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

[UncleBuck]

you turn a scientific debate into a political one

how? is it by citing groups like the 34 national academies of science who all agree on AGW while your buddies cite political front groups like the heartland institute and right wing conspiracy websites like "thenewamerican"?



you have it backwards.

go on and insinuate that AGW is just a government funded conspiracy again while accusing others of politicizing the debate, i'll be here to have a hearty laugh at your expense.

 

[ginwilly]

Explain something that is 100% certain, as explained by science

You mean like the atomic weight of hydrogen? Or do you mean stuff like can a plane take off from a treadmill type science?

 

[ginwilly]

how? is it by citing groups like the 34 national academies of science who all agree on AGW while your buddies cite political front groups like the heartland institute and right wing conspiracy websites like "thenewamerican"?



you have it backwards.

go on and insinuate that AGW is just a government funded conspiracy again while accusing others of politicizing the debate, i'll be here to have a hearty laugh at your expense.

You mean like killemsoftly posting a cartoon that insinuates big oil spends exponentially more on AGW funding while Pad claims we have hundreds of thousands of climate scientists in gov research?

Again, I challenge you to find any post where I deny AGW and I'll leave, fail and you leave. Yet another lie of yours, do you not get tired of that or is that part of your diagnosis?

 

[Dr Kynes]

even NASA says 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.

does the walmart employee who reads "thenewamerican" know better than NASA?

and yet the "citation' in your dopey little cartoon is for a report that deals solely with US emission, clearly states SIX billion tonnes, and in no place claims the 28 billion tonnes pictured, nor makes any assertion about global emissions.

you can try to move the goalposts all you like, but the claim remains unsupported, and the "citation" remains fraudulent.

if the dopey little cartoon used a different source, then why the fake citation?

that you now must resort to baseless ad hominems to conceal your own perfidity merely reinforces the fact that you blindly and ignorantly posted a dopey little cartoon, represented it as factual, claimed it's "citation" had some value, yet it remains BULLSHIT.

if you wish to cite NASA's numbers, then i would advise CITING THEM, rather than posting dopey cartoons based on lies

 

[Dr Kynes]

ya mean, all those conservative scientists you keep talking about but never provide an iota of citation for?

yeah, thanks for playing. try again sometime, champ.

we cant all rely on wikipedia...

 

[UncleBuck]

You mean like killemsoftly posting a cartoon that insinuates big oil spends exponentially more on AGW funding while Pad claims we have hundreds of thousands of climate scientists in gov research?

Again, I challenge you to find any post where I deny AGW and I'll leave, fail and you leave. Yet another lie of yours, do you not get tired of that or is that part of your diagnosis?

so you weren't implying that all those scientists (who you claim are mostly conservative) are just doing the whole AGW thing for those lucrative research stipends to fuel the liberal hysteria?

your language gives away your game.

 

[UncleBuck]

we cant all rely on wikipedia...

good thing wikipedia cites scientific foundations, and not articles from "thenewamerican" in their data about CO2 emissions.

 

[ginwilly]

so you weren't implying that all those scientists (who you claim are mostly conservative) are just doing the whole AGW thing for those lucrative research stipends to fuel the liberal hysteria?

your language gives away your game.

You are doing way more damage than help with the AGW debate.
The IPCC called and asked you to clean the litter box, they've determined nitrogen during the drying period is a waste. Daddy-in-law is threatening to withhold the allowance.

 

[Dr Kynes]

good thing wikipedia cites scientific foundations, and not articles from "thenewamerican" in their data about CO2 emissions.

too bad wikipedia's claims are fundamentally divergent from the sources they purport to cite, as previously demonstrated with their "wiki-reportage" on IPCC5, and the UN's drugs survey, which are just tip of the gigantic iceberg of bullshit

your blind devotion to that ancient website has brought you no closer to locating the rebel base.

 

[UncleBuck]

...solely with US emission, clearly states SIX billion tonnes...

kinda like wikipedia does?



In the 10,000 years before the Industrial Revolution in 1751, carbon dioxide levels rose less than one percent. Since then, they've risen 37 percent. Between 1751 and 2003, human activities added about 466 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. The burning of fossil fuels, and cement manufacturing, account for about two-thirds of these emissions, while land use changes (primarily forest clearing) make up the rest. Humans are currently adding almost 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year, and this rate of emission is increasing dramatically. In fact, carbon dioxide levels have risen by 30 parts per million in just the last 17 years, and are now increasing at about two parts per million by volume per year. The current globally averaged concentration is about 384 parts per million.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/mission/index_prt.htm

 

[UncleBuck]

wikipedia's claims are fundamentally divergent from the sources they purport to cite

because "more than half" and "dominant cause" clearly mean two different things and are "fundamentally divergent".

ya wanna know what's "fundamentally divergent"?

your claim that "more than half" is the same as "less than half". those two claims are "fundamentally divergent".

 

[Dr Kynes]

no text

blankpost is blank, not even a good attempt.

the issue remains:
your cartoon, which you pretend had some merit used a FRAUDULENT "citation" to make it seem more credible, wikipedia still cant even report the basic details of a published UN report accurately, and you continue to defend both.

 

[UncleBuck]

You are doing way more damage than help with the AGW debate.
The IPCC called and asked you to clean the litter box, they've determined nitrogen during the drying period is a waste. Daddy-in-law is threatening to withhold the allowance.

drunk ginwilly made ad hom!

i'll call kelly4 and inform him that he doesn't want my cat shit buds. he can go back to searching dispensary after dispensary here in our legal state instead.

 

[UncleBuck]

blankpost is blank, not even a good attempt.

the issue remains:
your cartoon, which you pretend had some merit used a FRAUDULENT "citation" to make it seem more credible, wikipedia still cant even report the basic details of a published UN report accurately, and you continue to defend both.

so NASA is fraudulently stating that we're adding 30 billion tonnes of CO2 every year?

good luck correcting them.

might want to inform them that the sun exists in the meantime.

 

[Dr Kynes]

because "more than half" and "dominant cause" clearly mean two different things and are "fundamentally divergent".

ya wanna know what's "fundamentally divergent"?

your claim that "more than half" is the same as "less than half". those two claims are "fundamentally divergent".

almost all of 1 degree C warming over 120 years

Vs

~50% of 0.4 degrees C over 60 years...

looks like LESS THAN HALF of previous claims to me, and thats with their "extremely likely" confidence numbers

when you get down to "Almost Certain" (as previously stated many times) they claim LESS THAN HALF (~45%) of the new less than half of 1 degree Cw arming is "anthropogenic"

 

[ginwilly]

drunk ginwilly made ad hom!

i'll call kelly4 and inform him that he doesn't want my cat shit buds. he can go back to searching dispensary after dispensary here in our legal state instead.

Not drunk but I am a little, ok a lot, high. You seem to have drinking on the mind a lot lately, got a problem you'd like to share?

Personally I thought it was a pretty clever ad hom though, shouldn't I get points for that?

 

[UncleBuck]

almost all of 1 degree C warming over 120 years

Vs

~50% of 0.4 degrees C over 60 years...

looks like LESS THAN HALF of previous claims to me, and thats with their "extremely likely" confidence numbers

when you get down to "Almost Certain" (as previously stated many times) they claim LESS THAN HALF (~45%) of the new less than half of 1 degree Cw arming is "anthropogenic"

you've already proven yourself a shameless liar, until you point out the ACTUAL TEXT instead of your retarded interpretations of it i'm just gonna LOL.

30 billion tonnes.

 

[Harrekin]

kinda like wikipedia does?



In the 10,000 years before the Industrial Revolution in 1751, carbon dioxide levels rose less than one percent. Since then, they've risen 37 percent. Between 1751 and 2003, human activities added about 466 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. The burning of fossil fuels, and cement manufacturing, account for about two-thirds of these emissions, while land use changes (primarily forest clearing) make up the rest. Humans are currently adding almost 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year, and this rate of emission is increasing dramatically. In fact, carbon dioxide levels have risen by 30 parts per million in just the last 17 years, and are now increasing at about two parts per million by volume per year. The current globally averaged concentration is about 384 parts per million.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/mission/index_prt.htm

Can you provide a link to a paper showing the physics behind the "atmospheric greenhouse effect" to be valid, consistent with the various involved laws of physics and repeatable in a lab setting?

Cos if you cant, the whole IPCC report should go straight into the trash can.

 

[Dr Kynes]

so NASA is fraudulently stating that we're adding 30 billion tonnes of CO2 every year?

good luck correcting them.

might want to inform them that the sun exists in the meantime.

you didnt cite NASA you blithering fool, you posted a cartoon with a fraudulent citation (which was not from NASA), then doubled down, claiming the citation was valid, and then when i demonstrated it was BULLSHIT, you backpedalled, moved the goalposts, cast about with red herrings and started slinging ad hominems in your desperation.

 

[UncleBuck]

you didnt cite NASA you blithering fool, you posted a cartoon with a fraudulent citation (which was not from NASA), then doubled down, claiming the citation was valid, and then when i demonstrated it was BULLSHIT, you backpedalled, moved the goalposts, cast about with red herrings and started slinging ad hominems in your desperation.

so the "fraudulent citation" just magically happened to arrive at the same 30 billion tonnes of CO2 that NASA did, and the same 6 billion tonnes by the USA alone that wikipedia did?

what a magical act of fraud.