Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 170

Thread: NASA: peer review science show 97+scientists agree man causes global warming

  1. #46 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Yes anything for you to not acknowledge the truth, if ducking and diving was an Olympic sport you'd get a gold medal. I took what Ian Plimer has stated many times and modified it, I very much doubt that you've ever said anything original in your entire life.
    I don't care what you very much doubt. I proved you plagiarized. You took that list from exactly where I stated and pasted it here without attribution and tried to pass it off as your original work. Stop plagiarizing, poser.
    You couldn't do it by memory as it is obvious by your failed attempt to do so as you referred back and forth, and so you got lazy and just copied it. Then you got lazier still and did not link the post to it.

  2. #47 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    "you're such a pompous windbag!" HM #42
    More ad hom from the demonstrably inferior HM #42.

    If I am factually incorrect, please correct me. Instead, you attempt to insult me. *

    BUT !!


    * pom·pous (pŏmpəs) adj.
    1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious: pompous officials who enjoy giving orders.
    2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.

    https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=pompous
    I'm flattered.
    Here is just one claim made back in 1988.

    It has been 30 years since the alarm bell was sounded for manmade global warming caused by modern industrial society. And predictions made on that day—and ever since—continue to be falsified in the real world. The predictions made by climate scientist James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer back in 1988—and reported as model projected by journalist Philip Shabecoff—constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare, joining those of the population bomb (Paul Ehrlich), resource exhaustion (Club of Rome), Peak Oil (M. King Hubbert), and global cooling (John Holdren).
    HM #42
    EXCELLENT !!
    And thank you so much for confirming this.

    Yes!!

    Your valid point is extremely well taken. Science is indeed self-correcting.
    "The fact that somebody over-sells an idea doesn't make it a bad idea. It makes them a bad salesman." Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA ret)
    Just because somebody got it wrong doesn't 100% invalidate the case of those that have gotten it right.

    You need me to tell you that ?!

    Please pardon my "pomposity", or as normal humans would understand, factual validity.
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  3. #48 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    I don't care what you very much doubt. I proved you plagiarized. You took that list from exactly where I stated and pasted it here without attribution and tried to pass it off as your original work. Stop plagiarizing, poser.
    You couldn't do it by memory as it is obvious by your failed attempt to do so as you referred back and forth, and so you got lazy and just copied it. Then you got lazier still and did not link the post to it.
    Ok sunshine, enjoy your pyrrhic victory whilst you may.

  4. #49 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Do you ever change the fucking record?
    If it aint broke don't fix it.

    I find it hilarious that the guy who most often talks out of school through the mouths of non climate scientists, and himself lacks that credential is here trying to redefine
    the qualifications. There are many graduate programs offering degrees in climate science, I'll defer to them (and never to you)as to what discliplines are necessary to practice.
    A chemistry deree is also likely useful to be a saucier, but not required. Sure would be nice if everyone could have every designation useful to their trade, but it's a real world.

    It's precisely the consonance of all the disciplines you stated working apart and arriving at the same conclusion that buttresses the case for climate change.

    I see you have in no way refuted the OP, not even addressed it head on.

    There is a scientific consensus. Just admit that and leave!

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Nomad (08-12-2018)

  6. #50 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Ok sunshine, enjoy your pyrrhic victory whilst you may.
    pyrrhic in that it cost me exactly what? Time for my morning constitutional. I am going to go jog 10 miles now, see you in 30 minutes! lol

  7. #51 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,550
    Thanks
    9,556
    Thanked 11,905 Times in 7,965 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Hey arsehole, your precious John Cook, of the infamous 97% consensus bullshit, is not a climatologist but a cognitive scientist yet he gets quoted by fools like you all the time. He also runs the Skeptical Science blog, so beloved by disingenuous alarmists. Of course we all bow down to your degree in pure and applied public toilet administration, how can we possibly hope to compete with that? If I ever need advice on the best type of urinal cake to use, then you'll be the first one to consult.
    At least I have a legitimate degree and don't have to lie about it like you do, toe rag.

    Please post a link to where I've quoted John Cook, you fake degree holding high school dropout.

    If you don't, I will take it as an admission by you that can't because you're a dumbass who lies and talks stupid shit that you can't back up with fact.
    https://i.postimg.cc/PqVCnGks/gojoe1.jpg
    C'MON MAN!!!!

  8. #52 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,550
    Thanks
    9,556
    Thanked 11,905 Times in 7,965 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    See? Attack on all fronts. Can't win the scientific debate on the facts, attack the institution. These attacks more than any other prove you are a hack.
    It's ironic you disrespect the scienctists in that field of study and you spend most of your pathetic life pretending to be one anonymously online to people who hate your fucking guts.
    How a chemistry degree, or a non college trained computer science guy thinks his C++ certification stacks up favorably over statisticians and PhD climate scientists I have no idea.
    Your hierarchy is wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...imate-science/

    An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.

    Stop plagiarizing, attribute your extended cut paste, poser.

    https://i.postimg.cc/PqVCnGks/gojoe1.jpg
    C'MON MAN!!!!

  9. #53 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,254
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 717 Times in 457 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 45 Times in 42 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    So what do the 2+% think?
    They think that short term fossil fuel industry profits are more important than the planet we all live on

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Lesh For This Post:

    Nomad (08-12-2018)

  11. #54 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    Not necessarily.
    "Long term" is the term used by AHD. But I won't contest at this point.

    It wouldn't matter either way. They are predictions.

    You are correct in that it's not valid science to extrapolate from one data point. There is no statistical "trend" in one data point.

