Trump's gonna smash the golden calf

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ArcticGranite said:
What I'm sure of is the 97% consensus of which there are four of them and all discredited are political constructs that mean zilch.
Click to expand...
says the jew-hater who puts his blind faith in blogs that even i can discredit in less than 5 minutes.

you are seriously fucking dumb.

ArcticGranite said:
Expect more after 1/20/17
Click to expand...
i'm not sure what politics has to do with science, especially since you cried like a little bitch about perceived politicization in the sentence prior.

you are seriously fucking dumb.
 
ArcticGranite

ArcticGranite

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
says the jew-hater who puts his blind faith in blogs that even i can discredit in less than 5 minutes.

you are seriously fucking dumb.




i'm not sure what politics has to do with science, especially since you cried like a little bitch about perceived politicization in the sentence prior.

you are seriously fucking dumb.
Click to expand...
You couldn't even count to 500 in 5 minutes let alone disprove all those peer reviewed published articles that discredit the "accepted 97% consensus".
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ArcticGranite said:
You couldn't even count to 500 in 5 minutes let alone disprove all those peer reviewed published articles that discredit the "accepted 97% consensus".
Click to expand...
when the first few you look at say nothing like the blog writer (LOL) is claiming, you can safely dismiss the whole thing as garbage.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ArcticGranite said:
The very first peer reviewed published paper states co2 increase lags solar activity.
Click to expand...
there must have been some pretty major solar activity 1600 years ago, because suddenly CO2 shot up from 280 PPM to 400+ PPM in a mere century, after over 800,000 years of not doing so.

that's a hell of a theory.

the sudden upshot in CO2 couldn;t be due to taking millions of years of sequestered CO2 out of the gorund and suddenly shooting it all into the atmosphere. it has to be solar activity from 1700 years ago.

fucking ingenius stuff there, limp dick.

ArcticGranite said:
the fabricated "consensus" says.
Click to expand...
better tell NASA, you limp-dicked neo-nazi.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

ArcticGranite said:
There's 499 more from multiple disciplines that likewise dash the consensus.
Click to expand...
nope.

several that i've looked at fully acknowledge manmade global warming. some say it will be beneficial though.

if you weren't an illiterate, limp-dicked neo nazi, this would be apparent to you.

dumb fuck.
 
ArcticGranite

ArcticGranite

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
there must have been some pretty major solar activity 1600 years ago, because suddenly CO2 shot up from 280 PPM to 400+ PPM in a mere century, after over 800,000 years of not doing so.

that's a hell of a theory.

the sudden upshot in CO2 couldn;t be due to taking millions of years of sequestered CO2 out of the gorund and suddenly shooting it all into the atmosphere. it has to be solar activity from 1700 years ago.

fucking ingenius stuff there, limp dick.



better tell NASA, you limp-dicked neo-nazi.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



nope.

several that i've looked at fully acknowledge manmade global warming. some say it will be beneficial though.

if you weren't an illiterate, limp-dicked neo nazi, this would be apparent to you.

dumb fuck.
Click to expand...
Well golly Mr. Buck, thanks for pointing out you're smarter than the combined knowledge of all the cited scientists in the 500 papers. I'll tell NASA myself!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ArcticGranite said:
Well golly Mr. Buck, thanks for pointing out you're smarter than the combined knowledge of all the cited scientists in the 500 papers. I'll tell NASA myself!
Click to expand...
can you find one peer reviewed climatologist who believe that the sudden uptick in atmospheric CO2 (from 280 PPM to 400 PPM in a mere century) is due to solar activity from 1600 years ago?

keep in mind, the guy you are citing, jorge sanchez sesma, is an engineer with no education whatsoever in climate science.

if you can do that, i will stop reminding people you are a neo-nazi whose dick doesn't work.

thanks.

Screenshot 2017-01-01 at 8.51.50 PM.png
 
ArcticGranite

ArcticGranite

Well-Known Member
If you don't care to argue bucks strawman and just want the tell from the blog here it is:

Papers questioning (and undermining) the “consensus” view on paleoclimate (Medieval) warmth, ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, climate sensitivity to CO2, etc., are included in this collection. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.n4Uh7D7Y.08X58eAi.dpuf
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
you've spammed that 6 year old, out of context quote before.

you're getting desperate and flailing around now, limp dick.
 
ArcticGranite

ArcticGranite

Well-Known Member
I find it very interesting that the UNIPCC doesn't acknowledge solar activity as more than minutely contributing to climate. It's utterly disregarded for all intents and purposes. In other words-this shall be shunned because it doesn't fit the narrative. I spy a pattern. Sense where this leads?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ArcticGranite said:
I find it very interesting that the UNIPCC doesn't acknowledge solar activity as more than minutely contributing to climate. It's utterly disregarded for all intents and purposes. In other words-this shall be shunned because it doesn't fit the narrative. I spy a pattern. Sense where this leads?
Click to expand...
where did you earn your degree in climatology?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top