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

[Dr Kynes]

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.

i have already posted the exact text numerous times

you pretend you didnt see it, but hey dipshit, here it comes again.

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period."
~http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

vs Wikipedia's :

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report

so the IPCC's temperate verbiage, and carefully chosen weasel words become wild doomsayings and vague predictions of cataclysm in the mouth of Wikipedos.
yeah, wikipedia is totally correct, and the IPCC is wrong.

Protip: the observed warming was 0.4 degrees C over 60 years as opposed to 1.0 degrees C over 120 years (thats less than half the warming) and the "anthropogenicness" factor changed from "almost all" to "more than half" which actually means 51% at their "extremely likely" confidence level. the higher confidence level, "Virtually Certain" puts the "anthropogenicness" at ~45%.

but i explained all this many times before. youre just too stupid to understand it

 

[Dr Kynes]

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.

i have irrefutable proof that global warming is a fraud, and Barack Obama is a secret moslem, and it's all right here in this Peer Reviewed Published Study
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/World_Water_Supply_in_Jeopardy.php

see, i got a citation.

sure this citation is BULLSHIT, from a BULLSHIT fake journal, and does not make the claims i am asserting, but i got a citation, so it must be true.

why, the author is one of the most heavily cited scientists on the planet, with thousands of citations in thousands of publications!
sure they are all from the author, citing her own works in an endless circlejerk, but still, it's a citation, no matter how irrelevant!
sure the only "peers" that review the authors works are her husband and her co-authors, but they are still peers!!
sure she creates daft unsupportable hypotheses about "water memory" , "cosmic vibrations" and lamarckian evolution, but still, it's a citation so you cant fight it!

protip: this silly electronic fish wrapper is the place where John "skeptical Science" Cook posts many of his bullshit "studies" (check out the author and his citations to his own works... )
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GSAGWS.php

 

[Harrekin]

i have irrefutable proof that global warming is a fraud, and Barack Obama is a secret moslem, and it's all right here in this Peer Reviewed Published Study
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/World_Water_Supply_in_Jeopardy.php

see, i got a citation.

sure this citation is BULLSHIT, from a BULLSHIT fake journal, and does not make the claims i am asserting, but i got a citation, so it must be true.

why, the author is one of the most heavily cited scientists on the planet, with thousands of citations in thousands of publications!
sure they are all from the author, citing her own works in an endless circlejerk, but still, it's a citation, no matter how irrelevant!
sure the only "peers" that review the authors works are her husband and her co-authors, but they are still peers!!
sure she creates daft unsupportable hypotheses about "water memory" , "cosmic vibrations" and lamarckian evolution, but still, it's a citation so you cant fight it!

protip: this silly electronic fish wrapper is the place where John "skeptical Science" Cook posts many of his bullshit "studies" (check out the author and his citations to his own works... )
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GSAGWS.php

Its funny how when you drag physics into it, they all scurry like rats in the daylight.

Still waiting for even one paper on the physics behind the Atmospheric Greenhouse effect.

 

[UncleBuck]

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period."
~http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

vs Wikipedia's :

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report

"more than half" and "dominant cause" is the hill you want to take?

should more than half be the non-dominant cause?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Its funny how when you drag physics into it, they all scurry like rats in the daylight.

Still waiting for even one paper on the physics behind the Atmospheric Greenhouse effect.

i seen a couple but they may as well have been written in cuneiform script, and ancient akkadian

i tried doin the math and almost awakened Yog Sothoth from his fitful sleep behind the gate of nightmares.

the stars...!

 

[UncleBuck]

i have irrefutable proof that global warming is a fraud, and Barack Obama is a secret moslem, and it's all right here in this Peer Reviewed Published Study
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/World_Water_Supply_in_Jeopardy.php

see, i got a citation.

sure this citation is BULLSHIT, from a BULLSHIT fake journal, and does not make the claims i am asserting, but i got a citation, so it must be true.

why, the author is one of the most heavily cited scientists on the planet, with thousands of citations in thousands of publications!
sure they are all from the author, citing her own works in an endless circlejerk, but still, it's a citation, no matter how irrelevant!
sure the only "peers" that review the authors works are her husband and her co-authors, but they are still peers!!
sure she creates daft unsupportable hypotheses about "water memory" , "cosmic vibrations" and lamarckian evolution, but still, it's a citation so you cant fight it!

protip: this silly electronic fish wrapper is the place where John "skeptical Science" Cook posts many of his bullshit "studies" (check out the author and his citations to his own works... )
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GSAGWS.php

lol, my "fraudulent citations" come to the same conclusion as NASA and show your initial claim of 6 billion tonnes to be utter bullshit.

meanwhile, you're spanking your money to "thenewamerican".

this is just too funny.

 

[UncleBuck]

Its funny how when you drag physics into it, they all scurry like rats in the daylight.

Still waiting for even one paper on the physics behind the Atmospheric Greenhouse effect.

where did kynes attempt to drag physics into this?

did i miss that somewhere in his citation of a right wing political website?