    BUT !!

    Climatologists have literally millennia of data to refer to.
    They've analyzed air bubbles in arctic ice, dated the air by strata and other means, and measured the concentrations of Carbon, etc.

    They've even sampled the air sealed in antique hour glasses, the kind where sand slowly spills from the top bulb through a narrow neck to the bottom bulb.

    These data are vastly more than 30 years old.

    Even if you were right, and you're CLEARLY not, but
    even if you were right, your updated excuse doesn't disprove. For my reply to you was to refute your lie that "climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31.
    You didn't say they were meaningless. You claimed "climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31.

    And as usual, you have been proved wrong, AGAIN !! !!

    Don't you EVER tire of being wrong ?1
    Climate scientists don't do the science for the proxies, they just use the data in their models. Talk about a lack of understanding. You take the cake.

  12. #55 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Mann has never taken a tree core. Dendrologists are the people who did the science for the tree ring data. That's why Mann spliced real temps onto the hockey stick after the 60s when the tree ring data showed the opposite correlation he wanted it to show.

  13. #56 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,254
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 717 Times in 457 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 45 Times in 42 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoil View Post
    Mann has never taken a tree core. Dendrologists are the people who did the science for the tree ring data. That's why Mann spliced real temps onto the hockey stick after the 60s when the tree ring data showed the opposite correlation he wanted it to show.
    Total dishonest mischaracterization.

  14. The Following User Groans At Lesh For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-12-2018)

  15. #57 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,789
    Thanks
    35,478
    Thanked 50,291 Times in 27,097 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...imate-science/

    An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.



    Stop plagiarizing, attribute your extended cut paste, poser.
    Plagiarizing, libel, and fake experts are seemingly the Climate Deniers weapons of choice.

    I am surprised we haven't heard an apology from Climate Deniers about their role in fabricating the phony Climate Gate non-scandal. They literally did everything they could to libel and destroy the reputations of reputable scientists who were just doing their jobs. Apologies take character though.

    And man, could I tell you some stories about Deniers posting stuff from obscure blogs written by people with no training or expertise in climate science.

  16. The Following User Groans At Cypress For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-12-2018)

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    Micawber (08-12-2018)

  18. #58 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    L #53

    Subjectively true?

    tf #54

    a) You've quoted much of my post.
    Then in ostensible reply you post:
    "Climate scientists don't do the science for the proxies" tf #54
    But I didn't claim climate scientists do the science for the proxies.
    I didn't even use the word "proxies".

    I don't recall having proposed any explanation at all about that.
    "they just use the data in their models." tf #54
    That's false. In some cases they actually collect data.
    But
    b) I never claimed they just use the data in someone else's models. So again, your pseudo-correction is exposed as false.
    "Talk about a lack of understanding." tf #54
    I've just mentioned two separate examples of your lack of understanding.
    "You take the cake." tf #54
    If by "you" you mean you, tf,
    then we are in accord. But candidly, I rarely if ever eat cake, and therefore have no reason to take any. Enjoy the sabbath honestly, if you can.
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  19. #59 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesh View Post
    They think that short term fossil fuel industry profits are more important than the planet we all live on
    It gets worse, most of the population of their party doesn't think that, they just think that the leaders of their tribe must be obeyed and their leaders sow doubt to give their fanboy voters something to latch onto
    so they can root for the home team. Meanwhile the petrol industry has bought and paid for their politicians and whore science and propagandists, solely to hold out credibly just long
    enough for the rich assholes to transition their wealth out of dirty to clean energy and lawyer over the downside risk as much as they can get away with.

    Havana poon is just a tiny cogand useful idiot in the messy conspiracy that will be played out over the next 20-30 years.

  20. The Following User Groans At Micawber For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-12-2018)

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Lesh (08-12-2018)

  22. #60 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,695
    Thanks
    26,447
    Thanked 14,248 Times in 9,793 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    Not necessarily.
    "Long term" is the term used by AHD. But I won't contest at this point.

    It wouldn't matter either way. They are predictions.

    You are correct in that it's not valid science to extrapolate from one data point. There is no statistical "trend" in one data point.

    BUT !!

    Climatologists have literally millennia of data to refer to.
    They've analyzed air bubbles in arctic ice, dated the air by strata and other means, and measured the concentrations of Carbon, etc.

    They've even sampled the air sealed in antique hour glasses, the kind where sand slowly spills from the top bulb through a narrow neck to the bottom bulb.

    These data are vastly more than 30 years old.

    Even if you were right, and you're CLEARLY not, but
    even if you were right, your updated excuse doesn't disprove. For my reply to you was to refute your lie that "climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31.
    You didn't say they were meaningless. You claimed "climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31.

    And as usual, you have been proved wrong, AGAIN !! !!

    Don't you EVER tire of being wrong ?1
    You proved nothing.

    Out of all the climate scientist predictions that have been made, ... you should be able to come up with at least one correct 30 year old prediction from one climate scientist. You're just floundering and flopping around now

    I am much more learned on the topic of climate science than you. Don't doubt me. You aren't even aware that the Earth is in an Icehouse condition, ... colder that's it's been in 260 million years I'll await your 30 year old validated predictions.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2014, 03:15 AM
  2. Democrats, NASA Scientists And Global Warming
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-16-2014, 11:31 AM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-07-2013, 04:50 PM
  4. NASA: nuclear war to fight global warming
    By tinfoil in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-28-2011, 04:47 AM
  5. Peer review climate science revealed
    By tinfoil in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 11:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •