Ode to the Climate Science-Denier

[charver]

just an fyi charver....

the Christians, Jews and Muslims ALL believe in the God of Abraham. While they may call him by different names. He be the same dude in all three cases.

Fucking multinationals.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fucking multinationals.

exactly.... God still got your money... HA HA

 

[Cypress]

1) go look at how often your 'scientists' cherry pick the data they use. Look at the time periods in some of the links you provide.

2) A 95% confidence interval is not random you twit.

3) Learn to READ... the time period questioned was 1995-2009.... which at the time was the prior FIFTEEN years. It is not cherry picked. Every time your 'scientists' choose random periods, you say nothing. When someone takes a standardly used time frame like 5, 10, 15, 20 years that isn't one of your masters, well then... they must be cherry picking the start date.



Correct. Which is EXACTLY what I posted. Just as the 0.12 decline he was asked about in the next question shows SOME decline, but not a significant level. Just as Jones and I both stated.



Yes and then in the next question with the decline, how did he respond? The point twit, is that he shows his bias in how he answers the two questions. That and the FACT that there has been no significant warming.



Obviously, it is you who fails to comprehend. I understand stats quite well. There was no significant warming. That means that while close... it failed over that time frame. He then tries to pretend that it is hard to get significance over a 15 year time frame. Which is bullshit given the amount of data they have (ooops, I mean HAD) available.



LMAO... First moron... it was the BBC who selected the time frame, not me and they are hardly conservative. They have been championing for the fear mongers for decades. Second, your own beloved master is the one who provided the answers. One of your 'unimpeachable scientists' from the CRU.

Second moron... Why is it that you didn't address his quote on whether or not he believed this was 'FACT' as you stated?

Why not address that Cypress? Could it be because it again is a piece of evidence to suggest you and your 'unimpeachable' NAS are WRONG????

Let me know when YOU have a credible source. Because those who benefit from the continuation of this fear mongering campaign are not credible. In fact, they are a detriment to the fight to reduce global pollution and move towards cleaner and alt energy.







Which is a flat out lie. Obviously this is the point where Cypress starts up the straw man factory. Typical of the coward. He cannot make a point and thus starts warping my position into one that he can knock down.

Dear Cypress... as I stated, there has been no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING since 1995. Note... when you leave off the first two all cap words, that changes my position quite a bit.




That is also complete bullshit. You and Jones are trying to assert that FIFTEEN YEARS worth of data isn't enough to achieve a 95% confidence interval? That simply shows you have no understanding of statistics.




Except... global temperatures have NOT continued to rise. The evidence is in the CHARTS YOU PROVIDED. That is what you get for listening to Hansen instead of looking at the ACTUAL CHARTS.

NASA says temps have continued to rise.

Dr. Jones says temperatures have continued to rise.

Dr. Jones - the guy your are citing - says that he believes warming is continuing, and that humans are the primary cause.

You should just admit you didn't understand what Dr. Jones said. Its was a very technical answer, to a very technical question. The 95% confidence level is an arbitrary metric, used mostly out of convention. There's nothing magical about it.

1) Dr. Jones said there HAD been warming since 1995

2) He said the warming trend was very close to the 95% significance level - which means in plain english that there was a very small chance, close to 5%, that the observed warming trend was NOT due to random chance.

3) And he went out of his way to make note of the dubious nature of the journalist's question: that achieving an statistical significance, at the relatively arbitary 95% level, is broadly speaking not achievable with small data sets, for example the short temporal scale of 1995-2009.



I've provided links from expert climate scientists at NASA who state unequivocally that warming has continued, decade to decade, since the 1970s.

I've provided links for an unimpeachable scientific source, the National Academy of Science, that it's a settled scientific fact that warming is happening and that it is highly likely humans are causing most of it.


You toss things out and demand answers to questions and yet you never provide links to reputable scientific sources, you bungle and misconstrue what a BBC journalist reported, and when you do provide a link it's from a source of dubious and questionable reliability; aka "ClimateAudit", a website run by a dude who isn't a climate scientist

I can't waste my time on this, unless and until you start providing credible and actual reputable scientific sources. It's like spinning wheels.


You may align yourself with Tinfoil, Dixie, Bravo, Meme, and Webbway. That's fine. I'm pretty much done wasting time on this, until I see some credible scientific links from you

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

NASA says temps have continued to rise.

Dr. Jones says temperatures have continued to rise.

Dr. Jones - the guy your are citing - says that he believes warming is continuing, and that humans are the primary cause.

do try to read AND comprehend. I have already stated the above. Your problem is that you do not comprehend statistics. you do not comprehend what is meant by insignificant warming. You do not comprehend what the charts are showing us. You simply parrot whatever your masters tell you to.

You should just admit you didn't understand what Dr. Jones said. Its was a very technical answer, to a very technical question. The 95% confidence level is an arbitrary metric, used mostly out of convention. There's nothing magical about it.

No one said there was anything 'magical' about a confidence interval. I fully understand what Jones was saying and I also understand how he tried to weasel his way around the fact that it was not significant. Again... do you really think a statistician would find it hard to create a 95% confidence interval with 15 years worth of data?

1) Dr. Jones said there HAD been warming since 1995

2) He said the warming trend was very close to the 95% significance level - which means in plain english that there was a very small chance, close to 5%, that the warming was NOT due to random chance.

3) And he went out of his way to make note of the dubious nature of the journalist's question: that achieving an statistical significance, at the relatively arbitary 95% level, is broadly speaking not achievable with small data sets, for example the short temporal scale of 1995-2009.

1) Again... a 95% confidence interval is NOT ARBITRARY you twit. It is a commonly used interval in statistical analysis.

2) Again, I understand what he is saying... you clearly do not.

I've provided links from expert climate scientists at NASA who state unequivocally that warming has continued, decade to decade, since the 1970s.

I've provided links for an unimpeachable scientific source, the National Academy of Science, that it's a settled scientific fact that warming is happening and that it is highly likely humans are causing most of it.

blah blah blah.... again you PROCLAIM them unimpeachable, when even they will tell you they make mistakes. That they have been wrong.

YOU proclaim it is 'settled fact'... yet continue to ignore the FACT that Jones doesn't think so and in his opinion neither do most scientists.

Only brain dead lemmings think it is 'settled fact'. No real scientist would ever make that proclamation. Which is why even the lead fear mongers continue to state.... 'more than likely most of the warming is caused by man'. That is so unbelievably vague, only a moron would take that to mean 'settled fact'

You toss things out and demand answers to questions and yet you never provide links to reputable scientific sources, you bungle and misconstrue what a BBC journalist reported, and when you do provide a link it's from a source of dubious and questionable reliability; aka "ClimateAudit", a website run by a dude who isn't a climate scientist

LMAO... tell us Cypress... how did I bungle what the BBC reported? By quoting directly the question AND the answer?

Fucking moron.

I can't waste my time on this, unless and until you start providing credible and actual reputable scientific sources. It's like spinning wheels.


You may align yourself with Tinfoil, Dixie, Bravo, Meme, and Webbway. That's fine. I'm pretty much done wasting time on this, until I see some credible scientific links from you


I

As I stated, you continue to pretend that Jones isn't a credible source, because what he stated goes against your fear mongering faith. You continue to pretend that you understand what is being said, when bottom line, you have no clue when it comes to stats... that is why you parrot what your masters stated and hope that makes you sound smart.

 

[Cypress]

Dear Professor Dixie,

More data from highly reputable, internationally-recognized climate science experts, with unimpeachable climate science qualifications.

Contrast this to the sources (when they bother providing them) science-deniers provide: aka, rightwing blogs, cherry picked quotes, misconstrued and bungled assumptions about what some journalist said, and british tabloids

Feel free to review virtually any post by a science denier. You'll find plenty of bluster, screeching, braying and foot stomping. You will rarely ever find links. And when you do, they are never to reputable scientific organizations or agencies with expertise in climate science.



From the United Kingdom’s Met Office – U.K. National Weather and Climate Ministry:

New evidence confirms land warming record 1999-2008

New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming. The study, carried out by ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) with input from the Met Office, performs a new calculation of global temperature rise. This independent analysis is based on information from a wide range of sources. It uses all available surface temperature measurements, together with data from sources such as satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys.The new analysis estimates the warming to be higher than that shown from HadCRUT’s more limited direct observations. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe over this particular period. This provides strong evidence that recent temperature change is at least as large as estimated by HadCRUT. This conclusion is in contrast to a recently released study by the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) think tank based in Moscow. The IEA’s output is consistent with HadCRUT as they both confirm the global warming signal in this region since 1950, which we see in many other variables and has been consistently attributed to human activities.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

[bob]

F U

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You've become such an idiot, tinfoil. You don't even know what I'm saying, and you completely miss the idiocy Dixie is spewing because you got caught (somewhere along the line) in the right-wing spin machine. What a fool you are now.

I'm not a "warmer," in the sense of the word that you are using. Why don't you read through Dixie's thoughts on C02, see what I was actually responding to, and wake up a bit from your conservative stupor.

Please explain the "idiocy" you believe Dixie is spewing? I've said nothing that isn't common sense, or found in most 7th grade science books. There is no "spin" ...the spin was disclosed when we found that pinheads were cooking the books on the data and lying about it. The only "idiocy" I am seeing, is your assertion that CO2 is a pollutant or contaminant! One of the most abundant resources in the universe, without which, life can not exist here or anywhere else.... but in your simplistic mind, it's a "pollutant" because that's what it needs to be for your idiocy to fly!

You are a "warmer" in EVERY sense of the word, and how it is used. Why do you want to deny that? Is it because you are starting to realize how marginalized you've become? Is it because you hear the resounding laughter from the rest of the thinking world, over your absolute lunacy and ignorance? Or maybe it's because you are starting to realize how this is all a big fraud, and you want to move away slowly?

 

[Onceler]

Please explain the "idiocy" you believe Dixie is spewing? I've said nothing that isn't common sense, or found in most 7th grade science books. There is no "spin" ...the spin was disclosed when we found that pinheads were cooking the books on the data and lying about it. The only "idiocy" I am seeing, is your assertion that CO2 is a pollutant or contaminant! One of the most abundant resources in the universe, without which, life can not exist here or anywhere else.... but in your simplistic mind, it's a "pollutant" because that's what it needs to be for your idiocy to fly!

You are a "warmer" in EVERY sense of the word, and how it is used. Why do you want to deny that? Is it because you are starting to realize how marginalized you've become? Is it because you hear the resounding laughter from the rest of the thinking world, over your absolute lunacy and ignorance? Or maybe it's because you are starting to realize how this is all a big fraud, and you want to move away slowly?

I am not a "warmer" in tinfoil's sense of the word. I have stated many times - including earlier on this thread - that there is no way to prove AGW, and no way to quantify or prove if man is contributing to warming. I have also argued that the argument is a complete waste of time, anyway.

Now, a guy like tinfoil has argued at length about the negative effects of C02 with regard to warming; the only difference is that he has argued about natural C02, and not manmade.

That's why his defense of your idiocy is quite striking. If C02 is so healthy at any quantity, you should lock yourself in an airtight room for awhile.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am not a "warmer" in tinfoil's sense of the word. I have stated many times - including earlier on this thread - that there is no way to prove AGW, and no way to quantify or prove if man is contributing to warming. I have also argued that the argument is a complete waste of time, anyway.

Now, a guy like tinfoil has argued at length about the negative effects of C02 with regard to warming; the only difference is that he has argued about natural C02, and not manmade.

That's why his defense of your idiocy is quite striking. If C02 is so healthy at any quantity, you should lock yourself in an airtight room for awhile.

How many plants does he get to take with him?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Cypress, you need to learn to think for yourself.

Blind faith in authority figures is not serving you well. Your entire worldview is apparently an adhominem argument.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am not a "warmer" in tinfoil's sense of the word. I have stated many times - including earlier on this thread - that there is no way to prove AGW, and no way to quantify or prove if man is contributing to warming. I have also argued that the argument is a complete waste of time, anyway.

Now, a guy like tinfoil has argued at length about the negative effects of C02 with regard to warming; the only difference is that he has argued about natural C02, and not manmade.

That's why his defense of your idiocy is quite striking. If C02 is so healthy at any quantity, you should lock yourself in an airtight room for awhile.

I never said CO2 was healthy at any quantity. 320 parts per million is a pretty small quantity, in my opinion. (If you were trying to become a millionaire, and only had $320, you would have a long way to go.) I only cited what OSHA guidelines have established for mine safety levels, and I think they are a fairly good source for what is "safe" for humans. Now, for plant life, CO2 is indeed healthy! That's what they breathe! Most commercial nurseries pump CO2 into their greenhouses to boost plant life and enhance growth. There is no difference between CO2 that is man-made and CO2 that occurs naturally, they are both the same thing... Carbon and Oxygen.

The concept of AGW is based on studies of the "greenhouse effect" but many people hear that term and become alarmed immediately, it sounds very ominous, but wait... We couldn't live on this planet unless we had the greenhouse effect, that is what enables life to flourish here! So we know for a fact, we NEED the greenhouse effect, and without it, we couldn't survive. The theory is, we are contributing to a 'runaway' greenhouse effect, by adding too much CO2 into the atmosphere. The problem with the theory is this... Carbon Dioxide is NOT the main element in causing the greenhouse effect, the main element is water vapor. Regardless of what regulations and restrictions we saddle ourselves with, there is little we can do about water vapor.

 

[tinfoil]

I am not a "warmer" in tinfoil's sense of the word. I have stated many times - including earlier on this thread - that there is no way to prove AGW, and no way to quantify or prove if man is contributing to warming. I have also argued that the argument is a complete waste of time, anyway.

Now, a guy like tinfoil has argued at length about the negative effects of C02 with regard to warming; the only difference is that he has argued about natural C02, and not manmade.

That's why his defense of your idiocy is quite striking. If C02 is so healthy at any quantity, you should lock yourself in an airtight room for awhile.

I've linked the studies in the past that verify that incresed co2 leads to greater biosphere growth.

why do you hate the planet?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I've linked the studies in the past that verify that incresed co2 leads to greater biosphere growth.

why do you hate the planet?

I read an interesting article not long ago, discussing the aspects of increased CO2 levels in our atmosphere, and what "benefits" we might expect from just a 10-20% increase. It was astonishing! We would actually be able to grow food in the deserts! Trees would grow faster and more hearty, eliminating much of the deforestation and yielding more supply of timber. The rain forests would thrive, and eliminate any concerns of endangerment. Very interesting perspective indeed.

 

[Timshel]

Ditzy's post need a laughtrack.

I never said CO2 was healthy at any quantity. 320 parts per million is a pretty small quantity, in my opinion. (If you were trying to become a millionaire, and only had $320, you would have a long way to go.)

Hahahaha clap clap clap...

So we don't have to worry until the atmosphere becomes a CO2 millionaire? LOL....

I only cited what OSHA guidelines have established for mine safety levels, and I think they are a fairly good source for what is "safe" for humans. Now, for plant life, CO2 is indeed healthy! That's what they breathe! Most commercial nurseries pump CO2 into their greenhouses to boost plant life and enhance growth. There is no difference between CO2 that is man-made and CO2 that occurs naturally, they are both the same thing... Carbon and Oxygen.

hahahaha, clap clap clap

Plants do not thrive in a desert. The warming caused by the greenhouse effects are not going to heat up THAT greenhouse nor cause it's sprinkler system to malfunction (i.e., a drought). Further, CO2 causes problems in the ocean.

The concept of AGW is based on studies of the "greenhouse effect" but many people hear that term and become alarmed immediately, it sounds very ominous, but wait... We couldn't live on this planet unless we had the greenhouse effect, that is what enables life to flourish here! So we know for a fact, we NEED the greenhouse effect, and without it, we couldn't survive. The theory is, we are contributing to a 'runaway' greenhouse effect, by adding too much CO2 into the atmosphere. The problem with the theory is this... Carbon Dioxide is NOT the main element in causing the greenhouse effect, the main element is water vapor. Regardless of what regulations and restrictions we saddle ourselves with, there is little we can do about water vapor.

hahahaha, water vapor, clap clap clap

Water vapor follows the carbon dioxide and so it amplifies the effect of CO2.

 

[Onceler]

LOL - that's pretty good. I never considered a laugh track for Dixie's posts, but man, how applicable.

Lovin' "C02 millionaire." Dix is one of the best false analogy creators on the board, imo.

 

[Timshel]

Lovin' "C02 millionaire."

And with that, the oil angle and the laughtrack, Ditzy, is cast as Jethro.

Let me tell you a little a story about planet that was not red
Poor profiteers try to keep the world fed
Then one day they were shooting at some food
and up through the ground came a bubbling crude

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Man..... I have never in my life, seen someone go to such major extremes to twist, distort, and misrepresent what another person says, in order to attack and denigrate them. I must really get under your skin, Stringbean!

So we don't have to worry until the atmosphere becomes a CO2 millionaire? LOL....

No... We don't have to worry about human health risks until CO2 reaches levels 500 times greater than current levels. The 'millionaire' analogy was given to illustrate how small and insignificant CO2 is in our atmosphere, to idiot dolts like Onzies, who thinks it is a harmful pollutant.

Plants do not thrive in a desert. The warming caused by the greenhouse effects are not going to heat up THAT greenhouse nor cause it's sprinkler system to malfunction (i.e., a drought). Further, CO2 causes problems in the ocean.

Plants WOULD thrive in a desert with higher CO2 concentrations, because it would let them retain more moisture. And most greenhouses I've been in, are considerably warmer than what I find comfortable... but then, we invented air conditioning because that can often be the case outside of a greenhouse. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have nothing to do with drought or the ocean. We've had approximately the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for as long as man has roamed the Earth. Before man, there was a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and this is the environment most plants evolved in. These early high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, certainly didn't destroy the oceans or cause massive droughts, otherwise, we wouldn't be here right now.

Water vapor follows the carbon dioxide and so it amplifies the effect of CO2.

No, water vapor doesn't "follow" carbon dioxide, it is present no matter if there is CO2 in the atmosphere or not. Approximately 94% of the "greenhouse gases" is water vapor, carbon dioxide makes up less than 5%. Regardless of what we do about CO2, we still have all that water vapor, causing a greenhouse effect. If we ever eliminated the greenhouse effect, all life on Earth would vanish, the oceans would dry up, and our planet would become like Venus. I think I like it better the way it is now!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Stringfield sucks a fat cock everday at noon. and he gargles the jizz.

 

[Cypress]

edited for clarity and accuracy.

I read an interesting article obscure rightwing blog not long ago, discussing the aspects of increased CO2 levels in our atmosphere, and what "benefits" we might expect from just a 10-20% increase. It was astonishing! We would actually be able to grow food in the deserts! Trees would grow faster and more hearty, eliminating much of the deforestation and yielding more supply of timber. The rain forests would thrive, and eliminate any concerns of endangerment.

Very interesting perspective indeed.

Good work, Einstein!

Science deniers have gone from 15 years ago when they were denying that warming was even happening and proclaiming we should just study it more before we did anything....to now claiming we should be pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere because it will be good for us!

Job well done, deniers. This sh*t is comedy gold.


I won't bother explain the effects of ocean pH, heat convection, currents, and drought. Because I'm sure Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge are keeping you up to speed on the latest credible science in those areas.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

edited for [dishonesty and distortion]

Good work, Einstein!

Science deniers have gone from 15 years ago when they were denying that warming was even happening and proclaiming we should just study it more before we did anything....to now claiming we should be pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere because it will be good for us!

Job well done, deniers. This sh*t is comedy gold.

I won't bother explain the effects of ocean pH, heat convection, currents, and drought. Because I'm sure Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge are keeping you up to speed on the latest credible science in those areas.

LMFAOooooo.... 15 years ago, you same nitwits were telling us we were headed for another ICE AGE! The problem wasn't Global Warming, it was Global Cooling! Don't you remember, when they banned all the hairspray because it was damaging the Ozone layer, which was keeping all the heat in and protecting us from harmful UV rays?

What is "comedy gold" is you fuckwits continuing to insist people are doing something to change the natural cycles of the Earth's climate! Reason being, you desperately want to have an excuse to bilk taxpayers out of more money, to fund your pinhead research projects! You want some excuse to justify taxing and regulating business into the toilet, because you are SOCIALISTS who want to completely destroy our capitalist society.

The ocean's pH can scientifically not be any worse off than it was millions of years ago, when the Earth had a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it doesn't make logical sense. Therefore, the evidence (our existence on Earth) proves, that CO2 increases in our atmosphere, does nothing to diminish life on the planet or hinder it's reproduction in any way, shape, or form.

You're just a fucking retard who doesn't understand basic science, so you run to Al Gore for answers! Then you run here, and post absolute nonsense, and denigrate Sarah Palin, because you think that makes you look smart or something. Most rational people just read what you post and laugh at what an idiot you are. Like I said, in the future, people will get a big kick out of what kind of fools you have been on this... they will find it hard to believe people could be that utterly stupid, with natural science slapping them upside their goofy heads!