 

[Dr Kynes]

"more than half" and "dominant cause" is the hill you want to take?

should more than half be the non-dominant cause?

i dunno, you wanna explain why the wikipedos felt the need to use their editorial judgement to Cassandra up the IPCC's carefully chosen words?

you wanna explain why the wikipedos felt the need to jink with the numbers?
you wanna explain why the wikipedos decided to reinflate the time scale and reinflate the "observed" temperature numbers to the "1 degree c since 1880" canard?

nah you dont wanna get into that shit, you wanna play semantic games and try to explain how "DOMINANT CAUSE!!!!!!"
is exactly the same as "More than 50%"
which is still vague and deliberately more menacing than "51%"

 

[Dr Kynes]

lol, my "fraudulent citations" come to the same conclusion as NASA and show your initial claim of 6 billion tonnes to be utter bullshit.

meanwhile, you're spanking your money to "thenewamerican".

this is just too funny.

really? cus i read that fraudulent citation, and it didnt make the claim you are making at all.

did YOU read the report your dopey little cartoon claimed to draw it's scientific authority from?

no, you didnt.

you just assumed it was correct, and now you are engaged in retroactive continuity.

remember, that cartoon claimed to be sourced from the EIA report from 2007, NOT Nasa, NOT Noaa, and NOT the year 2014

 

[UncleBuck]

i dunno, you wanna explain why the wikipedos felt the need to use their editorial judgement to Cassandra up the IPCC's carefully chosen words?

you wanna explain why the wikipedos felt the need to jink with the numbers?
you wanna explain why the wikipedos decided to reinflate the time scale and reinflate the "observed" temperature numbers to the "1 degree c since 1880" canard?

nah you dont wanna get into that shit, you wanna play semantic games and try to explain how "DOMINANT CAUSE!!!!!!"
is exactly the same as "More than 50%"
which is still vague and deliberately more menacing than "51%"

should they have used "non-dominant cause" to describe the fact that human activities have contributed to more than half of the warming we have seen?

 

[UncleBuck]

your dopey little cartoon

oh, you mean the "dopey cartoon" with the "fraudulent citation" which just happened to coincide with NASA's numbers of 30 billion tonnes of CO2, rather than your assertion (later revised down to "just the USA") of 6 billion tonnes?

sorry* my "fraud" is closer to reality than your language raping gobbledygook, series of lies, and all around belligerence.









*not sorry at all, just LOLing**






**not really LOLing, just a figure of speech

 

[Padawanbater2]

http://conservapedia.com/Global_warming

Checkmate liberalz

 

[Harrekin]

where did kynes attempt to drag physics into this?

did i miss that somewhere in his citation of a right wing political website?

I asked you to provide even one single valid peer reviewed paper on the topic of the actual physics behind the CO2 driven Atmospheric Greenhouse effect.

Its the basis of the IPCC's entire hypothesis, and something which Id taken for granted as a done deal, but after reading the paper heckler provided earlier, the math in relation to the physical laws seems to disprove it entirely and Im drawing a blank trying to find a paper on it now.

Damn not having scholarly access to the electronic journal library at the college I used to study at, shouldve just kept paying the fee.

 

[UncleBuck]

http://conservapedia.com/Global_warming

Checkmate liberalz

if heat rises, why are mountain tops covered in snow?

checkmate, scientits.

 

[Harrekin]

if heat rises, why are mountain tops covered in snow?

checkmate, scientits.

Id counter with although heat always tries to rise, sometimes it just cant (obviously due to magnets).

Id use Doer as an analogy too, that regardless of how much he wants to get it up, he just cant.

 

[UncleBuck]

Id counter with although heat always tries to rise, sometimes it just cant (obviously due to magnets).

Id use Doer as an analogy too, that regardless of how much he wants to get it up, he just cant.

why the hard on for doer?

he may be right wing, but he is moderate right wing for the most part (a little islamaphobia aside) and we need those types. they are a dying breed.

way preferable to the kynesian model of partisanship. ya know, REAL AMERICA and evil multiculturalism (read: oakland) and european cultural superiority (lol, nice euphemism) and so on.

 

[UncleBuck]

edit that deserves its own post:

the rise of right wing white power types recently in europe should demonstrate the need for more moderate righties.

you guys gotta get that shit in check like we do with our tea party (read: racist, moronic, and unashamedly vocal) types.

 

[Harrekin]

why the hard on for doer?

he may be right wing, but he is moderate right wing for the most part (a little islamaphobia aside) and we need those types. they are a dying breed.

way preferable to the kynesian model of partisanship. ya know, REAL AMERICA and evil multiculturalism (read: oakland) and european cultural superiority (lol, nice euphemism) and so on.

Why pick on the easy targets?

Doer actually puts up a pretty solid fight, he just needs to move off his buzzwords and try something less subtle...like black man cock versus asian cock...

B=D VS B=============================================================================D

Take a guess which is which.

 

[Harrekin]

edit that deserves its own post:

the rise of right wing white power types recently in europe should demonstrate the need for more moderate righties.

you guys gotta get that shit in check like we do with our tea party (read: racist, moronic, and unashamedly vocal) types.

Its really not a problem here, its just the Eastern European types are a bit nutty from being repressed under the hammer and sickle for so long.

But do remember something, we have more advanced gay marriage rights than the US and we were dominated by the Church up until the late 80's...Europe is selectively socially liberal in the most bizarro of ways.

 

[Dr Kynes]

oh, you mean the "dopey cartoon" with the "fraudulent citation" which just happened to coincide with NASA's numbers of 30 billion tonnes of CO2, rather than your assertion (later revised down to "just the USA") of 6 billion tonnes?

sorry* my "fraud" is closer to reality than your language raping gobbledygook, series of lies, and all around belligerence.









*not sorry at all, just LOLing**






**not really LOLing, just a figure of speech

yes, the cartoon which purported to be sourced from the 2007 eia report, (which did NOT make the claims stated), but you retort with "wiki-wisdom" which is once again WRONG!

Wikipedia's assertion for 2010 (from your "supporting link", which was not about 2007 at all):

US: 4,433.057 million metric tonnes
World: 31,350.455 million metric tonnes

the EIA's assertion for 2010:

US: 5,636.739 million metric tonnes
World: 31,502.374 million metric tonnes

why the discrepancy? only the wikipedos know for sure.

the wikipedos claim to have gotten their data from the EIA in the first place, so the mystery deepens,