" are so thorough and trustworthy, sandusky was "exonerated shortly before the feds clapped him in irons.
"97% consensus" is a talking point created by a long since discredited "meta-study" (the weakest kind of study) from a HISTORY TEACHER which only examined the abstracts of published papers, drew faulty conclusions, and eventually was plagiarized by Cook.
the "97% consensus" is pure bullshit, as i have demonstrated before, but as usual you pretend that shit never happened, then you ran off to make a new thread.
this is where you pretend i never cited that shit...
now explain why the "unprecedented" warming is so clearly precedented, how deliberately undermining the peer revirew system, and attempting to stifle reseach that isnt Mann approved, trying (and failing) to blackball journals because they wouldnt submit to Mann's demand for pre-approval of all their materials, the missing data, the un-reporducable conclusions, and the illogical assumptions are "good science" suitable fro the creation of a "consensus"
this is where you declare "citation needed" despite having been provided with those citations previously
also explain why the shrill caterwauls of dolts like yourself and al gore are never corrected by the "Climate Change Proponents" (~Michael Mann), but if you question the spelling in a lefty global warming hysteric's blog, shitheels like you pour out of the woodwork with cries of "Climate Denier" flying from spittle flecked lips, and Mike Mann and the Earth First Band start shouting about "The Baddies" infiltrating scientific journals.
this is where you pretend that i didnt link you directly to thos emails, from 4 different sources, including wikileaks, not just the "suspect" websites run by "The Baddies"
then explain why 12000 years of actual dramatic warming dont count, but the last 100 years are super important despite being a relatively mild period of both warming AND cooling trends...
Psst... this is the part where you pretend i have never provided you with a link to a "Peer Reviewed" paper that demonstrated large and sudden swings in temp during the (allegedly imaginary) last interglacial.
next, detail how well established scientific theories like the milenkovik cycles, previous glaciations, previous interglacials, previous CO2 spikes without warming, and previous warming without CO2 spikes which call into question many parts of the "Global Warming" narrative are all fictional
this is where you declare "i cant prove any of that shit" and try to argue that dinosaurs, megafauna, and the last ice age never actually existed
yep.
you are totally "owning me" with your Facts that are made up of Facts, by dint of their Factiness.
demonstrating that you dont know what the fuck youre talking about, and your declarations fo "consensus" are bullshit, and your claims that "The Science Is Settled" doesnt make me a "Climate Denier", it makes me a "Toby Denier"
if some papers are published tomorrow that shows Mann et all's shit IS reporducable, and their conclusions are NOT just politically motivated claptrap by some Climate 419 scammers who wanna chop my dollar, i can accept this new data and change my position.
you have already lept onto the bandwagon for all the wrong reasons, and are thus not a credible source for opinions on the subject.
if Denying Toby is wrong, i dont wanna be right.
Last edited: