NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
They do that for people on welfare...
Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable
- Thread starter sheskunk
- Start date
They do that for people on welfare...
fedora.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
oh, kynes. keep pissing into the wind. one day nasa might hire you.
after all, they did hire roy spencer, after all (just to cover up the global warming hoax!)
yeah.. unsourced cartoons really prove your claims, especially when it uses the same narrowly defined terms that were used by the last dipshit to make the bullshit seem more palatable.
VOLCANIC CO2 is limited strictly to Volcanoes, not geothermal vents, seeps, fumaroles, hotsprings, geysers, erosion of carboniferous rock, offgassing of tar pits and hundreds of other sources.
Sand4x105
Well-Known Member
The idiots on the right say:
"Man did not cause the problem, man can not fix it"
The idiots on the left say:
"Man is the cause of the problems of Earth and we must act now"
And there is the problem... Both sides are idiots....
Man has contributed to the cause of Global Climate Change...
So has everything else on earth... and in the heavens [sun spots, etc]
from plants trees, forest fires, CO2... everything is contributing to a Global Climate change...
Saying that man is the only cause makes you an idiot....
Saying that man has not caused any damage is also idiotic...
Pick the side of idiots you want to side with...
The facts are [most likely]:
You are an Idiot!
"Man did not cause the problem, man can not fix it"
The idiots on the left say:
"Man is the cause of the problems of Earth and we must act now"
And there is the problem... Both sides are idiots....
Man has contributed to the cause of Global Climate Change...
So has everything else on earth... and in the heavens [sun spots, etc]
from plants trees, forest fires, CO2... everything is contributing to a Global Climate change...
Saying that man is the only cause makes you an idiot....
Saying that man has not caused any damage is also idiotic...
Pick the side of idiots you want to side with...
The facts are [most likely]:
You are an Idiot!
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so the gist of your argument is:
1 : the IPCC (and presumably therefore ALL UN panels) is infallible. every word they speak must be true, accurate and valuable, so valuable in fact, the we must cripple our economy to satisfy their demands, and avert the doom predicted by their infallible reports.
2 : Wikipedia is the source authority on UN reports, and when there is conflict between a UN report and Wikipedia, Wikipedia wins.
3 : everybody should just shut up and do as you say.
1 : first, the UN is full of shit. bite down on this "infallible" little nugget.:
in 2006 (the latest data available) the UN's World Drug Report declares that 10.7% of people used cannabis that year in the nation of JAMAICA!
~https://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2006/wdr2006_volume2.pdf (fig 6.1.3, Pg 188, check it out yourself)
Ten Point Seven Percent. in Jamaica.
10.7% of Jamaicans are high RIGHT NOW, and another ~12% are looking for their lighters.
hell Rastas make up about 10% of Jamaica's population and they smoke weed like baptists sing hymns
~http://bigstory.ap.org/article/rastafarianism-grows-jamaica-after-long-disdain
therefore only 0.7% of jamaica's non-rasta population smokes weed.
if the UN can be this fucking wrong as fuck on such a simple thing as "hey mon, you feelinin Irie?" [ ] yes [ ] no
then how can you just assume they are right about complex climate issues?
2 : wikipedia... ohh you so crazy.
the report cited above is also "Wikipedia'd Up" here:
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country
wuzzat?? jamaica now has a cannabis use stat of 9.9???? thats 0.8 percentage points digfference!
but they cite as their source.....
yep, you guessed it, ~https://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2006/wdr2006_volume2.pdf
thus wikipedia is WRONG here too.
teh fux wrong with those wikipedos? was 10.7 too high a number for them to count, so they had to round down cuz they ran out of little piggies?
if so, why not round it to 10% or even 11%? either of those would be "close enough"
nope, they had to state a perplexingly specific 9.9%
and finally,
3 : you couldnt convince my cat to eat tuna.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they actually dropped rates for everyone in the portland area, you drunken apache junction racist white trash.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's actually sourced, EIA 2007.
your incredulity rebuts nothing, you irksome blatherskyte mam's boy.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I found the hole in the bottle and crawled out. It is you that is still wallowing in the bottom.
Your denials of reality will not change your life, only positive action will. You have to make those choices however and it seems you are destined to avoid them and remain a drunk husband. Your wife must be so proud of your complete lack of impulse control while she works to support your ass...
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Lol, smug in your farm-hand job, living with yo momma in your fifties?
Careful you dont catch the Multiculturalism off your Mexican workmates, you better protect America's white christian culture from becoming a dirty brown wasteland...thats the belief you adhere to, right?
Cool story, bro.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
only the "Manmade" co2 was sourced (vaguely)
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/park1/docs/0383-2007.pdf
ohh look on page 111 of the PDF file (pg 102 of the document) it clearly states that in 2007 there was a little less than SIX billion of CO2 released.
nowhere does the "cited" report claim 29 billion tonnes, so your little cartoon is full of shit.
any who wish can check for themselves, cuz i put the link right up there for all to see.
when will you stop lying?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
it's ok, i know you need to lash out.
when youre finished with your tantrum, and you've had a good cry, you can come back an explain how it feels to be so UTTERLY WRONG!
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
It is sad that they have gotten us down the path so far that we are arguing how much CO2 has been released rather than if it matters a damn bit....
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Even mad, I am not.
it's ok, i know you need to lash out.
when youre finished with your tantrum, and you've had a good cry, you can come back an explain how it feels to be so UTTERLY WRONG!
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
exposing the bullshit claims of bullshit touts like Bucklefuckle and the Rape Fetishist In Primus Pada is key to demonstrating that these liars are just making shit up because they know it DOESNT MEAN SHIT
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you say you aint even mad, but i sense otherwise, and my Midichlorian Count is clearly much higher than you can imagine.Even mad, I am not.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, in the real world..
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"
"The scientific community has reached a strong consensus that global temperatures are rising rapidly as a direct result of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human-made sources."
http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_scientificconsensus.php
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.
Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."
"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."
"2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” :
A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability."
"As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change."
"Establishing the mainstream scientific assessment, climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming were as follows:
-The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
-"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
-If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
"Peter Christoff, writing an opinion piece in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships"
"Efforts to downplay the significance of climate change resemble the determined efforts of tobacco lobbyists, in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation. Lobbyists attempted to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. They worked to discredit the scientists involved, to dispute their findings, and to create and maintain an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. ""Doubt is our product," boasted a now infamous 1969 industry memo. Doubt would shield the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades to come." In 2006, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian about similarities between the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's actually me supporting her at this point. she owes me $4k for the move still and i already have my half of the rent paid for several months.
i think i'll have some beer later...and stop drinking when it's time for bed instead of going on a three week bender that leaves me face down in a trash can like you.
it really is no wonder that you live in the racist white trash capital of arizona, if not the american southwest, if not the nation, if not the world.
seriously everyone, go look up apache junction arizona and all your questions about ANALEXCESSGAY1 will be answered.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
china alone emits more than 6 billion tonnes of co2 annually, you fucking stooge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
maybe if you didn't hate reality so much, it wouldn't hate you so much in response.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i think it is sad that dunces like kynes try to put out obviously false numbers that are begging for correction since he has no real argument anyway.
just like when he lies about what is in IPCC reports, gets caught, repeats the lie a few more times, gets caught again every time, and then starts using a "~" instead of "more than" or "less than".
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why does every credible scientific source put out ~30 billion tonnes instead of your obvious lie of 6 billion tonnes then?
why are you alone in your assertion?