# The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam



## P@triot (Aug 1, 2017)

The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.

A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that *97.4%* *never* materialized.

Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.” We made it.

In 2008, a segment aired on ABC News predicted that NYC would be under water by June 2015.

In 1970, ecologist Kenneth E.F. Wattpredicted that “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had expanded over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)

On May 13th 2014 France’s foreign minister said that we only have 500 days to stop “climate chaos.” The recent Paris climate summit met 565 days after his remark.

In 2009, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Wassen warned that Obama only had four years left to save the earth.

On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75% and 80% of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

And another Earth Day prediction from Kenneth Watt: “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Top 10 Climate Change Predictions Gone Spectacularly Wrong; This Is EPIC!


----------



## P@triot (Aug 1, 2017)

The science is overwhelming - "Global Warming" is a scam. History has proven it. Science has proven it. Data has proven it. Facts have proven it.


> According to a study by Martin Brandt et al., published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution in May, 36% of the continent of Africa became greener over the 20-year period from 1992 to 2011, while only 11% became “less green.” Interestingly, the researchers found the increased greening was “driven” by higher carbon-dioxide levels and precipitation, and the decreased greening was largely a result of humans cutting down vegetation.


New study about Africa is terrible news for climate-change alarmists


----------



## P@triot (Aug 1, 2017)

Boy...this "Global Warming" stuff is a real bitch, eh? It's melting _everything_. 


> Greenland just broke the record for the coldest July day ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere at -33C.


Don't worry that it was the coldest day _ever_ recorded in July. Those pesky little facts are nothing compared to the left's ability to refuse to accept reality!


> Almost all Greenland’s surface is gaining ice. In fact, says Heller, Greenland has gained a near record amount of ice this year


So odd how everything seems to be gaining ice despite the left-wing narrative that greenhouse gasses are being trapped in the atmosphere - causing "Global Warming".

Delingpole: Record-Breaking Cold in Greenland; Alarmists 'Look. An Arctic Squirrel!'


----------



## P@triot (Aug 1, 2017)

The indisputable evidence that "Global Warming" is a scam literally piles up to the heavens now. Each one is a bigger bombshell than the previous one. The truth always comes out in the end...


> A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician claims to reveal that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets after temperatures were recorded, calling into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.


That's right...a *peer-reviewed study* shows that the only "cause" of "Global Warming" are _scientists_. Scientists who falsify their data to make it appear as though "Global Warming" actually exists.

‘Bombshell’ climate-change study could totally dismantle the claim humans are causing global warming


----------



## P@triot (Aug 1, 2017)

I can't imagine trying to perpetuate a lie after being proven so wrong, so many times...

An inconvenient commentary: 5 times climate alarmists made horribly wrong predictions


----------



## P@triot (Aug 1, 2017)

How humiliating...and to think these people _still_ try to perpetuate the *lie*.


> the San Jose Mercury News (Calif.) reported on June 30, 1989: “A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human [control.]”



Commentary: The 6 biggest reasons I’m a climate-change skeptic — and why you should be a skeptic too


----------



## The Irish Ram (Aug 1, 2017)

The odd part is they can be told in  no uncertain terms that they have been lied to, just like the media admitted to lying, and they will march blindly on and believe exactly what they have been told.  Look how many still quote CNN.  It seems they can't be lied to enough.  
Nothing can make them believe the truth.   It's kind of eerie..


----------



## WheelieAddict (Aug 2, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> The odd part is they can be told in  no uncertain terms that they have been lied to, just like the media admitted to lying, and they will march blindly on and believe exactly what they have been told.  Look how many still quote CNN.  It seems they can't be lied to enough.
> Nothing can make them believe the truth.   It's kind of eerie..


OP is quoting the blaze and breitbart. Partisan publications known for propaganda and lies. The odd part is people believe the propaganda without question. It's kind of eerie...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2017)

P@triot said:


> I can't imagine trying to perpetuate a lie after being proven so wrong, so many times...
> 
> An inconvenient commentary: 5 times climate alarmists made horribly wrong predictions


AL Gores new lie bombed so badly that it was pulled from all theaters...

Gore’s new movie: an ‘inconvenient bomb’ at the box office


----------



## P@triot (Aug 2, 2017)

WheelieAddict said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The odd part is they can be told in  no uncertain terms that they have been lied to, just like the media admitted to lying, and they will march blindly on and believe exactly what they have been told.  Look how many still quote CNN.  It seems they can't be lied to enough.
> ...


LWNJ's like WA here can't stand the truth. And when the facts back them into the corner, they come out attacking the messenger instead of the message.

TheBlaze has an impeccable reputation, snowflake. Deal with it. The data wasn't created by them - it was shared by them. And the data is indisputable.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 2, 2017)

94% 

Even I thought they were a little more accurate than only 6% correct.

Always thought dart playing was ghey


----------



## P@triot (Aug 4, 2017)

I bet Al Gore bursts out laughing every time he think about how easy the left is to dupe. You can send them into an absolute tizzy with even the most absurd lie.


> Climate change activist Al Gore isn’t exactly practicing what he preaches. As it turns out, the former vice president *used enough electricity for six homes last year* just to heat his outdoor swimming pool at his Nashville residence.
> 
> In the last year, *Gore’s Nashville home used enough energy to power a typical house in America for 21 years*, the Daily Caller reported.


Gore laughs all the way to the bank in his private jet thinking about the mindless minions on his side of the aisle.

You’ll Never Guess How Many Homes’ Yearly Energy Output Al Gore’s Heated Pool Would Cover


----------



## Tax Man (Aug 4, 2017)

WheelieAddict said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The odd part is they can be told in  no uncertain terms that they have been lied to, just like the media admitted to lying, and they will march blindly on and believe exactly what they have been told.  Look how many still quote CNN.  It seems they can't be lied to enough.
> ...


Thank you for the truth.


----------



## Tax Man (Aug 4, 2017)

And just what part of the Blaze is truth? There has never been a bit of truth to anything in the Blaze. Now when the entire modern world accepts global warming it kind of puts all the nay sayers in a position of desperation to prove themselves correct. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 4, 2017)

As I stated in post #12 above - Al Gore thrives on his mindless minions. This video is _priceless_. Make sure to watch the entire thing...

Gore’s Latest Film Is Incredible (And By That We Mean Not Credible)


----------



## P@triot (Aug 4, 2017)

Tax Man said:


> And just what part of the Blaze is truth?


Uh...all of it.


Tax Man said:


> There has never been a bit of truth to anything in the Blaze.


And yet you're incapable of providing even a _single_ example. Enough said.


Tax Man said:


> Now when the entire modern world accepts global warming it kind of puts all the nay sayers in a position of desperation to prove themselves correct.


I posted all of the facts, sparky. And the fact that you can't dispute them, don't attempt to, and instead idiotically blabber about nothing is proof that you realize you were duped (and your butthurt about it). The entire modern world is laughing at you.

Hell, you're too dumb to even realize that your masters had to rebrand it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" because we had colder the normal temperatures in 2014 and 2015. That alone is a clue for anyone who isn't at the bottom of the IQ spectrum.


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2017)

Tax Man said:


> And just what part of the Blaze is truth? There has never been a bit of truth to anything in the Blaze. Now when the entire modern world accepts global warming it kind of puts all the nay sayers in a position of desperation to prove themselves correct. Thanks for the laugh.








No, only the gullible anti science religious nutjobs "accept" the theory of AGW.  Those who actually understand science, don't.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 5, 2017)

LOL So all the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities in the world do not understand science? For they all state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. So what we see posited here is a conspiracy by most of the scientists in the world, irregardless of nation or culture, to deceive the rest of us. And nobody in those millions of scientists is squealing on the rest, or telling what the purpose of the deception is. LOL

Stock up on extra tinfoil for your little hats, fellows.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL So all the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities in the world do not understand science? For they all state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. So what we see posited here is a conspiracy by most of the scientists in the world, irregardless of nation or culture, to deceive the rest of us. And nobody in those millions of scientists is squealing on the rest, or telling what the purpose of the deception is. LOL
> 
> Stock up on extra tinfoil for your little hats, fellows.








Yeah.  When you generate your funding based on support for the fraud it is pretty obvious.  Funny how you think the oil company's spending millions to save billions in sales is bad.  But the AGW scientists, pissing away over 100 billion dollars, in an effort to steal TRILLIONS from the people of the Earth is A-OK with you.  

You is insane in the brain, bro!


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2017)

Study: Earth cooler now than when Al Gore won Nobel Peace Prize for global warming work


----------



## P@triot (Aug 15, 2017)

First we had left-wing political activists posing as "scientists" caught discussing how they falsify their "data" to make it appear that "Global Warming" actually exists. Then we had a second round of left-wing political activists posing as "scientists" caught discussing how they falsify their "data" to make it appear that "Global Warming" actually exists. And now we have left-wing government officials refusing to produce *public* emails related to their "Global Warming" crusade.


> E&E Legal also claims that Vermont’s decision is an example of the state’s failure to maintain a transparent government.
> 
> “Vermont’s current attorney general is the lawyer protecting former AG Sorrell’s work-related Gmails from public disclosure, and apparently also from compelling Sorrell to turn over to the government and to the public the very records that he created in the use of a taxpayer-funded office,” Hardin said. “*This is not how a transparent government operates and the people of Vermont deserve better*.”


What's the problem, lefties? Why are you so terrified to be transparent? 

Group Sues Vermont AG for Withholding Emails About Climate Crusade Against Oil Groups


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2017)

Government "green" energy at its absolute finest... 


> Biomass fuels just mean things like wood pellets. Pellets made out of wood. For every 100 pounds spent on wood pellets, they would receive 160 pounds. It sounds like a great way to save the planet and make a few extra bucks. The “renewable heat incentive” sounded so good that people started buying wood pellets left and right.
> 
> In fact, people started buying biomass boilers and wood pellets just for the money. Some true geniuses were able to make this government subsidy into a personal passive income stream! For example, one farmer expected to make a million pounds *heating an empty shed* and another was on track to make a million and a half *heating a couple empty factories*. This is the way these things always seem to turn out. The government designs a system to force people to help the environment. It winds up costing a fortune and making the environment worse. Classic #GreenFail story.


But wait! It gets even better.... 


> The misuse of this environmental program is now estimated to cost taxpayers upwards of 660 million pounds. And the real kicker is that environmentalists wasted all this cash convincing people that literally lighting trees on fire was somehow environmentally friendly. It’s not. It’s a tree holocaust. And for what? It’s not even good for the environment.
> 
> *Wood is absolutely not carbon-neutral*. For example, the DRAX power station uses more than a million metric tons of wood pellets from the US every year. The result? The power station *produces more than 3% more carbon dioxide than coal and twice as much as natural gas*. And you also have to take into account the additional carbon emissions of just getting the wood pellets across the pond from America.


Great job lefties! Vintage progressive fail. Costing tax payers unimaginable fortune while destroying the environment.

Massive #GreenFail Strikes Ireland, Costing Taxpayers Millions


----------



## toobfreak (Aug 19, 2017)

P@triot said:


> The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> 
> A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that *97.4%* *never* materialized.
> 
> ...



Since no one will ever probably read this where I originally wrote it, I will post it here in the hope it will do a little good for this tortured topic:

The Sun runs generally on an 11 year cycle of solar activity along with other cycles, and the Earth runs on THREE main cycles, the first is the 100,000 year orbital eccentricity of the Earth as a sort an oscillation between oblateness and prolateness, probably left over from the impactor that created the Moon, the second is the 41,000 year variation of the Earth's axial tilt towards and away from the Sun, and the third is the 23,000 cycle of the directional wobble of the Earth's axis like a top as a Precession of the Equinoxes that causes the axis of the Earth to point in different directions. Right now it points towards Polaris (North Star), eventually it will point towards Vega (alpha Lyrae), then back again.

The combination of these three add up to what are called your Milankovitch Cycles, and it is the adding up and lining up of these cycles that has far more impact on the Earth's climate, ice age, global warming, etc., as the variation of the amount of energy we get from the Sun than anything we could ever do. The Sun imparts roughly 82 trillion kilowatt hours of energy to the Earth each hour or about 2 quadrillion kilowatts of energy per day.

That is equal to about 7.2 X 10^21 power joules of energy, 6.8 X 10^18 power BTUs, about 2 exawatts, 2.68 quintillion horsepower, or 1.7 quadrillion tons of TNT (1.7 billion megatons). Or the equal of 34 MILLION 50-megaton H-Bombs. Each day.

Remember, the Sun is a giant hydrogen fusion bomb the size of 1.3 million Earths. The Earth is a grain of sand next to the Sun.

That is what is hitting us on a good day. Does anyone really suppose that mankind can approach even a small fraction of that in his industrial and civil output? Anyone is welcome to try to do the math. The Earth gets a variation of that amount on a daily basis year round and a big volcano only makes a slight variation in climate that damps out in a year or two. This is why it is laughable when people claim that mankind is pushing the Earth over the edge of extinction beyond the Earth's ability to come back with just our cars and factories puffing a little gas, but you can never make them believe it.

If you follow the Earth's long-term variation over hundreds of thousands of years, a little global warming right now is probably a good indicator that the next mini ice-age is not too far off.  Hang onto all the global warming while you can.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2017)

toobfreak said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> ...


Hands down the best post on USMB for 2017...


----------



## toobfreak (Aug 19, 2017)

P@triot said:


>




FWIW, Patriot, the Sun is hitting the Earth with the equivalent of about 390 50-Megaton bombs every second!  But unlike our bombs which are instantaneous, local and fission radiation, this energy is evenly and smoothly distributed throughout the atmosphere and absorbed, throughout the oceans and absorbed as heat, all over the land and absorbed as heat or food energy, plant growth, it drives the oceans, drives the weather, powers our homes, and some of it is reflected back out into space.

Even something as bad as a super-volcano which can push life to the limit for years, or a large asteroid which can punch through the crust and annihilate whole species off the face of the Earth for thousands of years, even a planet the size of Mars hitting the Earth which created our Moon, even these titanic events the Earth recovered from and bounced right back over and over to the world we have today.

It is the height of arrogance and stupidity (or dishonestly) to think that what we produce as a bacteria on the surface of the Earth, could do worse.

Even if half the stuff the global warming nuts claim will happen DID happen, all that would occur is that things would eventually get bad enough that man would be forced to stop.  Not out of altruism, but out of an inability to push the climate any further.  Industry and pollution would be forced back by conditions too poor for the normal functioning continuation of our society, we would be unable to keep it up, then the Earth would rebound right back to start all over again.  The Earth is a self correcting system that 4.5 billion years of history shows recovers from everything the cosmos has to offer short of total annihilation by another planet pulverizing us into a cloud of dust.

Man-made climate change, carbon credits, green energy, save the planet and An Inconvenient Truth----  go suck an egg.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 19, 2017)

toobfreak said:


> Since no one will ever probably read this where I originally wrote it, I will post it here in the hope it will do a little good for this tortured topic:


I read it!  

But don't worry, The reason I don't go into great detail on this board anymore is number of people who act scientific and are not. They don't have half a clue about the amount of power needed to force change in our systems on earth, but claim somehow that magical CO2 has the ability to create such power.

It was a breath of fresh air to see someone else, who has a scientific background in physics, that can articulate their position and show the math...  

Thank You..


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2017)




----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2017)

toobfreak said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Umm... show us something from, say, the IPCC, that equates the effects of global warming with the effects of the collision that produced the moon.

PS: The moon was created about a billion years before life appeared on this planet.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 19, 2017)

And the along comes the Karl Et Al and IPCC failed predictions. when that didn't work then came the homogenized and fabricated crap...

The true believers posting up crap that has been shown fraud over and over again while trying like hell to misdirect the satellite records. Classic Science Denier...Alarmist drivel...

And then we have reality...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

toobfreak said:


> The combination of these three add up to what are called your Milankovitch Cycles,



A cycle which has been causing the earth to _cool_ for the past 8000 years, and which is still trying to cause the earth to cool.



> Remember, the Sun is a giant hydrogen fusion bomb the size of 1.3 million Earths. The Earth is a grain of sand next to the Sun.



And solar output has been dropping.



> That is what is hitting us on a good day. Does anyone really suppose that mankind can approach even a small fraction of that in his industrial and civil output?



So then why is it warming so quickly?

Do the math for us. Explain to us how the sun can be causing warming when solar output is dropping, and when the Milankovich cycles are trying to force cooling. Something is overwhelming those cooling effects and causing warming instead. Gee, what could it be?

The point? Reality says you and all deniers are just making up crazy stories. That is, you're all faking everything.

And you won't address reality. You'll curse at me, you'll invoke bizarre conspiracy theories, you'll go into contortions to evade and deflect, but you'll keep running from reality. After all, your political/religious cult forbids you from admitting that reality contradicts your cult's holy scripture, so your only option is to create a fictional reality.

That's why it's so good to be part of the reason-based community. There's no political cult ordering us to lie and fake evidence. To "win", we just have to point to the real world.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> And the along comes the Karl Et Al and IPCC failed predictions. when that didn't work then came the homogenized and fabricated crap...



Billy, the reason everyone correctly defines you as a professional fraud is that you constantly post fudged graphs from denier fraudsters, even though you've been busted for that specific fraud many times before.

You're probably being paid too much to peddle your fraud, given how inept you are at it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > The combination of these three add up to what are called your Milankovitch Cycles,
> ...


Your ignorance on any scientific subject is stunning.. You should stop... I am laughing at your pure unadulterated ignorance of physics and why things work...


----------



## toobfreak (Aug 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> Umm... show us something from, say, the IPCC, that equates the effects of global warming with the effects of the collision that produced the moon.  PS: The moon was created about a billion years before life appeared on this planet.



Crock, I know something of the matter, I have a degree in astrophysics and have taught astronomy rather than just cherry pick data that fits my needs as you do.  You don't think the impact of Theia (hypothesized Mars-size body that broke the Earth up into the Earth-Moon System) didn't warm the planet?  It was molten lava!  You are missing the point deliberately that even after THAT, the Earth returned to what it is today and all life we know developed---  repeatedly.  So long as the Earth lives until it is totally destroyed by either a massive shattering impact or the eventual death of the Sun into a Red Giant, the Earth will always pivot back to its natural point of equilibrium, what we have today.  Nothing man can do is significant by comparison and at best all of your charts merely show short-term trends over a century or so.  If we go back hundreds of years before man's industrialization, you would find the exact same patterns of variation.  It's called 'natural variation.'

Even if man is contributing in some small way, as soon as we stop, the Earth will seek rebalancing.  In another 50-100 years when our technology is sufficient, we will no longer be putting any of the aerosols into the sky.  All of Gore's doom and gloom about pushing the Earth over the cliff is bull.  The Earth pushes us, we don't push it.  But even if we still kept on, eventually the Earth would rid itself of the pesky humans as a destabilizing effect, either way, the Earth will always absorb, counter or fend off whatever imbalances it to return to a normalized state.  Like General Motors and JP Morgan, the planet Earth is too big to fail.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

toobfreak said:


> Crock, I know something of the matter, I have a degree in astrophysics and have taught astronomy rather than just cherry pick data that fits my needs as you do.



Then you really have no excuse for abandoning science in favor of magic.



> the Earth will always pivot back to its natural point of equilibrium, what we have today.



That's Gaian touchy-feely religious mumbo-jumbo. There is no "natural point of equilibrium". The earth is most certainly not a "self correcting system". You're invoking rainbows and unicorns, not science.

The earth is a system that responds to various inputs. Change the inputs, you change the temperature. One of the inputs is CO2 level. Hence, changing CO2 levels changes temperatures, and your magical thinking doesn't change that simple fact. The earth will absolutely not magically adjust itself to reduce temperature to compensate for more CO2.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

You can ignore mammaries, toobfreak (_everyone_ else here does). I caught her *lying* about all of this in another thread. She was mortified when I pointed it out and she ran from the thread. She lies about everything all the time.

Click here to see her lie. And click here to see it again. Enjoy!


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> That's why it's so good to be part of the reason-based community. There's no political cult ordering us to lie and fake evidence. To "win", we just have to point to the real world.


Mammaries here is the quintessential left-winger: ignore science, reason, and reality - promote lies, misinformation, and propaganda.

And I've caught her doing it!


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> You can ignore mammaries, toobfreak (_everyone_ else here does). I caught her *lying* about all of this in another thread. She was mortified when I pointed it out and she ran from the thread. She lies about everything all the time.
> 
> Click here to see her lie. And click here to see it again. Enjoy!
> 
> ...



Groan. Not this weepy-stalky-faggotry again. Please stop hitting on me. Yes, yes, you're an old fatass queer. There's no need to keep flaunting that in everyone's face. But that does explain your consistently vile behavior. You _want_ to burn in Hell, because it means fiery demons will be sodomizing you for all of eternity. To you, that's like a Paradise with 40 virgins. You're a sort of gay jihadist.

Remember, you can't just weep out that I lied. You have to _show_ it. If you won't, everyone correctly thinks you're permanently butthurt, weeping hysterically over getting spanked so often. Thus, that's what everyone correctly thinks about you.

And since you won't address you own topic, I will. Your OP was a repetition of the same half-truths and deflections you've used previously. None of the people you quoted in the OP were climate scientists, and half of the quotes were faked or ripped wildly out of context. You don't talk about actual science, because all the actual science says you're the brainwashed acolyte of a liars' cult.

At least you did learn a bit from previous spankings. You left out the faked quotes from Dr. Viner this time, and you didn't make a direct claim that the bad quotes came from actual climate scientists.

You know, I was ignoring you on this thread out of pity, and because the way you always cry is just boring. If you'd like, I'll go back to ignoring you out of pity, though  I suppose I could muster the energy to humiliate you again. Again, it's happened so often, it's just tedious. There are new cultists showing up who cry in different ways, and they're more fun.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Remember, you can't just weep out that I lied.


I did mammaries. Just click the link! Shows you in a bold face *lie*.


----------



## toobfreak (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> You can ignore mammaries, toobfreak (_everyone_ else here does). I caught her *lying* about all of this in another thread. She was mortified when I pointed it out and she ran from the thread. She lies about everything all the time.
> 
> Click here to see her lie. And click here to see it again. Enjoy!



Thanks.  I've noticed here that the harder liberals claim hard science, the weaker and more specious their facts usually are.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

toobfreak said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > You can ignore mammaries, toobfreak (_everyone_ else here does). I caught her *lying* about all of this in another thread. She was mortified when I pointed it out and she ran from the thread. She lies about everything all the time.
> ...


Did you check out her egregious lie? She completely contradicted herself. When I pointed it out, she actually complained that I spent time to search through her history of posts. The *truth* is - I did no such thing. I simply remembered exactly what she had said (something she is apparently incapable of doing  ).


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> ]I did mammaries. Just click the link! Shows you in a bold face *lie*.



I did click the link. It went to a post that wasn't by me.

Oh, I'm afraid that doesn't make you look good. Maybe you're just incompetent at linking, but it looks like you're being deliberately deceptive. Sucks to be you.

Now, do you want to discuss the topic, or are you just going to keep deflecting by crying at me?[


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ]I did mammaries. Just click the link! Shows you in a bold face *lie*.
> ...


Yeah - it was a post by me that includes both of your posts unedited. And it includes the ability to click on your post to go to your _original_ posts. And you were caught *lying* (as _always_).

You can't deny it sweetie. It's there for everyone to see. You look like a fool trying to deflect.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

toobfreak said:


> Thanks.  I've noticed here that the harder liberals claim hard science, the weaker and more specious their facts usually are.



I directed two posts at you. You've refused to address either, and now you're just whining out evasions with P@triot.

I've taken your measure, and found you to be a coward. And everyone sees it.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Yeah - it was a post by me that includes both of your posts unedited.



No, it linked to a post that wasn't by you or me. That might be a problem with how board software relates to different screen sizes (it linked to page 61, but on my screen, the thread only goes to page 41), but you should have checked for that.



> And it includes the ability to click on your post to go to your _original_ posts..



I think everyone is noticing how you won't reproduce my quotes here. Curious. If I had lied, a person would think you'd want to do that.

Me, I encourage you to reproduce my quotes with full context, so I can demonstrate you lied. Please do so.

Now, I find your lying to be tedious and totally off topic, as no doubt everyone else does. Consider this thread dead, because you've trashed it. If it was anyone else's thread, I'd have reported you for going so wildly off-topic with a personal vendetta. However, it's your thread, so you kind of have the right to trash it. I normally ignore little pissants lying about me. However, you've taken your lying up to obsessed psychopath levels, so I feel it necessary to humiliate you now, to discourage further such psychostalking on your part.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> I think everyone is noticing how you won't reproduce my quotes here. Curious. If I had lied, a person would think you'd want to do that.


Ok! No problem....
This was from the thread "The Left's Rejection of Science"

In post #69 on page 7 of that thread, you stated the following:


mamooth said:


> The planet has been warming strongly and steadily for years. Only the most shameless frauds and liars still try to pass off the insane "it's cooling" story. Even the most brainwashed deniers don't say something that crazy any more.
> 
> What lunatic told you the earth was cooling, and why did you believe such a crazy claim?


But then, later in the exact same thread in post #602 on page 61, you claimed the exact opposite:


mamooth said:


> I'm the one who has constantly been pointing out the world was cooling naturally


It's all there for _everyone_ to see, snowflake. The more you attempt to deny this, the more it exposes you for the pathological liar that you are. There is a very special place in hell reserved for you. It's going to be brutal. But you brought it on yourself.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah - it was a post by me that includes both of your posts unedited.
> ...


Wow...yet _another_ *lie*. I've tried the links multiple times now and each time they go directly to the correct post they were intended to point at.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Deceit and deception are all they have.  Its a disciple of Saul Alyinsky and a believer of the ends justify the means, and any means to discredit you, it will attempt. no lie or deception is too great or off limits.  Most of us have it on ignore, most of the time.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> This was from the thread "The Left's Rejection of Science"



So do you feel any regrets over the quote faking you did in that thread? You know, your faked quotes concerning Dr. Viner. I know you were embarrassed to get caught doing it, which is why you didn't do it again here.



> In post #69 on page 7 of that thread, you stated the following:



And you're still screwing up the links. That one went to post #121.



mamooth said:


> The planet has been warming strongly and steadily for years. Only the most shameless frauds and liars still try to pass off the insane "it's cooling" story. Even the most brainwashed deniers don't say something that crazy any more.
> 
> It's been causing steady strong warming. What lunatic told you the earth was cooling, and why did you believe such a crazy claim?



All absolutely correct. Damn, I'm good. No wonder I leave you so butthurt.



> But then, later in the exact same thread in post #602 on page 61, you claimed the exact opposite:



No, I didn't. I was clearly speaking of two different time periods. I pointed out how it's warming _now_, but it that it had been cooling previously. Even a 'tard like you can understand something that simple, especially since I've explained it to your in small words before. You're stupid, but you're not that stupid. You're lying deliberately.



mamooth said:


> I'm the one who has constantly been pointing out the world was cooling naturally





> It's all there for _everyone_ to see, snowflake.



Yep. You lied your ass off, in front of everyone, and you have zero regrets about doing so. You're a classic sociopathic, completely devoid of a conscience.

According to your psychotard claims, if someone says "it's daylight now, but it was dark before", that person is contradicting themselves and lying. That's why everyone laughs at how stupid and dishonest you are. Notice how nobody else except crazy Billy wants to jump on your 'tard-liar bandwagon? That's how pathetic you look.

Now, the more interesting question: what's the cause of your belligerent stupidity? Your base problem is is that you're a moron who doesn't understand he's a moron. You fail to understand the most basic concepts, then you get flustered by your failure, so you declare that anyone who is smarter than you, which is everyone, must be lying.

My guess is you snarfed a lot of lead paint chips as a child. In addition to lowering IQ, that also creates a rage-filled and violent person. It explains your behavior perfectly. It's a pity that we liberals weren't around to clean up your polluted environment earlier. We could have saved you from a life of rage-retardation.

Anyways, thanks for the thread. I can point to this article any time you tell the same lie, and instantly leave you in tears.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > In post #69 on page 7 of that thread, you stated the following:
> ...


Nope! It _still_ goes to post #69 on page 7 of that thread. Can you ask an adult to show you how to use a computer?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> So do you feel any regrets over the quote faking you did in that thread? You know, your faked quotes concerning Dr. Viner.


And mammaries *lying* _continues_. I did no such thing and it is all there in black and white for everyone to see.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Wow...yet _another_ *lie*.



See? Another example. You can't grasp what a retard you've been, so you flail around and accuse everyone else of lying.



> I've tried the links multiple times now and each time they go directly to the correct post they were intended to point at.



Of course you see that, dumbass. Your screen size matches the screen size that the link used. People with a different screen size won't have the same page count, so your link will lead them to the wrong page.

It's not hard to link correctly. Go to the post, click the post number in the upper right hand corner, and copy the first URL that pops up.  It's kind of foolproof. The URL will be in this format:

xxxx://xxx.usmessageboard.com/posts/17981145/

What you're giving us is something like this:

xxxx://xxx.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-lefts-rejection-of-science.590980/page-7#post-17149885

You're messing it up because you're copying the URL from your own address bar, which is the wrong thing to do. That puts a page number into things. Since everyone with a different screen size -- which means everyone -- will have their posts on different page numbers, that screws it up for everyone except yourself.

By the way, you're welcome.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Aug 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...yet _another_ *lie*.
> ...



His links work just fine for me.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> You're messing it up because *you're copying the URL from your own address bar*, which is the wrong thing to do.


Actually...I'm *not* doing that at all. 

Yet another example of you lying. You're just making up your own version of reality. I right-click on the post number itself and copy _that_.

Maybe you could ask an adult to show you how to use a computer?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

Tresha91203 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


And it will work for _everyone_ who knows how to use a computers. I think mammaries suffers from schizophrenia or some other form of mental illness. It's the only explanation for her constant bizarre behavior.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I suspect he is a paid poster like Lakhota, and probably Nat.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2017)

Tresha91203 said:


> I suspect he is a paid poster like Lakhota, and probably Nat.


Mammaries will attack you relentlessly now just for acknowledging that the link works as it should.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Yet another example of you lying.



Again, you're accusing others of lying solely because you're so goddamn stupid.



> You're just making up your own version of reality. I right-click on the post number itself and copy _that_.



And in this case, that's essentially the same thing as copying the address bar. You're _still_ fucking it up.

Shall we ask the mods about the proper way to link, little snowflake? Or are you afraid?

I'll do it anyways, just to prove you're a retard. This will be fun. You won't apologize after I've proven you're a retard, because that would take class and humility, and sociopaths lack both.

I am so happy for this thread, you know. Usually, cowards like P@triot cry to the mods when I spank 'em, but due to his own bad behavior on his own thread, he can't do that now, and I'm free to ream his sociopath ass. Ah, life is good.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect he is a paid poster like Lakhota, and probably Nat.
> ...



Doesn't matter.  I've tried to have a civil convo with him a couple of times, kitty to kitty, but it was futile. A quick check of his history revealed mostly insults, bloviating and propaganda. Not worth my time.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2017)

Tresha91203 said:


> Doesn't matter.  I've tried to have a civil convo with him a couple of times, kitty to kitty, but it was futile.



You and P@triot are still wrong about the correct way to link. Deflections won't change that. This thread I just started talks about why in detail.

What's the right way to link?



> A quick check of his history revealed mostly insults, bloviating and propaganda. Not worth my time.



A quick check of your history shows you rely heavily on bothsiderism fallacies. I find that attitude to be cowardly. I'm more impressed by fanatical right-wing supporters who are honest about being fanatical right-wing supporters.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 20, 2017)

P@triot said:


> The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> 
> A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that *97.4%* *never* materialized.
> 
> ...


Really? that's all good and fine. But meanwhile I am seeing global warming for over 3 decades. I don't need smart asses telling me global warming isn't any more real that 2+2=4, or gravity. Us real hard  headed realist don't care about politics. It's happening. And there's more to this story, like how both liberal and neocons deny 7 billion people isn't overpopulation. Overpopulation is the cause of wars, and migration issues, let alone global climate change. You put too many rats in a cage, they kill each other.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 21, 2017)

The AGW Cult was destined to be the Biggest Scientific Fraud in Human History the second they called skeptics "deniers". 

They have no one to blame but themsrlves for slavishly following the decrees of their globalist puppet masters.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 26, 2017)

MaryL said:


> Really? that's all good and fine. But meanwhile I am seeing global warming for over 3 decades.


With what...your x-ray vision? You can't see something that isn't there my dear.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 26, 2017)

MaryL said:


> And there's more to this story, like how both liberal and neocons deny 7 billion people isn't overpopulation. Overpopulation is the cause of wars, and migration issues, let alone global climate change. You put too many rats in a cage, they kill each other.


The planet can hold 100x's that many. No war was ever the result of "overpopulation".   They are the result of maniacs who desperately desire to _control_ others.

Sort of like you are doing now by dictating for all of society that there are too many people.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2017)

There are few things more comical than the "Global Warming" conspiracy alarmists crying about CO2 when plant life _flourishes_ under CO2. It illustrates the astounding ignorance of the left.


> A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth. This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food. Studies indicate that crops would utilize water more efficiently, requiring less water. And colder areas along the farm belt will experience longer growing seasons.


So basically - nothing would be better for our agriculture industry than increased levels of CO2.

Don’t Believe the Hysteria Over Carbon Dioxide


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2017)

If "Global Warming" were even remotely real - Al Gore wouldn't be doing _any_ of this.


> According to the report, compiled from public records requests and information from the Nashville Electric Service, Gore’s 20-room, 10,070-square-foot, Colonial-style mansion consumed an average of 19,241 kilowatt-hours per month—more than 21.3x's that of the U.S. household average of 901 kilowatt-hours monthly.
> 
> Last September alone, Gore’s home in the toney Belle Meade section of Music City consumed 30,993 kWh, as much energy as a typical American family uses in 34 months.
> 
> ...


Gore is laughing all the way to the bank, his 10,000 ft. mansion, and his private jet thinking about the left-wing minions who have made him a billionaire.

Al Gore's Carbon Footprint Hypocrisy


----------



## P@triot (Nov 27, 2017)

Even NASA physicists are coming forward and admitting what can no longer be denied...


> Unvalidated climate models that don’t correspond with physical data and the requirements of the scientific method contribute to *unfounded climate alarmism*, a *retired NASA physicist said* at the Heartland Institute’s recent America First Energy Conference


Reputable scientists have all acknowledged that “Global Warming” is a scam. Only left-wing political activists posing as faux scientists push the narrative that it exists.

Climate Change Alarmism Is 'Garbage In, Garbage Out,' Retired NASA Physicist Says


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2017)

Patriot? no matter what lies you tell, the data and observations simply point out how ignorant and stupid you are. 

All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But fools like you think that you are so much smarter than them thar pointy headed librul scientists. LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Patriot? no matter what lies you tell, the data and observations simply point out how ignorant and stupid you are.
> 
> All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But fools like you think that you are so much smarter than them thar pointy headed librul scientists. LOL


Says the lying piece of crap that has yet to produce one ounce of empirical evidence to support your religion over natural variation.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 28, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Patriot? no matter what lies you tell, the data and observations simply point out how ignorant and stupid you are.
> 
> All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But fools like you think that you are so much smarter than them thar pointy headed librul scientists. LOL




And no agenda there?

C'mon now..........I am continuously amazed watching these bozo Republicans in congress march out and proclaim every swinging dick dictator to be an imminent threat to the US and so many suckers out there buying in. The war mongers. They live to create a reality built by establishing a perception. The Think Tanks stoke the fire. Been doing it for decades. Why? To keep the war machine rolling along. To keep the lobbyists happy. Its an industry......trillions of $$.

The scientific societies are an industry as well.........they serve to ensure the sustainability of the societies and the green energy industry. Cant keep the $$ coming in if your findings are irrelevant. Anybody who thinks that Obama's Clean Power Plan was about the environment and mitigating the threat of climate change is a sucker.........naïve at pronounced levels. We are talking a 1.5 trillion dollar industry. Think government monies aren't going back to these science academies in droves??!!! Why is the temperature data routinely manipulated?

The big banks dictate everything s0ns...........always have.............always will ( no matter who is in power btw )>>>

*https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm*


The world is what it is folks........its a bitter pill to finally have to swallow. Most cant do it and are slaves to the Reality Manufacturing Company for life. I get it........I was suckered for the better part of my life. Have to delve outside the matrix..........a tough thing to face.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 28, 2017)

I missed this bit of crazy when it happened.



P@triot said:


> The planet can hold 100x's that many.



Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ...

Yep, P@triot here says the planet can support over 700 billion people.

While all deniers aren't as stupid as P@triot ... oh wait, actually most of them are.

That's why they always get fooled by such hilariously stupid conspiracy cult propaganda. It's rare to find a denier who isn't dumber than dogshit across the board. People who aren't absolute morons instantly see right through denier stupidity, and thus they won't get sucked into the denier conspiracy cult.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 29, 2017)

mamooth said:


> I missed this bit of crazy when it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





s0n.........you use the term "cult" every day in here as ascribed to "deniers".

Do you know what a bell curve is? Have you ever heard of it? Look it up.........you will see, ummmm, a bell. Either end of the graph represents a "cult". In the middle of the graph you see what represents a huge majority. You present like your side's sentiments...........which views climate change as the most critical issue of our time.........as if it is some huge majority consensus.

But faulty thinking is ghey.......* The New ‘Consensus’: 97 Percent Of Americans Aren’t Worried About Global Warming*

..........one might say, "cult-like" 


s0n.......just an observation. You're really not clever enough to be posting in this forum. Too many robotic-like posts..........very similar all the time. Kinda presents as well.....special.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The planet can hold 100x's that many.
> ...


At least that much. Easily. If you weren’t such a drooling dimwit swallowing the fear mongering, you’d realize it too.

It’s amazing what a calm, rational, logical person can understand. Unfortunately, you will never know. For instance, you’re too panic-stricken to realize that Alaska barely inhabited and could _easily_ hold billions of people alone. Just that one state. Canada is largely uninhabited as well. I could go on all day, but you already believe that the Earth is about to end any moment now...


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2017)

I don't buy into their pseudo science because...

The inability to represent the earth's climate with a single temperature.
The inability to accurately estimate a single temperature for the planet for each of the last 2000 years.
The misuse of the greenhouse gas effect to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change.
The inability to show how CO2 has effected previous climates throughout the geologic record.
The overestimation of feedback in their climate models.
Blaming global warming for natural events such as heat waves, droughts, blizzards, floods, hurricanes and forest fires.
The overestimation of temperature and sea level in their models.
The overestimation of the impact on life and property of climate change.
The overdramatization of climate change.
The demonization of anyone who dares to challenge the science and findings of climate change.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

P@triot said:


> At least that much. Easily. If you weren’t such a drooling dimwit swallowing the fear mongering, you’d realize it too.



So, anybody else want to jump on the stupid train with P@triot and claim the earth can _easily_ support 700 billion people?

No?

P@triot, you're riding your stupid train all alone here.



> It’s amazing what a calm, rational, logical person can understand. Unfortunately, you will never know. For instance, you’re too panic-stricken to realize that Alaska barely inhabited and could _easily_ hold billions of people alone. Just that one state. Canada is largely uninhabited as well. I could go on all



P@triot is so damn stupid, he thinks that all you need to support people is empty space. A few guppies short of an aquarium, that one is.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

ding said:


> I don't buy into their pseudo science because...



... because your political/religious cult has filled your head with pseudoscience nonsense, leaving you totally ignorant of the actual science.



> The inability to represent the earth's climate with a single temperature.



By that standard, we're unable to represent temp in your backyard with a single temperature. That is, your standard is dumb. Estimates and averages are useful.



> The inability to accurately estimate a single temperature for the planet for each of the last 2000 years.



The science says otherwise. What did your cult tell you?



> The misuse of the greenhouse gas effect to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change.



More unsupported cult propaganda, contradicted by reality.



> The inability to show how CO2 has effected previous climates throughout the geologic record.



Again, that's the direct opposite of reality. It is not possible to explain previous climates without accounting for CO2.



> The overestimation of feedback in their climate models.



As the models have been very accurate, that's more cult babbling on your part.



> Blaming global warming for natural events such as heat waves, droughts, blizzards, floods, hurricanes and forest fires.



It's accurate to point out that global warming increases such events. If accurate science triggers you, that's your problem.



> The overestimation of temperature and sea level in their models.



Again, as both have been very accurate, that's crazy talk.



> The overestimation of the impact on life and property of climate change.



That's been very accurate too. Almost all of the economists and insurance companies agree with us.



> The overdramatization of climate change.



Some random person's emotional response has nothing to do with how good the science has been. Your science is bad because the data says your science is bad, not because of your emotionalism.



> The demonization of anyone who dares to challenge the science and findings of climate change.



The Flat Earthers make that complaint as well. By your standards, the fact that we call Flat Earthers dumbasses shows how Flat Earthers are correct.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I don't buy into their pseudo science because...
> ...




You still trying to sell snow shovels?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

bear513 said:


> You still trying to sell snow shovels?



Snowfall levels have increased in some areas, being that warmer air holds more moisture.

Just as the science predicted.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> P@triot is so damn stupid, he thinks that all you need to support people is empty space. A few guppies short of an aquarium, that one is.


Mammaries is so damn stupid, she literally thought the Earth was "full". 

Snowflake...70% of the Earth's surface is covered in water. We have an overabundance (and I can't wait for your ignorant response to this fact - I already know what it will be and I'm more than happy to allow you to show everyone how stupid you are). We have an abundance of land for agriculture too and technology will only expand that greatly (yes stupid - technology can "expand" our agricultural capabilities - we can grow anything in deserts now in a multitude of different ways, including indoors).

You continue to illustrate why are you are the joke of USMB!


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> The science says otherwise.


The science _does_ say otherwise. I've proven that in this thread. Why do you continue to ignore the science? Oh wait...that's right...because you're a drooling dimwit who values ideology over reality.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You still trying to sell snow shovels?
> ...




And a broken clock is right twice a day...your point being?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Snowflake...70% of the Earth's surface is covered in water. We have an overabundance



You are aware salt water is not useful, right? Given your displayed intellect, I have to ask.

So, tell us how to desalinate water without a massive energy input. And then explain why your method isn't being used _now_. See, I'm a liberal, so I demand practicality. Your pie-in-the-sky snowflake fantasies may impress your fellow cultists, but rational people want solutions that work.



> we can grow anything in deserts now in a multitude of different ways, including indoors).



So, you're planning a hundred-fold increase in food production by growing food in deserts.

Neglecting things like the need for nitrogen and phosphorous, it's coming down to water again. Fascinating, how the current agriculture industry knows nothing about your amazing technology to turn immense quantities of ocean water into fresh water at nearly no energy cost. Is a secret global socialist conspiracy hiding it from them?


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Just as the science predicted.


Science predicted no such thing, mammaries. Progressive political activists masquerading as "scientists" predicted it. And their record is absolutely abysmal. Science says that anyone who is wrong 97.4% of the time is absolutely unreliable and should not be taken seriously.

Top 10 Climate Change Predictions Gone Spectacularly Wrong; This Is EPIC!


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Snowflake...70% of the Earth's surface is covered in water. We have an overabundance
> ...


Ahahahahahahahaha! You walked _right_ into it just like I predicted! You're literally so stupid, you have no idea that we've been able to desalinate ocean water since the 1970's (maybe even earlier?).


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Science predicted no such thing, mammaries.



Sure it did. You're just lying about it.

Your link, for example, show zero predictions by climate scientists. You lied about what your link said, so why shouldn't everyone assume everything you post is a lie?

Answer: They do assume that.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Ahahahahahahahaha! You walked _right_ into it just like I predicted!



It's hilarious, the way that you're too far stupid to ever understand how stupid you are. You're the poster boy for Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.



> You're literally so stupid, you have no idea that we've been able to desalinate ocean water since the 1970's (maybe even earlier?).



Snowflake, I've run distilling units on ships, so I am very aware of how they work. I asked you how to desalinate _with little energy_. English, learn it.

What technology will allow us to desalinate immense quantities of ocean water without immense energy input?

And why aren't we using that technology now?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 2, 2017)

bear513 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


They don't work well spreadin bull shit...


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Snowflake, I've run distilling units on ships, so I am very aware of how they work. I asked you how to desalinate _with little energy_. English, learn it.


Uh...no you didn't. You said no such thing, snowflake. Here is what you said word-for-word:


mamooth said:


> You are aware salt water is not useful, right?


And energy is not an issue. Never has been, never will be. Nuclear power creates unimaginable power for very little cost.

Any other idiotic things you'd like to say?


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> So, you're planning a hundred-fold increase in food production by growing food in deserts.


We're even growing food _underwater_ now...


As a progressive, you're too lazy and ignorant to keep up with technology. You simply immerse yourself in the approved narrative of the ideology and you leave it at that. How embarrassing for you...


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> See, I'm a liberal, so I demand...


Please allow me to finish that sentence for you so that it is accurate (for once):

...that everyone ignore reality, facts, reason, and logic and bow to my bat-shit crazy left-wing ideology!


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

It's so sad that mammaries buys into the idiotic progressive narrative of "the Earth cannot sustain our current population". The left has always engaged in deplorable acts of population control - from the eugenics of Margaret Sanger to the "final solution" of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's, to their latest insanity of "the Earth can't handle the population and it's about to explode from emissions".

The best part though? You never see a progressive commit suicide to reduce the population and "save" the planet. They always want everyone _else_ to die. Gee...I wonder why that is.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 2, 2017)

WheelieAddict said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The odd part is they can be told in  no uncertain terms that they have been lied to, just like the media admitted to lying, and they will march blindly on and believe exactly what they have been told.  Look how many still quote CNN.  It seems they can't be lied to enough.
> ...



Soooooooo........are you going to refute it or not?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Uh...no you didn't. You said no such thing, snowflake. Here is what you said word-for-word:



Here's what I said, word-for-word you lying piece of shit. It's right up there. Why did you lie by pretending I didn't say it?

"So, tell us how to desalinate water without a massive energy input."

Given that you're going to lie outright about whatever I say, what's the point in speaking with you? After all, it's a given that you will always lie in response to anything anyone says to you. It's what defines you, the way you lie more readily than normal humans breathe.

So, why are you such a squealing pajama boy? Why can't you man up and discuss what people actually say? Were you castrated at birth, or was it done when you joined the cult?



> And energy is not an issue. Never has been, never will be. Nuclear power creates unimaginable power for very little cost.



Very little cost?

You're just totally detached from reality. Have you noticed that nobody is building nuclear plants precisely because they're so incredibly expensive? 

Enjoy your snowflake reality, dumbass. Out here in the real world, everyone is laughing at you.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

P@triot said:


> It's so sad that mammaries buys into the idiotic progressive narrative of "the Earth cannot sustain our current population".



I never said or implied any such thing. I only said you have to be a total retard to think the ear4th can easily support 7000 billion people. You really are the most dishonest pajama-boy on the board.



> The left has always engaged in deplorable acts of population control - from the eugenics of Margaret Sanger



Back to your Stalinist lies about Sanger, eh?

Why don't you post the faked Sanger quotes again, little Stalinist fraud? We've been over it before. You know they're faked, but you'll still post them. Your Stalinist cult says that all cultists are required lie for the cult, and you always obey the cult.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Soooooooo........are you going to refute it or not?



Nobody is ever obligated to refute a link to an avalanche o' crap, as that would require spending hours going through the crap point by point. That's why only the most dishonest and craven people use the avalanche o' crap tactic.

Instead, why don't _you_ personally single out what you think is the best argument? Then we can discuss it.

If you've got the guts, that is. Are you willing to back up your crap or not?


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2017)

ding said:


> I don't buy into their pseudo science because...
> 
> The inability to represent the earth's climate with a single temperature.
> The inability to accurately estimate a single temperature for the planet for each of the last 2000 years.
> ...




That is a really strong and we'll written comment.

Why didn't you tell us who wrote it?


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Soooooooo........are you going to refute it or not?
> ...


Spoken like a true drooling progressive dimwit who can’t accept reality...


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Have you noticed that nobody is building nuclear plants...?


Yes...for two reasons

1. We built enough in the 1980’s that we don’t need anymore right now

2. Drooling dimwits such as yourself have bought into the “green” energy idiocy


----------



## P@triot (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Instead, why don't _you_ personally single out what you think is the best argument? Then we can discuss it.


In other words...mammaries here is too lazy and too illiterate to actually read _anything_. She’s hoping that BTM will mention something specific from the links to save her from having to make any effort.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2017)

P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


You are one fucking stupid ass. There is no economical way to desalinize water for the amount needed for irrigation. Even for drinking water for a city, it is very expensive.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2017)

ding said:


> The inability to show how CO2 has effected previous climates throughout the geologic record.


LOL  Dingleberry, you are one silly ass. It has been well proven that CO2 is second only to the sun as the determinate of climate.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

P@triot said:


> In other words...mammaries here is too lazy and too illiterate to actually read _anything_. She’s hoping that BTM will mention something specific from the links to save her from having to make any effort.



We understand, cult boi. You didn't even read your own links. You saw the propaganda in the title, posted the link, and that's it. That's why you run squealing when anyone tries to discuss them.

Again, chickenshit, we're happy to discuss anything in your links. Just bring it up specifically. We won't, however, spend hours refuting every single sentence in a long screed of fraudulent cult propaganda that you link to, especially since it's a given that a coward like you will respond by screaming "Fake news!", running away, and then posting the exact same debunked link somewhere else.

Now, are you going to put your big boy pants on and discuss a point, or will you keep running?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Yes...for two reasons
> 
> 1. We built enough in the 1980’s that we don’t need anymore right now
> 
> 2. Drooling dimwits such as yourself have bought into the “green” energy idiocy



Your kook conspiracy theory violates the practice of capitalism. That is, people will chase profit. If nuclear power is so profitable, then they'd invest in it, instead of investing in fossile fuel or renewable energy.

Yet nobody is doing that.

So, is it your contention that the entire planet has turned socialist, and nobody cares about profit any more, and that's why they're not building that supposedly cheap nuclear power?

That is, just how far down the conspiracy kook rabbit hole have you gone?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Soooooooo........are you going to refute it or not?
> ...



Have you lrefuted anything at all in the list? 


P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, why don't _you_ personally single out what you think is the best argument? Then we can discuss it.
> ...



Yep, you are spot on. She is either lazy, scared, stupid, or most likely a conglomeration of all three. One hell of a way to go thru life.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes...for two reasons
> ...



The reason nobody is building nuclear power plants is because the cost and time to build one is extraordinary, mostly because of the permitting process. It is a well known fact that nuclear power plants are among the most productive. 
The Ten Biggest Power Plants In America -- Not What You Think
Since nuclear’s cf is so high, it is likely that the most productive plants in America will be nuclear, which is exactly the case. In 2014, the following ten power plants produced the most electricity in America:

Palo Verde Nuclear Station                    32,846,202,000 kWhs

Browns Ferry Nuclear Station               26,738,300,000 kWhs

Oconee Nuclear Generating Station     21,193,381,000 kWhs

South Texas Project Nuclear Station    20,651,667,000 kWhs

Grand Coulee Hydroelectric Station     20,266,322,000 kWhs

Braidwood Nuclear Station                     20,263,665,000 kWhs

West County Energy Center (NGCC)     19,764,922,000 kWhs

Byron Nuclear Generating Station        19,252,381,000 kWhs

Limerick Nuclear Generating Station   19,077,244,000 kWhs

Scherer Coal-fired Power Plant              18,894,546,000 kWhs


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2017)

Yep. Lot's of electricity, at a high price. Capitalism and market economics like low prices for the same products.


Power Plant Type Cost 
$/kW-hr
Coal $0.11-0.12
Natural Gas $0.053-0.11
Nuclear $0.096
Wind $0.044-0.20
Solar PV $0.058
Solar Thermal $0.184
Geothermal $0.05
Biomass $0.098
Hydro $0.064
Adapted from US DOE

Renewable Energy Sources: Cost Comparison

*And if something goes wrong with one of the nukes, you have a generations long cleanup process at extreme cost. Fukushima.*


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 2, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Yep. Lot's of electricity, at a high price. Capitalism and market economics like low prices for the same products.
> 
> 
> Power Plant Type Cost
> ...



Tell me, how big is the cheap solar array of panels on your roof?  Surely you are using that cheap energy. 

What you don’t seem to acknowledge is that power is a utility and not subject to the capitalistic free market.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 3, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> The reason nobody is building nuclear power plants is because the cost and time to build one is extraordinary, mostly because of the permitting process.



The extraordinary cost holds all around the world. "Permitting" doesn't add tens of billions.



> It is a well known fact that nuclear power plants are among the most productive.



Which has nothing to do with new plants not being cost-effective.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 3, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Have you lrefuted anything at all in the list?



I'm still waiting for you to pick something to talk about. 

Yest you won't. Anything beyond saying "MY LINK ROOLZ!" seems to be beyond your capability.

Just like P@triot, you haven't even read the link you claim is so awesome.

And just like P@rtriot, you're fundamentally yellow.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 9, 2017)

It continues to get worse and worse for the “Global Warming” crowd. Yet again, we see their political activists posing as “scientists” caught in a *lie*. Of course, progressives (like mammaries) won’t read the link but will deny it anyway.


> But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.
> 
> The *whistle was blown by* two Australian *scientists* Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.


Yep...actual _scientists_ exposed the lie from the left-wing political activists. I wonder how long the left can deny reality before it just becomes too exhausting for them?

Tidalgate: Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise


----------



## P@triot (Dec 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Just like P@triot, you haven't even read the link you claim is so awesome.


How bizarre...you get caught not reading links (while I read all links thoroughly) and then you attempt to accuse me of _your_ actions. Desperate, much?


----------



## P@triot (Dec 30, 2017)




----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

Here is a PhD who holds 4 degrees from M.I.T.


(The funny thing is...Glenn Beck explained all of this more than 8 years ago)


----------



## mamooth (Dec 31, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Here is a PhD who holds 4 degrees from M.I.T.



Look, it's Shiva Ayyadurai, the guy who claimed to have invented email in 1978, even though ARPANET was using email in 1971. And then he sued the people who pointed that out, forcing settlements from small-time defendents who couldn't afford the legal fight.

The lesson? Denialism attracts scammers, and the gullible fall for the scams.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a PhD who holds 4 degrees from M.I.T.
> ...


...holds FOUR degrees from MIT. The school that won’t even allow you to attend.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 31, 2017)

The assholes calling it a scam are the real scam. Pure idiocy...This truly is the age of making shit up and attacking real evidence based thought with it. Sad.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> The assholes calling it a scam are the real scam. Pure idiocy...This truly is the age of making shit up and attacking real evidence based thought with it. Sad.


Snowflake...this thread is filled with indispensable evidence proving it is a scam. The fact that your masters had to rebrand it from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” because the climate had indisputably proven them *wrong* should have tipped you off. And it would have if you had any intellect at all.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> The assholes calling it a scam are the real scam. Pure idiocy...


Let’s see if we can dumb this down to your level, Matthew. We’ll make this all very simple “Yes” or “No”.


> Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”



We’re we “starving to death” starting in the 1980’s until now? Yes or No?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 31, 2017)

P@triot said:


> ..holds FOUR degrees from MIT. The school that won’t even allow you to attend.



So you're saying holding 4 degrees makes it okay to be a fraud and extortionist. Glad we got that straight. But then, everyone already knew how corrupt you were.

Care to summarize the circles and arrows in your own words? Of course you won't. As usual, you have no idea what your own "source" even says. The cult fed you a headline, and you BELIEVED. Talking about actual facts would take honesty and gonads, and you have neither. All you can do is lisp out "BUT MY LINK!". That's just one reason why you're laughed at, your consistent chickenshit act.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ..holds FOUR degrees from MIT. The school that won’t even allow you to attend.
> ...


No...what I’m saying is that you continue to *lie* while he holds the degrees to be more qualified about this topic. That’s why you need to *lie* about him.

Global Warming was a scam. Al Gore became a billionaire by duping the simple minded like you.

Everything that Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats proposed would not have reduced pollution a single ounce but would have redistributed wealth. In a nutshell, every company had “x” amount of “carbon credits” to pollute with. If they exceeded that level of pollution, they could purchase the “carbon credits” of small businesses that would never need them. Ergo, pollution was *never* reduced under the proposal. It simply redistributed wealth - the entire goal of Obama.

And he knew that simpletons like you would never understand it.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 31, 2017)

P@triot said:


> No...what I’m saying is that you continue to *lie*



Yet you can't point to a lie. You're doing what all my obsessed stalkers do, which is pout "liar!" when they need to run from what I say. Boring.



> while he holds the degrees to be more qualified about this topic.



No, I'm more qualified than he is, being how much I've studied the actual science involved. Actual science, as in the research and the actual physics behind it, as opposed to conspiracy blogs. He has no qualifications on the topic, being none of his degrees are related to it, and being that the ability to parrot conspiracy theories and make circles and arrows on a whiteboard is not a qualification. However, snowflakes like you crave authority figures to obey, so his kind of Appeal to False Authority fallacy always fools you

Now, I asked you to summarize his points. You're crying instead. That proves my point, that you don't even understand what he said, and you  didn't even watch the video. As is usual, you have no idea what your own link said. You just saw the headline and BELIEVED.



> Global Warming was a scam. Al Gore became a billionaire by duping the simple minded like you.



Gore Rule Invoked.

As Gore is a politician and not a scientist, he's not relevant to the science, and any mewling beta who brings up Gore automatically forfeits the thread.

Better luck next time, cult boi.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

mamooth said:


> As Gore is a politician and not a scientist, he's not relevant to the science, and any mewling beta who brings up Gore automatically forfeits the thread.


Ahahahahahaha! So you admit that Al Gore has been *lying* (and that you were dumb enough to be duped by it)!!!


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

mamooth said:


> You're doing what all my obsessed stalkers do..


Awe...mammaries wishes she had stalkers. How cute and sad at the same time. To have stalkers, one must be either attractive, intelligent, or likeable. You are none of those things, snowflake. And you’ve been caught lying.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

Once again we see real scientists proving that "Global Warming" is a complete hoax while a left-wing lunatic and actor proclaims the planet is about to explode. 


> “There’s this myth that’s developed around carbon dioxide that it’s a pollutant, but you and I both exhale carbon dioxide with every breath. Each of us emits about two pounds of carbon dioxide a day, so are we polluting the planet?” Happer, a *real* scientist, said.



Watch: Bill Nye blows gasket when a real scientist schools him on facts about ‘climate change’


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2017)

P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > As Gore is a politician and not a scientist, he's not relevant to the science, and any mewling beta who brings up Gore automatically forfeits the thread.
> ...


No, you dumb fuck. Gore did not lie. He is a journalist by training. He interpreted what the scientist were saying, putting it in layman's language. Layman's language is very imprecise when dealing with science. So some of the things that he said were not exactly right. However, he is far more accurate than willfully ignorant uneducated oafs like you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2017)

Al Gore stated that GHGs warm the atmosphere and oceans. According to the experiments by scientists examining the absorption spectra of the various GHGs, that is correct. Al Gore said it will get warmer, a lot warmer if we continue to add GHGs to the atmosphere. That is exactly what we are seeing. How fast, and where it will have the most effect is a matter of opinion, even among the scientists right not. However, the two main themes of Gore's movie were absolutely correct.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> He interpreted what the scientist were saying, putting it in layman's language.


Wow...that has to be one of the most desperate and absurd excuses I’ve ever heard. Even if that were true (and it’s painfully clear that it is not), that means Al Gore _grossly_ misinterpreted what the scientists had said. To the point where he would be terminated from his job for gross negligence if he actually were a journalist (which he is not, dumb shit  )


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2017)

P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > You're doing what all my obsessed stalkers do..
> ...


So that is your way of backing up a position that is totally untenable. Just like the fat hog that is presently President. The primary impression you make is that of one extremely stupid and lazy individual.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> No, you dumb fuck. Gore did not lie. He is a journalist by training. He interpreted what the scientist were saying, putting it in layman's language. Layman's language is very imprecise when dealing with science. *So some of the things that he said were not exactly right*.


So then obviously you agree that there is absolutely *no* threat. Thank you.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> So that is your way of backing up a position that is totally untenable.


Nobody needs to “back up” the facts. They stand on their own. And they cause you left-wing lunatics to really lose your shit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > He interpreted what the scientist were saying, putting it in layman's language.
> ...


Links, and direct quotes, you silly flap yapping asshole. In the meantime we will continue to post what the scientists have to say


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So that is your way of backing up a position that is totally untenable.
> ...


You have presented no facts at all, you craven cowardly little fuck. Just endless flap yap.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2017)

Present evidence like this.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2017)

Real scientists, not whores hired by Exxon-Mobile.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Links, and direct quotes, you silly flap yapping asshole.


This thread is already filled with them. Remember - those links and quotes are what caused you to completely lose your shit? Man...please get back on your meds. You can't even remember what you read, what you are arguing, or why you are arguing it.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Links, and direct quotes, you silly flap yapping asshole.


Since you are off of your meds and terribly confused - I feel sorry for you. So I'm going to help you out. This quote (completely with links) was in the very first post in this thread. Page #1, post #1. You just can't remember. Poor little thing.


> In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had expanded over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Real scientists, not whores hired by Exxon-Mobile.


Sweetie...that's not a "real scientist". That is a paid political activist. He's getting his pockets lined by the left to tell the lies. Remember, you dill holes got caught in not one but TWO separate rounds of "Climategate" in which your paid political activists were caught discussing how they *lie* and falsify their data to make it look like "Global Warming" exists.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Present evidence like this.


What "evidence"? Everything you people have "predicted" has been spectacularly *wrong*. It's so humiliating I don't know how you people keep going.

Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time


----------



## P@triot (Dec 31, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Present evidence like this.


I keep destroying you with indisputable evidence. Here is more... 

Study: Earth cooler now than when Al Gore won Nobel Peace Prize for global warming work


----------



## P@triot (Jan 1, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Present evidence like this.


The evidence is so vast and so indisputable that only a left-wing dolt could attempt to ignore it...


> The great physicist and mathematician Dr. Freeman Dyson once said, “The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers. … Hansen has turned his science into ideology.”


Climate Expert James Hansen: New York Will Have Vanished Underwater by Midnight! - Breitbart


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2018)

And all your flap yap and lies changes reality not one whit. The Arctic Sea Ice continues to shrink, the glaciers continue to recede, and the warm temperature records get higher every decade. These are measured realities. All you have is the equivalent of the National Enquirer. That is hardly a credible source, same as Breitbart and WUWT. 

That you continue to embrace your willful ignorance, and consider yourself more intelligent than all the scientists in the world, is simply an indication of the depths of your delusion and disconnect with reality. You, sir, are on dumb fucker.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2018)

Tax Man said:


> And just what part of the Blaze is truth? There has never been a bit of truth to anything in the Blaze. Now when the entire modern world accepts global warming it kind of puts all the nay sayers in a position of desperation to prove themselves correct. Thanks for the laugh.



History has shown us that the entire world will often accept bullshit as the truth...quite often as a matter of fact.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2018)

"_We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of 
economic and environmental policy._"

- *Timothy Wirth*, 
President of the UN Foundation


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2018)

"_No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world_."

- *Christine Stewart*,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2018)

“_The_ _models are convenient fictions 
that provide something very useful_.”

- *Dr David Frame*, 
climate modeler, Oxford University


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2018)

"_It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true_."

- *Paul Watson*,
co-founder of Greenpeace


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2018)

lol.............duh


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> "_It doesn't matter what is true,
> it only matters what people believe is true_."
> 
> - *Paul Watson*,
> co-founder of Greenpeace



Is Watson the one who split away from Greenpeace, and criticized GW/CC?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2018)

Lets face it......either you have here one of two things........

1) A devotee to the religion who is just a sucker for anything stated by the government/science and is, thus, a mental case

or

2) An individual who knows this is a farce and has an uber-progressive agenda...........their way or the highway and fuck any information counter to the established narrative.


For those who follow the regular climate crusaders in here..........all 4 of them.........if you look closely enough at the substance of the posts, you can tell who are the mental cases and who are those with a progressive agenda, although, some are not astute enough to pick up on it.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 4, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> That you continue to embrace your willful ignorance


This is vintage “projection”. Snowflake - let’s see if we can dumb this down to your level (I doubt that’s even possible but I’ll give it a shot). Here is a person you blindly believed.


> Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”


Did this happen? Yes or No?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2018)

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's.* Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.*
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

*Patriot, you dumb ass cocksuck, stick to the subject. Here is the 1981 prediction by Dr. Hansen concerning CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, he was wrong. He predicted these things to happen toward the end of the 21st Century. They are already happening. The Northwest passage opened up for the first time in 2007, and, in 2016, a 1000 passenger luxury liner made the passage.*


----------



## TheTechnologist (Jan 5, 2018)

The Irish Ram said:


> The odd part is they can be told in  no uncertain terms that they have been lied to, just like the media admitted to lying, and they will march blindly on and believe exactly what they have been told.  Look how many still quote CNN.  It seems they can't be lied to enough.
> Nothing can make them believe the truth.   It's kind of eerie..


Sounds like you when you're told Trump lies to your face.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 6, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's.* Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.*
> https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
> 
> *Patriot, you dumb ass cocksuck, stick to the subject. Here is the 1981 prediction by Dr. Hansen concerning CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, he was wrong. He predicted these things to happen toward the end of the 21st Century. They are already happening. The Northwest passage opened up for the first time in 2007, and, in 2016, a 1000 passenger luxury liner made the passage.*


Hansen Et Al is a pile of garbage.  His modeling has failed so badly that they wont even use it in the IPCC propaganda anymore.  And your luxury liner was escorted by a state of the art ice breaker...  do you know why?  You really shouldn't be so deceptive...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 6, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's.* Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.*
> ...





What else is new about old rocks half truths and outright lies ..

A Luxury Cruise Liner Is About to Sail the Arctic’s Northwest Passage


Despite the melting trends, Arctic waters aren’t exactly smooth sailing even in August, and Crystal says it is planning accordingly. The cruise willhave an escort from the R.R.S._Ernest Shackleton_, a research vessel with icebreaking capability and two helicopters aboard. The _Serenity_ itself is outfitted with ice detection radar, two ice pilots, and other safety upgrades.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2018)

It’s as hilarious as it is sad how the left is _so_ easy to dupe...


> “’It is so hot that it actually circled completely around back to cold,’” Pat jokingly paraphrased Gore’s tweet.


One doesn’t need “scientists”, data, or Al Gore to understand “Global Warming” is a hoax. One need only to look outside. The left claimed that we would completely run out of food by 1980. The left claimed we would all die by 2000. The left claimed that the polar ice-cap would be completely melted by 2014 (instead it expanded 60%). The left claimed that New York City would be completely submerged by the ocean on January 1st, 2018. *None* of that has happened. All it takes is an acceptance of reality to understand that “Global Warming” is the most ridiculous hoax ever.

In This Freezing Weather, Al Gore Wants to Reassure You That Global Warming Is Real


----------



## P@triot (Jan 6, 2018)

Even meteorologists are literally laughing at “Global Warming” - calling it pure witchcraft at this point. It really illustrates how the left has regressed. They reject all modern science and want society to operate under the Salem Witch Trials.

A Meteorologist Responds to the Claim That Winter Storms Mean Climate Change


----------



## P@triot (Jan 7, 2018)

The “Global Warming” scam is completely collapsing. Yes, it has its ardent supporters who were easy to dupe. But as more and more time goes by and people see that none of the warnings came to fruition - they are waking up to the fact that it was a scam.


> Australian science writer Joanne Nova recently wrote a tongue-in-cheek article pointing out that to climate change advocates, “this extreme cold is just weather, but all heat waves are climate change.” Why do global warming experts point to every heat wave as evidence while trying to ignore unusually cold winters that don’t fit their argument?



Science Writer Points out What We’re All Thinking About Climate Change Experts


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

ScienceRocks said:


> The assholes calling it a scam are the real scam. Pure idiocy...This truly is the age of making shit up and attacking real evidence based thought with it. Sad.



Hey science rocks...funny you should mention evidence based science...I am still waiting for that single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and while you are on the evidence based kick...lets see a single piece of actual evidence gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature that suggests a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

You are making the claim that climate science is evidence based...lets see some actual evidence...the two requests above should be bedrock basic for any claim that climate science is evidence based.  waiting................


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's.* Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.*
> ...



Deceptive is all he has these days, what with the scam falling apart around his ears.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 1, 2018)

Once again, reality (and now history) proves that “Global Warming” is a scam...


> Three thresher sharks have washed up in Cape Cod *due to record low temperatures* in the US


So much for the whole “Global Warming” false narrative. The article is _incredible_ - a zoo had to bring penguins inside because it was so cold. Road salt isn’t working because it is so cold. And yet brain-washed progressives believe that CO2 gases are “trapped” in the atmosphere and heating up the planet.

It’s so cold in the US that sharks are freezing to death


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Yep. Lot's of electricity, at a high price. Capitalism and market economics like low prices for the same products.
> 
> 
> Power Plant Type Cost
> ...



How stupid are you rocks...look at the nations that have the most renewable energy...they invariably have the least stable grid and the highest prices.  Only a true moron would suggest that renewables are cheaper when even the most cursory observation says otherwise.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 12, 2018)

It never stops being funny. The left has been caught in not one, not two, but now _three_ rounds of “Climate Gate” in which the political activists posing as “scientists” were caught discussing how they *lie* about “Global Warming”. The progressive minions ignore it and still believe the propaganda. The left was forced to rebrand it from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” when history proved them *wrong*. The progressive minions ignore it and still believe the propaganda. And then there is Al Gore. The man brings in hundreds of millions through the ultimate scam - and the ignore it and _still_ believe the propaganda.


> And it’s not just universities, professors, and green organizations that have reaped financial benefits from the climate panic. Former vice president Al Gore has done quite well for himself, too. As Bloomberg News reported, “In the last personal finance report he filed as vice president, Gore disclosed on May 22, 2000, that the value of his assets totaled between $780,000 and $1.9 million.”
> 
> Buy by 2007, Gore’s wealth had skyrocketed. By that point he had a net worth “well in excess” of $100 million, including pre–public offering Google stock options, according to an article at Fast Company. MIT scientist Richard Lindzen declared that Gore wanted to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.” After the Obama administration bloated climate and energy stimulus packages, Gore was on the path to that achievement.
> 
> By 2008, Gore was so flush that he announced a $300 million campaign to promote climate fears and so-called solutions. And he just kept raking it in. According to a 2012 Washington Post report, “14 green-tech firms in which Gore invested received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks, part of Obama’s historic push to seed a U.S. renewable-energy industry with public money.”


Al Gore is laughing all the way to his three carbon-emitting mansions and his really carbon-emitting private jet.

New Book Details How Al Gore ‘Lavishly’ Profited Off Climate Lobbying


----------



## P@triot (Jul 1, 2018)

Ahahahahahaha! The left-wing lunacy continues to be exposed...

Scientists Observe Coldest Temperatures Ever on Earth’s Surface | Breitbart


----------



## P@triot (Jul 5, 2018)

Even radical left-wing Slate.com is now admitting one major lie from the left regarding the “Global Warming” scam:


> According to an article on Slate, the myth of the monstrous garbage patch was made up to call attention to the problem of pollution and "save our Oceans."


But wait! It gets even better:


> There Is No Island of Trash in the Pacific. But the cause of clean oceans needed a good story. *Our warming planet could use another one*.


They are openly calling for more *lies* to perpetuate the “Global Warming” scam!

Is the ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ just a myth?

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch Was the Myth We Needed to Save Our Oceans


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

The story that the green house gases warm the planet is the story that a 

cold nitrogen bath

conduction chilling a light-warmed rock,

is a heater, 

because cold, light blocking refrigerants, added to the bath, 

possess a "magical gaissiness what dun turn't uh coald nichurgin bayuth, uh HEEDuR! YaW!

Jist as SHOAR as POT'S like HEROIN! 

Ain't that sumthin how the same guvurmint fellurs what dun discovered about the DEVIL WEAD, 

dun all so
fownd out about the DEVILISH MAGICAL GAiSSiNeSS, what dun made a COLD bath uh HEEDUR! 

HewEE Uncle YewJean thay dun got sum SMART FELLURS down thair two the guvurmint playse, 

they dun told us all we need to git on us some opioids, 
so that DEVIL WEAD don't make some of us 
git on opioids

and now thim same fellurs what had the critical scientific peer review to prove THAT in coart,

has now discovered abowt how the magical gaissiness
makes more light warm a rock, 
evur time the magical gaissiness
dun made less light warm a rock. 

yAW.

That's a magic gas barking hick: a cold nitrogen bath is a heater, and pot's like heroin. Cawse GUVURMINT FELLURS 
dun got the CRITICAL research university SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW to PRUV it in COART! YaW!" 

The next time some magic gas barking hick tells you a cold nitrogen bath is a heater, tell him to show you ONE instance of that happening in all thermodynamics. 

When he tells you "magical insulation dun made moar light warm a rock evur time it made less light warm a rock,"

tell him to show you one other time in all thermodynamics

when adding light blocking insulation to a cold bath, 
so less light reaches and warms a rock, 
makes sensors detect and mathematics show,
more light reaching and warming the rock,
every time more insulation, makes
less light reach and warm that rock.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

The next time you see a magic gas barking hick, squealing that "magical gaissiness dun made a cold bath uh heeDuR"

tell him to name that other time in history a cold nitrogen bath was a heater, 

and to tell you how much the cold nitrogen bath heated the light-warmed object dropped into it.

Tell him to explain to you why his church can't calculate the temperature of the global Atmosphere and reach the correct temperature. 

Tell him the first proof mathematics have been done wrong is not matching the known correct answer and we KNOW the temperature of the Atmosphere it's the basis for calibration and regulation of every instrument sold on this planet. The proper atmospheric temperature at mean sea level is part - ultimately back there - of every manufactured instrument, heater, cooler, blanket, insulation, refrigerants, aircraft parts, spacecraft parts, YOU NAME IT and if it has been manufactured,
somewhere back there the equipment used to manufacture it are tested by product  quality organizations and when those tests happen they occur with a KNOWN pressure and KNOWN temp and KNOWN atmospheric composition, with temperature
being the deal in question this moment. 

We KNOW it's accurate, the properly computed Atmospheric temperature because our spacecraft and airliners fly. Our instruments are accurate enough to remotely land craft on Venus and Mars. 

13 craft landed on Venus alone. Know why no magic gasser EVER: E.V.E.R. dares bring up any of the 13 spacecraft we've landed on Venus?

Because those craft are using standard gas calculations like the one to certify your automobile air conditioner and your home oven, and your 4-wheeler's internal combustion engine, and the laws of physics work fine on VENUS just like they do here. 

Tell that magic gasser to tell you where the math diverges from correct math to give them a 33 degree shorftall. 

When that magic gas barking sh** for brains hick locks up like a stolen bike thrown off a pier tell him it's ok you'll answer. 

Tell him it's because his hick fraud leadership tries to solve the temperatures of compressible phase matter using SOLELY STEFAN-BOLTZMANN PROCESSES
which don't have the built in provision to SOLVE for the compressible phase matter atmosphere's * * *33 DEGREE* * *
COMRESSION WARMING.

Tell him say "Hey stupid why don't you go see what the MANDATORY SHORTFALL ERROR IS if SOMEONE TRIES to calculate the temperature of Earth's Atmosphere NOT USING GAS LAW PROPERLY
to ACCOUNT for the 33 DEGREES' compression warming. 

Oh that's right, you ADD that in and the FRAUD they are passing off as real, MATCHES the Earth's REAL temperature!!

Go FIGURE you do math TEMPERATURE calculations properly and you GET the RIGHT answer. 

Amazing to a magic gas barking hick, who think's pot's like heroin "cause guvurmint fellurs sed so" and that 

a COLD nitrogen bath,
is a HEATER. 

Cause...guvurmint fellurs sed so. 

Pfffft.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> a COLD nitrogen bath,
> is a HEATER.
> 
> Cause...guvurmint fellurs sed so.
> ...




I am not exactly sure where a liquid nitrogen bath plays a part in the atmospheric temperature...unpressurized, nitrogen is no colder than any other gas....it is transparent to infrared radiation, but that doesn't make it cold.  I am just not understanding how a cold nitrogen bath plays into the global climate.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > a COLD nitrogen bath,
> ...



The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells? 

Also you need to take out that quote where you wrote that I'd said "liquid nitrogen bath."

That indicates to me you're having trouble even keeping phases of matter straight. 

Maybe it was some kind of accidental inclusion because you referenced liquid nitrogen in your mind, 

at the same time you were typing and you just typo'd.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



What particular type of idiot are you?

The cold nitrogen bath takes in energy during daylight and returns some of it to the surface at night.

What was your point?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells?



Nope.  At atmospheric temperatures and pressures, nitrogen isn't inherently colder than any other gas.




Allen Eltor said:


> That indicates to me you're having trouble even keeping phases of matter straight.



No..I am pretty sure I have a pretty good grasp of the phases of gasses...There are a number of gasses which will changes phases at, or very close to room temperature simply by compressing them...Freon, CO2, and butane to name a few.  Nitrogen, however, won't change phases at room temperature no matter how much you compress it.  In order to get nitrogen to changes phases, you have to compress it then cool it to a temperature below its boiling point which is some 384 degrees below zero. 

So I get phase changes..I don't get how nitrogen at atmospheric pressures and temperatures contribute to climate beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells?
> ...



 Not only do you CONTINUE to try to change the subject to UNPRESSURIZED nitrogen for some BIZARRE, completely non existent REASON, 

you're WRONG if you're talking about anything connected to reality.

These aren't unpressurized gases all at absolute zero

 Haven't you ever heard of the Chart of Specific Heats of Gases?? 

How do you think the temperatures of gases are CALCULATED? 

YOU GO to the CHART, and you PUT IN the SPECIFIC HEAT and the TEMPERATURES VARY, 

and when gases are at identical pressures - they have DIFFERING TEMPERATURES and NITROGEN

is in the middle of the PACK. 

You're STILL DEFLECTING from the FACT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRESSURIZED GAS.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells?
> ...



You don't understand how a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH, CHILLS a ROCK??

You don't understand how the OVERALL BATH TEMPERATURE, affects how WATER performs in it? 

When it changes phases, when it's in which phase, etc, you can't see HOW this is CONNECTED to CLIMATE. 

Tell me that you're just saying this kind of kook stuff so you can see how I act if you just keep saying stuff so stupid you can't be serious, or expecting to be TAKEN seriously. 

Tell me that, please.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells?
> ...



Where do you come up with this ludicrous bull? 

Gases ALL have the SAME TEMPERATURE, when they're ALL at the same PRESSURE, but segregated, species for species?  That's INSANE. 

If that were TRUE, the entire CHART of the LAW, assigning various species their average energy-per-mole, 

you wouldn't have 'R' in the LAW, where you PLUG in the SPECIFIC HEAT per GAS from the CHART, to 

SOLVE their various TEMPERATURES at IDENTICAL PRESSURES.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD do you even know the NAME of the law to solve for the temperatures of gases? 

It's PATENTLY obvious non of these magic gas barking clods even know the NAME of it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Haven't you ever heard of the Chart of Specific Heats of Gases??



Yes...it is the amount of energy required to raise a volume of a particular gas by any given amount...usually one degree.  

Air has a specific heat of .24, CO2 has a specific heat of .21, Nitrogen has a specific heat of .25, oxygen has a specific heat of .22.  So that is how much energy it takes to raise that gas (in its pure state) by one degree.  Gasses aren't in their pure state in the atmosphere though...the specific heat of air, that being the mixture of the various gasses  that make up the atmosphere is .21 which is the only number that matters if you are going somewhere in particular with this.



Allen Eltor said:


> YOU GO to the CHART, and you PUT IN the SPECIFIC HEAT and the TEMPERATURES VARY,



Specific heat isn't a temperarure...specific heat, is the amount of energy (usually stated in calories) required to raise the temperature of a constant amount of a substance by a particular amount...usually one degree.



Allen Eltor said:


> You're STILL DEFLECTING from the FACT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRESSURIZED GAS.



I am just trying to figure out where you are going with this.  I suspect it is somewhere, but perhaps you aren't sure yourself.  If you have a point, lets get to it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD do you even know the NAME of the law to solve for the temperatures of gases?
> 
> It's PATENTLY obvious non of these magic gas barking clods even know the NAME of it.



I am guessing that you are alluding to the ideal gas law, which certainly can give you the temperature of a gas if you know the absolute pressure and absolute volume of said gas.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD do you even know the NAME of the law to solve for the temperatures of gases?
> ...



Alluding? I just asked you outright if you know the name of the SOLE law in ALL thermodynamics, written for proper calculation of the temperatures of gases in the modern era. 

I asked you that because those specific energy constants, for each gas in the Chart of Law, mean that when you put the proper value in for one gas vs another, 

with everything else being equal, the final temperatures change. 

What in the __blank___ do you MEAN, YOU think I don't know where  I'm going when I keep SAYING to you,

"WHY are you TRYING to BRING IN NON EXISTENT "zero pressure" GASES which - by DEFINITION must ALL BE at ABSOLUTE ZERO?


WHAT possible CONNECTION 
to ME referencing a COLD PRESSURIZED NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE can the two HAVE 
in your MIND? 

WHERE am I GOiNG? 

Are you aware of the fact that you said "unpressurized" and "at zero pressure" regarding nitrogen and other gases MULTIPLE times? 

Does it seem odd to you I have to remind YOU what YOU'VE been saying? 

When gases are at ZERO PRESSURE
this means they're all at ABSOLUTE ZERO. They all have the same, theoretical absolute zero temperature.

If you were trying to say "at IDENTICAL PRESSURES," Nitrogen is no colder than other gases, that's how that's supposed to be put to try to communicate it clearly.
'At comparable pressures,' 
this sorta thing. 

There's - effectively, no such physical thing as a gas at ZERO pressure. Temperature gets low enough and it changes phase to solid. Ostensibly liquid first for many but also some go straight to solid but pressure is no longer an extant possibility in something that's no longer in the gaseous phase. 

For the last time, the various specific energies, (for gases it's actually specific heats as you've noted) affect the temperature calculation and give different gas species different temperatures, at identical pressure/volume/mass etc.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Specific heat isn't a temperarure...specific heat, is the amount of energy (usually stated in calories) required to raise the temperature of a constant amount of a substance by a particular amount...usually one degree.



Aw- RiLLiE UnKLe YeWJeaN?

THE TERM ''Specific Heat" is - no pun actually intended - SPECIFIC to GASES.
The term ''Specific Energy" is used for other phases of matter.

It's the *same thing:
the average energy contained in a mole of the substance,
so TEMPERATURE calculations can be done.

That's what the Chart of Law is about in THE sole gas law written for modern calculation of temperatures of gases and Atmospheres.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Are you aware of the fact that you said "unpressurized" and "at zero pressure" regarding nitrogen and other gases MULTIPLE times?



Actually, I haven't said that at all.  I have said gasses at atmospheric pressures multiple times, but haven't said zero pressure at all.  If you are going to argue against what I said, then argue against what I said...not things that I haven't said.  I believe I said "unpressurised" nitrogen once but of course that would mean gas at atmospheric pressure.  When I say pressurized of course I mean bottled gasses..

I have tried to be patient...if you have a point, then get to it.  What does the specific heat of air have to do with the point you are trying to make?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Specific heat isn't a temperarure...specific heat, is the amount of energy (usually stated in calories) required to raise the temperature of a constant amount of a substance by a particular amount...usually one degree.
> ...



Sorry guy, but you are quite wrong.  Here, from various dictionaries...

The free dictionary - specific heat-  The ratio of the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a unit mass of a substance by one unit of temperature to the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a similar mass of a reference material, usually water, by the same amount.

Mirriam webster - specific heat - the heat in calories required to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance one degree Celsius 

Encyclopedia Britannica -  *Specific heat*_  ratio of the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of a body one degree to that required to raise the temperature of an equal mass of water one degree. The term is also used in a narrower sense to mean the amount of heat, in calories, required to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance by one Celsius degree.

So since we have established that specific heat does not apply specifically to gasses, and that you are apparently confusing that with the ideal gas laws, exactly what point are you trying to make.  If you have one, lets hear it.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Actually SSDD let me rephrase myself so it doesn't jar the senses in how I put part of this. 

In real life, like in school or work where you're supposed to be using a proper symbols set, words- 

I was talking about how you never really have gases, whose pressures go to zero, 

there actually IS, 
a very commonly used PHRASE, that IS: "Pressure goes to zero" without release of any volume of mass. 

That's when your local gas loses so much energy it all converts to solid or liquid. 

This is actually a test question in physics of phase change, and in various places obviously, it's put different ways, 

but at some point you're supposed to kinda acknowledge to the teacher that you know, 

that the phrase, "Pressure drops to zero" has an actual place defining a transition stage in gas vs liquid/solid 
when it's chilled, to the point it starts condensing. 

And of course you're supposed to have this formal ideal in your head, where you carefully - as a professional, or as a student, you know, keeping stuff proper, - construct any phraseologies you use to refer to conditions extant as you go from all gas to part gas/part liquid (or solid, some go solid, some liquify, obviously) 

to conditions where the ratio changes, as temperature drops more, till NONE of your particular species is left gas phase. 

In these conditions in the real world you're always having other gases around, obviously in air, etc, and when you describe this falling out, less and less is this particular gas, (ostensibly among several - atmospheric air's just a great example, water condensing out, it's so frequent, 

when you're describing this one gas, solidifying or liquifying, less and less remains gas, among other gases - you refer to

"partial pressure going to" zero. "H2O partial pressure has reduced to zero" means not that there was a leak in this instance, it is a description, sort of a properly constructed part of a kinda more properly phrased formal description of all the water, changing to a non gas phase. 

I don't know, that just seemed convenient enough to explain that - people coming along behind us might be like...  I've heard that before, I kinda get it  at least for the moment, in a clear way, about all this "partial pressure reducing to zero." 

when in another sense that phrase "pressure drops to zero" in theoretical physics, might mean "Hypothetical temperature has dropped to absolute-zero.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Sorry guy...I am not making any sense of what you are saying...I have never suggested gas in a vacuum since there is no gas in a vacuum.  When I said unpressurized gas, I simply meant gas not in a bottle...gas out in the atmosphere at 14.1psi.

I am sure that all these random statements you are making amount to something in your head, but whatever it is, you aren't communicating it to me.  I am looking for a point but am not finding it.

If you are saying that there is no radiative greenhouse effect, then I am with you...but I am not getting how what you are saying disputes the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis in any way.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Mein Gott... Shakin my freakin head. 

Do you REALLY not understand what we're talking about here? There is a CHART of gas LAW

Named "Specific Heats of Gases."  

And when you PLUG those VALUES into the "R" spot in gas equations, related to calculating temperature, 

that SPECIFIC average MOLAR HEAT determines the final TEMPERATURE during temperature CALCULATIONS.

In other phases of matter, this term is changed to specific ENERGY. And when the temperature of THAT phase matter is solved for the "Specific ENERGY" co-efficient goes in approximately the same place along your series of processing steps.
--------
This is critical when talking to a magic gas barking therm-0-billy HicK, 
as opposed I suppose to a NON magic gas barking one, 

so you can INSTANTLY point out the FIRST time you hear "Thim See Oh Too dun made that tair Air "Hoddurn"Hoddur", 

that the term Hoddurn'Hoddur means "we just VIOLATED GAS LAW SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN TO SOLVE THIS"

and claimed CO2 laden air holds more energy than STANDARD Air. 

CO2 has a LOWER Specific Heat than standard air and therefore BY gas LAW MANDATE
contributes to a LOWERED air/CO2 volume temperature rather than HIGHER.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Furthermore SSDD there is an ERROR: a MANDATORY ERROR of *precisely 33 DEGREES

when magic gassers claim to have "calculated" atmospheric temperature, and don't use the OTHER side

of the LAW
the CHART of Specific Heats of Gases is 
Part II of. 

The CHART is Part II of the law,
The EQUATION of the law
is Part I. 

Each part, MUST be used in solving for gas temperatures, 

and "Magical Gaissines dun mad uh cold nitchurjin bath uh HEEDuR"

as a VOODOO RELIGION
VIOLATES THERMODYNAMIC ACCOUNTING PROCESS TWICE
in not using that law to ACCOUNT for COMPRESSION WARMING, 
which for our atmosphere is EXACTLY 33 DEGREES, 
claiming to be able to process gas temps using only Stefan-Boltzmann process
which has no provision for accounting this MANDATORY 33 DEGREE COMPRESSION warming value.

Then they claim that SOMEHOW the CO2 who's SPECIFIC HEAT is LOWER than Air
is contributing to higher total energy
of a volume it LOWERS total average energy of.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Are you aware of the fact that you said "unpressurized" and "at zero pressure" regarding nitrogen and other gases MULTIPLE times?
> ...



Don't start trying to pretend YOU'RE the one who's the radiation engineer and atmospheric chemist, hick. 

YOU have TRIED to claim so much loopy sh** in the last ten hours it's not even worth going back over. 
Starting with you telling me in PUBLIC - on an INTERNATIONAL Atmospheric CHEMISTRY 
and thermodynamics THREAD

that "YEW DOANT SEE NO CONNECKSHUN" between the NITROGEN BATH being COLD, 

and the CLIMATE of the PLANET it's REFRIGERATING.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Mein Gott... Shakin my freakin head.
> 
> Do you REALLY not understand what we're talking about here? There is a CHART of gas LAW
> 
> Named "Specific Heats of Gases."



Again...you are mistaken...


There are numerous gas laws.

Boyle's Law - The volume of a given mass of a gas is inversely related to pressure when the temperature is constant.

Charles' Law - the volume (V) of a given mass of a gas, at constant pressure (Pa), is directly proportional to its temperature (K)

Gay-Lussack's law - for a given mass and constant volume of an ideal gas, the pressure exerted on the sides of its container is directly proportional to its absolute temperature.

Avogadro's Law -  the volume occupied by an ideal gas is directly proportional to the number of molecules of the gas present in the container

Combined Ideal Gas Laws - or Pv=NRt is a combination of Boyle's law, Charles' law, and Gay-Lussack's law.   It shows the relationship between the pressure, volume, and temperature for a fixed mass (quantity) of gas: 

Specific heat, is not a gas law...specific heat is the amount of energy, usually expressed in calories that it takes to raise the temperarure of a specific amount of a substance gas, solid or liquid, by a specific temperature, and this can be referred to as the law of specific heat... There is, however, no specific heat law that applies only to gasses
And when you PLUG those VALUES into the "R" spot in gas equations, related to calculating temperature,

And I still have no idea where you are going with this.  The specific heat of a particular gas like nitrogen only matters if you are dealing with pure nitrogen.  Out in the atmosphere, were aren't.  We are dealing with a mixture of gasses.  That mixture of gasses is called air, and air has a specific heat and it is different from the specific heat of pure nitrogen.  The specific heat of pure nitrogen has no bearing on the temperature in the atmosphere beyond its contribution to the specific heat of air.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Don't start trying to pretend YOU'RE the one who's the radiation engineer and atmospheric chemist, hick.



I am not pretending to be anything.  And I have never been to an international atmospheric chemistry and thermodynamics thread.



Allen Eltor said:


> that "YEW DOANT SEE NO CONNECKSHUN" between the NITROGEN BATH being COLD,
> 
> and the CLIMATE of the PLANET it's REFRIGERATING.



Sorry guy...I have no idea what you are talking about..  You are mixing up gas laws with specific heat,and throwing in a bunch of corn pone language that I am not even going to try and understand.  I speak English so if you want to talk to me, speak English.

And by the way...the planet is not refrigerating.  Refrigeration refers to a specific mechanical process and it isn't happening in the atmosphere.  Refrigeration describes the process of removing heat from a low temperature reservoir and moving it to a high temperature reservoir.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD some other STUPID stuff you've been saying is that " radiation can't travel toward an object warmer, than the object radiating.

If you have a ten watt resistor and you're continually warming it, warming it, it never stops, 

and you put it into a cardboard box you spray painted flat black, 

and set it outside in Antarctica, 

and set it outside in Phoenix, 

in BOTH those INSTANCES, the resistor is HOTTER than the INSIDES of the BOX. 

And we'll find the temp of it radiates exactly 10 watts more, than the surrounding ambient temperatures. 

This is because RADIATION
from the COOLER BOX in BOTH INSTANCES
is STRIKING the WARMER RESISTOR
and INHIBITING LEAKAGE of ENERGY. 

There is a TOTAL ambient LIGHT concentration
that comes from LOWER temperature objects, 
impeding loss of energy from the resistor. 

This is FRESHMAN FUNDAMENTALS in CONSERVATION of ENERGY in THERMODYNAMICS.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD some other STUPID stuff you've been saying is that " radiation can't travel toward an object warmer, than the object radiating.



Ever hear of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?  It says " It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

Not my words...not my idea...not my anything...  The second LAW of thermodynamics.  it you think it is wrong, then prove it and take the results to the nobel prize committee.  there is a nobel prize and a million dollar prize out there for anyone who can prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics incorrect.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...I am not making any sense of what you are saying...I have never suggested gas in a vacuum since there is no gas in a vacuum.  When I said unpressurized gas, I simply meant gas not in a bottle...gas out in the atmosphere at 14.1psi.
> 
> I am sure that all these random statements you are making amount to something in your head, but whatever it is, you aren't communicating it to me.  I am looking for a point but am not finding it.
> 
> If you are saying that there is no radiative greenhouse effect, then I am with you...but I am not getting how what you are saying disputes the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis in any way.



No YOU made some random statements, and I'm just pointing out the ludicrous bullshit you've been barking since I saw you knew how to wave your hands over a keyboard. 

Since you're in abject, befuddled denial about the kook sh** you've been drizzling over your keyboard all day

let's cut to another kook premise you seem to be telling people. 

"Thim books dun sed cain't no radiation go frum nuttn cewlur, two nuttn warmer." 

I was gonna say I have no idea but - yes I do. You tried to teach yourself thermodynamics. 

LIsten to me carefully. If you have a resistor and you never stop running 10 watts through it, 

and you tape it up inside a cardboard box you spray painted flat black inside and out, 

and you sit it outside awhile in Antarctica,

and you sit it outside awhile in Phoenix, 

it's always gonna be a little warmer, than the object warming IT. 

The object WARMING it is the COOLER BOX, bathing it in field of LIGHT. 

As it glows off it's OWN ten watts, it ALWAYS glows it off, starting at what's called "ambient temperature." 

The sum of the light striking surface facets of that resistor, from outside that resistor, 

set that resistor's ultimate temperature. Full stop, no negotiations. 

Don't tell people radiant energy can't pass between a warmer and colder object.

There's a REASON for the term NET energy flow. 

Don't TELL me, "You don't think a heated resistor in a FREEZER or in your OVEN 

don't UNDERSTAND about THERMODYNAMICS. 

Don't tell me that. 

Don't sit there and tell me that resistor, which is WARMER than the inside of EITHER of those boxes, 

isn't being bathed with radiant energy from the COOLER BOX.  

Those LOWER temperature black cardboard boxes, don't set the final temperature at which the WARMER object

glows off it's own internal energy? OF COURSE they do. The light field in Antarctica glowing off the inside of the 

cooler box, makes the rock glow off at a final temperature referred to as "Ambient + 10 Watts." 

The light field in Phoenix, makes the rock glow it's 10 watts off at a temperature called "Ambient + 10 watts." 

If I see you come in here and tell that to people some more, I'm gonna come in here and dispute it again and again

with the IDENTICAL resistor example used in FRESHMAN PHYSICS to explain what AMBIENT TEMPERATURE is.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Don't start trying to pretend YOU'RE the one who's the radiation engineer and atmospheric chemist, hick.
> ...



You are as ignorant as you seemed when you tried to claim physics texts speaking of Conservation of Energy 

means that ambient temperature doesn't exist. 

Here's the difference between your befuddled pseudo-science and my real science: I paid people money to teach me how to interpret the words in those books so I don't go somewhere and say the stupid sh** you are. 

In exchange for answering thousands of questions, with - I said hundreds of trick questions, about JUST such matters as you're SLAUGHTERING, I earned a degree after several THOUSAND hours in 

RADIATION related 
Electronic Engineering. 

I have a couple of educational specialties, one of them being RADIANT ENERGY. 

You think you're gonna go over and just pick up the same books I read and say "Oh, I purnownst awl thim werds right, now I'm uh radiation Engineer."

No you're not. Which is why your GOOFY-#$%'d claims, have you in direct violation of the critical thermodynamics principle "ambient temperature."


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Specific heat, is not a gas law...specific heat is the amount of energy, usually expressed in calories that it takes to raise the temperarure of a specific amount of a substance gas, solid or liquid, by a specific temperature, and this can be referred to as the law of specific heat... There is, however, no specific heat law that applies only to gasses
> And when you PLUG those VALUES into the "R" spot in gas equations, related to calculating temperature,
> 
> And I still have no idea where you are going with this.  The specific heat of a particular gas like nitrogen only matters if you are dealing with pure nitrogen.  Out in the atmosphere, were aren't.  We are dealing with a mixture of gasses.  That mixture of gasses is called air, and air has a specific heat and it is different from the specific heat of pure nitrogen.  The specific heat of pure nitrogen has no bearing on the temperature in the atmosphere beyond its contribution to the specific heat of air.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

See you around...or maybe not.  If you can't hold up your side of the conversation, it is just me talking to myself.  Good luck in getting across whatever idea you have in your head to someone.  You sure failed miserably in making any sense at all to me...or anyone else that you have tried to talk to so far.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Not just "one of the laws,"  THE Law of thermodynamics written SPECIFICALLY 
for SOLVING matter-energy relationships of GASES

has TWO PARTS. 

Part 1 is the EQUATION of the Law, 

Part 2 is the CHART of the Law named for the gases SPECIFIC HEATS. 

The Chart's NAMED for them 
 R is  derived from them, 
and is *included as part of the Chart of Law. 

If someone tells you, "I'm going to calculate matter-energy relationships 
for these gases, I've got to get the Chart, what chart? 

The ______ ________ __ ________ (Chart of Specific Heats of Gases.)

It doesn't take much to clear it up at first I didn't realize when you said you didn't know what I was getting at and I saw you referring to the actual specific heats... and I thought, "I think I might have dropped or mauled some paragraphs up there."

As far as your remarks about the Specific Heats of Nitrogen not mattering, I can understand you saying it wasn't clear due to me calling the Individual Gas Constant the Specific Heat 


I'm often splitting my attention typing about this. It's very plain if I have to come to a discussion about the ATMOSPHERE and people have been in here swearing they're arguing Atmospheric physics, 

and you alone are the ONLY ONE who even risks taking a STAB at trying to name the LAW of PHYSICS you're all in here SUPPOSED to be using to solve your questions - it's like this everywhere so I just don't pay attention and don't get emotionally involved. 

I'm  speed typing this between trips w/ the wife & grandson, bathing, feeding, entertaining,animals, farm house repairs.

The Specific Heats of Gases, and the Individual Gas Constants that derive from them,
ARE gas thermodynamic law. 

They're not suggestions, they're gas law and they're gas law globally. 

In fact - if someone EVER tells you 
they've been processing atmospheric mass-energy values, 
and they don't IMMEDIATELY start discussion of these charts of Law 
and the processing of equations using it - they're a COMPLETE fake. 

Most of you have never even known of an atmospheric chemist who wasn't a crook. 

That's pretty pathetic but it's what happened to your generation. 




SSDD said:


> Specific heat, is not a gas law...specific heat is the amount of energy, usually expressed in calories that it takes to raise the temperarure of a specific amount of a substance gas, solid or liquid, by a specific temperature, and this can be referred to as the law of specific heat... There is, however, no specific heat law that applies only to gasses
> And when you PLUG those VALUES into the "R" spot in gas equations, related to calculating temperature,
> 
> And I still have no idea where you are going with this.  The specific heat of a particular gas like nitrogen only matters if you are dealing with pure nitrogen.  Out in the atmosphere, were aren't.  We are dealing with a mixture of gasses.  That mixture of gasses is called air, and air has a specific heat and it is different from the specific heat of pure nitrogen.  The specific heat of pure nitrogen has no bearing on the temperature in the atmosphere beyond its contribution to the specific heat of air.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Do you REALLY not understand what we're talking about here? There is a CHART of gas LAW
> ...



I'm just reminding you - you're as dumb as a stump, you can apologize for this trash later. 

You're so dumb you can't be SHOWN the right law of physics for solving gas mass/energy relationships, told what they're for and figure out it's a law of thermodynamics. 

Remember that when you're trying to act like a smartass later. 

You've "never been in an international Atmospheric Chemistry and Radiation thread in your life?"

YOU'RE IN one NOW, DiPSTiCK.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

I'm the one who's been talking while you scurried around Google looking for some way to duck 
being caught making your inane claims. While you've spent the morning trying and failing
to learn the parts of the Law of Thermodynamics 
governing what you're in here claiming
 "erases Ambient Temperature from all thermodynamics."

No it doesn't, you just can't grasp 
why you can't just 
grab an advanced thermo text 
and start claiming you're gonna teach us 
what it means. 

No you're not, you're gonna slaughter it, like you have been. 



SSDD said:


> See you around...or maybe not.  If you can't hold up your side of the conversation, it is just me talking to myself.  Good luck in getting across whatever idea you have in your head to someone.  You sure failed miserably in making any sense at all to me...or anyone else that you have tried to talk to so far.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

At the risk of repeating myself...Allen, go develop your communication skills...learn to speak in coherent sentences and give people at least some idea of what sort of point you are trying to make in less than 3,000 words spread across 6 or 8 posts. Learn that name calling in the absence of any coherent argument is the surest way to have people simply ignore what you say.

And for pete's sake...don't claim that you are an engineer of any sort other than perhaps a domestic engineer or a janitorial engineer...most everyone here knows that as one travels the path to a degree in engineering, a fair amount of time is spent learning the art of technical writing, since so much time will be spent in the course of their career doing exactly that. Communicating complex ideas in a manner that people who don't have their education will understand exactly what they hell they are talking about. The very definition of technical writing is simplifying the complex.

If you were trying to communicate an idea to a customer and kept barking about cold nitrogen baths somehow altering the global temperature your customer with rightly assume that you were not only barking mad, but got your degree from a vending machine, then they would probably sue you to get back any money they had paid you, and look for someone who could get the job they needed done and communicate their findings in a coherent manner and spread the word to any potential customer that you were piss poor at your job and that they shouldn't hire you even to sweep hair at a barber shop. In today's world, professionals know that individuals on social media can destroy a reputation in short order so courtesy, effectiveness, and professionalism are the watchwords.

Work on your communication skills if you want to actually talk to people on this board, We may not agree with each other, but at least most of us try to speak in an understandable manner and actually attempt to get our ideas across. Further, we try to explain what we are thinking rather than simply assuming that someone else knows what we are thinking...terms like cold nitrogen bath out in the open atmosphere mean nothing and no one, my self included, knows what the hell you are talking about.

So when you learn to communicate a bit more effectively, I for one, will be glad to talk to you, but I am not going to spend any appreciable amount of time trying to figure out what the hell point you are trying to make if you either won't, or can't make it clear.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 29, 2018)

Everything the minions on the left believe about "Global Warming" is a farce. How embarrassing.

Photographer behind viral images of starving polar bear questions climate change narrative it promoted


----------



## P@triot (Oct 7, 2018)

And the best part about this study? It comes from *Harvard*. 

New Harvard studies show wind power does more damage, requires more land than previously thought


----------



## P@triot (Nov 15, 2018)

Even the left-wing political activists posing as “scientists” are starting to admit that it was all a farce...

Climate scientist offers stunning response to ‘mistakes’ in major study on accelerated ocean warming


----------



## P@triot (Nov 26, 2018)

So much for the left’s claims that “greenhouse gases” are being “trapped” in the atmosphere and are causing the planet to heat up.

Thanksgiving Day will be coldest in over a century for millions in U.S.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 29, 2018)

The left wants to convince people that political activists are “scientists” and that the political manifestos they create are “science”. 

'A Political Report Masquerading as Science': The Truth About the New Climate Report


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

The National Climate Assessment was produced by 300 experts at the orders of Congress by the US Global Change Research Program with the assistance of the US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, State, Transportation, the EPA, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian and the Agency for International Development.

It is a completely apolitical work of science.  If it DID have any bias, it would be towards the Trump position since he is in charge of every single one of those agencies.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 1, 2018)

Crick said:


> It is a completely apolitical work of science.  If it DID have any bias, it would be towards the Trump position since he is in charge of every single one of those agencies.


Bwahahaha! He didn’t hire the people behind the report. Most of them have been there for more than a quarter of a century.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

Crick said:


> The National Climate Assessment was produced by 300 experts at the orders of Congress by the US Global Change Research Program with the assistance of the US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, State, Transportation, the EPA, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian and the Agency for International Development.
> 
> It is a completely apolitical work of science.  If it DID have any bias, it would be towards the Trump position since he is in charge of every single one of those agencies.




Sure it was...and not the first piece of observed, measured evidence that man is altering the global climate in any way.


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2018)

Was that how you meant to construct that sentence?    Its been decades since the first empirical evidence that humans were altering the global climate was collected.  Why don't you pull up all the references in AR5's "Physical Science Basis" and show us why the world's actual climate scientists are utterly wrong to accept their results of evidence of AGW.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 10, 2018)

With each year that their outrageous declarations fail to come to fruition, the left loses credibility. To anyone who is informed, they have none left.

Climate Change Alarmism Is the World's Leading Cause of Hot Gas


----------



## P@triot (Dec 10, 2018)

Crick said:


> Its been decades since the first empirical evidence that humans were altering the global climate was collected.


Correction: it’s been decades since you were duped into believing that there is “evidence”. The actual evidence proves that “Global Warming” is a scam.


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)

Go to www.ipcc.ch and read/review WG-I "The Physical Science Basis" and see if your mind might not be changed about evidence.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 12, 2018)

Crick said:


> Go to www.ipcc.ch and read/review WG-I "The Physical Science Basis" and see if your mind might not be changed about evidence.


Ok...I read it (and more). It’s a joke. Here is my favorite part: it is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.

Now here’s the thing. We were told that carbon emissions were being “trapped” in the atmosphere and was causing a “greenhouse” effect. IE *Global* *Warming*. But after science proved the Earth was actually cooling (as part of a predictable and normal cycle) and after we experienced some record colds, the narrative suddenly became “Climate Change”.

How do not see that you’re being duped from that alone?!?


----------



## Crick (Dec 13, 2018)

*P@triot*:  It's over 1800 pages based on hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies.  You didn't just read it (and more).

It is not carbon emissions that are being trapped in the atmosphere.  Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels (oil,natural gas, coal, etc) have built up in the atmosphere from a a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to a current level of 406 ppm.  GHG's absorb and reradiate infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface that would normally escape more directly to space.  Here is a good analogy.  Let's say you have an above-ground pool in your back yard that , unbeknownst to you, has a small hole near its bottom.  You put your hose in there to fill it up.  The pool fills, but because some of the water is escaping through the hole, the pool only gets partially full.  The depth of water in the pool is sufficient to push as much water out the hole as is coming in through the hose.  So, you find the hole and try to repair it, but you only manage to make the hole smaller.  The water begins to rise again, but when it reaches a level where the increasing pressure at the leak produces a flow again equal to that of the filling hose, the level stops rising.

This is what is happening in the atmosphere.  Sunlight, mostly in the visible range, passes through the atmosphere and strikes the surface of the Earth, warming it.  All matter above absolute zero (thus all matter) emits thermal radiation with frequency spectrum and amplitude dependent on its temperature.  That radiation is comprised almost entirely of infrared.  CO2 and other GHGs absorb and reradiate infrared radiation that would have passed cleanly through the nitrogen and oxygen that make up the most of the atmosphere.  This both slows its release to space and sends half of it back down to the surface (as it is emitted in all directions).  The result is that the temperature of the Earth's surface (including the oceans) and its atmosphere all rise: global warming.  It is true that the output of the sun is waning slightly towards what is called a solar minimum.  Unfortunately, the magnitude of that effect is very small compared to the amount of warming the added greenhouse gases are providing.  The world is still getting warmer and our GHG emissions are the primary cause.

I'm curious if you can explain why you think "The Physical Science Basis" is a joke.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2018)

Crick said:


> It is not carbon emissions that are being trapped in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels (oil,natural gas, coal, etc) have built up in the atmosphere from a a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to a current level of 406 ppm. GHG's absorb and reradiate infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface that would normally escape more directly to space. Here is a good analogy. Let's say you have an above-ground pool in your back yard that , unbeknownst to you, has a small hole near its bottom. You put your hose in there to fill it up. The pool fills, but because some of the water is escaping through the hole, the pool only gets partially full. The depth of water in the pool is sufficient to push as much water out the hole as is coming in through the hose. So, you find the hole and try to repair it, but you only manage to make the hole smaller. The water begins to rise again, but when it reaches a level where the increasing pressure at the leak produces a flow again equal to that of the filling hose, the level stops rising.



The pool is a great analogy for equilibrium and the nature of the atmospheric energy flow. In case your audience misses the meaning:
The hose into the pool is analogous to the sun input energy.
The depth of the pool is analogous to the avg earth temperature. 
Leakage through the hole is analogous to energy radiating back to space.
The size of the hole is analogous to the factors that impede that radiation from leaving earth, such as green house gases.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 20, 2018)

Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy...


> Georgetown’s bet against fossil fuel prices cost the city-owned utility nearly $7 million this year, and prompted officials to look for a way out of long-term contracts for solar and wind energy.


This is how idiotic left-wing policy always ends. With costs (and poverty) skyrocketing and resources/production plummeting. Show me left-wing policy and I will show you Venezuela-like results _every_ time.

Texas City Featured in Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Sequel’ Lost Millions in Its Green Energy Gamble


----------



## P@triot (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> I'm curious if you can explain why you think "The Physical Science Basis" is a joke.


I have explained it thoroughly in this thread and others, right here on USMB. Hell, the first 6 posts in this thread *prove* that your “Global Warming” is a scam. You clearly didn’t read any of it before commenting. Typical of your side of the aisle.

Here is one of my all-time favorites though that wasn’t included in this thread:


> On September 4, NSIDC, based at the University of Colorado, stated on its website that in August 2013 the Arctic ice cover recovered by a record 2.38 million sq km – *919,000 sq miles *– from its 2012 low.


It’s further backed up by NASA satellite photos...



 

 

Just curious, Crick, how long do you intend to ignore reality in favor of “papers” from political activists with an agenda? 

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Daily Mail Online


----------



## P@triot (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> It is not carbon emissions that are being trapped in the atmosphere.  Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels (oil,natural gas, coal, etc) have built up in the atmosphere from a a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to a current level of 406 ppm.  GHG's absorb and reradiate infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface that would normally escape more directly to space.


Clearly that is *not* the case... 

NOAA: Winter 2013-2014 Among Coldest on Record in Midwest | The Weather Channel


----------



## P@triot (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> I'm curious if you can explain why you think "The Physical Science Basis" is a joke.


I don’t need to explain it. Science, history, and reality have done that for me! You cannot be experiencing “Global *Warming*” while simultaneously experiencing record cold. You just can’t.

Deep Freeze Recap: Coldest Temperatures of the Century for Some | The Weather Channel


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2018)

I'm sorry, but the world can most certainly be experiencing global warming while individual locations are experiencing record cold.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> I'm sorry, but the world can most certainly be experiencing global warming while individual locations are experiencing record cold.


I’m sorry, but that is absolutely contradicting itself. Greenhouses gases trapped in the atmosphere heating up the planet *cannot* result in *record* *cold*. This is basic common sense. You’ve been duped. And sadly, you prefer it that way.

“Global Warming” is a scam that Al Gore and his cronies used for wealth and power. You bought into the scam.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Greenhouses gases trapped in the atmosphere heating up the planet *cannot* result in *record* *cold*.



The arctic jet stream generally is confined to higher latitudes. But with global warming, the jet stream becomes less stable and more widely oscillates to lower latitudes and brings the cold air with it. That causes record cold spells in the US. 

The problem is there is a reciprocity with the  jet stream cycle. It is also bringing warm air from the lower latitudes to the arctic. On the average the atmosphere is heating but the heat is now distributed much more chaotically. Australia saw record heat the same time the north saw record cold.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 22, 2018)

P@triot said:


> . IE *Global* *Warming*. But after science proved the Earth was actually cooling (as part of a predictable and normal cycle)



Wow. You don't seem to be residing the same reality that everyone else is.



> Greenhouses gases trapped in the atmosphere heating up the planet *cannot* result in *record* *cold*.



Sure they can. Or more correctly, they don't put an immediate end to local record cold temperatures caused by natural variation. They just make those local record lows happen less often. That's why new record highs now outnumber new record lows by about 2 to 1. Before the warming started, the ratio was even.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 22, 2018)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Greenhouses gases trapped in the atmosphere *heating* up the planet *cannot* result in *record* *cold*.
> ...


So you don’t even know the definition for a basic term such as heating?

(Psst...it’s the opposite of cold)


----------



## P@triot (Dec 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Greenhouses gases trapped in the atmosphere heating up the planet *cannot* result in *record* *cold*.
> ...


Yeah...um....there can’t be an “arctic jet stream” according to you people. See, greenhouses gases got trapped in the atmosphere and are “*heating*” up the planet.

If the “arctic jet stream” still exists - then you just disproved “Global Warming”.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2018)

You're the third of fourth person recently who seems to think either the entire planet can be warm or the entire planet can be cold but mixtures of the two are impossible.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> You're the third of fourth person recently who seems to think either the entire planet can be warm or the entire planet can be cold but mixtures of the two are impossible.


And you're one of millions of progressives who have been duped into believing that "greenhouse" gasses "trapped" in the atmosphere can cause "Global Warming" while we experience record colds. Amazing.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Yeah...um....there can’t be an “arctic jet stream” according to you people. See, greenhouses gases got trapped in the atmosphere and are “*heating*” up the planet.
> 
> If the “arctic jet stream” still exists - then you just disproved “Global Warming”.


You aren't making any sense. Google this: arctic jet stream.


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2018)

The temperature of the planet as a whole have most certainly NOT been record cold.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...um....there can’t be an “arctic jet stream” according to you people. See, greenhouses gases got trapped in the atmosphere and are “*heating*” up the planet.
> ...


Sure I am. If the planet is warming by greenhouses gases trapped in the atmosphere, then it is literally impossible to experience record colds. How can you have a RECORD cold if the planet is HEATING?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Sure I am. If the planet is warming by greenhouses gases trapped in the atmosphere, then it is literally impossible to experience record colds. How can you have a RECORD cold if the planet is HEATING?


Record cold means a certain region is much colder than usual. It does not mean the whole earth is colder than usual. If there are record colds in some region of the upper hemisphere, there could easily be record heat in the lower hemisphere at the same time, and vice versa. The global average temperature can be climbing while the weather in smaller local regions are chaotic.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Record cold means a certain region is much colder than usual. It does not mean the whole earth is colder than usual.


Yeah. No shit. Nobody was arguing otherwise. But “Global Warming” advocates don’t claim that only a region is warming. Their claim is that the entire planet is heating up due to “Global Warming”. If that were true, it would literally be impossible to have experienced record colds in some regions.


Wuwei said:


> If there are record colds in some region of the upper hemisphere, there could easily be record heat in the lower hemisphere at the same time, and vice versa. The global average temperature can be climbing while the weather in *smaller* *local* *regions* are chaotic.


That may be the funniest comment I have ever seen regarding the “Global Warming” scam. Every region is “local” if you’re in that region. And “smaller”? Smaller is a comparative word. A nation can be smaller compared to another nation. A state can be smaller compared to another state. But a region of the world?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Greenhouses gases trapped in the atmosphere heating up the planet *cannot* result in *record* *cold*.
> ...


You idiots have never heard about *Paradoxical Presentation*, have you..?

Your only 20 years behind in knowledge base.  We now understand a whole lot more than we did just 10 years ago. Almost all of the AGW hype has been disproved and you folks keep the lie alive..  If the earth were truly warming, then theoretical maximum cooling (within earths atmosphere) could not be occurring but it is, at both poles, how do you reconcile this problem?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> The temperature of the planet as a whole have most certainly NOT been record cold.


When we remove the made up crap from the system it is cooling. Now why would that happen?  The models used to generate the "infill" have a positive bias and affect the out put of the model and then the average temperature. 

Tell me again how your modeling has done in its predictive stage verification. (LAMFAO)





Dr Roy Spencer did a good job of exposing the failure of modeling..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Record cold means a certain region is much colder than usual. It does not mean the whole earth is colder than usual.
> ...


All non sequitur.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


So you CHOOSE to ignore physical evidence that disproves your religion..  Too Funny!

Tell me how your magical CO2, which is generally, evenly, distributed around the globe can not retain the heat at the poles. IF CO2 were acting as your hypothesis suggests, then theoretical maximum cooling should not be occurring. I'll Wait....


----------



## P@triot (Dec 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> All non sequitur.


The battle cry of the _thoroughly_ defeated progressive!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > All non sequitur.
> ...


I love watching these people go on and on for years misapplying black body calculations to the earths grey body atmosphere. It is why every modeling attempt fails and they must use fudge factors and retrain their models every three years because they diverge +2std and they do not reflect reality.  Right after they do a retrain they claim how well their models are doing while they contain no predictive value. Its a damn scam through and through...


----------



## IanC (Dec 23, 2018)

Calling the atmosphere a grey body is even worse than assuming it is a blackbody.


----------



## Crick (Dec 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me how your magical CO2, which is generally, evenly, distributed around the globe can not retain the heat at the poles. IF CO2 were acting as your hypothesis suggests, then theoretical maximum cooling should not be occurring. I'll Wait....



Yes or no: Are you still claiming to be an atmospheric physicist?

I'll wait...


----------



## P@triot (Jan 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me how your magical CO2, which is generally, evenly, distributed around the globe can not retain the heat at the poles. IF CO2 were acting as your hypothesis suggests, then theoretical maximum cooling should not be occurring. I'll Wait....
> ...


Wow...way to run from that direct and simple question. Pretty clear to see who lost this debate.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

IanC said:


> Calling the atmosphere a grey body is even worse than assuming it is a blackbody.


And this answers my question. Your misapplication of the physics is based on your 'belief' and not on sciecne.  Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me how your magical CO2, which is generally, evenly, distributed around the globe can not retain the heat at the poles. IF CO2 were acting as your hypothesis suggests, then theoretical maximum cooling should not be occurring. I'll Wait....
> ...


Answer the question skidmark.. Dodging it is not helping your cause as is attempting to discredit those who ask the question. All you do is deflect, deflect, deflect, and attack the person..,  Been reading up on your Rules For Radical's have you?


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

The poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet not experiencing "maximum cooling".  The problem is not a failure to retain heat.  The reason the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet is still under research.  Originally it was thought the loss of albedo was the primary culprit but more recent studies suggest that it is due to the transport of heat to the poles by large weather systems.  This should ring a bell with a premier atmospheric physicist such as yourself.  I'll give you a hint: PVs caused by RWs.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> The poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet not experiencing "maximum cooling".  The problem is not a failure to retain heat.  The reason the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet is still under research.  Originally it was thought the loss of albedo was the primary culprit but more recent studies suggest that it is due to the transport of heat to the poles by large weather systems.  This should ring a bell with a premier atmospheric physicist such as yourself.  I'll give you a hint: PVs caused by RWs.


My thread on paradoxical presentation tells you why what we are seeing is natural and normal..  Your rant is pure BS!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

How about a dose of facts for the believers...

"Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth's surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation. Here are the results:






*Figure 7*: Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea-surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper-left graph) and as "predicted" by 11 climate models (the other graphs).17 Notice that the slopes of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data."


The actual data from ERBE show a 100% correlation to surface temperature. As temperature at the surface rises the out going LWIR increases at the same increase.  IF CO2 were stopping or slowing the release of LWIR then the slop would show lag from the original temperature increase.

Source


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

I find it odd that you, a degreed atmospheric physicist would use such a site as your reference.





This isn't a science site, is it.  Hmm...

However, I enjoyed it when they REPEATEDLY stated that the direct greenhouse warming effect of CO2 was an inarguable fact.  You and Same Shit and JC456 and Skookerasbil and Crusader Frank don't seem to have accepted that.  If you reject that premise, why do you (apparently) accept the rest of this argument?

Now let's address the article's claim that GCM models assume LWIR radiation will decrease with increasing temperature.  First, this, as stated, is a violation of Planck's Law and SB.  Higher temperatures yield greater radiation.  The problem seems to be that someone has turned the terms around.  If we take a body at some temperature and by some mechanism, reduce the total amount of radiation escaping to space, the body will increase in temperature.  However, that is not what the greenhouse effect involves.  Greenhouse gases SLOW the escape of radiation by absorbing and emitting LWIR and sending some of it back to the surface.  Eventually, a body with a fixed level of greenhouse gases will reach equilibrium at some temperature above its blackbody SB temperature.  If you increase the level of GHGs by some step value, outgoing LWIR will slow further, more will be reabsorbed by the surface and the temperature will begin to rise.  That increase in temperature will increase radiation to space until the system is at equilibrium once again.

So, basically, I believe the data your article presents, is deceptive bullshit.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> *The* *reason* the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet *is* *still* *under* *research*.


Wow. _Wow_. The first “Global Warming” conspiracy wing-nut to admit that they don’t know what is causing what they believe (which isn’t happening anyway). And yet, they support policies extremely detrimental to jobs, wealth, energy, and welfare of people.


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

The reason the Earth as a whole is getting warmer is very widely accepted among scientists to be increased greenhouse warming from anthropogenically increased levels of GHGs.  So, no hooting is called for.

Besides, _*I*_ didn't admit it.  Climate scientists tell us that.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> The reason the Earth as a whole is getting warmer is very widely accepted among scientists to be increased greenhouse warming from anthropogenically increased levels of GHGs.  So, no hooting is called for.
> 
> Besides, _*I*_ didn't admit it.  Climate scientists tell us that.


The problem, Crick, is that each one of those that subscribe to that belief do so because of their blind political allegiance and/or because they have a whole lot of money and career to be gained from subscribing to it.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 12, 2019)

One can always count on the "Global Warming" crowd to have the largest carbon footprint...


> That’s a low-ball estimate because it includes only emissions from the conference and not emissions associated with the thousands who flew to the meeting in Poland.


More indisputable proof that "Global Warming" is a scam. If it was real, these people wouldn't fly all over the world holding massive CO2-emiting summits.

UN Climate Summit to Emit More CO2 Than 8,200 American Homes Do in a Year


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

This complaint is bullshit.  It has nothing to do with the science.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jan 13, 2019)

I don't see Global Warming activists, neither of the Celebrity variety, nor the average advocate changing THEIR lifestyle in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY to combat what they think matters affecting climate.  

*Crick, and others, what have you done to change YOUR Lifestyle that is PROVEN to reduce the affect on climate?  Or do you just want more government, more government control, and more taxes, and higher energy costs?*


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

I could tell you anything here.  What would you like to hear?  My extended family drives two Hyundai Elantras, a Honda Fit and a Prius V.  We eat no beef.  We ride bicycles to the grocery store (3 mi round trip).  Our 1.5 acre property is planted with a wide variety of trees, bushes, plants vice monoculture grass. I favor increased use of nuclear power along with alternative energy technologies and my retirement investments show it.  Most importantly, I vote for politicians who accept the conclusions of the IPCC and don't take large contributions from fossil fuel industries.  Does that change your mind about liberals?  Does it change your mind about the science?  I thought not.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 23, 2019)

It’s nice to see science, logic, reason, and common sense from a California judge...

Judge demolishes leftist theory that climate change is to blame for deadly California wildfires


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2019)

P@triot said:


> It’s nice to see science, logic, reason, and common sense from a California judge..



Another fine entry for this week's dumb-off.

Let me help you out here, since you need it. It's possible for something to have multiple contributing factors.

Thus, a judge saying bad electrical lines are a major contributing cause does not mean that rising temperatures can't also be a major contributing cause.

If you require an explanation with smaller words, I won't be able to supply it. I understand it may not be possible to dumb things down to a level that you can grasp.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2019)

P@triot said:


> The problem, Crick, is that each one of those that subscribe to that belief do so because of their blind political allegiance and/or because they have a whole lot of money and career to be gained from subscribing to it.



If all the data didn't say your kook snowflake political cult's dogma was a crock, you wouldn't need to whimper out conspiracy theories about how all the data is faked. But it does, so that's all you can do.

That's another reason why it's so good to be part of the reality-based community. All the data backs us up, so we never need to throw snowflake tantrums about how all the data is faked. To win, we simply point at the data.

A side benefit of doing that is how it triggers the cultists. I suppose I shouldn't take pleasure in their meltdowns, but I'm an imperfect person.


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2019)

P@triot said:


> It’s nice to see science, logic, reason, and common sense from a California judge...
> 
> Judge demolishes leftist theory that climate change is to blame for deadly California wildfires



The judge concluded that PG&E equipment ignited the fires.  He did not refute - nor could he have done - that global warming bore some responsibility for the increasing severity of western droughts.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jan 25, 2019)

Again, Libs, what are your lifestyle changes that are proven to combat man made climate change?


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2019)

I already told you mine.  And what relevance does this have with the science?  None.  This is simply an attack on liberals.  For that, move to one of the politics boards.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 27, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Let me help you out here, since you need it. It's possible for something to have multiple contributing factors.
> 
> Thus, a judge saying bad electrical lines are a major contributing cause does not mean that rising temperatures can't also be a major contributing cause.


Ahahahahahaha...look at mammaries trying to walk everything back and create a new narrative. Sweetie, you and your side idiotically claimed that “Global Warming” was thee cause. You’ve been proven wrong as always. Now go change your tampon.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> I already told you mine.  And what relevance does this have with the science?  None.  This is simply an attack on liberals.  For that, move to one of the politics boards.


Because it *proves* you don’t believe your own lies. This is all about wealth and control.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 27, 2019)

Yet again *reality* trumps the false narrative of the left...

2018 First Year Ever with No Violent Tornadoes in the U.S.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

I am going to take a guess that you believe Islam to be a threat to the United States.  But for this purpose, will just call it a hypothetical.  Certainly there are people with such an opinion.  The vast majority of them, your hypothetical self included, have not flown across to, say Saudi Arabia, and attacked Muslims.  Thus, by your logic, you are lying when you say (hypothetically) that you believe Islam to be a threat.  Does that seem like valid logic to you?  Or are there, perhaps, other reasons for not having gone on the attack?

And, again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the science.  As you've likely heard before, science doesn't care whether or not you believe.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Yet again *reality* trumps the false narrative of the left...
> 
> 2018 First Year Ever with No Violent Tornadoes in the U.S.



You really ought to check your facts first

"There were 1,154 preliminary reports of tornadoes in the United States in 2018,[1] of which at least 987 have been confirmed"
Tornadoes of 2018 - Wikipedia

1) Annual Severe Weather Report Summary 2018". Storm Prediction Center. 2018.

So, yet again, *REALITY* trumps the false narrative of the right...


----------



## P@triot (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> I am going to take a guess that you believe Islam to be a threat to the United States.  But for this purpose, will just call it a hypothetical.  Certainly there are people with such an opinion.  The vast majority of them, your hypothetical self included, have not flown across to, say Saudi Arabia, and attacked Muslims.  Thus, by your logic, you are lying when you say (hypothetically) that you believe Islam to be a threat.  Does that seem like valid logic to you?  Or are there, perhaps, other reasons for not having gone on the attack?
> 
> And, again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the science.  As you've likely heard before, science doesn't care whether or not you believe.


That is the most pitiful analogy I’ve ever heard. Here is an *accurate* analogy...

I think Islam is a threat. I demand that all of society consider if a thread. I force all of society to own a firearm. I create legislation forcing all of society to practice with that firearm 4x’s per week. I claim I’m doing this for the “good” to “protect” America. Then, another 9/11 happens and I go hide in my basement like a little bitch.

That’s exactly what you and your idiot leftist pals do. If you actually believed your own lies, you wouldn’t own an automobile. Hell, you wouldn’t own the computer or the internet access you’re using to spread your bullshit right now. You would live like an Indian....in a teepee.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Yet again *reality* trumps the false narrative of the left...
> ...


Awe...snowflake....look at you working that propaganda like a pimp with a hooker. How adorable. Unfortunately for you, everyone can see the keyword there:

2018 First Year Ever with No *Violent* Tornadoes in the U.S.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

Gosh, you'll have to tell me about non-violent tornadoes






February 24th, Hopkinsville, Ky




March 18, Nances Creek, Alabama




April 13th, Elon, Virginia




May 1st, Tescott, Kansas




July 19th, Marshalltown, Iowa

Do you need more?  Doubling down on stupidity serves you no better than it has served the president


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> I am going to take a guess that you believe Islam to be a threat to the United States.  But for this purpose, will just call it a hypothetical.  Certainly there are people with such an opinion.  The vast majority of them, your hypothetical self included, have not flown across to, say Saudi Arabia, and attacked Muslims.  Thus, by your logic, you are lying when you say (hypothetically) that you believe Islam to be a threat.  Does that seem like valid logic to you?  Or are there, perhaps, other reasons for not having gone on the attack?
> 
> And, again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the science.  As you've likely heard before, science doesn't care whether or not you believe.





P@triot said:


> That is the most pitiful analogy I’ve ever heard. Here is an *accurate* analogy...



From what you're about to give us, you do not seem to know the meaning of the word "analogy"



P@triot said:


> I think Islam is a threat. I demand that all of society consider if a thread[sic]. I force all of society to own a firearm. I create legislation forcing all of society to practice with that firearm 4x’s per week. I claim I’m doing this for the “good” to “protect” America. Then, another 9/11 happens and I go hide in my basement like a little bitch.



And this scenario is analogous to... what?



P@triot said:


> That’s exactly what you and your idiot leftist pals do.



I and my liberal pals consider Islam a threat, force society to own firearms and practice four times a week?  I think you're more than a little confused.



P@triot said:


> If you actually believed your own lies, you wouldn’t own an automobile. Hell, you wouldn’t own the computer or the internet access you’re using to spread your bullshit right now. You would live like an Indian....in a teepee.



No, I wouldn't "live like an indian in a teepee".  I agree with the conclusions of the IPCC assessment reports.  Global warming is taking place, its primary cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation.  It is a serious threat to the future well being of our species.  We need to respond to it rapidly and in a committed fashion.  However, that response does not require living like an aborigine but rather making use of technological advancements like nuclear power, photovoltaics, wind farms and other alternative energy and transportation technologies to move rapidly away from fossil fuels and reduce our carbon footprint.

I believe opinions such as yours are the result of scientific ignorance and political bigotry.  Or else, like SSDD, you are trolling.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 28, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Sweetie, you and your side idiotically claimed that “Global Warming” was thee cause.



No, we didn't. You're just lying and being a whiny cult beta again. Boring.

If you could debate what we say, you wouldn't have to always lie like that. But you can't, so you do.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Gosh, you'll have to tell me about non-violent tornadoes


I don’t have to...the article did it for me.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Gosh, you'll have to tell me about non-violent tornadoes
> 
> April 13th, Elon, Virginia


Oh my gosh...a single automobile flipped over?!?


----------



## P@triot (Jan 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Gosh, you'll have to tell me about non-violent tornadoes
> 
> May 1st, Tescott, Kansas


Hey stupid? You might not want to show 4 out of 5 buildings in perfect condition when trying to make a case for “violent” tornadoes.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 28, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Sweetie, you and your side idiotically claimed that “Global Warming” was thee cause.
> ...


Ahahahahahaha! Now mammaries is denying her own sides official narrative after I backed her ass into a corner with *facts*.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jan 28, 2019)

*Climate Change is a fear tool.
It is being used to herd the soft-minded liberal voters to the polls.*


----------



## Crick (Jan 29, 2019)

Those inclined to believe mainstream science have always taken AGW into account when picking political candidates.  That inclination has been spreading into many of those originally dubious about the threat.  As wildfires, flooding, sea level rise and weather extremes have spread; as the science has become more and more widely accepted and as the mountains of evidence have grown higher and higher, those maintaining your position and that of your buddies here have grown fewer and fewer.

Do you actually think Trump's position re AGW has done him any political favors?


----------



## Crick (Jan 30, 2019)

Patriot, we might have saved some pixels if you'd used more precise terminology.  The term "violent" does not have a hard definition in this context.  There were no EF-4 or 5 tornadoes aground in the US in 2018.  Happy?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 30, 2019)

Next time you come in contact with a member of the religion, ask the what would happen to global temperatures if TOMORROW the USA stopped burning all fossil fuels?

Do it.....watching a meathead stand there with thumb up their ass, one eye open, one eye closed and speechless.....its priceless. Suddenly, guys who stand like kings in front of pyramids become steaming turds on a dirt road!


----------



## Crick (Jan 30, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Next time you come in contact with a member of the religion, ask the what would happen to global temperatures if TOMORROW the USA stopped burning all fossil fuels?
> 
> Do it.....watching a meathead stand there with thumb up their ass, one eye open, one eye closed and speechless.....its priceless. Suddenly, guys who stand like kings in front of pyramids become steaming turds on a dirt road!




So you think I look like a king in front of a pyramid (ps, the pyramids were built by pharoahs)?  That's very flattering. I can't help but wonder where you got that image.  Do you not know that location?  That is a new entrance to the Louvre museum.  It was added (with much controversy) in 1989.  My wife and I went to France for our 25th wedding anniversary.  We had just come out of the museum and she took that picture of me.  I turned us around and took one of her, but lacking her skill, I did not see the bright reflection off the glass as anything but a nuisance.

The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios SRES produced several whose descriptions may be seen at Socio-Economic Data and Scenarios.  Since these scenarios and their application are intended to be of real value and require significant effort to create, they were made to reflect real possibilities.  Thus, none of them assume fossil fuel usage will magically stop tomorrow.  Their are, however, multiple scenarios that assume rapid and committed efforts to reduce GHG emissions.  You have likely seen them before.  Temperature or sea level projections with multiple paths forward are likely making use of different scenarios to drive their GCMs.  Graphs like this:









RCP = Representative Concentration Pathway, a simpler form of scenario dealing only with forcing factors, not population, economic models and technological developments.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Do you actually think Trump's position re AGW has done him any political favors?


Yep. It's why he sits in the White House this evening and Hitlery Clinton doesn't. 

Seriously man, how dumb are you to pose a question _that_ stupid? The dude one the most powerful office in the planet. You can't challenge him on _any_ of his political positions. None. They clearly worked for him.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> As wildfires, flooding, sea level rise and weather extremes have spread;


Except that none of that has happened. Literally none of it. Stop buying into the propagnda. You're a full fledged conspiracy theorist and you don't even realize it.

I have filled this thread with actual events which prove that Global Warming is a scam. You refuse to read them. So just stop already. All you're doing is making yourself sound like a buffoon with the conspiracies of "rising sea levels" that don't exist. You're spouting projections from "models" made by propagandists. I provided what actually occurred. Indisputable reality. The polar ice-cap did not melt in 2014 (NASA satellites in fact show that it expanded 60% - which is over 900,000 sq miles) and New York City is not under the ocean as we speak (as was also predicted in 2014). Game over.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Graphs like this:


I'm going to prove your graphs are completely fake. Ready? Here...






Still very much above the ocean. Thanks for playing. Game. Set. Match.


----------



## Crick (Jan 30, 2019)

That isn't a sea level graph, it is a temperature graph.  Sea level looks like this:





Soon enough, the bases of those mighty towers will be awash and getting in and out will get more and more tricky.  You know, rather than putting up a picture of 1,000 ft tall skyscrapers, why don't you put up pictures of the houses that real people live in, awash as they were during Hurricane Sandy?  That might be a little more HONEST of you.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> You know, rather than putting up a picture of 1,000 ft tall skyscrapers, why don't you put up pictures of the houses that real people live in, awash as they were during Hurricane Sandy?  That might be a little more HONEST of you.


Fair enough. You aware of _any_ houses currently under the ocean in New York because of "rising sea levels"? I'm not.


----------



## Crick (Jan 30, 2019)

Thousands of houses got flooded in Sandy's storm surge that would have stayed dry if not for global warming's sea level rise.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 30, 2019)

P@triot said:


> I have filled this thread with actual events which prove that Global Warming is a scam.



And you actually believe it, which is cute, in the same way we find a babbling toddler cute.

At this stage, you're only interesting as another demonstration of the abnormal psychology found in hardcore cultists. Your cult provides you many benefits. It tells you that you're a brave freedom fighter, instead of just another low-IQ pajama boi. Over and over, you get told you're a particularly special snowflake. It gives you reasons to feel a hate-rush many times a day. And it provides authoritarian leaders to save you the trouble of thinking for yourself. That kind of emotional lure is irresistible to the weak-minded.



> New York City is not under the ocean as we speak (as was also predicted in 2014)



Thanks for demonstrating my point. That's a prime example of the fabricated cult propaganda that you spread, because you didn't realize was fabricated cult propaganda. Learning something like that would require looking at non-cult sources, and your cult forbids you from doing that.

Remember, you can fool your fellow cultists, but you can't fool us. We know with 100% certainty that you're pushing a scam, for exactly the same reasons that we know Flat Earthers and Scientologists are pushing a scam. We won't be able to pull you out of your cult. You're too emotionally invested in it now, so reason only triggers you and pushes you in deeper.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> Thousands of houses got flooded in Sandy's storm surge


Wait...houses were “flooded” during a *hurricane*? No shit? You don’t say?


----------



## P@triot (Jan 31, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > I have filled this thread with actual events which prove that Global Warming is a scam.
> ...


Well duh...I posted the links. Not hard to believe something when you actually do it. The funny part is everyone here can see the links as well and you’re desperately hoping you can convince them they don’t see what is there.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 31, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > New York City is not under the ocean as we speak (as was also predicted in 2014)
> ...


Uh...that’s not your point. That’s my point. The “fabricated cult propaganda” that you and your fellow left-wing lunatics pushed (that New York would be under water by 2014) has been proven as propaganda by reality and history. New York is still very much above the ocean.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 31, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Remember, you can fool your fellow cultists, but you can't fool us.


Poor mammaries has been so thoroughly (and easily) duped by the left that she now thinks reality means “being fooled”.


> "The *fact* is we can't account for the *lack* *of* *warming*, and it's a travesty that we can't." - Dr Kevin Trenberth, Climate scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado


That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that it is a “fact” that they “cannot account for the lack of warming”. He then follows that up with his frustration that he can’t account for the lack of warming.


(***Warning*** these indisputable *facts* will cause mammaries to become triggered)


----------



## P@triot (Jan 31, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Remember, you can fool your fellow cultists, but you can't fool us.


Poor mammaries has been so thoroughly (and easily) duped by the left that she now thinks reality means “being fooled”.


> "I've just completed Mike’s _Nature_ *trick* of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's *to* *hide* *the* *decline*." - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)


That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that he fabricated data.


(***Warning*** these indisputable *facts* will cause mammaries to become triggered)


----------



## P@triot (Jan 31, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Remember, you can fool your fellow cultists, but you can't fool us.


Poor mammaries has been so thoroughly (and easily) duped by the left that she now thinks reality means “being fooled”.


> "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will *keep* *them* *out* *somehow* - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)


That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that he was committed to hiding data that didn’t support his biased, political position.


(***Warning*** these indisputable *facts* will cause mammaries to become triggered)


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2019)

P@triot said:


> That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that he fabricated data.



God are you stupid


----------



## mamooth (Feb 1, 2019)

Five posts in a row from P@triot raging about me? Now that's being triggered. So that he doesn't stroke out, I'd best not be too rough on him.



P@triot said:


> The “fabricated cult propaganda” that you and your fellow left-wing lunatics pushed (that New York would be under water by 2014) has been proven as propaganda by reality and history..



But nobody made that claim. That's the point you're evading. Your cult faked a story, fed it to you, and you're repeating it. You literally don't care if it's true or not. If the lie advances your political cause, then you love the lie.

If you didn't fake that talking point, then surely you can show us the original source for it. If you did fake it, you'll scream and cry and throw insults now, like you do every time you get busted.

The funny part is how I know the original source of your cult propaganda point here, but you don't. I'm well-informed, while you're a parrot.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that he fabricated data.
> ...


I’m “stupid” because I produced indisputable evidence that proved _you_ were easily duped by the left?


----------



## P@triot (Feb 1, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Five posts in a row from P@triot raging about me? Now that's being triggered. So that he doesn't stroke out, I'd best not be too rough on him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fascinating. Class, note how the duped leftist will ignore volumes of indisputable facts (video, names, titles, organizations, and quotes) to challenge something not listed (but which is so well know, it didn’t need listing).


----------



## P@triot (Feb 1, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The “fabricated cult propaganda” that you and your fellow left-wing lunatics pushed (that New York would be under water by 2014) has been proven as propaganda by reality and history..
> ...


When I provide the (well known) source - will you admit that “Global Warming” is a scam and acknowledge that I told the truth, right here on USMB?


----------



## Crick (Feb 1, 2019)

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

Bob Woodruff?  I hate to break the news to you but Bob Woodruff is a journalist, not a scientist.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
> 
> Bob Woodruff?  I hate to break the news to you but Bob Woodruff is a journalist, not a scientist.


Ahahaha! Already the left-wing lunatics are moving the goalposts. Mammaries didn't say "scientist". He said (and I quote) "nobody" said that. Here it is, snowflake:


mamooth said:


> But *nobody* made that claim. That's the point you're evading. Your cult faked a story, fed it to you, and you're repeating it. You literally don't care if it's true or not. If the lie advances your political cause, then you love the lie.


Do you see the word "scientist" there? Cause I sure as hell don't. But wait...it gets better duped dumb ass!!! I actually will be providing the quote from a _scientist_. That's where ABC and Woodruff got it from, genius.

Still want to keep challenging me? You've had your ass kicked up and down this thread by me. At what point are you going to realize that I don't comment unless it's a topic that I'm knowledgable about and can provide the facts?


----------



## Crick (Feb 1, 2019)

You haven't "kicked" me anywhere.  If you have something, let's see it.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> You haven't "kicked" me anywhere.  If you have something, let's see it.


I’m waiting to hear from mammaries first. But I *did* have “something”. I provided indisputable proof that the scientists have falsified their data and are laughing at _you_. And you ignored it (like you do with all *reality*).


----------



## mamooth (Feb 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> I’m waiting to hear from mammaries first.



Why is it always me that the predatory old queers get a mancrush on?

You lied about "left wing lunatics" predicting NYC would be underwater by now. That's been proven.

The next time you get busted for lying, just apologize and move on. Everyone knows that you don't create the lies yourself. You just repeat what you're told, like a good cult boi. Being stupid isn't a big deal, as long as you 'fess up to it. The problem is when you repeat the lie again, even after you know it's been debunked. That graduates you to the "deliberate dishonesty" category.



> But I *did* have “something”. I provided indisputable proof that the scientists have falsified their data and are laughing at _you_. And you ignored it (like you do with all *reality*).



What a coincidence, Flat-Earthers tell me the same thing. Just how do you differ from them, other than having less data to back your loopy claims?

Let's get back to the topic that you're trying to avoid through insults. I'm guessing your next step is to tell a lie about how Hansen supposedly made the prediction.

After I debunk it, will you finally admit that denialism is scam, and that you lied and I told the truth?

Given that you made the challenge to me, I certainly hope you'd accept the challenge, as you'd look even more gutless and hypocritical if you didn't.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 2, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > I’m waiting to hear from mammaries first.
> ...


Ahahahahaha! First mammaries challenged me to provide the proof. When I said I would if he would admit that he lied and that "Global Warming" his scam, he immediately avoids the post and arbitrarily declares that I got caught "lying".

Bwahahahaha! What's wrong mammaries? Cat got your tongue? If I made that up, you shouldn't be so afraid to agree to my terms!


----------



## P@triot (Feb 2, 2019)

Incidentally mammaries, you're damn quite about all of the "Climategate" *facts*! No surprise. You run from facts like Dumbocrat politicians run from the law.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Ahahahahaha! First mammaries challenged me to provide the proof.



And predictably, you're making excuses to run instead of providing it. I do credit you with being quite creative in the excuses you use to cover your retreats.



> I If I made that up, you shouldn't be so afraid to agree to my terms!



But I do agree to your terms, my sweet cuddly bitch. That was implied. And by continuing the conversation, you agree to mine. So let's go. Provide your proof, so I can get to the debunking.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 2, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Incidentally mammaries, you're damn quite about all of the "Climategate" *facts*!



No, I'm quite vocal about how your side got caught in multiple lies and open fraud, and how you choose to join in. It's just that the topic is boring. Everyone knows deniers lie and commit fraud more readily than normal humans breathe, so that's "dog bites man" news.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 2, 2019)

mamooth said:


> And predictably, you're making excuses to run instead of providing it.


I'm not making excuses. I'm waiting on you to agree to admit you lied and to admit that "Global Warming" is a scam. There's a reason you won't do that *right* *now*.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 2, 2019)

mamooth said:


> No, I'm quite vocal about how your side got caught in multiple lies and open fraud, and how you choose to join in.


And yet you ignore the indisputable evidence I provide while you've failed to add a single link or fact to back up your claim about conservatives "lying".


----------



## mamooth (Feb 2, 2019)

Excellent. By continuing the conversation, you've accepted my terms.



P@triot said:


> I'm not making excuses. I'm waiting on you to agree to admit you lied and to admit that "Global Warming" is a scam.



That's your craziest goalpost shift yet. Here's what you asked before, and what I agreed to:

"When I provide the (well known) source - will you admit that “Global Warming” is a scam and acknowledge that I told the truth, right here on USMB?"

I agree to that, if I can't debunk your source. And you agree that if I do debunk it, you admit denialism is a scam. 

The bet has been made, so you need to do your part. But you won't. You're running now. To all observers, it appears as if you already know you're going to lose.

Come on, let's do this. I'm ready. Provide your source for the claim that some scientist and all of us leftist loonies were screaming that NYC should be underwater by now.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 2, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Here's what you asked before, and what I agreed to:
> 
> "When I provide the (well known) source - will you admit that “Global Warming” is a scam and acknowledge that I told the truth, right here on USMB?"
> *
> I* *agree* *to* *that*, if I can't debunk your source.


Excellent! Bringing in flacaltenn to see if he can ban your account if you renig (cause we all know you will).


mamooth said:


> And you agree that if I do debunk it, you admit denialism is a scam.


Uh...I *don’t* agree to that. At all. Because you will claim you “debunked” it when you didn’t. That’s just what you do. It’s (sadly) how you operate on here.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 2, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > I If I made that up, you shouldn't be so afraid to agree to my terms!
> ...


Typical leftists, folks. She attempts to evade and then claims it was “implied” that she agreed.

I don’t do vague, sweetie. You leftists use vague to hide and spread propaganda. I do crystal clear, black and white. Now that I have you clearly agreeing to the challenge above, I’ll post as soon as we hear back from Flacaltenn. Just want to make sure your held accountable because you’re not a woman of your word.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

P@triot, your put offs and delays and evasions are beginning to make me think you've got nothing to show.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 3, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Uh...I *don’t* agree to that. At all. Because you will claim you “debunked” it when you didn’t. That’s just what you do. It’s (sadly) how you operate on here.



So, your conditions are that if you present a propaganda point, nobody is permitted to refute it, and you get to declare victory.

That's very Stalinist of you, forbidding any criticism of TheParty's dogma.

Let's summarize. 

You made a challenge.

I accepted it.

You're now pissing yourself and running, in front of the whole board.

I suggest you rename yourself "Pusstriot", being how the whole board now considers you to be the ultimate pussy.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot, your put offs and delays and evasions are beginning to make me think you've got nothing to show.


Your girlfriend delayed. She just accepted _yesterday_.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 3, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Uh...I *don’t* agree to that. At all. Because you will claim you “debunked” it when you didn’t. That’s just what you do. It’s (sadly) how you operate on here.
> ...


Nope. Not at all. You can absolutely refute it. I’m just not going to agree to do what you want based on _your_ *subjective* *opinion* that you “debunked” it.

My challenge is not subjective. A scientist said it. It’s a matter of record. We have his name, his title, etc. Our bet was built on indisputable fact. You want to extend that out to something subjective based on your biased opinion. Big difference there, sweetie.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

Then why have you not posted it here?  You have no power to make Mamooth do anything.  Your comment earlier that you were going to try to get Mamooth banned if he broke a deal with you was absolutely pathetic.  Where the fuck do you think you are?

Just put it down here and let your audience judge.  All this delay convinces me that your statement includes a "could" or an "I believe" or a "possibly" as all good natural scientists know they do not possess absolutes.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 3, 2019)

Hey P@triot, how'd your crying to the mods thing go? Not so well? They have no interest in your weepy personal vendettas? Imagine that. You're going to have to face me all by yourself. No wonder you're soiling yourself.



P@triot said:


> Nope. Not at all. You can absolutely refute it.



Obviously. That's why you won't present it. You've made that very clear.



> I’m just not going to agree to do what you want based on _your_ *subjective* *opinion* that you “debunked” it.



There won't be anything subjective about it.



> My challenge is not subjective. A scientist said it. It’s a matter of record. We have his name, his title, etc. Our bet was built on indisputable fact.



Likewise, my refutation is not subjective in any way. We're on equal footing, so the bet penalties and payoffs should be equal. That's fair, thus it terrifies you. You know you need intellectual affirmative action to have a chance against any liberal, but we're not obligated to comply with that demand.



> You want to extend that out to something subjective based on your biased opinion. Big difference there, sweetie.



No more excuses. Let's drop all bets. That way, you no longer have any excuse to run. Now, present your evidence that some famous scientist predicted NYC would be underwater by now, so I can proceed to make my point that you got bamboozled by your cult, and that you'll still kiss the heinies of those who lied to you even after you've been made aware that they lied.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 3, 2019)

mamooth said:


> No more excuses. Let's drop all bets. That way, you no longer have any excuse to run.


Uh-oh...looks like _someone_ did a basic Google search and now realizes she is screwed.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

For god's sake post it.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 3, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Uh-oh...looks like _someone_ did a basic Google search and now realizes she is screwed.



So you're saying the bet is on. Excellent. I'll hold you to that.

Being that Pusstriot here has once more failed in his quest to locate his balls (magnification and tweezers were not sufficient), I'll have to help him out.

This is what Pusstriot thinks his irrefutable source is, either this Salon piece, or one of the conspiracy blogs quoting it.

Stormy weather

In that piece, Bob Reiss says in a phone interview with Salon:
---
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.
---

Slam dunk for Pusstriot? Nope. That's not a quote of Hansen. That's a quote of what Bob Reiss remembered about an 13-year-old conversation at that particular instant. And Bob Reiss later stated that he goofed in his recollection.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf

---
Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question." So give Michaels a pass on this one -- assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss' book.
---

The actual quote by Hansen was not "20 years from now" (now being 1988). It was "40 years after a doubling". As a doubling of CO2 hasn't happened yet, the 40-year clock hasn't even started ticking yet.

Oh, Pusstriot also lied about all of NYC supposedly being under water, as the statement only covered a freeway along the river.

So, that's the objective truth. Pusstriot will have a hard time trying to weasel away, as the people he claims are his reliable sources are the ones saying he was lying.

Thus, by the terms of the bet that Pusstriot accepted, he must to admit to the board that he was lying, that I was telling the truth, and that he has spent years as the devoted brainless acolyte of a liars' cult.

Pusstriot, see what happens when you refuse to look at non-cult sources? Take a lesson. Be like the rational people, and look at every source.

<mic drop>


----------



## P@triot (Feb 3, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Thus, by the terms of *the* *bet* *that* *Pusstriot* *accepted*, he must to admit to the board that he was lying, that I was telling the truth, and that he has spent years as the devoted brainless acolyte of a liars' cult.


One can _always_ count on mammaries to *lie* (and then lie about her lies)...


P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > And you agree that if I do debunk it, you admit denialism is a scam.
> ...


As always...the indisputable, undeniable facts are right there in black and white (post #306 if people want additional context) and yet mammaries desperately tries to rewrite it to fit her bat-shit crazy narrative. I made it ultra clear that I didn’t agree to anything that bat-shit crazy broad wanted. Even underlined it and bolded it to make it more obvious.

The left-wing parasites like mammaries are so afraid that their ticket to mooch off of society will be revoked if they don’t keep spreading their propaganda.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 3, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Oh, Pusstriot also lied about *all* *of* *NYC* supposedly being under water, as the statement only covered a freeway along the river.


One post...multiple *lies* by mammaries. Nowhere in this thread did I use the phrase “all of New York”. This is a short thread of 32 pages. Look for yourselves. Use the search feature above and check the option for “search this thread only”.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 3, 2019)

mamooth said:


> So, that's the objective truth. Pusstriot will have a hard time trying to weasel away, as the people he claims are his reliable sources are the ones saying he was lying.


I told everyone that mammaries the parasite would declare she “debunked” it when she didn’t. I haven’t even posted anything yet and she’s _already_ declaring that she “debunked” it.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> For god's sake post it.


Ok...I’ll do it for you Crick (since Facaltenn hasn’t weighed in yet and we all know mammaries will never keep her word anyway).


> The former NASA *climate* *scientist* who predicted parts of New York City would soon be underwater, now says he’s not a global warming “alarmist.”


Now remember, mammaries claimed that no scientist ever said that. Not only is this a scientist, but specifically a climate scientist.

Furthermore, please read the entire article. At no point does this climate scientist deny making those statements (mammaries claims it stems from a reporter misquoting him years later, but if that were even remotely true, he would have denied the statements in this article and he doesn’t).

See, she panicked because she knows I don’t make shit up. I post links (tons of them). So she used Google (presumably for the first time ever), found that a scientist did in fact say that, then searched the usual left-wing propaganda sites for an answer to explain away this huge problem.

Scientist Who Predicted NYC Would Be Underwater Says He’s ‘Not An Alarmist’


----------



## P@triot (Feb 3, 2019)

So crock and mammaries...if “Global Warming” is real, why did the scientists feel the need to falsify their data?


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

P@triot said:


> One post...multiple *lies* by mammaries.


You've been debunked.


P@triot said:


> New York City is not under the ocean as we speak (as was also predicted in 2014)


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

P@triot said:


> My challenge is not subjective. A scientist said it. It’s a matter of record. We have his name, his title, etc. Our bet was built on indisputable fact.


The record is incorrect, the fact is disputed and disproven.


----------



## Crick (Feb 4, 2019)

P@triot said:


> A scientist said it. It’s a matter of record. We have his name, his title, etc.



Liar.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 4, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Nowhere in this thread did I use the phrase “all of New York”.



Liar. Post #278. You posted an image of the skyscrapers of NYC, and then implied the prediction said they'd be underwater.

So, 5 separate meltdown posts from Pusstriot. Have I triggered the snowflake, or have I triggered the snowflake?

Poor Pusstriot can now only whimper that he didn't make the bet. Even he's not pretending he didn't lose it. How could he, given how hard I slapped him with his own sources? And no, I won't pursue him to honor the bet. After all, this is Pusstriot. I was fully aware he would welch, as was everyone.

My amply-proven points are:

1. Pusstriot is a brainless cultist who just regurgitates whatever propaganda gets pissed down his eager throat.

2. Pusstriot is a proud cult liar. He now knows full well that his cult propaganda here was fake, yet he's still pushing it.

3. Pusstriot's raging case of sand-in-his-mangina is never going away.

I'll leave him alone now. Given how helpless he is, further mocking would feel like picking on a short bus kid. Plus, he's now stewing in his own excrement, and dang, that's a stank.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > A scientist said it. It’s a matter of record. We have his name, his title, etc.
> ...


He’s on record, snowflake. It’s indisputable. Putting your fingers in your ears like mammaries and yelling “nah-nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-hear-you” doesn’t alter reality.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 4, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Nowhere in this thread did I use the phrase “all of New York”.
> ...


Hahahahaha! Mammaries *lies* in _every_ post. And she wonders why she’s so frustrated by her lack of credibility.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 4, 2019)

mamooth said:


> And no, I won't pursue him to honor the bet.


Well that’s good...considering I *never* agreed to _anything_. Here is a recap so the board can continue to laugh at you. Post #306:


P@triot said:


> Uh...I *don’t* agree to that. At all. Because you will claim you “debunked” it when you didn’t. That’s just what you do. It’s (sadly) how you operate on here.


And again here in post #317:


P@triot said:


> I made it ultra clear that I didn’t agree to anything that bat-shit crazy broad wanted. Even underlined it and bolded it to make it more obvious.


I wonder if mammaries has _ever_ told the truth on USMB?


----------



## P@triot (Feb 4, 2019)

So to recap: indisputable proof that climate scientists falsify their data and indisputable proof that climate scientists claimed New York would be underwater by 2014.

Only a mindless minion believes in the “Global Warming” scam at this point.


----------



## Crick (Feb 4, 2019)

If you think ANYONE on either side of this is paying the slghtest attention to all your whining here, you're out of your mind.  Let me repeat: where the fuck do you think you are?

What is the name and where is the quote?


----------



## P@triot (Feb 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> What is the name and where is the quote?


I posted it for you yesterday in post #320


----------



## P@triot (Feb 4, 2019)

More indisputable proof that “Global Warming” is a total scam...


> Between February 11 and February 14, the Great Arctic Outbreak set record low temperatures that still stand in Grand Rapids (-24 degrees), Wichita (-22°), Oklahoma City (-17°), Atlanta (-9°), Fort Worth (-8°) and Baton Rouge (2°).


1899. No automobiles. No jet aircraft. Very limited manufacturing. Unquestionably before the slightest impact of man made CO2.

There’s Cold—and Then There Was February 1899


----------



## Crick (Feb 5, 2019)

Here's how cold the PLANET was in 1899. It was actually at the peak of a temporary hot spell.






*Credits*

Image created by Robert A. Rohde/Global Warming Art.

Hansen, J., Sato, Mki., Ruedy, R., Lo, K., Lea, D. W., & Medina-Elizade, M. (2006). Global temperature change. _Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103,_ 14288-14293.







The same peak shown by Berkely Earth, the group deniers praised till their data showed that NASA, NOAA, Hadley, JWA and all the rest were telling the truth.






NOAA data.  Same peak @ 1900






Four different groups on one plot all showing a localized peak at about the time you claim you have proof that global warming is refuted.

Allow me to also point out that in 1899, global warming was barely begun.  CO2, which started at 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. was at 295 ppm , a 5.3% increase.  It is now over 405 ppm, a 145% increase.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 10, 2019)

Can’t help but really laugh at those left who still are duped by the “Global Warming” scam.


> There is a soullessness to the Elizabeth Warrens of the world. They need meaning. They need a crusade. They can’t leave well enough alone. That’s a big part of leftism. This country is too free, too kind, too affluent. They need to screw it up. If they screw it up, they have purpose.”


There is a “soullessness” to the entire left-wing ideology. A bunch of lost atheists with nothing to fill their dark souls.

Dennis Prager on Green New Deal: Leftists Need a 'Crusade,' 'Cause' to Have Purpose | Breitbart


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2019)

That doesn't strike you as a ridiculous generalization?


----------



## P@triot (Feb 13, 2019)




----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot, your put offs and delays and evasions are beginning to make me think you've got nothing to show.


Coming from an idiot hack that is incapable of showing us ANY EMPIRICAL OBSERVED EVIDENCE that proves mans contribution over Natural Variation. And We've been asking for over three decades now...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> If you think ANYONE on either side of this is paying the slghtest attention to all your whining here, you're out of your mind.  Let me repeat: where the fuck do you think you are?
> 
> What is the name and where is the quote?


Who the fuck do you think you are? You post up the same lies over and over again and you fail to get any real data to back up your lies.  You have no moral high ground here.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> Here's how cold the PLANET was in 1899. It was actually at the peak of a temporary hot spell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Falsified Karl Et AL CRAP!  why do you post up this discredited crap over and over again? Is lying and deception all you have?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 13, 2019)

Dr David Evans is correct about the Global Warming Scam...

There is no hot spot..

Temperature rise in the early 1900's is greater than today's rate proving that Natural Variation is all it is..

Satellite measurements prove that input changes are reflected in equal output from earths surface. There is no holding loop for heat to build up in within our atmosphere.

Every single premise of the AGW theory is laid waste..

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans


----------



## Crick (Feb 14, 2019)

So, you're rejecting the greenhouse effect?  And you working on your doctorate in Atmospheric Physics and all set to set the physics world on its ear with your new theories about the mass of the photon and the role of magnetism in providing gravity?  Astounding!


----------



## P@triot (Feb 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> So, you're rejecting the greenhouse effect?  And you working on your doctorate in Atmospheric Physics and all set to set the physics world on its ear with your new theories about the mass of the photon and the role of magnetism in providing gravity?  Astounding!


Yes...but not nearly as hard as you work at denying reality.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2019)

P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what you asked before, and what I agreed to:
> ...



Yeah..that's the hairball....she has been claiming for years that she has provided observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, but when asked to provide it, she never seems to be able to come up with it...just some excuse for not delivering.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2019)

P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




Got that one spot on also...they never argue against what you say...they argue against what they interpret what you said to mean...as if what you say needs interpreting.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Nowhere in this thread did I use the phrase “all of New York”.
> ...



Poor hairball....this is what happens when you argue against your made up version of what someone said rather than what they actually said.

So do you disappear from the board as agreed, or do we chalk your refusal up as just one more lie told by a congenital liar?  You can always do what abraham did....and just come back with a new name but just as stupid.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 16, 2019)

Ohhhhhh Crick....


----------



## Crick (Feb 17, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Nowhere in this thread did I use the phrase “all of New York”.





mamooth said:


> Liar. Post #278. You posted an image of the skyscrapers of NYC, and then implied the prediction said they'd be underwater..





SSDD said:


> Poor hairball....this is what happens when you argue against your made up version of what someone said rather than what they actually said.
> 
> So do you disappear from the board as agreed, or do we chalk your refusal up as just one more lie told by a congenital liar?  You can always do what abraham did....and just come back with a new name but just as stupid.



How much SLR would it take to submerge all the skyscrapers of NYC?  A thousand feet?  Show us a single prediction of sea level rise even one HUNDREDTH that high over that time period.  Of course, you cannot.  That is because as is almost always the case, it is YOU, Shit, that is lying.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 27, 2019)

Man Crick, this whole "Global Warming" thing is a real _crisis_, uh? It's so urgent, that almost *none* of the Dumbocrats showed up for a committee hearing and subsequent vote on it! Bwahahahahaha!!!




 



 

Do you get it now?!? Finally?!? You've been DUPED!


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

Well, then just don't you worry when the democrats start running green legislation through congress.  It won't go anywhere.

You can always tell which side is losing: their arguments will be about trivial bullshit.  Like this.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Well, then just don't you worry when the democrats start running green legislation through congress.  It won't go anywhere.
> 
> You can always tell which side is losing: their arguments will be about trivial bullshit.  Like this.


Wait...you consider it "trivial" that YOUR Democrat representatives don't even show up for a committee and vote on what you morons claim is the greatest "crisis" in the history of the world?


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

In the context of this argument, I think your claim that this means anything significant regarding Democratic commitment to addressing global warming is just bullshit.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> In the context of this argument, I think your claim that this means anything significant regarding Democratic commitment to addressing global warming is just bullshit.


Hahahahaha! You continue to deny reality like someone thoroughly defeated. Dude...if “Global Warming” was real, 100% of your precious Dumbocrats would have been an hour early to the meeting and prepared with data, charts, studies, etc. and would have stayed an hour after. The fact that almost none of them showed up proves they know it’s a scam. They aren’t worried.

It only exists for them to leverage more power for themselves. You were so easily duped.


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

If you want to debate whether or not AGW is real, you need to talk science.  A conversation about the behavior of a handful of politicians doesn't mean shit.  Now, as seems extremely likely, it's all you've got, then I think it's time you pulled enough of your brain out of your ass and realize you're on the wrong side of the argument.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> If you want to debate whether or not AGW is real, you need to talk science.


The *science* shows that Dumbocrats skipped a committee meeting and vote on the “Global Warming” scam.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Now, as seems extremely likely, it's all you've got, then I think it's time you pulled enough of your brain out of your ass and realize you're on the wrong side of the argument.


All I’ve got? Snowflake, I’ve packed links containing indisputable facts into 30 plus pages of this thread. Why do you think you’re losing your shit? Why do you think you refuse to take any of those facts head on?


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

Give me ONE of them.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Give me ONE of them.


I already have, snowflake. Go through the thread and pick out any one you want.


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

So you've got nothing you think's a sure winner.  Got it.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> So you've got nothing you think's a sure winner.  Got it.


All of them are "sure winners". That's why you're in such a tizzy.


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

I'm not in a tizzy.  I just don't think you've got crap to argue with.  There is no "global warming scam" so it's not an easy thing to come up with a sure fire argument for its existence.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'm not in a tizzy.  I just don't think you've got crap to argue with.  There is no "global warming scam" so it's not an easy thing to come up with a sure fire argument for its existence.


Thank God I don't need an "argument". All I have to do is provide *facts*. Like the *fact* that the Dumbocrats didn't even show up for the "crisis" that is going to kill us all in 12 years.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> So you've got nothing you think's a sure winner.  Got it.


Here you go, snowflake. The surest of all of the sure winners. Post #1. Be sure someone is standing by to give you the heimlich as you choke on it.


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2019)

P@triot said:


> The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.



Since no one KNOWS what will happen in the future, no one can be held to have lied in a projection.  A projection that fails to come true is an error, not a lie.



P@triot said:


> A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that *97.4%* *never* materialized.
> 
> Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”


Paul Ehrilich's concern was overpopulation.  He is not a climate scientist and never addressed global warming.


P@triot said:


> In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”


This report was made before the enactment of the Clean Air Act


P@triot said:


> In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.” We made it.


First, you will have to quantify "total frying pan".  Second, let me remind you that Al Gore is not a climate scientist.  Global temperatures certainly rose between 2006 and 2016.


P@triot said:


> In 2008, a segment aired on ABC News predicted that NYC would be under water by June 2015.


I am wondering why I am not seeing projections by, say, the IPCC.  Climate scientists were making no such predictions at the time.  And since I have never used ABC News, or any of these folks as sources, I see no requirement that I defend their mistakes.


P@triot said:


> In 1970, ecologist Kenneth E.F. Watt predicted that “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”


An ecologist works in the field of biology.  He has no expertise in the field of climate science.


P@triot said:


> In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had expanded over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)












[/quote]



P@triot said:


> On May 13th 2014 France’s foreign minister said that we only have 500 days to stop “climate chaos.” The recent Paris climate summit met 565 days after his remark.


This is getting more than a little ridiculous.  There are a few mentally unsound people who wander around my town all day.  Should I seek out their opinions and then demand you defend them?


P@triot said:


> In 2009, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Wassen warned that Obama only had four years left to save the earth.


He may have been correct.


P@triot said:


> On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75% and 80% of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”


Well, the Earth Day sponsors got it wrong.  We've only driven 60% of the Earth's species extinct in that time span (ie, well within MY lifetime).  I guess you should feel pleased.

Wildlife numbers more than halve since 1970s in mass extinction
Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds
The Extinction Crisis
World wildlife populations 'fall by 58% since 1970'

From Wikipedia
*1970s*

c. 1970 - The Caspian tiger becomes extinct primarily due to habitat loss, hunting, and loss of prey.[67]
1972 - The endemic to Jamaica Mason River myrtle becomes extinct.[68]
1974 - The last known Japanese sea lion is captured off the coast of Rebun Island, Hokkaido.[69]
c. 1976 - Last sightings of the Javan tiger.[70]
*1980s*

1981 - The Puhielelu hibiscadelphus becomes extinct.[71]
1981 - Last sighting of the green-blossom pearly mussel, an American mussel.[72]
1981 - The Southern gastric-brooding frog (_Rheobatrachus silus_) became extinct probably due to habitat destruction and disease.[73]
1983 - Last unconfirmed spotting of the kouprey (_Bos sauveli_),[74] last absolute confirmed spotting was in 1969/70.[75] Declared as “most likely to be extinct” by the IUCN.[75]
1983-84 - The 24-rayed sunstar (_Heliaster solaris_), the Galapagos black-spotted damselfish and the Galapagos stringweed likely become extinct due to climate change.[76]
1985 - The Northern gastric-brooding frog (_Rheobatrachus vitellinus_) became extinct probably due to habitat destruction and disease.[77]
1987 - The last Kauaʻi ʻōʻō (_Moho braccatus)_, a male, is recorded singing a mating call. The species was never heard from again and was declared extinct.[78]
1989 - The golden toad of Costa Rica becomes extinct, perhaps because of climate change.[79]
*1990s*

1990 - The dusky seaside sparrow was officially declared extinct in December 1990. The last definite known individual died on 17 June 1987.[80]
1994 - Saint Croix racer, a snake native to the Virgin Islands, declared extinct.[81]
1994 - Levuana moth from Hawaii goes extinct.[82]
1997 - The Hainan ormosia (a species of legume) which was native to China is no longer seen.[83]
*3rd millennium CE*
*21st century*
*2000s*

2000 - "Celia", the last Pyrenean ibex, was found dead in 2000. However, in 2003, a female was cloned back into existence, but died shortly after birth due to defects in the lungs.[84][85]
2003 - The last individual from the St. Helena olive, which was grown in cultivation, dies off. The last plant in the wild had died in 1994.[86]
2006 - A technologically sophisticated survey of the Yangtze River failed to find specimens of the baiji dolphin, prompting scientists to declare it functionally extinct.[87]
*2010s*

2011 - The Eastern cougar was declared extinct. Last known individual was trapped and killed in 1938.[88][89]
2011 - The western black rhinoceros was declared extinct.[90]
2012 - The Japanese river otter (_Lutra lutra whiteneyi_) declared extinct by the country's Ministry of the Environment, after not being seen for more than 30 years.[91]
2012 - "Lonesome George", the last known specimen of the Pinta Island tortoise, died on 24 June 2012.[92]
2013 - The Cape Verde giant skink was declared extinct.[93]
2013 - The Formosan clouded leopard, previously endemic to the island of Taiwan, is officially declared extinct.[94]
2014 - The Bermuda saw-whet owl was declared extinct after being described from fossils in 2012.[95]
2017 - The Christmas Island forest skink was declared extinct, three years after the last known specimen died.[96]
2019 - The Bramble Cay melomys was declared extinct.[97]



P@triot said:


> And another Earth Day prediction from Kenneth Watt: “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”


Again, Kenneth Watt is an ecologist - a biologist.  He is speaking well outside his field.


These are not the predictions of climate scientists. Many of these are not the work of scientists at all.  Yet you claim this is evidence of a global warming scam.  It is not.  This is a failure of epic proportions, to borrow a phrase.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> ...


Hahahahahahahaha!!!! You just defeated the entire premise of "Global Warming". Since nobody could possibly know, why do _anything_?!? You're admitting you don't know what "Global Warming" is doing and you're admitting you don't know what effect the policies will result in!!! Game OVER.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> ...


Just imagine the type of hard core partisan hack one must be to adamantly declare over and over and over that "Global Warming" is catastrophic and we're all going to die, and then in the next breath declare "nobody could possibly know what will happen in the future" when faced with the *fact* that history has proven "Global Warming" to be a scam since 97.4% of the predictions never materialized.

What a dolt. What a partisan hack.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> He is not a climate scientist and never addressed global warming.


Neither is Al Gore. But that doesn't stop you from bending over and taking it from him, then telling everyone that Gore speaks the truth.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> ...


Hahahaha! Just caught Crick in _another_ *lie*.


> Nicknames Clean Air Act of 1963
> Enacted by the 88th United States Congress
> *Effective* December 17, *1963 *


The Clean Air Act was enacted in 1963. Thus the report came out 7 years *AFTER* the legislation.

    

Clean Air Act (United States) - Wikipedia


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> ...


Uh...then why is he speaking out? You are now on record as stating that Al Gore either got this from climate scientists or he *lied* about "Global Warming". Which is it?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> ...


So you're openly *admitting* that the left *lies* about "Global Warming"?!? Game OVER!


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2019)

Is there anything more comical than watching a leftist attempt to manufacture excuse after excuse after excuse for the lies of their side of the aisle? History has unequivocally proven that "Global Warming" is a scam. The weak excuses and big lies that Crick keeps posting are unreal! Too funny.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> ...


So you're yet again admitting that the left *LIES* about "Global Warming"? Great strategy there, Crick.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> ...


We agree! And yet you left-wing lunatics refuse to embrace facts (or reality) and accept "Global Warming" for the scam that it is.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> ...


Really? Because it's been 10 years since that prediction and the Earth is _still_ here and doing quite well!


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Why am I not surprised you're unaware of the definition of a word as simple as "KNOW"?


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



It was first amended in 1965, by the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, which authorized the federal government to set required standards for controlling the emission of pollutants from certain automobiles, beginning with the 1968 models. A second amendment, the Air Quality Act of 1967, enabled the federal government to increase its activities to investigate enforcing interstate air pollution transport, and, *for the first time, to perform far-reaching ambient monitoring studies and stationary source inspections*. The 1967 act also authorized expanded studies of air pollutant emission inventories, ambient monitoring techniques, and control techniques.[7] While only six states had air pollution programs in 1960, *all 50 states had air pollution programs by 1970* due to the federal funding and legislation of the 1960s.[8] *Amendments approved in 1970 greatly expanded the federal mandate, requiring comprehensive federal and state regulations for both stationary (industrial) pollution sources and mobile sources*. It also significantly expanded federal enforcement. *Also, EPA was established on December 2, 1970* for the purpose of consolidating pertinent federal research, monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities into one agency that ensures environmental protection.[9][10]

*Further amendments were made in 1990* to address the problems of acid rain, ozone depletion, and toxic air pollution, and to establish a national permit program for stationary sources, and increased enforcement authority. The amendments also established new auto gasoline reformulation requirements, set Reid vapor pressure (RVP) standards to control Evaporative emissions from gasoline, and mandated new gasoline formulations sold from May to September in many states. Reviewing his tenure as EPA Administrator under President George H. W. Bush, William K. Reilly characterized passage of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act as his most notable accomplishment.[11]


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2019)

If it's all a big scam, certainly the heart of the scam has to be the IPCC and their assessment reports.  Let's have a look at THOSE projections, eh?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> If it's all a big scam, certainly the heart of the scam has to be the IPCC and their assessment reports.  Let's have a look at THOSE projections, eh?


We already have, snowflake. They were caught in emails to each other discussing how they falsify their data and *lie* to the American people. Another fact posted in this thread that you ran from.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> ...


That response is hands down my favorite left-wing lunatic “Global Warming” response _ever_.

Climate Alarmist: “The world is going to end if we don’t execute 98% of the population immediately and force the remaining 2% to live like Native American Indians”.

Climate Alarmist (in the very next breath): “Look pal, *nobody* KNOWS what is going to happen. Nobody knows what ‘Global Warming’ is doing. Nobody knows what effects ‘Global Warming’ policies will have. Nobody knows”.

Ah. Shrewd. What a wise response after decades of insisting we’re all going to die and the planet will explode.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

I've put enough words out on this board that you've no need to make them up for me.

My point is valid.  Being guilty of telling a lie requires knowing the truth. 

Beyond that, not a single of your items involved a climate scientist.


P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > If it's all a big scam, certainly the heart of the scam has to be the IPCC and their assessment reports.  Let's have a look at THOSE projections, eh?
> ...



"Climategate"'s stolen emails revealed nothing of the sort.  Nor were the parties involved employed by the IPCC.

Here's what were used in AR5.  From Projections for AR5 – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

*Projections for AR5*
*CM3*




*ESM2M/G*




*HiRAM*




*CM2.1*




*CM2.5*




The final draft of the Working Group 1 (WG1) contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report  of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change , is now available. GFDL has contributed to this report through publications describing its scientific research on climate change, by providing model projections to the CMIP5 archive of climate model results used by the IPCC writing teams to judge the quality of climate models and summarize their projections of future climate, and by contributing its scientific expertise to the writing and reviewing teams . The IPCC reports are an important mechanism through which GFDL research informs the public and policy makers on climate change issues. It is appropriate to speak of the IPCC as being one of the most important customers of GFDL research.

GFDL provided results from two closely related coupled atmosphere-ocean-land-sea ice models, known as CM2.0 and CM2.1, for the 4th IPCC Assessment that appeared in 2007. In the period leading up to AR5, the lab decided to create multiple branches of development starting from the CM2.1 model — a model with 200km horizontal resolution in the atmosphere and 1 degree resolution in the ocean. The five branches that contributed to AR5 are:


CM3: a coupled physical climate model with a new atmospheric component of the same horizontal resolution as CM2.1 but with a comprehensive treatment of tropospheric and stratospheric chemistry as well as aerosols and cloud aerosol interactions, coupled to a modified version of the oceanic component of CM2.1 and to the new land model LM3.
ESM2M/G: Earth system models (with closed carbon cycles in the oceans and on land), based on the atmospheric component of CM2.1 but with two different ocean components with different numerical algorithms (M has a vertical coordinate similar to the height z, while G uses constant density surfaces as its vertical coordinate.) Also uses LM3.
HiRAM: A high resolution atmosphere/land only model (50 and 25 kilometer horizontal resolutions), used for “timeslice” simulations in which future projections for the ocean and sea ice are taken from lower resolution models and used as lower boundary conditions for this higher resolution atmospheric simulation ?optimized for hurricane simulation.
CM2.1: Used with a new data assimilation system in the AR5 decadal prediction suite
CM2.5: a higher resolution version of CM2.1 (50 km atmospheric resolution and ¼ degree resolution in the ocean.) for studying the impact of resolution of coupled climate dynamics
GFDL is currently in the midst of a model development effort designed to incorporate the best features of this diverse suite of models into a single comprehensive high-resolution earth system model, CM4.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> My point is valid.  Being guilty of telling a lie requires knowing the truth.


So you admit that the people claiming “Global Warming” don’t know the truth. That makes it a scam. Thank you.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

God are you stupid.

The planet is getting warmer.  The definitive cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.

Anyone who tells you the planet is NOT getting warmer is either really, really stupid or they are lying.  Anyone who tells you that the warming is not due to the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions is either really, really stupid or they are lying.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.


You bought into the "Global Warming" scam, you did so despite admitting that nobody knows (your words), you're on record multiple times claiming that many leftists lied to you about "Global Warming" (yet you still believe it), and you want to claim other people are "stupid"? Seriously? Bwahahahahahaha!


----------



## P@triot (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> The planet is getting warmer.


So much so that the polar ice cap expanded an astounding 60% (over 900,000 sq miles) in 2014. While the people who easily duped you were screaming the earth was "getting warmer", it was actually in a natural cooling period (indisputable NASA *fact*). As part of a natural, predictable cycle, it is now warming slightly coming off that slight cooling cycle.

You were duped. But your ego won't allow you to admit it. So you fight a fight that cannot be won (because you're on the wrong side of the facts).


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2019)

Your claim is specious.  When you made it a few posts back I posted the data showing it to be incorrect.  As we've all heard, you've a right to your own opinion.  You've no right to your own facts.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> As we've all heard, you've a right to your own opinion.  You've no right to your own facts.


That’s why I’ve filled this thread with actual facts. Unfortunately, you think if you deny a fact, you can cease to make it a fact. Doesn’t work that way.


----------



## baileyn45 (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.
> 
> The planet is getting warmer.  The definitive cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.
> 
> Anyone who tells you the planet is NOT getting warmer is either really, really stupid or they are lying.  Anyone who tells you that the warming is not due to the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions is either really, really stupid or they are lying.


No one argues that human GHGs don't have an effect. Anyone that says that GHGs are the primary driver of climate change are talking out of their ass. There is nothing to back that up, nothing. You are speaking of a science that is in its infancy. We knew as much about cancer 80 years ago as we know about the drivers of climate today. Anyone that tells you different is talking out of their ass. Quit saying you KNOW things that no one knows. Such attitudes are an affront to science.


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2019)

These data back me up






This presentation or something very much like it has been in every one of the five assessment reports prepared by the IPCC.  And in every one of them, the DATA show greenhouse warming from CO2 to be the largest single radiative forcing factor.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> These data back me up


It’s already been *proven* that the “data” is *falsified*.

Tidalgate: Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise

‘Bombshell’ climate-change study could totally dismantle the claim humans are causing global warming


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> These data back me up


The data shows you’ve been duped.

Study: Earth cooler now than when Al Gore won Nobel Peace Prize for global warming work


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> These data back me up


The data shows you’ve been duped.

Scientists Observe Coldest Temperatures Ever on Earth’s Surface | Breitbart


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.
> 
> The planet is getting warmer.  The definitive cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.



Got any actual observed, measured evidence to support that claim?  Got any observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  Do you believe that if you make the claim forcefully enough that you don't need to provide actual evidence to support it?

Got any idea what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth?  You think ice age temperatures such as we are having now are better for life than a warmer climate?  Any evidence to back up your belief?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> These data back me up
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those aren't real data and there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support them...they are the output of failed climate models...There has never been a paper published in which the hypothetical warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses....it is all models all the time with you guys...the problem is that the atmosphere is eminently observable....if you had anything, then you would be using observations instead of models...


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2019)

More evidence that “Global Warming” is a scam...


> “I also fly and use AC,” the Green New Deal touting pol tweeted Saturday night. “Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future.”


If she were actually working towards making a “better future” then she wouldn’t live in the world as it is. She would live in a tepee. She would walk wherever she wanted to go.

Ocasio-Cortez responds to carbon footprint exposé: I’m just ‘living in the world’


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2019)

Did you see her questioning Michael Cohen?  She didn't produce any excess CO2 while single-handedly initiating the end of the Trump presidency


----------



## mamooth (Mar 3, 2019)

P@triot said:


> It’s already been *proven* that the “data” is *falsified*.



If all the data didn't say your and your cult were the masters of fraud and corruption, you wouldn't have to rely entirely on weepy conspiracy theories. But the data does say that, so such conspiracy lunacy is all you have. Sucks to be you, little conspiracy snowflake.

I'll now prove that you're the pseudoscience-loving cultist, while we're the rational people embracing the hard science.

What evidence could possibly falsify your beliefs?

We can and have provided lists of hard evidence that could falsify our beliefs. That's because our beliefs are real science, and real science can be falsified.

If your belief is science, you can list hard data that would falsify that belief.

If your beliefs are cult dogma, then literally nothing could falsify such sacred scripture in your mind, you won't be able name any things that could falsify it, and you'll now go into evade-and-insult mode.

Please proceed.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

mamooth said:


> We can and have provided lists of hard evidence that could falsify our beliefs. That's because our beliefs are real science, and real science can be falsified.



You supplied a list of cherry picked items...many of which were based on assumptions with no actual evidence to support the claim that they were actually relevant...you know what falsifies a hypothesis...predictive failure and both the greenhouse hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis have littered the land scape with their failed predictions...

In real science, one predictive failure is enough to falsify a hypothesis and prompt work on a new hypothesis with better predictive power...in pseudoscience, a hypothesis can have all the predictive failures it likes so long as the politicians keep supporting it and the funding keeps coming in...


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2019)

Your problem is that you need a failed prediction based on what is actually contained in AGW: The world is getting warmer and the primary cause is human GHG emissions.  A prediction that Buffalo, New York won't see snow till late December or the like is not a make or break prediction for AGW.

You have been given a list of items that would actually falsify AGW.  And you have claimed several of them to apply: your contention that CO2 cannot absorb IR or warm the atmosphere or whatever bullshit it is you've been spouting lately.  Or that the cooler atmosphere cannot radiate towards the warmer surface.  If any of these were actually true, AGW WOULD be falsified.  Trouble is, they're only real in the fantasy land with which you troll the boards.

*TROLL
*
If there was ANY validity to your claim that there is no greenhouse effect; that the world is warmed by the compression of its atmosphere, no one would be worrying about AGW.  But there isn't, so they are.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 7, 2019)

I wonder how long Crick will deny science? Even the people who invented “Global Warming” are starting to admit it was a scam...

Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists


----------



## P@triot (Mar 7, 2019)

mamooth said:


> If your *belief* *is* *science*, you can list hard data that would *falsify* *that* *belief*.


This is what is known as a “Freudian Slip”. It’s when a person inadvertently says what they are actually thinking.

She wants people who actually accept science to provide “data” to debunk science.


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2019)

No.  He is stating that the practice of the scientific method allows that a hypothesis or theory in the natural sciences may not be proven true.  It may only be supported or not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  It may, however, be falsified by experiment or observation that refutes any of its premises.

For instance, a theory that all swans are white is shown false by a single observation of a black swan.

If you'd like to look into the topic, look up a man named Karl Popper.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 8, 2019)

P@triot said:


> This is what is known as a “Freudian Slip”. It’s when a person inadvertently says what they are actually thinking.



I asked you to list some theoretical examples of hard data that could falsify your beliefs.

You couldn't provide any.

There is apparently no data of any sort that could falsify your beliefs, which puts your beliefs in the category of "religion".

While I hope your religion brings you fulfillment, you need to understand that science doesn't care about your religious beliefs, no matter how devout your belief is.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> I asked you to list some theoretical examples of hard data that could falsify your beliefs.


Aaaand she doubles down...


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

Your fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real.  Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions.  That would falsify AGW.  SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect.  And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> *Your* fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real.  Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions.  That would falsify AGW.  SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect.  And, as *you* likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.


Dude...*who* are you talking to?!? Can you ask an adult to show you how to use this website? There is a *reply* button. Start using it so that this thread is actually coherent. Man alive, you lefties are so damn dumb I can’t take it anymore. No wonder the left finds it so easy to dupe you people.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> Your fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real.  Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions.  That would falsify AGW.  SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect.  And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.



there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....the bulk of energy that leaves the surface of the earth is conducted to the top of the atmosphere...this precludes the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Now, if you would like to show the description of the greenhouse effect offered by climate science which states that most of the energy that reaches the top of the troposphere gets there via conduction rather than radiation, I would be interested in seeing it...every description of the greenhouse effect I have ever seen describes radiation from the cooler atmosphere, warming the actual surface of the earth...and nothing at all about the fact that most of the energy in the troposphere is moving via conduction..

Maybe you would like to describe how the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science works when most of the energy moving in the troposphere is moving via conduction and not radiation...it should be both interesting and entertaining...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> .the bulk of energy that leaves the surface of the earth is conducted to the top of the atmosphere.



You have said that many many times. Air is a very poor conductor of heat. Thermal conductivity of air is 0.026 W/m.
The lapse rate is 9.8 K/km
So the flow of heat is the product: 0.255 Watts per kilometer

Updrafts, downdrafts, winds, polar vortex etc, are much more powerful than conduction. I would think that you would say that the bulk of energy leaving the surface is carried by *convection, not conduction.

.*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .the bulk of energy that leaves the surface of the earth is conducted to the top of the atmosphere.
> ...



If I were you I might say that...but since I am me, I tend not to interpret, or just make shit up to suit what I believe...the fact of the matter is that most energy is conducted to the top of the troposphere...so if you want to explain that in terms of the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science, go right ahead...I'm listening..


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If I were you I might say that...but since I am me, I tend not to interpret, or just make shit up to suit what I believe...the fact of the matter is that most energy is conducted to the top of the troposphere...so if you want to explain that in terms of the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science, go right ahead...I'm listening..



Your answer is unclear. Are you saying that conduction is more efficient at moving energy to the top of the troposphere than convection?

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If I were you I might say that...but since I am me, I tend not to interpret, or just make shit up to suit what I believe...the fact of the matter is that most energy is conducted to the top of the troposphere...so if you want to explain that in terms of the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science, go right ahead...I'm listening..
> ...



Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...


Yes, convection by far overpowers conduction as a method heat movement in the troposphere.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...
> ...



You don't seem to grasp the fact that movement of air is convecting, energy, but the energy within the air is still conducting from molecule to molecule...  So conduction is still the primary mode of energy movement...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You seem to be arguing for argument's sake. All I am saying is that convection is a much much more significant process for moving heat in the troposphere. If you disagree you are wrong. You have been harping on the significance of conduction for a long time and I just wondered if that was a typo or a belief. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




So describe the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the context of the bulk of energy moving via convection....show me where the greenhouse hypothesis accounts for most of the energy moving via anything other than radiation.  Even if convection were the primary means of energy movement, (which it isn't) that still precludes a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So describe the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the context of the bulk of energy moving via convection....show me where the greenhouse hypothesis accounts for most of the energy moving via anything other than radiation. Even if convection were the primary means of energy movement, (which it isn't) that still precludes a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


The prerequisite for any discussion with you is that you understand and accept basic science. Since you don't, it will digress into many arguments on basic physics and not climate science. 

Specifically, since you don't accept the fact (both theoretical, and also measured, and observed) that CO2 that has absorbed IR energy can transfer it to air as kinetic energy (heat), then there is no point of further tedious discussion. 

.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 10, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Aaaand she doubles down...



And the piss-gargling bottom runs again. He always runs when I show up. He's always been my sweet little bitch. Let's go another round of making him squeal and run again. Pusstriot is such a pussy, he's running from his own topic, in front of the whole board.

Pusstriot, what are some theoretical examples of hard data that could falsify your beliefs on climate science?

Oh look, you can't name any. You literally can't even imagine any facts that would falsify your beliefs. That demonstrates how your beliefs on climate science are entirely religious, and this thread is just butthurt religious preaching on your part.

Your religion seems interesting. Let's start listing its sacred dogma.
1. Climate science is all a fraud.
2. Being a predatory old queer is superior to monogamous heterosexuality.
3. ? (Please expand the list for us.)

If you'd care to prove you're not a religious fanatic, tell us what sort of hard data could falsify your beliefs, and then swear off buggery.


----------



## Crick (Mar 10, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Your* fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real.  Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions.  That would falsify AGW.  SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect.  And, as *you* likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.
> ...




I was replying to you.  My post followed immediately after yours.  Copying yours (aaaand, she doubles down) would have added very little.


----------



## Crick (Mar 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



HAHAHAHAHAHaaaaa... when was the last time you did any math in a post?  Ummm... never?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So describe the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the context of the bulk of energy moving via convection....show me where the greenhouse hypothesis accounts for most of the energy moving via anything other than radiation. Even if convection were the primary means of energy movement, (which it isn't) that still precludes a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...



So that would be a no...you can't describe the greenhouse hypothesis in terms of convection...or conduction because it assumes that nearly all of the energy moves through the troposphere via radiation...you know this isn't true, and yet, you still defend that failed hypothesis...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Laughing in your face skidmark....every time I provide math...it takes 75 pages to get you poor cretins to acknowledge what it says...pearls before swine and all that...and then 3 pages later, you are right back to pushing your previous error...it just isn't worth the effort...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


since when can jet streams move IR around?  Hly fk dude, this guy Wuwei, is truly a whack-a-moler


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


dude I've told you countless times to use the quote feature in the tool.  and you still don't.  you are the poster child to stupid.

The most prominent guide to the scam


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So that would be a no...you can't describe the greenhouse hypothesis in terms of convection...or conduction because it assumes that nearly all of the energy moves through the troposphere via radiation...you know this isn't true, and yet, you still defend that failed hypothesis...



You are wrong. I never assume all the IR from the warm earth moves via radiation. Only the IR that is not absorbed by a GHG can radiate to space. I do assume the GHGs absorb some of the earth's IR and is turned to heat. Otherwise the conservation of energy would be violated.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...





Wuwei said:


> Yes, convection by far overpowers conduction as a method heat movement in the troposphere.





SSDD said:


> You don't seem to grasp the fact that movement of air is convecting, energy, but the energy within the air is still conducting from molecule to molecule...  So conduction is still the primary mode of energy movement...



Let's take a cubic meter of air.  The lower surface of the cube is 1C warmer than the upper surface.  In the time it will take that energy to move 1 meter upward by conduction, the entire cube could have been elevated a thousand meters.  Which mechanism moves more energy?  

You're a fucking idiot or a liar or both,

*TROLL*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So that would be a no...you can't describe the greenhouse hypothesis in terms of convection...or conduction because it assumes that nearly all of the energy moves through the troposphere via radiation...you know this isn't true, and yet, you still defend that failed hypothesis...
> ...



But that is what the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science claims...and you believe the radiative greenhouse hypothesis to be true, so of course you assume that...if you didn't, you would have to find that the radiative greenhouse hypothesis has been falsified by the very nature of energy movement through the troposphere..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...
> ...



It doesn't matter....all that is moving is air...the energy is still moving from molecule to molecule via conduction...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> Your claim is specious.  When you made it a few posts back I posted the data showing it to be incorrect.  As we've all heard, you've a right to your own opinion.  You've no right to your own facts.



Even your own graphing shows the loss has stopped and we are now on the increase globally..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...
> ...


All Righty...  Come on Troll..

Post up your source...






Convection and conduction are inseparable. For one to be happening the other must as well in any gas. Tell me how the energy is transferred within the gas during convection.  Water vapor is a good example of a molecule that does not release its energy during convection until it cools enough to return to it solid state as water.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> But that is what the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science claims...and you believe the radiative greenhouse hypothesis to be true, so of course you assume that...if you didn't, you would have to find that the radiative greenhouse hypothesis has been falsified by the very nature of energy movement through the troposphere..



IR radiation from the earth is totally absorbed by GHGs within the first hundred meters and turned into heat. GHGs scatter radiation by isotropic emission within that distance and also everywhere throughout the atmosphere. Convection and of course a tiny bit of conduction can also occur within that distance and also throughout the atmosphere. 

.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2019)

The greenhouse effect does not demand that energy radiated by the surface be transported solely by radiation.  You'd like your sock puppets to think that, though, wouldn't you.

The critical point is that GHGs absorb a significant portion of the IR radiated by the heated surface. That energy does NOT transit directly to space, as it would in an atmosphere devoid of GHGs.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect does not demand that energy radiated by the surface be transported solely by radiation.  You'd like your sock puppets to think that, though, wouldn't you.
> 
> The critical point is that GHGs absorb a significant portion of the IR radiated by the heated surface. That energy does NOT transit directly to space, as it would in an atmosphere devoid of GHGs.


well tell us what happens to it?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.


And, as you do already know, those scientists were caught discussing how they *lie* about “Global Warming”.

Thanks for playing, Crick. You are dismissed.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 14, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Pusstriot, what are some theoretical examples of hard data that could falsify your beliefs on climate science?


Aaaaand she _triples_ down. 

She’s been so thoroughly defeated with facts (all links posted) in this thread that she’s _begging_ me to provide an argument against myself to help her!


----------



## P@triot (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


It would add a lot. People would know who the fuck you’re talking to and what the fuck you’re talking about. Good grief.


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

So, now that you know I was talking to you, do you have anything to say in reply?  Do you still believe AGW cannot be falsified?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> So, now that you know I was talking to you, do you have anything to say in reply?  Do you still believe AGW cannot be falsified?


as he fails to click the reply option.  you are nothing if not stupid.

Hit reply mf.


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

So, now that you know I was talking to you, Patriot, do you have anything to say in reply?  Do you still believe AGW cannot be falsified?

Anything?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect does not demand that energy radiated by the surface be transported solely by radiation.  You'd like your sock puppets to think that, though, wouldn't you.



Here...from the IPCC whom you believe in so dearly...this is how they describe the greenhouse effect...

IPCC - Working Group I

 Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). *Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.
*
Are you now claiming that the IPCC doesn't know what the greenhouse as described by climate science is?  They have evidence to support it but don't know what it is?  Is that what you are now claiming?  

They say pretty clearly that there is a requirement that radiation be radiated back to the surface...and in fact, that is precisely what they call the greenhouse effect...So who is wrong..you or the IPCC?  If it is the IPCC, then all your claims about them having evidence to support the greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW are all the more laughable because of it...


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

There is nothing preventing reradiation of energy absorbed by CO2 and I don't give a shit whether it gets there by conduction or radiation.  One problem you've ignored is how poor a conductor is air.  If you want to insist that all the energy trapped by CO2 within the first few meters has to make its way to the stratosphere solely by conduction, you're even more in a hole with your claim that this process doesn't trap thermal energy and warm the planet.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> So, now that you know I was talking to you, Patriot, do you have anything to say in reply?  Do you still believe AGW cannot be falsified? Anything?


Do I have anything to say? Sure! I've filled this thread with indisputable *proof* that "Global Warming" is a scam. To the point where it even forced whack-a-doo mammaries to admit the left lies by crying "but...but....but.... <insert leftist's name here> is NOT a scientist". Uh...ok. Then why are they making shit up? If they aren't a scientist and they didn't quote a scientist (as mammaries claimed) then you just admitted that EVERY single left-wing politician and advocate *lied* to the American people.

It's a scam, junior. You got duped. I can't blame you for lashing out. I'd be humiliated too if it had happened to me.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> There is nothing preventing reradiation of energy absorbed by CO2 and I don't give a shit whether it gets there by conduction or radiation.  One problem you've ignored is how poor a conductor is air.  If you want to insist that all the energy trapped by CO2 within the first few meters has to make its way to the stratosphere solely by conduction, you're even more in a hole with your claim that this process doesn't trap thermal energy and warm the planet.


Man, that "Global Warming" is a _bitch_. Check out this news report from today. If I remember correctly, I think they said it hit 212° in Colorado today? Something like 99.791% of all citizens of Colorado died of heat stroke? I don't know - I'm sure Al Gore will tell you about it in a movie a couple of years from now (and I'm sure you and mammaries will believe it). 

Storm packing heavy winds, snow slams Plains, Midwest


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

Weather .NEQ. Climate


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> There is nothing preventing reradiation of energy absorbed by CO2 and I don't give a shit whether it gets there by conduction or radiation.  One problem you've ignored is how poor a conductor is air.  If you want to insist that all the energy trapped by CO2 within the first few meters has to make its way to the stratosphere solely by conduction, you're even more in a hole with your claim that this process doesn't trap thermal energy and warm the planet.



So now you don't agree with the IPCC on what the greenhouse effect is?  Guess you never even bothered to look, did you...  Abject ignorance on your part..

One more example of you not knowing what the hell you are talking about and one more time that I hand your ass to you...you are just not very bright skidmark...and just talk out of your ass rather than take the time to actually learn something...

engineer my shiny metal ass....


----------



## P@triot (Mar 14, 2019)

Boom! We're still waiting for mammaries to give up her heated and cooled motor home for a teepee. Of course, that will *never* happen because "Global Warming" is about control. Insignificant people like mammaries have a need to feel power over others. Sadly for her, she was born in the wrong country for that.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> There is nothing preventing reradiation of energy absorbed by CO2 and I don't give a shit whether it gets there by conduction or radiation.  One problem you've ignored is how poor a conductor is air.  If you want to insist that all the energy trapped by CO2 within the first few meters has to make its way to the stratosphere solely by conduction, you're even more in a hole with your claim that this process doesn't trap thermal energy and warm the planet.


You said observed. Uh, nope!


----------



## captkaos (Mar 14, 2019)

P@triot said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



Global warming my Ass! I damn near froze to death deer hunting last fall/ winter. Seemed "really cold" must be we are getting used to the High temperatures caused by Global warming. Maybe these retards should actually go outside longer than to get in their Limos.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing preventing reradiation of energy absorbed by CO2 and I don't give a shit whether it gets there by conduction or radiation.  One problem you've ignored is how poor a conductor is air.  If you want to insist that all the energy trapped by CO2 within the first few meters has to make its way to the stratosphere solely by conduction, you're even more in a hole with your claim that this process doesn't trap thermal energy and warm the planet.
> ...



He doesn't know the difference between empirical evidence and model output...


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

First, as I have stated a few times now, air is an extremely poor conductor and its ability to conduct deteriorates with increasing altitude.  So I reject your assumption that after absorbing IR from the surface, all further transmission is by conduction and convection.

Second, the greenhouse effect increases the equilibrium temperature of the planet by increasing the amount of thermal energy in the pipeline.  The longer it takes the average quanta of energy to leave, the higher the equilibrium temperature.  Having it travel all but the first few meters by conduction will dramatically increase the amount of energy in the pipeline.  It will not eliminate the greenhouse effect, it would make it far, far more effective at increasing temperatures.

So, I am done with this argument.  This appears to be just more of your troll-shit.


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

captkaos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > WheelieAddict said:
> ...



Once more

*Weather .NEQ. Climate*


----------



## jc456 (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


You wouldn’t know weather from climate!

A model, yes


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

Are you suggesting that a single snow storm in a single location is equivalent to, or definitive of, the global climate?

And "A model, yes" what?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Aaaaand she _triples_ down.



So, what are some theoretical examples of hard data that could falsify your beliefs on climate science?

You've never explained why that's an invalid question. You just blubber and run.

That's because it's a very valid question. It reveals that you're a butthurt religious cultist. You can't even imagine that data could exist which would refute your sacred scripture. Your beliefs are entirely faith-based.

What value to you add to the discussion here? We get it. Your cult religion commands you to deny data and then weep when called on it. You don't need to keep reinforcing that point.



> She’s been so thoroughly defeated with facts (all links posted) in this thread that she’s _begging_ me to provide an argument against myself to help her!



Your shit pseudoscience isn't falsifiable, which confirms that it's shit pseudoscience. And you're not even trying to deny it.

Now, got some more debunked fraud links to deflect with? Or are you just going to run without comment?

And I'm sorry about your problems with women, but women don't want to associate with pissy little thug wannabees, which is why they've rejected you.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Do I have anything to say? Sure! I've filled this thread with indisputable *proof* that "Global Warming" is a scam



No, everyone knows that's a lie. You've only posted links to debunked conspiracy babbling.

All the data backs us up, so we simply have to point at the data to win.

All the data says you're lying, so you have to ignore the data and deflect with conspiracy weeping.

We talk about science, because we can. You can't, so you whimper about politicians and throw insults. You're absolutely helpless in this debate.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> First, as I have stated a few times now, air is an extremely poor conductor


And you are a very poor conductor for independent thought, absorption of facts, and acceptance of reality. What a shame.


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > First, as I have stated a few times now, air is an extremely poor conductor
> ...




Wow, was that clever.  And AGW simply falls to the dustbin of discarded theories.













NOT


----------



## P@triot (Mar 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> You've only posted links to debunked *conspiracy* babbling.


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2019)

Wow, that was clever.  You would not believe how my liberal tendencies are crushed wholesale by such things.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> First, as I have stated a few times now, air is an extremely poor conductor and its ability to conduct deteriorates with increasing altitude.  So I reject your assumption that after absorbing IR from the surface, all further transmission is by conduction and convection.['quote]
> 
> Of course you are wrong...but what else is new?
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> So, what are some theoretical examples of hard data that could falsify your beliefs on climate science?



How about some observed, measured data which demonstrates that the climate change we have experienced is anything other than natural variability?


----------



## Crick (Mar 16, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > First, as I have stated a few times now, air is an extremely poor conductor
> ...



Well, in this context (the one where I am not a climate scientist) I tend to adopt the majority opinions of those with advanced educations in this field doing research and publishing their results.  Those opinions are reflected quite accurately in the conclusions of the IPCC assessment reports and in the vast bulk of published climate science literature.  So I don't worry much about your comment re my independent thought.

As to absorbing facts and accepting reality, I think the only basis for the opinion you've expressed is my disagreement with your expressed position, which I and others have shown to be scientifically and logically invalid.  So... sucks to be you I guess.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> Well, in this context (the one where I am not a climate scientist) I tend to adopt the majority opinions of those with advanced educations in this field doing research and publishing their results.


Exactly. Even after they are caught *lying* to you. That’s what I mean when I say you are a very poor conductor for independent thought, absorption of facts, and acceptance of reality.


----------



## Crick (Mar 17, 2019)

But they have NOT been caught lying to us.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> But they have NOT been caught lying to us.


How embarrassing for you....


> "I've just completed Mike’s _Nature_ *trick* of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's *to* *hide* *the* *decline*." - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)


That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that he fabricated data.


(***Warning*** these indisputable *facts* will cause left-wing lunatics to become triggered)


----------



## P@triot (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> But they have NOT been caught lying to us.


How embarrassing for you....


> "The *fact* is we can't account for the *lack* *of* *warming*, and it's a travesty that we can't." - Dr Kevin Trenberth, Climate scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado


That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that it is a “fact” that they “cannot account for the lack of warming”. He then follows that up with his frustration that he can’t account for the lack of warming.


(***Warning*** these indisputable *facts* will cause left-wings lunatics to become triggered)


----------



## P@triot (Mar 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> But they have NOT been caught lying to us.


How embarrassing for you...


> "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will *keep* *them* *out* *somehow* - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)


That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that he was committed to hiding data that didn’t support his biased, political position.


(***Warning*** these indisputable *facts* will cause left-wing lunatics to become triggered)


----------



## P@triot (Mar 21, 2019)

More facts that the left-wing lunatics are not going to like...


> The occurrence of both record highs and record lows is declining. It is clear that the occurrence of both record high and record lows has declined since 1895


That is from Climatologist John Christy. It’s a damn shame that the left rejects science and scientists.

Media Touts ‘Clear Sign of Human-Caused Climate Change.’ Here Are the Facts.


----------



## Crick (Mar 22, 2019)

The content of the emails stolen from the East Anglia mail server were reviewed by:


The University of East Anglia
The American Meteorological Association
The American Geophysical Union
American Association for the Advancement of Science
The UK's Met Office
The IPCC
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
The Royal Society of Chemistry
The Institute of Physics
The specially formed independent Science Assessment Panel
The US National Academy of Science
Pennsylvania State University
UEA's Climate Change Email Review Committee
Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce
US National Science Foundation

NONE OF WHOM CONCLUDED THE STOLEN EMAILS INDICATED DATA HAD BEEN FALSIFIED. NONE.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> The content of the emails stolen from the East Anglia mail server were reviewed by:
> 
> 
> The University of East Anglia
> ...


Bwahahaha!!! They are discussing falsified data in black and white!


----------



## P@triot (Mar 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> The content of the emails stolen from the East Anglia mail server were reviewed by:
> 
> 
> The University of East Anglia
> ...


All your dumb ass just did was PROVE that those organizations are *lying* to you as well. Here they are admitting that they falsified data.


> "I've just completed Mike’s _Nature_ *trick* of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's *to* *hide* *the* *decline*." - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)


I don’t need an organization to review and then confirm or deny for me. My own eyes see it, dumb shit.


----------



## Crick (Mar 22, 2019)

I am quite certain you have heard the explanation for this line.  We can start by putting down the ACTUAL statement.  What you have in quotes is NOT what was actually stated in the subject email.  It actually read 

_"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."  _

The decline was a decrease in the tree-growth rates at specific northern locations after 1960.  The issue is known as "the divergence problem".

Here is a display of "Mike's 'Nature' trick:







The overlapped region of red and blue data is Mike's 'Nature' trick.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> What you have in quotes is NOT what was actually stated in the subject email.  It actually read
> 
> _"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." _


 


 
What I quoted is exactly what you just quoted. Yet you claim I did “not” quote what was actually said. 

I have to ask....what the fuck is wrong with you? I’m being serious. Is your IQ like in the low 40’s or something. Who reads a quote, claims it was “not” what was said, and then types the exact same thing word-for-word claiming that it is the “actual” quote?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> I am quite certain you have heard the explanation for this line.


I am quite certain your IQ is in the 40’s. Which explains why you are so easily duped by the left. For starters, I have never heard that lame excuse before.


Crick said:


> The decline was a decrease in the *tree*-growth rates at specific northern locations after 1960.  The issue is known as "the divergence problem".


Your absurd response here is known as the “LIE problem”. He clearly says *temps* and *not* trees. In fact, the word tree is never used. You lose.


----------



## Crick (Mar 23, 2019)

My apologies.  The internet _is_ filled with modified versions and in jumping back and forth I fucked up and thought I was looking at your quote when I was not.

Any comment about the reality of Mike's Nature trick and hiding the decline?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> My apologies.  The internet _is_ filled with modified versions and in jumping back and forth I fucked up and thought I was looking at your quote when I was not.


In other words, I provided *fact*, and you jumped to the internet desperately searching for an excuse to deny the fact. You weren’t familiar with that situation at all. But you like to pretend that you were and that you can explain it away.

You just proved you’re not interested in the truth. Whenever you receive new information, you’re only goal is to find an ally on the internet who can provide you with an excuse to deny the information.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> Any comment about the reality of Mike's Nature trick and hiding the decline?


Already did.  Post #471 above.


----------



## Crick (Mar 23, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I am quite certain you have heard the explanation for this line.
> ...



Dendrochronology, Michael Mann's specialty, has long used tree ring widths as a proxy for temperature.  If you are unfamiliar with the use of tree rings as temperature proxies you need to catch up.  From Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said that he had used "Mike's _Nature_ trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization* "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree-ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This "decline" referred to the well-discussed tree-ring divergence problem*, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[1] John Tierney, writing in _The New York Times_ in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[2] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that *in this context "trick" was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion*.[3][4] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that _the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them_.[5]

REFERENCES

Pearce, Fred (9 February 2010). "Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies". _The Guardian_. UK. Retrieved 20 March 2010.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science". _The New York Times_. 1 December 2009.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". _The Guardian_. London. Retrieved 26 July 2010.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University" (PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Archived from the original(PDF) on 15 February 2010. Retrieved 7 February 2010.
*^* "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. p. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October2010.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 23, 2019)

P@triot said:


> He clearly says *temps* and *not* trees.



Oh, I see. The problem is that you can't read.

"I've just completed Mike’s _Nature_ *trick* of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's *to* *hide* *the* *decline*."

That's talking about two different mathematical tricks.

Mike's trick:
I've just completed Mike’s _Nature_ *trick* of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards)

Keith's Trick:
and from 1961 for Keith's *to* *hide* *the* *decline*."

Two separate topics. The second topic is talking about tree rings.

I'm glad we settled that. You're not deliberately lying. You just failed at parsing English.

At this stage, you should thank us for educating you, and then apologize for making baseless accusations of fraud that were motivated entirely by your wild-eyed political fanaticism. You wanted to believe your cult's crazy stories, so you threw common sense out the window and just believed. Alas, your political cult forbids you from admitting that the cult was wrong, so you're now going to double down on the dishonesty.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 23, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > He clearly says *temps* and *not* trees.
> ...


That’s _hilarious_ coming from the triggered woman who is attempting to claim that *temp* actually mean “tree rings”.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 23, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > He clearly says *temps* and *not* trees.
> ...


Oh, I see. You’d rather embrace your partisan views than truth. Let’s *pretend* he’s not talking about temps for a moment. Why does he need _tricks_ to _hide_ the decline of tree rings? Science is supposed to be cold, hard data. No “tricks”. No “hiding” anything.

He’s on record talking about how he’s making a fool out of you and you want to drop to your knees and fellate him.


----------



## Crick (Mar 23, 2019)

Carefully re-read the line.  The trick is not to hide the decline.  For one thing, there was no decline in temperatures.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> Carefully re-read the line.  The trick is not to hide the decline.  For one thing, there was no decline in temperatures.


Uh..._yes_...there were. And that’s exactly what the “Global Warming” scam needed to hide.


----------



## Crick (Mar 23, 2019)

Do you have some evidence of that?  Because no one else did.

From Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia
 these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, *even though they were written when temperatures were at a record hig*h.[1]

1)  Pearce, Fred (9 February 2010). "Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies". _The Guardian_. UK. Retrieved 20 March 2010.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2019)

P@triot said:


> That’s _hilarious_ coming from the triggered woman who is attempting to claim that *temp* actually mean “tree rings”.



It was rather amusing that your inability to read formed the basis of your conspiracy theory. Granted, a comma would have made the meaning clearer, but it was just an informal email.

You peddled a falsehood. You got busted. Like I predicted, rather than thanking us for educating you, you're doubling down on the lie. You lied out of stupidity before, but now you've graduated to deliberate dishonesty. Next time, to avoid zeroing out your credibility, just say "You're right, I was wrong, sorry about that, thanks for correcting me."



> Oh, I see. You’d rather embrace your partisan views than truth. Let’s *pretend* he’s not talking about temps for a moment.



He wasn't talking about temps. That's not debatable.



> Why does he need _tricks_



Only a liar would pretend that using "mathematical tricks" or "tricks of the trade" is dishonest.



> to _hide_ the decline of tree rings?



In far northern areas in recent times, the thermometers and the tree rings didn't match. It's not debatable that such recent tree ring data in such areas is not reliable, and would give false results if used. That fact was openly discussed in the scientific literature for a decade previous to the email.

Not correcting for data with known errors would be fraud. Being honest, scientists corrected the errors. Being dishonest, you want to use data which would give fraudulent results, as such fraud backs up your cult's sacred scripture.



> Science is supposed to be cold, hard data. No “tricks”. No “hiding” anything.



And yet here you are, demanding fraudulent data be used to conceal the good data, entirely for propaganda purposes. Your religion drives you to corrupt actions.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 24, 2019)

mamooth said:


> You peddled a falsehood. You got busted.


Um...snowflake? _They_ peddled a falsehood. _They_ got busted. You swallowed that shit like you talk about swallowing fluids from men on this board.

Humiliated by your astounding stupidity for buying into it, you’re now trying to convince people that when they said “*temp*” they actually meant “*tree*”.


----------



## Pilot1 (Mar 24, 2019)

When people tell you "the Science is Settled" and the "Debate is Over" to shut down any alternative thought you know it is a HOAX and a SCAM.  It is just another big government money and power grab promoted by the Elite who would benefit from it.  That's all.


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2019)

I rarely hear "the debate is over" from pseudoscientists.  What I usually here is that "the scientists or big corporations don't want you to hear about this".

In mainstream science, "the debate is over" means the vast majority of scientists and other experts in this field are convinced that AGW is an accurate theory.  That is what has ended debate.  It is a common strategy among pseudo scientists, as the deniers here and the tobacco industry and the intelligent design folks to insist that there is still some debate going on among the experts.

Among the professional, published researchers, there is no longer any debate over the validity of AGW.  THAT debate is over.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Um...snowflake? _They_ peddled a falsehood.


That's not what the rest of the planet says, and that's because the hard evidence says you're lying. Sucks to be you, reduced to screaming conspiracy theories into the wilderness.



> Humiliated by your astounding stupidity for buying into it, you’re now trying to convince people that when they said “*temp*” they actually meant “*tree*”.



As we can read, we know with 100% certainty that you're lying.

At this stage, you're only interesting as study in morally deviant psychology, an illustration of how cult devotion can cause of person to abandon good morality.


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2019)

P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > You peddled a falsehood. You got busted.
> ...



Are you still unaware of the field of dendrochronology?  Let me assist.

Dendrochronology - Wikipedia


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2019)

And while you're there, you could also check out  Divergence problem - Wikipedia to see what Phil Jones was actually talking about when he said "hide the decline"


----------



## P@triot (Mar 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> Are you still unaware of the field of dendrochronology?  Let me assist.
> 
> Dendrochronology - Wikipedia


Did they even _mention_ the word “dendrochronology”? Nope!


----------



## P@triot (Mar 24, 2019)

mamooth said:


> As we can read, we know with 100% certainty that you're lying.


As all conservatives can read (the illiterates are all on the left), everyone can see you’re being a desperate partisan buffoon.
you....


> "I've just completed Mike’s _Nature_ *trick* of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's *to* *hide* *the* *decline*." - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)


That’s an actual climate scientist, admitting in an email, that he fabricated data. Since you can’t read, I’ve incldued video. Watch it. You’ll learn something. You’ll deny learning it. But you’ll still learn something for once.


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2019)

So, you can't read.  Makes you wrong on a whole bunch of counts.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> So, you can't read.  Makes you wrong on a whole bunch of counts.


The whole board has been saying that about mammaries. It’s good to see that you’re also recognizing her illiteracy.


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2019)

No, they haven't.  You're the one making blatant mistake after blatant mistake.  Have you sorted out dendrochronology yet?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> No, they haven't.  You're the one making blatant mistake after blatant mistake.  Have you sorted out dendrochronology yet?


Can you show me where the fake scientists mentioned “dendrochronology” yet? Can you show me where the fake scientists even used the word “tree” yet?

Can you tell me why you refuse to read what was written and accept what was written?


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2019)

Michael Mann was the author of that line.  Michael Mann is a dendrochronologist.

Sheesh...


----------



## P@triot (Mar 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> Michael Mann was the author of that line.  Michael Mann is a dendrochronologist. Sheesh...


And Al Gore was a politician. But he still discusses his business venture known as  “Global Warming” 24x7. Just like your “dendrochronologist” there.


----------



## Crick (Mar 25, 2019)

Your response was non-sequitur.  The comment "hide the decline" referred to the Divergence Problem.  "Mike's Nature trick" referred to a method to blend datasets.  No one was falsifying data.  No one was hiding anything.

EVERY group that reviewed these emails came to that EXACT same conclusion.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Your response was non-sequitur.  The comment "hide the decline" referred to the Divergence Problem.  "Mike's Nature trick" referred to a method to blend datasets.  No one was falsifying data.  No one was hiding anything.


“Divergence” was *never* mentioned, you nitwit. And real science does *not* “hide” or “trick”. Real science would, at the very minimum, recognize that what the they _thought_ was true about dendrochronolgy was not.


Crick said:


> EVERY group that reviewed these emails came to that EXACT same conclusion.


That’s because every group that reviewed them were fellow “Global Warming” conspiracy theorists who make a good living from convincing nitwits like you that it exists.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 27, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No, they haven't.  You're the one making blatant mistake after blatant mistake.  Have you sorted out dendrochronology yet?
> ...


Still waiting Crick. Where was “dendrochronology” discussed?!? No where in the emails. How sad that you cannot accept what was proven in black and white.


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2019)

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.

*Divergence problem*
...





Twenty-year smoothed plots of averaged ring-width (dashed) and tree-ring density (thick line), averaged across all sites, and shown as standardized anomalies from a common base (1881–1940), and compared with equivalent-area averages of mean April–September temperature anomalies (thin solid line). From* Briffa* et al. 1998.[1]
The *divergence problem* is an anomaly from the field of dendroclimatology, the study of past climate through observations of old trees, primarily the properties of their annual growth rings. It is the disagreement between the temperatures measured by the thermometers (instrumental temperatures) and the temperatures reconstructed from the latewood densities or, in some cases, widths of tree rings in the far northern forests.


While the thermometer records indicate a substantial late 20th century warming trend, many tree rings from such sites do not display a corresponding change in their maximum latewood density. In some studies this issue has also been found with tree ring width.[2] A temperature trend extracted from tree rings alone would not show any substantial warming since the 1950s. The temperature graphs calculated in these two ways thus "diverge" from one another, which is the origin of the term.

*Discovery*
The problem of changing response of some tree ring proxies to recent climate changes was identified in Alaska by Taubes 1995 and Jacoby & d'Arrigo 1995. Tree ring specialist* Keith Briffa's* February 1998 study showed that this problem was more widespread at high northern latitudes, and warned that it had to be taken into account to avoid overestimating past temperatures.[3]

*************************************************************************

Keith Briffa is the Keith named in "hide the decline"

Your rejection of the numerous bodies that reviewed the stolen emails is unjustifiable.  Your characterisation is just another facet of that globe-girdling perfectly executed conspiracy among 60,000+ scientists, not one of whom has ever confessed, been caught nor made a mistake.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Your rejection of the numerous bodies that reviewed the stolen emails is unjustifiable.


You’re refusal to accept the reality that “dendrochronolgy” was *never* discussed is inexcusable. It wasn’t even implied.


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2019)

The many organizations that reviewed this stuff had access to all the stolen emails.  You don't.  I will accept their unanimous conclusions.  If you want to believe they all lied, feel free. Just don't pretend you have the slightest scrap of evidence supporting that conclusion.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Just don't pretend you have the slightest scrap of evidence supporting that conclusion.


I do...I have the actual emails. That little slice of indisputable reality that you can’t bring yourself to accept.


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2019)

Then post the content of the entire email containing "Mike's Nature trick" and the two precediing emails in that thread.  Let us see precisely what was the context of those comments.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Then post the content of the entire email containing "Mike's Nature trick" and the two precediing emails in that thread.  Let us see precisely what was the context of those comments.


I already did. They prove you’re a liar.


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2019)

I have not seen such a post.  I know you're interested in the truth.  Don't you think it would be good to see the entire context of the discussion rather than basing your conclusions on a single sentence?

If you have posted other contiguous emails, could you tell me where they are?


----------



## ralfy (Mar 29, 2019)

Deniers funded their own independent study of the issue via Berkley Earth, and it ended up confirming what top science groups like NAS have been saying.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 29, 2019)

It is equal parts hilarious and sad that people are still duped by the “Global Warming” scam so many decades later.


> Recent temperatures are not at all unusual, *with 2018 continuing a cooling trend of several years*.


I marvel at the amount of reality the left is capable of ignoring and denying.

Media Touts ‘Clear Sign of Human-Caused Climate Change.’ Here Are the Facts.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 29, 2019)

It is equal parts hilarious and sad that people are still duped by the “Global Warming” scam so many decades later.


> *Climatologist* John Christy told me that Borenstein framed the data wrongly: The occurrence of both record highs and record lows is *declining*.


I marvel at the amount of reality the left is capable of ignoring and denying.

Media Touts ‘Clear Sign of Human-Caused Climate Change.’ Here Are the Facts.


----------



## ralfy (Mar 30, 2019)

P@triot said:


> It is equal parts hilarious and sad that people are still duped by the “Global Warming” scam so many decades later.
> 
> 
> > Recent temperatures are not at all unusual, *with 2018 continuing a cooling trend of several years*.
> ...



The cooling trend happens every few years. From "The Escalator":


----------



## P@triot (Mar 30, 2019)

ralfy said:


> The cooling trend happens every few years.


Bingo! Everything we’ve seen has been part of a natural cycle. All of it has been happening for _thousands_ of years.


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

Happening for thousands of years?  Here is 800,000 years worth of data.  Show us


----------



## P@triot (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Happening for thousands of years?  Here is 800,000 years worth of data.  Show us


That shows CO2, snowflake. It does *not* snow temperature.


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

I know, snowflake.  It shows CO2 for a reason.  I thought you would understand.  I guess not.  See the CO2 cycles?  Those are your warming and cooling cycles.  See the unprecedented rise at the right end of the graph?  That shows that what is happening is NOT part of any cycle that's been taking place for thousands of years.

Here are both CO2 and temperature for the past 300,000 years.  This graph comes from AGW denier WattsUpWithThat who took this opportunity to push a wee fib.  Note the right end of the blue line, labeled "383".  That point is not plotted to the same scale as the rest of the data.  And they said nothing about it.  That should be slightly further from "300", (the top of the right hand scale) than "220" is below it.  It is not.  The actual CO2 level in 2007 would be outside the boundaries of this graphic.  Today's CO2 value is almost the full height of the graph above "300".

They have also spliced modern, instrumented CO2 data onto ice core data with no indication that they have done so.  WattsUpWithThat has crucified climate scientists on multiple occasions for doing precisely that.  

They have also NOT spliced modern instrumented temperature data onto the temperature trace, giving the impression that there has been no increase in temperature for the last few centuries.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> That shows that what is happening is NOT part of any cycle that's been taking place for thousands of years.


Nobody is arguing a larger volume of CO2. But here’s the thing, dummy. Mother Nature _thrives_ off of CO2.


One only need see your posts to understand why it is so easy for the Dumbocrats to dupe you. It’s amazing that you didn’t know that plants take in CO2 like we take in oxygen. If you actually cared about the planet, you’d be calling for more and more CO2.


Crick said:


> See the unprecedented rise at the right end of the graph?


See the unprecedented stupidity in your posts? Everyone else does.


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

Except that 1270 ppm CO2 would cause a 20-30 foot sea level rise, the acidification of the oceans sufficient for a massive marine extinction event and would heat the planet by over 5C, killing crops everywhere south of Norway and drastically eliminating fresh water supplies.  But hey, the algae could grow like gangbusters on our bloated corpses.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Except that 1270 ppm CO2 would cause a 20-30 foot sea level rise


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

White men laughing?  Oil industry executives?  Laughing at people who've bought their memes?  Yeah, that's what I thought.


P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That shows that what is happening is NOT part of any cycle that's been taking place for thousands of years.
> ...



You certainly haven't demonstrated any unprecedented stupidity in my posts.  Like the average American, I learned that plants took in CO2 in grade school.

I think a point more clearly demonstrated by this exchange is YOUR ignorance as to the effects of increasing greenhouse gases.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Like the average American, I learned that plants took in CO2 in grade school.


Sure doesn’t seem like it...since you are paralyzed with fear over CO2.


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

Were plants dying from a lack of CO2 when you were a child?  Was the world starving in 1750 from being unable to grow crops?  We do not NEED extra CO2 to feed ourselves.  And we certainly do not NEED the other effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2019)

P@triot said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > The cooling trend happens every few years.
> ...



Actually, not bingo. What the chart does is show that your cooling trend is part of a long-term warming trend.

As for cycles, it's not just thousands of years but hundreds of thousands of years, as seen in ice core data. The problem is that in the same natural cycles, CO2 ppm peaked at 300.

It's now over 400.


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> Happening for thousands of years?  Here is 800,000 years worth of data.  Show us



Ice core data show that CO2 ppm and surface temperature anomaly track each other, as seen in the chart presented here. That's the point also raised by NAS and other science organizations.

The question, then, is what happens to surface temp. anomaly if CO2 ppm exceeds 300, which is the maximum in natural cycles. And should ocean heat content also be considered?


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That shows that what is happening is NOT part of any cycle that's been taking place for thousands of years.
> ...



The problem is that the world is not a simple laboratory. Plants and animal species exist and evolve given the natural cycle you stated earlier, but anything in excess counters that cycle. Given the complexity of ecosystems, increasing CO2 may have other effects, such as hampering evaporating cooling, cloud formation, etc. They can also increase ocean acidity, among others.


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Except that 1270 ppm CO2 would cause a 20-30 foot sea level rise
> ...



You are not even defending yourself by properly addressing points raised against you in your own thread! All you're now is trolling. There is no "definitive guide" in your points.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> Was the world starving in 1750 from being unable to grow crops?  We do not NEED extra CO2 to feed ourselves.


You’re clearly not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you? 

You people have spent decades crying about “deforestation”. The amount of trees that have been cut down since 1750 is in the hundreds of billions. That doesn’t include those destroyed by forest fires.

So yes, the plants desperately need more CO2 more than ever. To make sure what remains can flourish and expand.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 6, 2019)

ralfy said:


> There is no "definitive guide" in your points.


Sure there is. Start on page #1, snowflake. Don’t come in on page #53 and pretend to know what was presented.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> Happening for thousands of years?  Here is 800,000 years worth of data.  Show us


You never tire of putting a 5 year data plot on the end of a 500 year data plot... Tell me Crick, what happens when that massive rise is averaged into a 500 year plot, like it should be?

You lying pieces of shit pull every half assed deception to see if you can get some poor uneducated dupe to believe you...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 7, 2019)

ralfy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...


Again the spatial resolution is insufficient to prove or disprove this. The question you should be asking is, are there spikes in CO2 rise in the record similar to today. High resolution proxies show leaps to above 400ppm in the last 100,000 years on many occasions.  What we see today is neither unusual or unprecedented.

If the pattern continues to repeat, were about to see massive cooling and a rapid drop in atmospheric CO2.  The shorter than 100 year spike will disappear in the 500 year average and emerge in the 300ppm range.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Happening for thousands of years?  Here is 800,000 years worth of data.  Show us
> ...



He doesn't seem to be aware...or perhaps he is aware, that he is only pointing out data that goes further back into an ice age....where the oceans were cold and were holding far more CO2 than the warmer oceans of the past century or so...

You never see these lying pieces of excrement post up a chart showing the 1000+ ppm atmospheric CO2 levels that existed WHEN THE ICE AGE BEGAN.

They invariably show the shortest period of geological time possible in an effort to promote their bullshit...he posts that  graph either because he is completely ignorant of what the CO2 levels were before the onset of the ice age that the earth is presently clawing out of...or he wants to fool people who are unaware that cold oceans hold more CO2 than warm oceans and by showing a long period of time that remains in an ice age, he can show lower CO2 numbers.

The fact is that the earth has been warmer with higher CO2 numbers and the earth has descended into ice ages with higher CO2 numbers...that fact alone demonstrates the lack of correlation between CO2 and global temperature..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



The real question he should be asking himself is how did the present ice age begin with atmospheric CO2 in the 1000ppm range if the hypothesis he believes is true.

And you don't need to go to proxies in order to see CO2 at numbers above 400ppm.  
This graph is the product of over 90,000 actual measurements of atmospheric CO2...this graph wasn't produced by people with an agenda...it was produced by scientists who just wanted to know what percentage of the gas was in the atmosphere..and it wasn't measured from the top of a volcano...

And by the way...chemical measurement is far more accurate than spectrographic measurement...


----------



## ralfy (Apr 7, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Sure there is. Start on page #1, snowflake. Don’t come in on page #53 and pretend to know what was presented.



You didn't address the point that he raised, which is why you're now resorting to memes.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Do I have anything to say? Sure! I've filled this thread with indisputable *proof* that "Global Warming" is a scam
> ...


then perhaps you show the observed empirical data that shows AGW vs natural warming.

How warm is natural 20ppm of CO2 vs 20 ppm of AGW CO2?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> Except that 1270 ppm CO2 would cause a 20-30 foot sea level rise, the acidification of the oceans sufficient for a massive marine extinction event and would heat the planet by over 5C, killing crops everywhere south of Norway and drastically eliminating fresh water supplies.  But hey, the algae could grow like gangbusters on our bloated corpses.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> Were plants dying from a lack of CO2 when you were a child?  Was the world starving in 1750 from being unable to grow crops?  We do not NEED extra CO2 to feed ourselves.  And we certainly do not NEED the other effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.


show us the studies that prove that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does anything at all?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2019)

ralfy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...


hasn't the earth been warming since the last ice age?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2019)

ralfy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Sure there is. Start on page #1, snowflake. Don’t come in on page #53 and pretend to know what was presented.
> ...


sometimes posts are best answered by a quality meme.  that one especially.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 15, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Your religion drives you to corrupt actions.


Ohhhhh mammaries....


> Former Vice President Al Gore said at a conference in 2009 that a *scientist predicted* a “75% chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.”


So either Al Gore *lied* to us (as you leftists always do), or he told the truth and the “scientists” *lied* (as you leftists always do), _or_ Al Gore told the truth and the “scientists” are too incompetent to be taken seriously.

Either way...you’re fucked.

I don’t blame you for being so upset sweetie. I’d be mad too if I were so easily duped. It can’t be easy realizing how dumb you really are.

Here Are 5 Hysterical Environmentalist Claims in Modern History


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> I know, snowflake.  It shows CO2 for a reason.  I thought you would understand.  I guess not.  See the CO2 cycles?  Those are your warming and cooling cycles.  See the unprecedented rise at the right end of the graph?  That shows that what is happening is NOT part of any cycle that's been taking place for thousands of years.
> 
> Here are both CO2 and temperature for the past 300,000 years.  This graph comes from AGW denier WattsUpWithThat who took this opportunity to push a wee fib.  Note the right end of the blue line, labeled "383".  That point is not plotted to the same scale as the rest of the data.  And they said nothing about it.  That should be slightly further from "300", (the top of the right hand scale) than "220" is below it.  It is not.  The actual CO2 level in 2007 would be outside the boundaries of this graphic.  Today's CO2 value is almost the full height of the graph above "300".
> 
> ...


One day you will stop posting this lie.... Tell me why you keep tacking on a five year data plot to a 250 year plot in CO2 and never do the same to temperature.. Your own graph calls you out a Liar, Deceiver, and Manipulator..





One is properly graphed.. the other is not..


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Ohhhhh mammaries....



Check it out, my sweet snowflake bottom is pout-stalking me again. It seems I humiliated him badly on another thread, so he's running over here to avoid the topic and cry at me.



> So either Al Gore *lied* to us



Or he was mistaken. Remember, little liar, just because you lie more readily than most humans breathe, that doesn't mean anyone else does. We are not like you.

Also, Gore Rule invoked, little pajama boi. First person to bring up Gore forfeits the thread for their side. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, they try to deflect by blubbering about politicians. That's you. You don't see any of us here on the rational talking about Gore. 

I do understand why keep saying the stupid things you always say.

First, you're obviously quite butthurt.

Second, you're a remarkably stupid human being, You're just an astoundingly stupid human being. You simply lakc the brainpower to recognize idiot propaganda.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > So either Al Gore *lied* to us
> ...


Bwahahaha! Even when your side is caught lying, you _still_ deny it. 

How could he “mistaken” quote a “scientist”?


----------



## P@triot (Apr 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ]So either Al Gore *lied* to us
> ...


So you’re openly admitting that we can’t trust Dumbocrats to properly relay basic information? So, uh, why should we trust any of you dumb shits when it comes to “Global Warming”?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2019)

P@triot said:


> So you’re



If you can't debate what I say, my sweet bottom, just say so. Don't make up stories about what I supposedly meant. It fools no one, and it makes you look like an even bigger pussy.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > So you’re
> ...


You openly admitted that lefties can’t get the facts right. You said Al Gore was “mistaken” on what “scientists” said. It’s not that hard to quote someone (especially in this day and age of technology with cell phones that have video recording, voice recording, etc.). Since we can’t trust you dimwits to relay the information properly, we definitely can’t trust you on “Global Warming”!!!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2019)

P@triot said:


> You openly admitted that lefties can’t get the facts right.



No, I didn't.

If you want this conversation to continue, you'll have to admit you lied, apologize for lying, and pledge not to lie again. If you're just going to keep lying about everything, there's no point in speaking with you.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> It fools no one, and it makes you look like an even bigger pussy.


Uh-oh...she’s been “triggered”. Nobody blames you, sweetie. All of us would be filled with anger from the humiliation of being so easily duped. I can’t even begin to imagine how dumb you feel. Take this humiliation and learn from it. Learn to question your masters and to think for yourself.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > You openly admitted that lefties can’t get the facts right.
> ...


It is all there for _everyone_ to see.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2019)

Bye-bye. You're worth nobody's time. If you want to understand why everyone just ignores you now, reference "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".


----------



## P@triot (Apr 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Bye-bye. You're worth nobody's time. If you want to understand why everyone just ignores you now, reference "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".


Boom! Game Over. Mammaries recognized she was backed into a corner from which there is no escape. This thread exposed the many lies from the left. She couldn’t manufacture enough lies for their lies, and then more lies for her lies.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 21, 2019)

The video is _priceless_...highlighting the outrageous lies of the “scientists” (aka radical left-wing activists).

Pat Gray reacts to AOC from the future: 'I can only do this once'


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2019)

ralfy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > It is equal parts hilarious and sad that people are still duped by the “Global Warming” scam so many decades later.
> ...



Exactly how do you think that is different from natural variability?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Happening for thousands of years?  Here is 800,000 years worth of data.  Show us



Keep going back to a point where you aren't in an ice age...where the oceans are cold and holding far more CO2.  What was the atmospheric CO2 content when the present ice age began?

Go ahead skid mark...tell us...you know but because you are a bald faced liar, you present the bullshit above in the hopes that you can fool someone..

The fact is that the present ice age began with CO2 concentrations at about 1000ppm...explain it.

And your CO2 chart is bullshit...here is the result of 90,000 chemical tests of atmospheric CO2...


----------



## P@triot (May 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Happening for thousands of years?  Here is 800,000 years worth of data.  Show us
> ...


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Except that 1270 ppm CO2 would cause a 20-30 foot sea level rise, the acidification of the oceans sufficient for a massive marine extinction event and would heat the planet by over 5C, killing crops everywhere south of Norway and drastically eliminating fresh water supplies.  But hey, the algae could grow like gangbusters on our bloated corpses.



The present ice age began with CO2 in excess of 1000 ppm...if enough ice melted to cause that much sea level rise, then the oceans would be warm enough to have outgassed that much CO2...CO2 follows temperature, it doesn't cause it.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

ralfy said:


> The question, then, is what happens to surface temp. anomaly if CO2 ppm exceeds 300, which is the maximum in natural cycles. And should ocean heat content also be considered?



Guess you haven't looked much into natural cycles...the present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...in fact, most of earth's history has seen atmospheric CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...400ppm is not natural for earth...


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2019)

ralfy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Most of the life on earth now evolved to its present form prior to the onset of the present ice age...CO2 at the time that the present ice age began was in excess of 1000ppm... the facts disprove your claim.


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2019)

it wasn


SSDD said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


't mans 20 PPM though. you know that powerful mans CO2.  nasty shit where 20 PPM is hundreds time more potent than natures.  even though we are part of nature.  too fking funny.


----------



## P@triot (May 15, 2019)

I _literally_ laugh (honest) every time I think about how leftist minions are still being duped by their leftist master's on the "Global Warming" hoax.

The Green New Deal is about power, not the planet


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 15, 2019)

ralfy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Your first link is so absurd and self destructive since the internal link showed that increased CO2 *does* greatly increase plant size and still maintain crop health. I notice that your SS blog completely IGNORED the obvious question on why Greenhouse growers spend a lot of $$$ to buy CO2 generators. Plants grow a lot better when CO2 is well over 1,000 ppm as it normally is in commercial greenhouses. The additional CO2 greatly INCREASED plant growth, which your wretched blog tries to tear down that obvious reality with bogus claims of bugs devouring the CO2 enhanced growth. It is stupid as hell since there a lot of plants growing today that began their existence in much higher CO2 levels than now.

The Second link to a "study" *all model based *that is on ….. he he.... thickening leaves is bad for plants. This is pure garbage and stupid as hell too since plant leaves naturally vary in thickness depending on how much sunlight/Shade they get. Not only that the thick leaved plants such a Rubber plant grow very well in very warm places, heck so do orchids with …. he he, hahaha, those undeniably THICK leaves are not suffering from increased CO2, they are originally grown in high CO2 levels in the greenhouse where they were born in it. There many plants with naturally THICK leaves doing fine, here is a LINK to a nice list of plants with THICK leaves:

LINK









The Third link is dead on arrival since it is classic misleading scaremongering bullcrap and stupid too since the ocean waters already have 99.99% of the free CO2 molecules of the system in it. The waters are NOT getting acidic at all.  It is around 8.0 PH through out the ocean basins, so when there is a tiny drop of Alkalinity it is called NEUTRALIZATION.

You fell for the warmist bullcrap, that plants are suffering in some way from increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it is stupid as hell since some of the plants doing good today at 400 ppm, STARTED their existence in excess of 1,000 ppm.

Sycamore has been around for around 100 Million years, when it was then around 1500 ppm
The Genus Ginkgo has been around for 170 Million years, when it was over 2,000 ppm

Shall I bring up ferns....., Snicker..............

Your ignorance is why you fell so easily for their propaganda.

Here is that CO2 chart where for most of history, CO2 levels higher than today


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This is what is known as a “Freudian Slip”. It’s when a person inadvertently says what they are actually thinking.
> ...



Still projecting your own position onto your opponents...it's funny every time you do it.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> Your fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real.  Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions.  That would falsify AGW.  SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect.  And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.



Tell me skid mark...which other branch of science holds up the number of people who buy into the current mainstream hypothesis as evidence that it is correct?  In actual science, if the mainstream hypothesis is questioned, boatloads of observed, measured evidence is brought out in defense of the hypothesis....in climate science, since there is no observed, measured evidence to support the mainstream hypothesis over natural variability, the number of people who believe the current hypothesis is toted out...

NEWSFLASH...that isn't science...that is either pseudoscience, or religion...take your pick.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Your* fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real.  Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions.  That would falsify AGW.  SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect.  And, as *you* likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.
> ...



They don't call them useful idiots for nothing...


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So that would be a no...you can't describe the greenhouse hypothesis in terms of convection...or conduction because it assumes that nearly all of the energy moves through the troposphere via radiation...you know this isn't true, and yet, you still defend that failed hypothesis...
> ...



So it is your claim that energy absorbed by O2, N2, etc molecules via collision can not be radiated into space?  Don't you guys say that everything radiates all the time?  Are non GHG molecules the exception?


----------



## Wuwei (May 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So it is your claim that energy absorbed by O2, N2, etc molecules via collision can not be radiated into space? Don't you guys say that everything radiates all the time? Are non GHG molecules the exception?


GHG molecules radiate LWIR when in a vibrational excited state. Diatomic molecules don't.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So it is your claim that energy absorbed by O2, N2, etc molecules via collision can not be radiated into space? Don't you guys say that everything radiates all the time? Are non GHG molecules the exception?
> ...









That spectrum is just for molecular nitrogen...N2  It doesn't include the other species of N one might find in the atmosphere...nor the various NxO species.


----------



## Wuwei (May 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


The greenhouse effect is operative around 15 microns ± a few microns. The x axis of your graph is unclear in that area.


.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Wrong..the peak radiation band of CO2 is around 15 microns..the other so called greenhouse gasses radiate in various other frequencies...if there were an infrared driven radiative greenhouse effect, then it would be operative in the entire infrared spectrum...Are you saying that only CO2 is included ncluded in your restricted version of the greenhouse effect because it alone radiates primarily at 15 microns? What about water vapor? Methane?  Ozone?  etc.

Tell me, in your version of the greenhouse hypothesis, how does CO2 manage to negate all the other IR bands in which all the other so called greenhouse gasses radiate in?  Or do they know that they are in the magical CO2 greenhouse effect world and simply don't radiate in order to not cause trouble for themselves?


----------



## Flash (May 21, 2019)

If it wasn't a scam then then the climate "scientists" wouldn't have to create false data to support the AGW claim and their predictions would come true every once in awhile.

There is absolutely no proof that man made levels of CO2 emission have altered the climate of the earth.  Only a very weak correlation that CO2 emissions have increased since the industrial age.  There is not even any reliable data that the earth's temperature has increased since the start of the industrial revolution.  That is where the  environmental wackos have been fudging data.  That asshole Obama even got NASA and NOAA to fabricate false data.

Historically the earth has been cooler with higher atmospheric CO2 levels.  The earth has also been warmer with lower CO2 levels.  There is even credible data that says historically CO2 levels lags changes in temperature.

Just a scam by the Moon Bats.  Nothing to see here folks.


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wrong..the peak radiation band of CO2 is around 15 microns.



Of course. The peak radiation from the earth is roughly the same. By " ± a few microns" I was referring to the Wien displacement law which includes the other bands. 


.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I would say that SSD is unquestionably the leading authority on USMB for "Global Warming".


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2019)

P@triot said:


> I would say that SSD is unquestionably the leading authority on USMB for "Global Warming".



For the record, do you agree with arch-retard SSDD that a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object? Yes or no.

I just want to see how far you'll take your ass sucking, and if you're willing to proudly jump up on that retard wagon with SSDD and say that most of the physics of the past century is wrong. Even the other deniers here laugh at SSDD, that's how much of a retard he is.

Go on and scream your pouty insults as your usual way of deflecting. When you're done, I'll still be here, asking you the same question.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2019)

mamooth said:


> When you're done, *I'll still be here*, asking you the same question.


Really? Will you? That certainly wasn’t your position in post #547. 


mamooth said:


> *Bye-bye*. *You're worth nobody's time*. If you want to understand why everyone just ignores you now, reference "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".


I love when you get all “internet tough guy”. I’ve made you my bitch on USMB. I’ve allowed you to paint yourself into a corner with your lies and the propaganda you swallow. And then I expose it. When that happens, you cry and run. Every time.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 1, 2019)

P@triot said:


> I love when you get all “internet tough guy”.



Tough guy? I was just asking you a simple question. The fact that you get triggered when anyone asks you a basic question doesn't make the asker a "tough guy". It just makes you a big pussy.

You said SSDD is totally brilliant at science.

Do you think his retarded theory of radiation is correct? Yes or no?

Your brought up the topic of his brilliance. So discuss it. Or just whimper at me more, in front of everyone, and demonstrate how terrified of debate you are.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2019)

mamooth said:


> I was just asking you a simple question.


No. You were making a statement.


mamooth said:


> When you're done, I'll still be here, asking you the same question.


That’s not a question. That’s a statement. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Kyle Connor (Jun 4, 2019)

I laughed so hard today when i saw one of these leftist climate change believers went off with this meme again on facebook. You guys have to take a look. 


 
This is part of the complete propaganda, full with air pollution and deforestation. Even little children are made to be part of this trap so much so that a teenager is now contesting for nobel peace prize. Something that used to be a mark of honor. completely reduced


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Kyle Connor said:


> . Even little children are made to be part of this trap so much so that a teenager is now contesting for nobel peace prize. Something that used to be a mark of honor. completely reduced



The Nobel committee, and their prize lost all credibility when they handed one of their medals and a check to Al Gore.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 11, 2019)




----------



## P@triot (Sep 5, 2019)

More indisputable proof that "Global Warming" is a *scam*...

Early Earth Marred by Acid Rain


----------



## mamooth (Sep 6, 2019)

P@triot said:


> More indisputable proof that "Global Warming" is a *scam*...
> 
> Early Earth Marred by Acid Rain



Explain it to us. How does acid rain 4 billion years ago disprove global warming?

I just bring it up because, to a normal person, the two topics are completely unrelated.

Are you aware of the obvious ongoing decline of your mental faculties?


----------



## gfm7175 (Sep 6, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > More indisputable proof that "Global Warming" is a *scam*...
> ...



Logic stands in the way of AGW... So does Science and Mathematics.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Logic stands in the way of AGW... So does Science and Mathematics.



Since you felt a need to jump in, my sweet little butthurt stalker, why don't you explain it for everyone.

How does acid rain 4 billion years ago disprove global warming?


----------



## Pilot1 (Sep 6, 2019)

mamooth said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Logic stands in the way of AGW... So does Science and Mathematics.
> ...



Nobody disputes global warming or cooling.  The fact that acid rain occurred shows high levels of CO2 PRIOR TO MAN.   Duh!  Think!  Stop parroting CNN.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 6, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> Nobody disputes global warming or cooling.  The fact that acid rain occurred shows high levels of CO2 PRIOR TO MAN.



And?

How does that show that AGW theory is a fraud?

Oh, I see. You're trying a variation of the "Since climate always changed naturally in the past, that means humans can't change climate now!" stupidity.

That's every bit as stupid as saying "Forest fires used to always be caused naturally, so humans can't cause forest fires!". Your logic is retarded.



> Duh!  Think!  Stop parroting CNN.



Oh, I see. You say these things because you're a brainwashed political cultist. Your cult's media tells you what to think. You can't even imagine that someone else doesn't share your intellectual shortcomings, so you project them on to the rational people. Try to understand that we are not like you.

It is cute that you tried, and that you actually thought you said something smart.  I felt the same reaction when three-year old recently told me he could eat rocks. Thing is, the 3-year-old could be excused.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > More indisputable proof that "Global Warming" is a *scam*...
> ...


Well, you see (my mentally challenged little dimwit), there were no automobiles 4 billion years ago. There were no factories 4 billion years ago. Nobody was “burning fossil fuels” 4 billion years ago.

So...in a nutshell...it wasn’t “man made”. Damn you are dumb. You’re the only one who needed that explained to you.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody disputes global warming or cooling.  The fact that acid rain occurred shows high levels of CO2 *PRIOR TO MAN*.
> ...


Watching you flail around on the ground like a toddler throwing a temper - so desperate to hold onto the ideology you were duped into swallowing is _hilarious_.

Acid rain existed long before anything and everything man-made. That proves that the left has been *lying* that man caused anything.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody disputes global warming or cooling.  The fact that acid rain occurred shows high levels of CO2 PRIOR TO MAN.
> ...




Forest fires are local, we are talking global here, munchkin. 


.


----------



## gfm7175 (Sep 9, 2019)

mamooth said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Logic stands in the way of AGW... So does Science and Mathematics.
> ...


Irrelevant.

It is logic, science, and mathematics which disproves proposed AGW theories.

In actuality, we don't know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature. It is not possible to measure the Earth's temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 10, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...




If you look at regional records, you see that in a few places it has warmed....in a few places, it has cooled, and in most places, not much has been happening at all ...there is not much in the way of "global" anything...


----------



## baileyn45 (Sep 10, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


Not only can't we get an accurate average temp of the planet today, even if we could we have no historical data to compare it to.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 10, 2019)

baileyn45 said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Tell me....of what value exactly is an average that is made up mostly of homogenized, infilled (made up), manipulated data regarding a planet whose average daily maximum and minimum temperatures span about 200 degrees?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 14, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Forest fires are local, we are talking global here, munchkin.



The point of the forest fire analogy is to highlight the hilarious retardation of your cult's "Derpderpderpderp if happened naturally before, then it means humans can't cause it!" theory of climate.

Do you get it now? If you don't, you're out of luck, as I can't dumb it down any further.

That's very basic logic, yet almost every denier pooches it. Deniers in general suck at reasoning, which is why they got sucked into such reality-defying religious cult.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 14, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Acid rain existed long before anything and everything man-made. That proves that the left has been *lying* that man caused anything.



Here's another denier cultist who guzzled down too much of what the cult kept trickling down his willing throat, pickling his brain beyond any hope of redemption. "Derpderpderp! If it happened naturally before, humans can't have any effect on it! Forest fires were always natural before, so humans can't cause forest fires! Derp! Derpderp!".

We can't help these denier imbeciles. They've been trained to be cult imbeciles, they're proud of being cult imbeciles, and they despise anyone else who isn't a cult imbecile.

The sad thing is that their vote counts as much as a normal person's


----------



## Joann Stubbs (Sep 14, 2019)

P@triot said:


> The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> 
> A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that *97.4%* *never* materialized.
> 
> ...


*So they were just a little off on what they stated.  There is a big rock heading towards Earth and we are going to get sent back to the Stone age.   It is going to hit in 4 to 8 thousand years, with a 55 percent possibility, unless Mars changes the direction.   OK that is how a Democrat would write some false news   


*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 14, 2019)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Forest fires are local, we are talking global here, munchkin.
> ...




This coming from you who lives in an alternative universe?

.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 15, 2019)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Forest fires are local, we are talking global here, munchkin.
> ...



Got any actual evidence that it is us?  We keep asking and you guys keep not providing...



mamooth said:


> That's very basic logic, yet almost every denier pooches it. Deniers in general suck at reasoning, which is why they got sucked into such reality-defying religious cult.



Simply saying that this time it is due to human's doesn't cut it...lets see some actual evidence that this time it is due to us...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 15, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Here's another denier cultist who guzzled down too much of what the cult kept trickling down his willing throat, pickling his brain beyond any hope of redemption.


Every time facts destroy the left-wing propaganda, Mammaries throws herself on the floor and flails around wildly. Freaking _hilarious_.

Trying to claim that man is responsible for something that has occurred before man takes a special kind of insanity.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 15, 2019)

P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another denier cultist who guzzled down too much of what the cult kept trickling down his willing throat, pickling his brain beyond any hope of redemption.
> ...


In the universe of possibilities, it is possible that the bit of change we have seen is due to our activities. I would just like to see some actual evidence that it is due to us. Hysterical hand waving blaming, us doesn’t make it true.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 15, 2019)

P@triot said:


> Every time facts destroy the left-wing propaganda, Mammaries throws herself on the floor and flails around wildly. Freaking _hilarious_.



You didn't answer, my sweet little bitch.

You made a hilariously stupid claim that if something changed naturally in the past, it meant humans can't change it. Why did you say such a retarded thing?



> Trying to claim that man is responsible for something that has occurred before man takes a special kind of insanity.



Look at you. You're actually telling everyone that humans can't cause forest fires. Aside from fellow arch-retard SSDD, nobody is jumping on that moron wagon with you. Even denier cultists have limits as to how stupid they want to look.

Oh, I see. You two are just rage-weeping at me now. You're driven entirely by butthurt over me, so you no longer care how stupid you sound. You just need a good cry. Please, proceed. Get it all out. There, there. Feel better now?


----------



## rjs330 (Sep 15, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody disputes global warming or cooling.  The fact that acid rain occurred shows high levels of CO2 PRIOR TO MAN.
> ...



You still have no evidence that climate change is caused by us.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Every time facts destroy the left-wing propaganda, Mammaries throws herself on the floor and flails around wildly. Freaking _hilarious_.
> ...



So lets see some actual observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.....you talk a big game hairball...but when the rubber meets the road, you have exactly squat....other than perhaps a ton of excuses for not being able to provide any actual observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.....


----------



## P@triot (Sep 24, 2019)

“Global Warming” is a scam. And only the weak-minded minion like mammaries still believe it...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2019)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Acid rain existed long before anything and everything man-made. That proves that the left has been *lying* that man caused anything.
> ...



Poor hairball...got any actual evidence that we are the cause of the change?  Anything real?  Anything at all?


----------



## P@triot (Oct 6, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Look at you. You're actually telling everyone that humans can't cause forest fires.


Sweetie...acid rain existed thousands of years before the industrial revolution. CO2 levels were HIGHER than now thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

Listening to you babble about "forest fires" when that is not the topic is bizarre and it doesn't help your case at all. You're so mad that you've been proven wrong when you should be mad at the left-wing idiots who duped you and cashed in on it big time.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 6, 2019)

How did we test the pH of rain water thousands of years ago? ... isn't the better argument against climate hysteria that a 2ºC increase in temperatures by year 2100 is trivial? ... even that requires a nearly three-fold increase in the greenhouse effect ... not sure we can burn fossil fuels fast enough to do that ...


----------



## P@triot (Dec 1, 2019)

Even the IPCC is being forced to admit all of the fear-mongering was pure b.s.


> But even though the world has already warmed by 1 °C, humanity has *10–30 more years than scientists previously thought* in which to kick its carbon habit.


They are up to 30 years now. Eventually they will have to admit that we have 3,000 years.

Greta Thunberg says climate activism isn't just about the environment, demands we 'change everything'


----------



## MaryL (Dec 1, 2019)

I voted for  Trump. I am that fed up with liberals. But yes, Virginia  Global climate change is real. Ask any  Midwestern  American farmer that is over 40, and it doesn't matter what its called. We know its happening.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 1, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> How did we test the pH of rain water thousands of years ago? ... isn't the better argument against climate hysteria that a 2ºC increase in temperatures by year 2100 is trivial? ... even that requires a nearly three-fold increase in the greenhouse effect ... not sure we can burn fossil fuels fast enough to do that ...


Um, Shankun used jellyfish farts as a proxy


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 18, 2019)

P@triot said:


> I can't imagine trying to perpetuate a lie after being proven so wrong, so many times...



That's how Democrats roll everywhere.  Lie and double down on your lies.
Otherwise you have to admit that you were wrong. Evil doesn't do that.

I added your opening post link to my website:

Environmentalist Hypocrisy


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Tell me, in your version of the greenhouse hypothesis, how does CO2 manage to negate all the other IR bands in which all the other so called greenhouse gasses radiate in?  Or do they know that they are in the magical CO2 greenhouse effect world and simply don't radiate in order to not cause trouble for themselves?



It is not the radiation spectra of greenhouse gasses that capture energy but rather their absorption spectra.
Water vapor dominates, quantitatively and qualitatively.






Water vapor dominates the atmospheric greenhouse gasses at ~15,000 ppmv, versus a scant ~400 ppmv for carbon dioxide.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 18, 2019)

Do you think water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb energy and hold it as higher temperature ... that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics ... these species absorb radiation in parallel and rather quickly re-emit it radially ...

