Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

ginjawarrior said:

Lap it up big boy

twoofers don't believe the official story....

Twoofers believe their own guesses trumps evidence...

Twoofers best evidence is tired out oft repeated snippets that are easily proven false

Twoofers favourite tactic is looking for minutia rather than the bigger picture






You scoff Keynes but who have you got endorsing the views you espouse?

Twoofers claim it's a conspiracy to keep truth hidden..

Click to expand...

yep... cuz the Holocene Epoch isnt any part of the "Official Story"

only what the UN political shit shovelers say is real, while real science has to STFU so the 99 arctic research stations that dont show warming are shut down in favour of the one mounted on the roof of a minimall in San Dimas must be the only accurate source of data.


i suppose thats why one of the IPCC's "top scientists" had to retract his absurd claims and apologize to the indian government about his deliberate malfeasance and deliberate falsification of their climate data regarding himalayan glaciers...

i guess thats why the IPCC had to do the same thing with the russians a year earlier.

cuz they are so relaible...

politically motivated frauds are not uncommon, especially when it's "For Our Own Good"

ginjawarrior said:

Did you think of that all on your lonesome?

Click to expand...

I heard while listening to Rush.

ginjawarrior said:

Twoofers favourite tactic is looking for minutia rather than the bigger picture
You scoff Keynes but who have you got endorsing the views you espouse?

Twoofers claim it's a conspiracy to keep truth hidden..

Click to expand...

Dr Kynes said:

yep... cuz the Holocene Epoch isnt any part of the "Official Story"

only what the UN political shit shovelers say is real, while real science has to STFU so the 99 arctic research stations that dont show warming are shut down in favour of the one mounted on the roof of a minimall in San Dimas must be the only accurate source of data.


i suppose thats why one of the IPCC's "top scientists" had to retract his absurd claims and apologize to the indian government about his deliberate malfeasance and deliberate falsification of their climate data regarding himalayan glaciers...

i guess thats why the IPCC had to do the same thing with the russians a year earlier.

cuz they are so relaible...

politically motivated frauds are not uncommon, especially when it's "For Our Own Good"

Click to expand...

Yeah I've already been over your Himalaya claim before Keynes

So who have you got supporting your guesses? Who endorses the view your espousing?

Twoofers claim it's a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden

Anti gmo claim it's a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden

Keynes claims its a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden

ginjawarrior said:

You yourself used argument to buck within this very thread

I guess hyper partisanship only happens when the other guy does it

Click to expand...

im not a partisan on the issue, i really want to know HOW MUCH, rather than just assume it must be 120% anthropogenic.

you on the other hand are writhing in agony at the concept that somebody might not simply take your word (actually Skeptical Science Blog's second hand word...) thet we should all do pennance and live carbon nuetral lives, except of course for those among the faithful who are charged with "Getting the Message Out"

Dr Kynes said:

im not a partisan on the issue, i really want to know HOW MUCH, rather than just assume it must be 120% anthropogenic.

you on the other hand are writhing in agony at the concept that somebody might not simply take your word (actually Skeptical Science Blog's second hand word...) thet we should all do pennance and live carbon nuetral lives, except of course for those among the faithful who are charged with "Getting the Message Out"

Click to expand...

Ipcc report is out today read it

• Dr Kynes
  
  
  
  Super StonerMr. Ganja
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Join DateApr 2012
  LocationThe FlamingoPosts7,210
  
  
  
  
  Twoofers uneducated guesses trumps all physical evidence
  
  [h=2]
  
  [/h]
  
  those are just my guesses, based entirely on my own (math and computer model free) assumptions​
  
  
  
  

ginjawarrior said:

Yeah I've already been over your Himalaya claim before Keynes

So who have you got supporting your guesses? Who endorses the view your espousing?

Twoofers claim it's a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden

Anti gmo claim it's a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden

Keynes claims its a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden

Click to expand...

and sometimes it IS a conspiracy.

you think bernie maddoff scammed all those people all by himself?

you think that dumb bitch in the photos orchestrated the actions at abu ghraib all by herself?

you think "occupy" protests are spontaneous?

you think the anti-gmo crowd dont have powerful backers helping them "Get the Message Out"

you had no qualms about the claims of others in the thread that "Big Oil" was bankrolling the "Climate Deniers" and their studies.

Fraud and Conspiracy are not figments of the fevered imagination of a few looneys, they have happened, are happening and will continue to happen, and they really need Useful Idiots like yourself to charge forward with the banner, and hurl your bodies against the barricades. "It's For Our Own Good"

your hypocrisy continues unabated.

ginjawarrior said:

Ipcc report is out today read it

• Dr Kynes
  
  
  
  Super StonerMr. Ganja
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Join DateApr 2012
  LocationThe FlamingoPosts7,210
  
  
  
  
  Twoofers uneducated guesses trumps all physical evidence
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  those are just my guesses, based entirely on my own (math and computer model free) assumptions​
  
  

Click to expand...

i at least have the class to clearly label my guesses, assumptions and prognostications as such, while you continue to pretend that the ones you approve of must be "science" based on the ohh so reliable words of a few dipshits at the UN.

Dr Kynes said:

i at least have the class to clearly label my guesses, assumptions and prognostications as such, while you continue to pretend that the ones you approve of must be "science" based on the ohh so reliable words of a few dipshits at the UN.

Click to expand...

Peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals can't get much of a higher standard than that

Where do you get your information from

Anti gmo claim the science is wrong because it doesn't fit their worldview
Keynes claims the science is wrong because it doesn't fit his worldview........

according to the IPCC

last time:

"90% certain that humans cause MOST of the global warming of the last century"

this time:
"95% certain that humans caused almost half of the global warming of the last 50 years...."

Your Takeaway:

90% to 95%!!! MOAR CONSENSUS! See I'm Right!!

My Takeaway:

from "most over the last 100 years" to "almost half over the last 50 years" that would be around 50% less global warming blamed on man, and only the bits over Half the previous time scale, menaing, man did NOT cause the warming of the first half of the last century, and only caused less than half the warming in the latter half of the century.

thats a net reduction in "Anthropogenicness" of ~75%, so were they lying then or are they lying now?

ginjawarrior said:

Peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals can't get much of a higher standard than that

Where do you get your information from

Anti gmo claim the science is wrong because it doesn't fit their worldview
Keynes claims the science is wrong because it doesn't fit his worldview........

Click to expand...

and yet you can only cite "Skeptical Science" a BLOG de3dicated 100% to supporting the "consensus" and british tabloids, while shitting all over articles from Nature, and the geological society, and even declare the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite "the most trusted man in america" to be "tabloids" just shortly before you post shit from the Guardian.

next youll cite Rolling Stone or Instyle Magazine as your next authoritative source.

Dr Kynes said:

and yet you can only cite "Skeptical Science" a BLOG de3dicated 100% to supporting the "consensus" and british tabloids, while shitting all over articles from Nature, and the geological society, and even declare the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite "the most trusted man in america" to be "tabloids" just shortly before you post shit from the Guardian.

next youll cite Rolling Stone or Instyle Magazine as your next authoritative source.

Click to expand...

you've only got ad hominem?

Sceptical science uses peer reviewed science to back up all their claims they even often have the papers authors comment


Got anything more substantial? Like natural news or something?

Canna Sylvan said:

Non-sequitor, that's not science, dumb ass. Why can't you admit "climate science" is just as bullshit as numerology? You belong to a cult, sir.

Click to expand...

consensus isn't science.

but when the climate science is done, a consensus is reached based on evidence.

don't get how that works? too bad for you.

Dr Kynes said:

according to the IPCC

last time:

"90% certain that humans cause MOST of the global warming of the last century"

this time:
"95% certain that humans caused almost half of the global warming of the last 50 years...."

Your Takeaway:

90% to 95%!!! MOAR CONSENSUS! See I'm Right!!

My Takeaway:

from "most over the last 100 years" to "almost half over the last 50 years" that would be around 50% less global warming blamed on man, and only the bits over Half the previous time scale, menaing, man did NOT cause the warming of the first half of the last century, and only caused less than half the warming in the latter half of the century.

thats a net reduction in "Anthropogenicness" of ~75%, so were they lying then or are they lying now?

Click to expand...

I wonder how even a 95% certainty gravity exists would sound? A 95% certainty Relativity works?

Certainty certainly sounds like statistics to me. How well did that certainty predict Dewey became president? That's the thing, politics use statistics. Politics gets manipulated. Science isn't politics. Science isn't what if we're wrong, so let's do it anyway!

Yeah, polluting is bad. Smog makes me cough. Acid rain sucks. Mercury in my seaweed makes me cry. But when you have to resort to, "OMFG ZOMG! If you don't buy a CFL the Arctic icecaps will melt and we'll have to move into Mexico." See, that's like any religion (cult). You don't do something because government (God) threatens fire and brimstone, you do it because it's the right thing to do.

If it was suddenly found out that all human activity is causing global cooling the eggheads and liberals would want us to stop that too!! It isnt about science, it is about politics and the green agenda.

Well, you can see the IPCC had agenda from the beginning. Global warming => climate change, Methane bad => CO2 bad, 90% this => 95% that.

And the most telling of all is that the 3 working groups were established at the same time.

WG1 - Scientific Basis
WG2 - "assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it"

(You see here why they changed it from global warming....no science basis for that, need to have the WG for some reason)

WG3 - is already convinced and that is bad science. It "assesses options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere. The main economic sectors are taken into account, both in a near-term and in a long-term perspective."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So, I ask anyone of clear logic, how can you start the investigation with 3 working groups but the first working group doesn't know the scientific basis, yet? But still you also start these other 2 groups that assume we are warming? And the warming (not climate change) is because of greenhouse gasses, but they have no basis? Wow. Looks to me like WG1 - Scientific Basis, is just a shill, a false front.

They began it all at the same time and obviously had no intention of letting the science working group set the basis. And these other 2 groups have the public completely ignoring the Science Basis Wide Uncertainty. This uncertainty is growing, not shirking....it is diverging confidence they will not address.

Twisted cult logic. Only in Politics....never in Science.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

Balzac89 said:

U.N. climate report just released.

Climate scientists are 95% confident -- that is to say, surer than ever -- that humans are responsible for at least "half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s."
​

Click to expand...

That is not an acceptable WG1 adjective.
Please use very low to very high when stating confidence levels, and exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain (I love that one) for describing quantitative findings.

[HR][/HR]In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g.,very likely
[HR][/HR]
So the correct phrasing would be "there is a very likely degree of high confidence" the consensus of authors suggest bad breath causes AGW.

Or would it be with high confidence it is very likely that politicians are creating too much CO2?

Balzac89 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

U.N. climate report just released.

Climate scientists are 95% confident -- that is to say, surer than ever -- that humans are responsible for at least "half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s."
​

Click to expand...

Which is more? 90% of most warming (the last report) or at least 95% of half the warming (current report?)

These are the statements of Clerics of Politics. No science is conducted this way.

Doer said:

Which is more? 90% of most warming (the last report) or at least 95% of half the warming (current report?)

These are the statements of Clerics of Politics. No science is conducted this way.

Click to expand...

you wouldn't know science if it appreciate dick across your face

But thanks for playing

Balzac89 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

U.N. climate report just released.

Climate scientists are 95% confident -- that is to say, surer than ever -- that humans are responsible for at least "half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s."
​

Click to expand...

yes. i said that.

this is 75% less Anthropogenicness than their last report which declared "most" of the warming of the last 100 years was human caused, now it's less than half, of the warming over the last 50 years.

the spin makes the politics seem easier to sell, but their report says clearly that the last report was WRONG AS FUCK, partly due to political manipulation of the data and deliberately falsified data to "hide the decline"