The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!

Who has the most affect on global warming?

  • Total voters
    19
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
It's a conspiracy!
Click to expand...
no, it's not a conspiracy.

it's a desperate attempt by monied interests to politicize the issue and inject retarded doubt into the well established science in order to delay regulations.

these same groups did the same thing for tobacco companies a couple decades ago, hence the (now dried up) contributions from tobacco companies.

but learning from history is not really your thing.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
It's a conspiracy!
Click to expand...
No, it's a conspiracy that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, the side you presumably take.. One that would require dozens of countries governments, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, billions of dollars, decades of time...

So that's pretty ironically funny. You guys are entertaining as fuck tonight lol
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no, it's not a conspiracy.

it's a desperate attempt by monied interests to politicize the issue and inject retarded doubt into the well established science in order to delay regulations.

these same groups did the same thing for tobacco companies a couple decades ago, hence the (now dried up) contributions from tobacco companies.

but learning from history is not really your thing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can cite sources for all those accusations .
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
I'm sure you can cite sources for all those accusations .
Click to expand...
sorry, did i not already cite that they took money from tobacco companies?

here's a memo from RJ Reynolds talking about how they will work with the manhattan institute to "devise ways to educate the public about epidemiology and put risk in perspective"

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ntl01d00/pdf

the same groups funding climate change denial are the same ones who once worked to inject doubt into the well known proposition that smoking tobacco is harmful.

but retards like you refuse to learn.
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
No, it's a conspiracy that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, the side you presumably take.. One that would require dozens of countries governments, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, billions of dollars, decades of time...

So that's pretty ironically funny. You guys are entertaining as fuck tonight lol
Click to expand...

I couldn't tell you one way or another Padawanbater2 and to be honest I don't care. China's going to do what China's going to do so it don't fucking matter. Increasing prices in putting more sanctions on our manufacturing process on are already fragile economy is retarded though, we shipping all over dirty work to china and they still pumping co2 in the atmosphere. The fact that you guys think US can do anything about global emissions it comical beyond belief.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
funny, we weren't arguing about the projections, numbnuts.

great attempt at changing the topic though.

and nice stab at the end of the POLITICAL AGENDA right after you cited CATO blog numbers on human percentage of CO2 emissions.

do you even believe your own shit anymore?
Click to expand...


the astute observer notes the image to which you refer, and the subsequent assertions made based on that image were UNSOURCED!

and that is unsual for me, when i post a positive claim, i always put up the source, at least for the first 10-20 times i have to repeat myself. .

ohh you didnt notice??

sorry bucky...



that graphic and it's attendant numbers and assertions are from a Global Warming Hysterics site:

http://precariousclimate.com/2010/03/27/counting-carbon/

and their numbers came from...
as they say themselves in the caption below the picture:

"(Source: Pre-industrial values from IPCC AR4 WGI Figure 7.3; 2000s values from Global Carbon Project)"



thats right their numbers for natural Co2 emissions and sinks came from the IPCC itself!
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.htm

which is reiterated here in their latest report
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/IPCC_AR5_WGI_Chapter06.pdf



sorry bucky, but this one is a suppository.

 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
sorry, did i not already cite that they took money from tobacco companies?

here's a memo from RJ Reynolds talking about how they will work with the manhattan institute to "devise ways to educate the public about epidemiology and put risk in perspective"

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ntl01d00/pdf

the same groups funding climate change denial are the same ones who once worked to inject doubt into the well known proposition that smoking tobacco is harmful.

but retards like you refuse to learn.
Click to expand...
lol wtf is that? Do you just get random crazy pdfs and post them in hopes no one will look? Can you stay on topic, we're not talking about a smoking conspiracy.

Heres a Pickle PDF that proves you wrong.
http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/b2267.pdf
lol idiot
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
the astute observer notes the image to which you refer, and the subsequent assertions made based on that image were UNSOURCED!

and that is unsual for me, when i post a positive claim, i always put up the source, at least for the first 10-20 times i have to repeat myself. .

ohh you didnt notice??

sorry bucky...



that graphic and it's attendant numbers and assertions are from a Global Warming Hysterics site:

http://precariousclimate.com/2010/03/27/counting-carbon/

and their numbers came from...
as they say themselves in the caption below the picture:

"(Source: Pre-industrial values from IPCC AR4 WGI Figure 7.3; 2000s values from Global Carbon Project)"



thats right their numbers for natural Co2 emissions and sinks came from the IPCC itself!
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.htm

which is reiterated here in their latest report
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/IPCC_AR5_WGI_Chapter06.pdf



sorry bucky, but this one is a suppository.
Click to expand...
was there supposed to be a trap in there?

YAWN.

the NOAA is clear about PPM levels of CO2.

consistent for the last 10,000 years (+++), recently rocketing up with the industrial revolution.

if you had anything to disprove that, you'd post it.
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
the astute observer notes the image to which you refer, and the subsequent assertions made based on that image were UNSOURCED!

and that is unsual for me, when i post a positive claim, i always put up the source, at least for the first 10-20 times i have to repeat myself. .

ohh you didnt notice??

sorry bucky...



that graphic and it's attendant numbers and assertions are from a Global Warming Hysterics site:

http://precariousclimate.com/2010/03/27/counting-carbon/

and their numbers came from...
as they say themselves in the caption below the picture:

"(Source: Pre-industrial values from IPCC AR4 WGI Figure 7.3; 2000s values from Global Carbon Project)"



thats right their numbers for natural Co2 emissions and sinks came from the IPCC itself!
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.htm

which is reiterated here in their latest report
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/IPCC_AR5_WGI_Chapter06.pdf



sorry bucky, but this one is a suppository.
Click to expand...
Buckys form of debate: man made co2 is quaddrillon percent here's a pdf proving it

Dwarf tossing
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CDUQFjAG&url=http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228199580_If_Dwarf_Tossing_is_Outlawed_Only_Outlaws_Will_Toss_Dwarfs_Is_Dwarf_Tossing_a_Victimless_Crime/file/60b7d5252c0c511729.pdf&ei=iJOmU8a5NdKtyASVxIDAAg&usg=AFQjCNHY11KvtsG_HXi689pLXi1TjS9UaQ&bvm=bv.69411363,d.aWw&cad=rja
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
lol wtf is that? Do you just get random crazy pdfs and post them in hopes no one will look? Can you stay on topic, we're not talking about a smoking conspiracy.

Heres a Pickle PDF that proves you wrong.
http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/b2267.pdf
lol idiot
Click to expand...
i have about a dozen more PDFs from RJ Reynolds speaking about how they are coordinating with the manhattan policy institute to sow disinformation about the harmfulness of tobacco.

if you scrolled down to page 3, point 7, you would have seen that in the original PDF i posted.

alas, you are simply too retarded to do that.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
political blogs quoting political organizations trumps a geologist who should know summat about volcanoes...

Science! it's a mysterious thing indeed.

opinion polls: Science!
blogs run by communications undergrads: Science!
political websites: Science!
UN panels made up of bureacrats: Science!
hysterical movies made by politicians who happen to run "carbon trading" schemes: Science!

actual scientists, actual research papers, actual differences of opinion among scientists: Not Science!
Click to expand...
Your saying the op is science?

Fucking hilarious keynes
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:




Why are the numbers inconsistent with each other?

Also, in that same passage in the first picture... "They show an increasing trend since the beginning of the industrialization mainly due to increasing anthropogenic sources."

ROFL
Click to expand...
ohh noooooooo!!! a typo!!!

not gonna complain about the Umlauts too are ya?

look closely dingleberry, see that big DROP in co2 up on the left followed by a sharp rise? thats anything but "static" and the trend for the last 10'000 years us UP, not flat like bucky's unsourced graph displays.
youre pissing into a hurricane and dont even realize how hilarious your failure is.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
Your saying the op is science?

Fucking hilarious keynes
Click to expand...
looks like the author has sufficient credentials, and his assertions are plausible.

it's not "science" science, it's an opinion piece, but it's from a scientist and his assertions are good enough for this crowd.

if you had any real substantive challenges to his claims you would have made them rather than simply implying he is unqualified.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Dogshit. They presented "Climate-gate" the same way you do, failing to realize 8 independent investigations found no wrongdoing or misuses of science at all

This is a good example of your fanatical denial in light of all the evidence against you, you simply choose to ignore it and keep bringing it back up again and again and again. Also another great example of my previous point about how you're the one that does that bullshit, not me. You still have yet to cite any example of me doing it, there's 2 against you already.

If you're found not guilty in a murder case in 8 different courts and some dummy still thinks you're guilty... I mean, what logical argument are you going to convince someone with who doesn't value logic?
Click to expand...
yeah you read that whole thing and shat out this reply in 9 minutes.

youre full of shit.

if you cant even read a simple 3 page summary like that then youre hopeless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top