Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Padawanbater2 said:
The science sides with me, skippy

When was the last time 3% of.. anything.. got anything done?
Click to expand...

woah, you're overstating the strength of his position.

only about 2% (at best) of publishing climatologists arrive at kynes' conclusion, not 3%.

i like that you're being generous, but don't sacrifice precision.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
"The 1987 Montreal Protocol, which Lee Thomas helped negotiate, is an example of this kind of thinking. Now that was 25 years ago. Today the models are far more reliable and they're buttressed by literally thousands of credible scientific studies documenting changes underway. I listened to senator Boozman, there are still outstanding questions, the pace of change, tipping points, local impacts, fugitive methane emissions and more. Earths climate is a complex system, we do not have a complete picture. We welcome serious constructive critiques that examine gaps, anomalies, uncertainties, that's how science advances our understanding of such complex issues."

-William Reilly

Yeah, that guy sounds like he doesn't know shit about how science works... /s
Click to expand...
he is a LAWYER, not a scientist.
he was a history major, then a lawyer, after lawyering, he studied Urban Planning (still no science...)
he may convince idiots like you, but he has NO expertise on this issue.

you might as well ask my dog what he thinks about global warming "consensus". (he's not a fan...)
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Why would you think someone who doesn't understand what science is is qualified to open their cake hole about how it works?

ROFL!
Click to expand...
and you quote lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats for your "science" and deride ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, who study this shit, who oppose your agenda.

rofl indeed.

using lawyers bureaucrats and politicians to impeach the scientific credibility of scientists.

rofl like a motherfucker
 
Dr Kynes said:
he is a LAWYER, not a scientist.
he was a history major, then a lawyer, after lawyering, he studied Urban Planning (still no science...)
he may convince idiots like you, but he has NO expertise on this issue.

you might as well ask my dog what he thinks about global warming "consensus". (he's not a fan...)
Click to expand...

Cite IPCC - "it's phony!". Cite legitimate climate scientists - "they have an agenda!!!". Cite anyone who accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change - "LIARS!!!!!!!". Cite the goddamn EPA, who Nixon, a republican, created, and THEIR OWN PICKS as EPA admins for fucks sake - "BULLSHIT HAXORZX CHEATERSZ!!!!"

Just give up, man...

Accept that you're a fanatic and move on.. Just like you're a racist, just like you hate the poor, just like you probably harbor homosexual fantasies.. Hey, I'm not hating, go for it, do you if that's your thing. "Gurl power" and all that..

Be who you are, dude. Don't be afraid of being judged by anyone
 
UncleBuck said:
woah, you're overstating the strength of his position.

only about 2% (at best) of publishing climatologists arrive at kynes' conclusion, not 3%.

i like that you're being generous, but don't sacrifice precision.
Click to expand...
cuz a "Communications Major" who runs a a shitty blog plagiarized a discredited "meta study" by a history teacher that stated 97% of climatologists think AGW is real, when the actual "metastudy" data found no such thing, and the plagiarized redux was even less rigorous than the original.

the real "consensus" is ~37% supporting your shaky AGW hypothesis.
the rest take NO position on the issue, or say it's unsupported, while 3% say it's outright hokum.
 
Dr Kynes said:
and you quote lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats for your "science" and deride ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, who study this shit, who oppose your agenda.

rofl indeed.

using lawyers bureaucrats and politicians to impeach the scientific credibility of scientists.

rofl like a motherfucker
Click to expand...

Lol no really..

Remember that time I cited the IPCC, that group of climate scientists, and you denied their findings outright?

What about that?
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Cite IPCC - "it's phony!". Cite legitimate climate scientists - "they have an agenda!!!". Cite anyone who accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change - "LIARS!!!!!!!". Cite the goddamn EPA, who Nixon, a republican, created, and THEIR OWN PICKS as EPA admins for fucks sake - "BULLSHIT HAXORZX CHEATERSZ!!!!"

Just give up, man...

Accept that you're a fanatic and move on.. Just like you're a racist, just like you hate the poor, just like you probably harbor homosexual fantasies.. Hey, I'm not hating, go for it, do you if that's your thing. "Gurl power" and all that..

Be who you are, dude. Don't be afraid of being judged by anyone
Click to expand...

correction numbnuts:

Ippc: a political organization, with a political agenda, caught repeatedly rigging the climate models, misrepresenting data, misrepresenting the opinions of scientists, and now backpedaling like a motherfucker

Legitimate Climate Scientists: like communications undergrad James Cook? he "publishes" his crap on I-sis.org, a electronic "publication" that also publishes "studies" extolling the virtues of "homeopathy" "water memory" and Lamarckian evolution??? (which has only been discredited for like 120 years now...)

Overwhelming consensus: ~ 37% is not an overwhelming consensus, and consensus means dick, only testable, repeatable and verifiable science matters. everything else is just nonsense

EPA: a political bureaucracy. it has about as much expertise in climate science as kathleen sebelius does in the practice of medicine. (which is to say, NONE)

Nixon: the credibility of NIXON is your fallback position? really? NIXON?

That's racist: Classic Schmoesby! ohh so lulzy.

U R Gay!: it just gets better and better!

your inability to support your own bullshit does not excuse mischracterizing my own well supported assertions.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
97% of papers published in scientific journals in 2 decades, from 91-12 agreed that ACC is real, retard

Prove that fact wrong.
Click to expand...
i already proved that ASSERTION was wrong. (it would only be a "Fact" if it were true, you dingbat)

if i have to constantly go back and dig up the same evidence to refute the same claims, ill never have any time to laugh at your flailing and homophobia!
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Lol no really..

Remember that time I cited the IPCC, that group of climate scientists, and you denied their findings outright?

What about that?
Click to expand...

yes, i denied their findings because their findings were built on LIES deliberately falsified models, and "scientists" who should have been prosecuted for fraud, but sadly there were no academic fraud laws in britain at the time.

now, as a direct result of their attempts to "hide the decline", committing academic fraud with Crown Funds is a felony.

and shockingly enough, the IPCC is now backpedaling.
 
Dr Kynes said:
the real "consensus" is ~37% supporting your shaky AGW hypothesis.
the rest take NO position on the issue, or say it's unsupported, while 3% say it's outright hokum.
Click to expand...

actually, 2% reject AGW and 1% say don't know or natural causes (i forget the exact wording). rest assured "absolute hokum" never enters the conversation.

but you're saying that your position, at best, is still an outright fringe belief on the issue.

i'll grant you that argument.
 
Dr Kynes said:
only testable, repeatable and verifiable science matters.
Click to expand...

so if one study said that humans produce 4 billion tonnes of CO2 annually, and another study said that humans produce 50 billion tonnes of CO2 annually, would you place much credibility in the verfiability and repeatability of these two "tests"?

after all, only the VERIFIABLE and REPEATABLE science matters, right?

:lol:
 
Dr Kynes said:
i already proved that ASSERTION was wrong. (it would only be a "Fact" if it were true, you dingbat)
Click to expand...

what pada means to say, in words that you should understand (because you just used them), is that 97% of scientists who take a position on the issue agree the evidence points to AGW.

about 2% of scientists who take a position on the issue say the evidence does not point to AGW.

and about 1% of scientists who take a position on the issue say we need more evidence or unsure or natural causes, i forget the exact wording.

so when he says "97% agree", you should read it as "97% (of scientists who take a position) agree"

a scholar like yourself should be familiar with the logic of his statement, maybe it takes a logician like me to point out the obvious.

Dr Kynes said:
if i have to constantly go back and dig up the same evidence to refute the same claims, ill never have any time to laugh at your flailing and homophobia!
Click to expand...

i swear i recall you taking digs at your own gay brother. or maybe it was your other brother for doing something remotely gay one time.

i'll have to look it up, but i know for sure you have made a thread about some slippery slope about gay marriages leading to child fucking or animal fucking or mormonism or something.
 
Dr Kynes said:
their findings were built on LIES deliberately falsified models, and "scientists" who should have been prosecuted for fraud
Click to expand...

apparently you missed the exoneration memo on that one. there were 8 of them from independent investigations, all of 8 which found jack and shit.

Dr Kynes said:
attempts to "hide the decline"
Click to expand...

see previous remarks about being completely exonerated by 8 independent investigations.
 
C'mon Kynes, as UB always (science) says... ~6% of ~.00000000029295% of the earth's climate history (science) were the hottest of that ~.00000000029295%.

It's fucking settled (science).
 
During the Senate hearing, Sessions noted that Obama said in 2012 that the “temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago,” The president then doubled down on the claim last year, saying “We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.”

“So, I would ask each of our former Administrators if any of you agree that that’s an accurate statement on the climate. So if you do, raise your hand,” Sessions instructed.

His request was followed by silence and zero raised hands. The EPA administrators, who previously served in Republican administrations, were reportedly invited by Democrats to testify on the Obama administration’s energy policies.

“Thank you, the record will reflect no one raised their hand,” the GOP senator said.
Click to expand...
 
97 percent LOLZ.JPG
That is not a lot of support for a global consensus to be definitively determined. Ninety-seven percent is not science.
I can produce a list of other "self-rated" scientists and professionals who would dwarf those numbers.
And if you'd like to see how their rigorous super-sciency polling worked in comparison to the self-rated scientists;

97 LOLZ II.JPG
I'd be careful with slinging that 97% figure around.

EDIT:
I forgot to mention another important data point from that study;
86% of climate scientists considered participation in the study a waste of their time.
 
Last edited:
did you actually watch 2 1/2 hours of c-span senate hearings with bureaucrats and politicians trying to Out-Feel each other on AGW?

i could only stomach like 10 minutes of that garbage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top