The graph is scaled as "% absorption" ... and not total energy ... that band between 15 and 20 µm is the area of peak radiation for the Earth ... thus more energy absorbed and re-emitted than the either of the two peak "% absorption" for water vapor ...

The 2ºC temperature rise in 100 years that the IPCC predicts would require CO2 concentrations up above 1,200 ppmv, perhaps way above that ... connecting 6 to 8 billion more people to the electric grid could do that ... but we'll need to hurry ... plants are ruining our chances at a warmer better prettier Earth ... hateful bastards ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2019)

MaryL said:


> I voted for  Trump. I am that fed up with liberals. But yes, Virginia  Global climate change is real. Ask any  Midwestern  American farmer that is over 40, and it doesn't matter what its called. We know its happening.



You have been shown that your short term anecdotal memory is incorrect before, but buy all means, lets do it again...Pick a region....since you said "any midwestern farmer" lets look at the midwest as a region.

Going back 40 years will put you at the end of 1979. Interesting that you pick 1979 because that year marks the turn from the coming period which began in the 1940's.

Since you mention midwest farmers, maybe you have heard of a period of time known as the dust bowl.  The dust bowl covered a period that began in 1930 and continued through 1936.  

Here is a chart beginning considerably before the 40 year mark you like to look at and tracks maximum temperatures across time...Note the temperatures during the dust bowl years in contrast to the present.






Here is one that charts the average number of days equal to or greater than 90 degrees across the US...  Again...it is clear that if you go back further than your 40 years, you see an entirely different story.  Relying on your memory to accurately describe what the climate was like for a given period is an inherently bad way to gauge what the present climate is like...first, most of us have not lived long enough to have enough information to even begin to make an accurate assessment of the present climate.






Since the 19th century, the peak temperatures have dropped about 20 degrees.This year, the peak temperature in the midwest didn't even make it to 99 degrees.






Here is a graph showing the 200 hottest days ever recorded in the midwest....again, notice how much information you miss by only looking back 40 years.






So there is yet more information to add to that which has already been given to you demonstrating that your anecdotal memory of what it was like in the good old days is terribly flawed.  No doubt you will file it in the round file and wait until the next opportunity presents itself to talk how bad it is now compared to the "good ole days' a mere 40 years ago,


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2019)

ChemEngineer said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, in your version of the greenhouse hypothesis, how does CO2 manage to negate all the other IR bands in which all the other so called greenhouse gasses radiate in?  Or do they know that they are in the magical CO2 greenhouse effect world and simply don't radiate in order to not cause trouble for themselves?
> ...



You know....the absorption spectra is only half the story...there is an emission spectra as well...CO2 absorbs and emits...it does't "trap" anything.  This is evidenced by the lack of an upper tropospheric hot spot which would be the roof of your greenhouse effect...you have no roof, so you have no greenhouse.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > I voted for  Trump. I am that fed up with liberals. But yes, Virginia  Global climate change is real. Ask any  Midwestern  American farmer that is over 40, and it doesn't matter what its called. We know its happening.
> ...




*There you go presenting scientific facts and data instead of insanely screaming and calling the opposition names and telling them how intellectual, scientific and rational you are...….

Although my website, The Global  Warming Fraud, is  already overflowing with graphs, scientific papers, quotes and references, these four new ones above are so good I may well have to add them!*


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 19, 2019)

*



*

When the fraudulent Keeling Curve is adjusted for water vapor, THE dominant greenhouse gas, it is no longer the Scary Graph.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 20, 2019)

*Humans add to atmospheric carbon dioxide to the extent of 1 ppmv every 22 years.
Scary.  Atmospheric water vapor is roughly 15,000 ppmv.   So add 1 to the red line above every 22 years and pay the power grabbers $1,000 annually for their wonderful plans to save you, and pay themselves.*


----------



## P@triot (Dec 26, 2019)

MaryL said:


> I voted for  Trump. I am that fed up with liberals. But yes, Virginia  Global climate change is real. Ask any  Midwestern  American farmer that is over 40, and it doesn't matter what its called. We know its happening.


Instead of posting in this thread, try *reading* in it. You can’t learn from speaking. This entire thread unequivocally proves that “Global Warming” is a scam.


----------



## P@triot (Dec 26, 2019)

Once again, indisputable proof that “Global Warming” is a scam.

Ice returned to the Northwest Passage this summer, forcing cruise lines to change course


----------



## P@triot (Feb 1, 2020)

Bwahahaha!!! 

The students who claim to “care” about the environment *refuse* to allow Oxford to shut off their heat (which is provided by fossil fuels).

Students: We demand the school sell its stock in fossil fuels. Professor: I can't do that, but I'll turn off the gas heating for you.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 3, 2020)

History will look back on the “Global Warming” alarmists and laugh their ass off at them...

Faulty Assumptions Lead to Fake News About Climate Change


----------



## P@triot (Feb 3, 2020)




----------



## P@triot (Feb 12, 2020)

It’s so good to see the American people defeat the sick Gaystapo...

Bank Reverses Decision, Picks Kids Over LGBT Activists


----------



## bluzman61 (Feb 12, 2020)

P@triot said:


> History will look back on the “Global Warming” alarmists and laugh their ass off at them...
> 
> Faulty Assumptions Lead to Fake News About Climate Change


What the climate change nutjobs need to realize is something very simple - Climate Change = WEATHER.  This is ALL you need to know.  Thank you.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 17, 2020)

Remember kids...it’s imperative that you give up electricity and beef so that ⁦‪John Legend‬⁩ and ⁦Chrissy Teigen‬⁩ can take a private JET every time they want a meal!

And to think that all of the mindless minions on the left _still_ believe this bullshit hoax is real. 

Climate change alarmist John Legend, wife Chrissy Teigen use a private jet to snag a quick Valentine’s Day dinner


----------



## bluzman61 (Feb 17, 2020)

P@triot said:


> Remember kids...it’s imperative that you give up electricity and beef so that ⁦‪John Legend‬⁩ and ⁦Chrissy Teigen‬⁩ can take a private JET every time they want a meal!
> 
> And to think that all of the mindless minions on the left _still_ believe this bullshit hoax is real.
> 
> Climate change alarmist John Legend, wife Chrissy Teigen use a private jet to snag a quick Valentine’s Day dinner


And ALWAYS remember my post, #621 in this thread.  Thank you.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 19, 2020)

Meanwhile, despite all the years of whining, reality just keeps bitchslapping the denier kooks. No wonder denier tears keep flowing. It almost as if reality doesn't care a bit about denier fraud and propaganda.

Assessing the Global Climate in January 2020
---
The globally averaged temperature departure from average over land and ocean surfaces for January 2020 was the highest for the month of January in the 141-year NOAA global temperature dataset record, which dates back to 1880.
---

Everything we predict comes true. Everything deniers predict .... the exact opposite comes true. Deniers act like fascist clowns, then they act surprised when everyone points and laughs.

Go on deniers, let those tears of impotent rage flow now. I'm here for you to cry at. Just let it all out. There, there. <pats hair>


----------



## P@triot (Feb 19, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Everything we predict comes true.


Really, mammaries? So NY City is completely under water? 

Scientist Who Predicted NYC Would Be Underwater Says He’s ‘Not An Alarmist’


----------



## P@triot (Feb 19, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Everything we predict comes true.


You _sure_ about that, mammaries? 

A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that *97.4%* *never* materialized.

Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
Top 10 Climate Change Predictions Gone Spectacularly Wrong; This Is EPIC!


----------



## P@triot (Feb 19, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Everything we predict comes true.


Are you _sure_ about that, mammaries? 

A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that *97.4%* *never* materialized.

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
Top 10 Climate Change Predictions Gone Spectacularly Wrong; This Is EPIC!


----------



## P@triot (Feb 19, 2020)

mamooth said:


> I'm here for you to cry *at*.


Oh we do! We laugh so hard *at* your posts denying reality that we get tears in our eyes.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 19, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Go on deniers, let those tears of impotent rage flow now.


In all seriousness, it has to be brutal for someone like mammaries. Imagine being duped your entire life by people you trusted, only to find out they made a fool out of you. The hurt has to be awful and the reality has to be a significant shock.

Combine those two and you really can understand why they lash out, throw tantrums, and refuse to accept reality. It’s just a shame they don’t seek the therapy they need.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 19, 2020)

Where are the hypercanes and hockey sticks? ... tittyboy won't be back ... all jiggle and no milk ...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 19, 2020)

Dang. Epic screaming meltdown by P@triot. Five, count 'em, five pouty posts directed at me. His tantrums are getting worse. I suppose his life of loserdom is wearing on him.



P@triot said:


> So NY City is completely under water



We've been over this before.. Hansen never predicted that. You're lying about that, and you know it. The cult told you to lie, and you're to gutless to disobey the cult.



> A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions



No, that's a BS claim from paid denier shill John Christy, whose record of failure in his predictions in unblemished, and who is very well known for his fraud and fudging. That's why you love him so. The bigger the fraud, the more love deniers give it.

Republicans' favorite climate chart has some serious problems | Dana Nuccitelli



> In January 1970



1970 life magazine? Just how 'effin stupid and desperate are you? The topic being discussed is the remarkable success of climate science for 40+ years running, not your tendency to regurgitate conservative MSM hysteria.

So, the point here seems to be that even though you searched all of your propaganda, you couldn't even find _one_ bad prediction by climate scientists. Dang, you even suck at being a fraud. I mean, I could point to a few bad predictions by single scientists, though none of those were any consensus.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 19, 2020)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > So NY City is completely under water
> ...


Bwahahaha! Even Hansen himself doesn’t deny that he said it.


> The former NASA climate scientist *who predicted parts of New York City would soon be underwater*, now says he’s not a global warming “alarmist.”
> 
> “I don’t think that I have been alarmist — maybe alarming, but I don’t think I’m an alarmist,” James Hansen, who used to head up NASA’s climate arm, told Yale Environment 360 in an interview republished in The Guardian Tuesday.


You’re the most dedicated little troll I’ve ever seen. 

Scientist Who Predicted NYC Would Be Underwater Says He’s ‘Not An Alarmist’


----------



## P@triot (Feb 19, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Dang. Epic screaming meltdown by P@triot. Five, count 'em, five pouty posts directed at me.


Snowflake...you gave me enough material to hit you with 100 posts exposing your ignorance. I just got bored after five.

I don’t blame you for feeling humiliated. You _should_.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 20, 2020)

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha! Even Hansen himself doesn’t deny that he said it.



First, damn you're stupid. What you posted doesn't support that claim in any way. All of that sweet golden elixir that your masters have trickled down your eager and thirsty cult throat has clearly pickled your little cult brain.

And second, you're peddling fraud again. I've debunked this to you before, and you don't care. Hansen's prediction was for 40 years after a doubling, and a doubling hasn't even happened. Yet you still willingly repeat your story even though you know it's crap.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
---
Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later -probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question." So give Michaels a pass on this one -- assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss' book.
---

This is why people sensibly assume that anything you say should always initially be assumed to be a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise. Your past behavior demonstrates how that is indeed the correct policy to follow.

Now, isn't it time for you to deflect and run? You know, like you always do when you get busted.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 20, 2020)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Bwahahaha! Even Hansen himself doesn’t deny that he said it.
> ...


How cute...you posted a link to leftists trying to cover up the embarrassing gaffe. Doesn’t change the fact that he absolutely said it and that NY is above water here in 2020.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 20, 2020)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Bwahahaha! Even Hansen himself doesn’t deny that he said it.
> ...


That’s because you’ve *never* “debunked” this.


> The former NASA climate scientist *who predicted parts of New York City would soon be underwater*, now says he’s not a global warming “alarmist.”
> 
> “I don’t think that I have been alarmist — maybe alarming, but I don’t think I’m an alarmist,” James Hansen, who used to head up NASA’s climate arm, told Yale Environment 360 in an interview republished in The Guardian Tuesday.


Note how Hansen doesn’t say, “WTF...I never said that”. Instead he acknowledges the quote and instead states he’s not an “alarmist”.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 21, 2020)

P@triot said:


> Doesn’t change the fact that he absolutely said it and that NY is above water here in 2020.



Same old same old. I post the direct reference pointing out that you're lying your ass off, and you just ignore the evidence and tell the same lie again.

Given your behavior, I don't see how you can avoid Hell. After all, there's no "It's okay to lie if you're butthurt about the dirty liberals who keep humiliating you" subclause in the Ten Commandments.



> That’s because you’ve *never* “debunked” this.



Pointing out that it makes zero sense is a conclusive debunking. You quote Hansen saying he's not an alarmist, and then you triumphantly declare how Hansen just said he's an alarmist. Some possible conclusions that people could draw from your reality-defying statements are:

1. You're functionally illiterate.
2. You're just making stuff up.
3. You're nuts.



> The former NASA climate scientist *who predicted parts of New York City would soon be underwater*, now says he’s not a global warming “alarmist.”
> 
> “I don’t think that I have been alarmist — maybe alarming, but I don’t think I’m an alarmist,” James Hansen, who used to head up NASA’s climate arm, told Yale Environment 360 in an interview republished in The Guardian Tuesday.
> 
> ...



Holy shit, you're stupid. Sometimes we think you're pretending, but then you say something like that, and everyone learns that you really are as dumb as you sound.

You literally thought that the blue text was part of the conversation with Hansen, instead of something added in a week later by the flagrantly dishonest right-wing shill author of the Daily Caller article.

That does help. We've learned that "functionally illiterate" is the best explanation as to why you keep saying such dumb things. You literally don't have the brainpower to comprehend what you read.

Notice how even the other deniers don't want to jump on your bandwagon of stupid here? That should tell you how badly you're faceplanting.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 21, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Notice how even the other deniers don't want to jump on your bandwagon of stupid here? That should tell you how badly you're faceplanting.



Well ... no ...P@triot is doing a fine job ripping you a new asshole ... although I admit, you're doing most of the work yourself ... he's getting you to post the stupidest things, it's pretty funny ... you two should try stand-up comedy, people would pay money to see you make an ape out of yourself ...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 21, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Well ... no ...P@triot is doing a fine job ripping you a new asshole ... although I admit, you're doing most of the work yourself ... he's getting you to post the stupidest things, it's pretty funny ... you two should try stand-up comedy, people would pay money to see you make an ape out of yourself ...



Carry on, Chester. I do thank you for confirming how well I'm doing. Why else would one of P@triot's asslickers feel so compelled to run interference?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Meanwhile, despite all the years of whining, reality just keeps bitchslapping the denier kooks. No wonder denier tears keep flowing. It almost as if reality doesn't care a bit about denier fraud and propaganda.
> 
> Assessing the Global Climate in January 2020
> ---
> ...



*The globally averaged temperature departure from average over land and ocean surfaces for January 2020 was the highest for the month of January in the 141-year NOAA global temperature dataset record, which dates back to 1880.*

Wow!

That's it, we need to spend $76 trillion on windmills. At least, eh?

*Everything we predict comes true. *

Of course. Very convincing.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 15, 2020)

This is _really_ going to cause fragile ‘lil mammaries to call his therapist for extra sessions. It’s so undeniable at this point, even Jake fucking Tapper threw in the towel and admitted that fracking is completely environmentally safe! 

Fact Check: Jake Tapper Correctly Explains Fracking Reduces U.S. Emissions


----------



## Crick (Mar 19, 2020)

Are we to understand that you agree that reducing GHG emissions will reduce global warming?


----------



## BS Filter (Mar 20, 2020)




----------



## mamooth (Mar 23, 2020)

P@triot said:


> This is _really_ going to cause fragile ‘lil mammaries to call his therapist for extra sessions. It’s so undeniable at this point, even Jake fucking Tapper threw in the towel and admitted that fracking is completely environmentally safe!



First, cute pout-stalking routine. I clearly live rent-free in your sweet little bitch head.

Second, as Crick pointed out, it's good to see you admitting we need to reduce greenhouse gases. Thanks for admitting we've been right all this time.

By the way, did you cult give you permission to go against cult dogma like that? You might be in trouble. You'd better go lick some boots and apologize.

Don't worry. We know you'll flipflop back to your old stupid claims soon, and pretend you never admitted we were right. After all, that's the primary benefit of being conservative, being blessedly free of the curse of long term memory. Reality is whatever you want it to be at any given instant.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 23, 2020)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This is _really_ going to cause fragile ‘lil mammaries to call his therapist for extra sessions. It’s so undeniable at this point, even Jake fucking Tapper threw in the towel and admitted that fracking is completely environmentally safe!
> ...


Bwahahaha! Exactly as I predicted. 

Mammaries is so pissed off at the realization that he was duped into buying into the “Global Warming” scam that he needs extra therapy sessions!

Even Jake freaking Tapper is acknowledging that fracking is 100% safe!


----------



## mamooth (Mar 24, 2020)

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha! Exactly as I predicted.
> 
> Mammaries is so pissed off at the realization that he was duped into buying into the “Global Warming” scam that he needs extra therapy sessions!



Why would I be upset about being proven correct again? Heck, I don't even notice being proven correct, being how it's the normal state of affairs.

As usual, you seem confused. You're the one who just trumpeted how great it is that CO2 emissions are being reduced. You just admitted that you've been wrong for years, and that we've been right. Thank you for that.



> Even Jake freaking Tapper is acknowledging that fracking is 100% safe!



It's clearly the butthurt that has you making up stories about how I supposedly hate fracking. If you'd read my posts, you'd see I've never criticized fracking. I've only criticized irresponsible unregulated fracking, due to the water pollution it causes.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 27, 2020)

mamooth said:


> If you'd read my posts, you'd see I've never criticized fracking.


Wow! Look at mammaries. I’m so proud of her! She slowly trying to back away from the “Global Warming” scam now (without drawing too much attention of course). Another 4 or 5 more years of having to face reality and she’ll be posting that she _always_ oppposed “Global Warming”.


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2020)

Once again, reality proves the “Global Warming” conspiracy theorists dead wrong. A polar vortex. In May. Clearly, greenhouse gases are *not* being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up.
Polar vortex to unleash winterlike cold across eastern half of nation, with snow in the Northeast


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2020)

Crick said:


> Are we to understand that you agree that reducing GHG emissions will reduce global warming?



H2O maybe, not CO2, the Vostok Ice cores show that CO2 LAGS temperature increases and decreases


----------



## P@triot (May 9, 2020)

A polar vortex. In May. Clearly, greenhouse gases are *not* being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up.








						Polar vortex whips millions of Americans with strong winds, freezing temperatures and even snow
					

In stark contrast to last week's sunny weather, more than 100 million Americans will see temperatures drop below freezing this weekend.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2020)

P@triot said:


> A polar vortex. In May. Clearly, greenhouse gases are *not* being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up.



Check it out. Dumbass here actually thinks global warming precludes polar vortexes. He's repeated the claim twice, because he's so proud of being so clueless. Each time you think he can't get dumber, he surprises you.

Dumbass, global warming makes polar vortexes more likely. I'd explain why, if it weren't literally impossible to dumb it down to a level that dumbass deniers can grasp.


----------



## P@triot (May 15, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Dumbass, global warming makes polar vortexes more likely...


----------



## P@triot (May 15, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Dumbass, global warming makes polar vortexes more likely...


We’re all acutely familiar with how heat cause cold. I know whenever I start a fire, _everything_ around it freezes.


----------



## P@triot (May 15, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Dumbass, global warming makes polar vortexes more likely. *I'd* explain why...


You get that? Mammaries _*would*_ explain why but he conjures up an excuse *not* to


----------



## P@triot (May 15, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Dumbass, global warming makes polar vortexes more likely. I'd explain why...


I never cease to find it shocking how weak-minded people exist and how they can so easily be mind-fucked. Imagine thinking that “greenhouse” gases being trapped in the atmosphere causes the world to heat up, which causes the world to freeze.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2020)

Four weepy posts? Not a record-setter, but I still definitely triggered P@triot pretty hard.

P@triot, you have the whole sum of human knowledge at your fingertips. You could research it yourself, why global warming makes polar vortexes more common. You can't expect me or the other normal people here to always be around to educate you. At some point, you'll have to get up off your lazy ass and take that responsibility upon yourself.

I do educate those who are willing to learn for free, but I charge bitter delusional cult cranks. My tutoring rate is $50/hr, two hours minimum. If you're still dead set on being lazy, you can send that to my Paypal account, we can get started.


----------



## basquebromance (May 16, 2020)

caring about the environment is for sissies.

in Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas, they think oil rigs are pretty


----------



## P@triot (Aug 28, 2020)

Remember folks, the official left-wing narrative is that “greenhouse gases” were being “trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere” causing the planet to heat up. 








						Blizzard in Midsummer China; No more credit card for HK officials; Xi's Marxism
					

In Gansu Province, the floods reached three stories high, and the wooden homes of many villagers collapsed. The ...




					www.theepochtimes.com


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2020)

More indisputable evidence that “Global Warming” is a hoax. If Harrison Ford actually believed that his children or grandchildren wouldn’t have a planet to live on, he would blow up his private jets so that nobody could use them - rather than using them 24x7.








						Climate Change Alarmist Harrison Ford Flies Son to College on Private Jet
					

Actor and climate change alarmist Harrison Ford flew his 19-year-old son off to college on private jet this week. The actor, his son, and wife Calista Flockhart were seen exiting the jet in Amherst, Massachusetts according to reports.




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 1, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Four weepy posts? Not a record-setter, but I still definitely triggered P@triot pretty hard.
> 
> P@triot, you have the whole sum of human knowledge at your fingertips. You could research it yourself, why global warming makes polar vortexes more common. You can't expect me or the other normal people here to always be around to educate you. At some point, you'll have to get up off your lazy ass and take that responsibility upon yourself.
> 
> I do educate those who are willing to learn for free, but I charge bitter delusional cult cranks. My tutoring rate is $50/hr, two hours minimum. If you're still dead set on being lazy, you can send that to my Paypal account, we can get started.


I haven't been on this site in years but with the current state of the world, I was curious if the dullards had finally come to their senses.  Your posts put a smile on my face.  They might even break through to the functionally illiterate at some point.  Please keep doing what you're doing.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 30, 2020)

Ohhhhh Mammaries (mamooth)!!! This one is _really_ going to sting. 


> The coalition’s leadership and members are a who’s who of leading scientists studying carbon dioxide and climate change, including *atmospheric physicists*, *climatologists*, *ecologists*, statisticians, and energy experts.


Each one bolded is a _scientist_. Here's the thing sweetie, you were duped. It's ok. But the sooner you get over your ego and own that, the sooner you'll stop looking like a fool. You can choose not to continue to be a mindless minion for their cause.








						Climate Scientists Targeted By Social Media Censors
					

The CO2 Coalition has been the target of social media censors and left-leaning activists because of its position on climate change.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## mamooth (Oct 30, 2020)

P@triot said:


> Ohhhhh Mammaries!!! This one is _really_ going to sting.



Awww, my bottom craves my attention again. That's sweet. I know how he missed his daily spankings.



> The coalition’s leadership and members are a who’s who of leading scientists studying carbon dioxide and climate change, including *atmospheric physicists*, *climatologists*, *ecologists*, statisticians, and energy experts.



So, another propaganda piece signed by the usual group of paid shills. You need to understand that you getting duped makes you look bad, not the normal people.

Here's a thought. Instead of relying on a bad Appeal To Authority fallacy and whining about your victimhood, why not .... discuss the science yourself?

AAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHA.

I slay me. I mean, just the thought of P@triot discussing the science. I think everyone busted a gut when I suggested that, given how outlandish the concept is.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 30, 2020)

P@triot said:


> Climate Scientists Targeted By Social Media Censors
> 
> 
> The CO2 Coalition has been the target of social media censors and left-leaning activists because of its position on climate change.
> ...



"There is broad agreement in this diverse group that the 130 part-per-million increase in carbon dioxide over the past 150 years is not in any way harmful."

No they don't ... fake news ... just because you want to believe it doesn't make it true ...


----------



## ding (Oct 31, 2020)

Crick said:


> Are we to understand that you agree that reducing GHG emissions will reduce global warming?


Reduce global warming?  I want to increase it.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 1, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Scientists Targeted By Social Media Censors
> ...


“No they don’t” 

Now the left has become so bat-shit crazy that they want to tell the CO2 Coalition how they think


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 4, 2020)

P@triot said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > *No they don't* ... fake news ... just because you want to believe it doesn't make it true ...
> ...



Most climatologists say "we don't know yet" ... anyone who says they *do* know haven't published their research yet ... CO2 Coalition can read the scripts they're given (for pay) all they want to ... doesn't make their claims valid ... 

"Harmful" isn't defined in science ... strictly a philosophical term ... but hey, P@triot, you're made of money, go ahead and set your thermostat to 92ºF ... I'll keep burning tires and American Flags ... we'll certainly know the temperatures we'll see in 100 years, in 100 years ... that's a sure thing ...


----------



## P@triot (Nov 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> I'll keep burning tires and American Flags ... we'll certainly know the temperatures we'll see in 100 years, in 100 years ... that's a sure thing ...


We don’t have to wait 100 years. You bat-shit crazy leftists said that NYC would be under the ocean at least five years before 2020. Is NYC under the ocean right now?

You people also said that the polar ice-cap would be completely melted by 2014. By the end of 2014, the polar ice-cap had expanded a mind-boggling 60% (over 900,000 sq. miles).


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 26, 2020)

P@triot said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I'll keep burning tires and American Flags ... we'll certainly know the temperatures we'll see in 100 years, in 100 years ... that's a sure thing ...
> ...



I don't know who you've been listening to ... you should be ashamed of yourself for believing it ... maybe you shouldn't be bragging about this ...


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2020)

C'mon 580!


----------



## Crick (Nov 28, 2020)

P@triot said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I'll keep burning tires and American Flags ... we'll certainly know the temperatures we'll see in 100 years, in 100 years ... that's a sure thing ...
> ...



The actual data:





As you can see, the reason for the 60% increase was a massive, multiyear loss that was what produced the 2014 prediction.  The long term trend is unchanged, still downward and these data indicate we will have an ice free summer by approximately 2025.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 28, 2020)

Crick said:


> The actual data:



How are you getting actual data from 100 years in the future? ...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Nov 29, 2020)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



Your link free post is misleading since the decline stopped after 2006, it is obvious in reading YOUR undersized chart.

Meanwhile Polar Bears and Seal population increased greatly for many years, no sign of calamity.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 24, 2021)

The entire planet was shut down in 2020...resulting in a decrease of only 13%. And yet the left-wing imbeciles want a 50% decline in emissions. 








						Biden's Climate Denialism
					

Biden says the U.S. has a "moral imperative" to try to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% from 2005 levels by 2030.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 24, 2021)

P@triot said:


> The entire planet was shut down in 2020...resulting in a decrease of only 13%. And yet the left-wing imbeciles want a 50% decline in emissions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The rate of decline is three times the rate we already did over the last 20 years..  IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THIS RATE...   We could stop using ALL fossil fuels today and not reach this level of reduction..


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2021)

Billy_Bob said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The entire planet was shut down in 2020...resulting in a decrease of only 13%. And yet the left-wing imbeciles want a 50% decline in emissions.
> ...



Then we'd better get busy, eh.


----------



## P@triot (May 1, 2021)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


“Get busy” doing something that cannot be done and doesn’t need to be done?


----------



## Crick (May 2, 2021)

That 13% decline took place with increased electrical consumption and no related change in energy or transportation technology beyond was had already been underway.  Continued movement towards EV transportation and alternative energy sources can achieve Biden's emissions targets.  Cutting those emissions IS a moral imperative.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 2, 2021)

P@triot said:


> The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.
> 
> A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that *97.4%* *never* materialized.
> 
> ...




“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow


----------



## Crick (May 2, 2021)

Billy_Bob said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The entire planet was shut down in 2020...resulting in a decrease of only 13%. And yet the left-wing imbeciles want a 50% decline in emissions.
> ...



Billy... silly mistake.  You seem to have confused emissions with atmospheric content.  If we completely stopped burning fossil fuels today, our emissions would be very close to zero.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 2, 2021)

Crick said:


> That 13% decline took place with increased electrical consumption and no related change in energy or transportation technology beyond was had already been underway.  Continued movement towards EV transportation and alternative energy sources can achieve Biden's emissions targets.  Cutting those emissions IS a moral imperative.



Did you tell the ChiComs?


----------



## Crick (May 2, 2021)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Billy Bob, are you coming back to fix this?


----------



## P@triot (May 22, 2021)

Crick said:


> Billy Bob, are you coming back to fix this?


Well, unfortunately, he is unable to fix your refusal to accept basic reality. I’ve posted all of the data and history has unequivocally *proven* that “Global Warming” is a scam. None of the left’s predictions have come to fruition.


----------



## Crick (May 23, 2021)

The prediction that human additions to the atmosphere's CO2 content would continue to increase from the burning of fossil fuels?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
The prediction that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the Earth's temperature?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
The prediction that increased temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans would lead to an increase in severe weather events?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
The prediction that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to the rapid acidification of the oceans which would interfere with calcite forming organisms and general reproductive biology?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
The prediction that increased temperatures would lead to increased melting at both poles and mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica, raising sea levels world wide?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
The prediction that increased temperatures would lead to distortions in seasonal timing affecting numerous predator-prey relationships and crop cycles?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
The prediction that fools like you would be willing to lie and deceive despite the irrationality and universally harmful results.  That, unfortunately, has also come to fruition.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2021)

Crick said:


> The prediction that human additions to the atmosphere's CO2 content would continue to increase from the burning of fossil fuels?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
> The prediction that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the Earth's temperature?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
> The prediction that increased temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans would lead to an increase in severe weather events?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
> The prediction that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to the rapid acidification of the oceans which would interfere with calcite forming organisms and general reproductive biology?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
> ...



Hey Crick, 

Did you ever explain how "Mike's Nature Trick" made the data more accurate?


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2021)

Crick said:


> The prediction that human additions to the atmosphere's CO2 content would continue to increase from the burning of fossil fuels?


That was never a "prediction", snowflake. Your comical predictions were shit like "New York City will be under water by 2015" and "the polar ice cap will be completely melted by 2014".

The fact that you're even lying about the predictions now shows that you know you got scammed, but your ego is too fragile to allow you to admit it.


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2021)

Crick said:


> The prediction that increased temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans would lead to an *increase in severe weather events*?


Oh yeah? Name one, lying dill-hole. Volcanoes erupted in Pompeii like 4,000 years before the first automobile or factory.

Tornadoes and hurricanes were happening while dinosaurs roamed the planet. Same with earthquakes.

You cannot point to a single weather-event that man hasn't seen before. Not one.


----------



## P@triot (May 23, 2021)

Crick said:


> The prediction that human additions to the atmosphere's CO2 content would continue to increase from the burning of fossil fuels?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.


And now we've come full-circle thanks to your pathological lying! Right back to the very first post which _owned_ you. Unlike your bullshit post there, every single one of these bullet points have links. Thanks for playing, Crick!

The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The *lies* have all been captured.

A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that 97.4% never materialized.

Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.” We made it.
In 2008, a segment aired on ABC News predicted that NYC would be under water by June 2015.
In 1970, ecologist Kenneth E.F. Watt predicted that “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had expanded over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)
On May 13th 2014 France’s foreign minister said that we only have 500 days to stop “climate chaos.” The recent Paris climate summit met 565 days after his remark.
In 2009, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Wassen warned that Obama only had four years left to save the earth.
On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75% and 80% of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
And another Earth Day prediction from Kenneth Watt: “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Top 10 Climate Change Predictions Gone Spectacularly Wrong; This Is EPIC!


----------



## Crick (May 24, 2021)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The prediction that human additions to the atmosphere's CO2 content would continue to increase from the burning of fossil fuels?  That, unfortunately, has come to fruition.
> ...


At the top of this post, you have a link that claims it will take us to "Nature Climate Change".  It does not.  It takes us to a 404 error at "The Western Journal".  That explains a great deal as Nature would never have published crap like this list.

Prediction like these are most often provided to indicate what can happen if we do not change some behavior or practice of ours.  If those things are changed, say, by the creation of the EPA, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, those predictions should not come true.  That you should think such statements refute AGW is simply evidence of your ignorance on science in general and global warming in particular.  To wit:

1) As you note, Paul Ehrlich was a biologist who had zero experience in climate science.  The prediction you mention here concerns population growth, not global warming.
2) Life magazine was never a science publication and, in 1970, air pollution WAS a real threat that was successfully addressed by the creation of the EPA (created 12/02/1970), The :Clean Air Act (signed 12/31/1970) and several other pieces of legislation
3) Al Gore is not a climate scientist and "total frying pan" is obviously hyperbole.
4) ABC News is not a science resource.  Sea level rise in 2008 reached an annual rate of 1 cm/year, much higher than its longer term averages.
5) Kenneth Watt, as you note, is an ecologist.  There was some evidence that temperatures were dropping in 1970 and the news media picked up on such stories, but there was never a scientific consensus supporting an imminent ice age.  That is why when you see this claim, it is almost always found in popular news publications and almost never found in peer reviewed science journals.
6) Again, Al Gore is not a climate scientist.  The North Pole has shrunk and IS headed for an ice-free summer.  The claim that it has expanded is cherry picked bullshit.
7) France's foreign minister is not a climate scientist.
8) The now-retired head of NASA's Goddard Center is named James Hansen.  Hansen's climate predictions from 1985 are famous for their accuracy, even after 35 years.
9) The sponsors of Earth Day.... Are you seeing the trend here?  You claim that climate scientists have made faulty predictions but then attempt to support your claim with shite like this.
10)  Kenneth Watt, ecologist.  Tell us Mr Patriot, how long is "...only a matter of time"?

So, you have no scientific predictions here, failed or otherwise.  You LIED when you claimed this list came from "Nature, Climate Change".  Very close to 100% of climate scientists accept AGW and agree that it is a threat that needs to be dealt with quickly and effectively.   Your arguments here are pathetic bullshit.


----------



## jc456 (May 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> The prediction you mention here concerns population growth, not global warming.


the fk it isn't about global warming.  reduce population was exactly about that.


----------



## jc456 (May 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


neither was Al Gore a climate scientist, did you listen to him?


----------



## Crick (May 24, 2021)

Poster P@triot has lied to us.  You still listen to him.  Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> Poster P@triot has lied to us.  You still listen to him.  Why?



Did you ever explain how "Mike's Nature Trick" made the data more accurate?


----------



## Crick (May 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Poster P@triot has lied to us.  You still listen to him.  Why?
> ...


Yes I did.  Did you miss it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I missed it.
Can you post your explanation again?


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> At the top of this post, you have a link that claims it will take us to "Nature Climate Change".  It does not.  It takes us to a 404 error at "The Western Journal".  That explains a great deal as Nature would never have published crap like this list.


Because - like almost all sites - they don’t keep every page they ever posted, up and available. But you already knew that. You’re just desperate to keep the scam you were duped into believing, going.

I saw the article on Nature Climate Change myself when it was first posted. It was 100% real and accurate. Thanks for playing.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> Prediction like these are most often provided to indicate what can happen if we do not change some behavior or practice of ours.


Bwahahaha! So what exactly did we do that prevented NYC from being under water in 2015 or the polar ice cap completely melting by 2014? 


Crick said:


> If those things are changed, say, by the creation of the EPA, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, those predictions should not come true.


Those were all in place 45 years before the predictions that have resulted in “Global Warming” being *proven* as a scam. Would you like to try again?

Your inability to provide even a _single_ example of something drastic we did to prevent any of those predictions from coming to fruition is duly noted.


Crick said:


> That you should think such statements refute AGW is simply evidence of your ignorance on science in general and global warming in particular.


So because I accept historical facts (the polar ice cap expanded, NYC isn’t under water), I’m “ignorant”. If that isn’t vintage left-wing “logic”, I don’t know what is!


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> 1) As you note, Paul Ehrlich was a biologist who had zero experience in climate science.  The prediction you mention here concerns population growth, not global warming.


Aaaand your point would be??? Hell, at least a Paul Ehrlich was in _some_ field of the sciences. Al Gore doesn’t even have that much on his resume and you left-wing lunatics push every lie he creates.

Because this one article so thoroughly defeats your lies, your best argument at this point is “you shouldn’t listen to the people on the left who made these predictions because they weren’t climate scientists”. 

Yeah, no shit. That’s the point of the entire thread! The left has unqualified idiots pushing pure bullshit 24x7.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> 6) Again, Al Gore is not a climate scientist.


And yet, you left-lunatics have made him your “Global Warming” messiah! Since he’s not a scientist, how come everyone on the left isn’t telling him to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up? Oh yeah, because he’s peddling the propaganda you guys need.


Crick said:


> The North Pole has shrunk and IS headed for an ice-free summer.  The claim that it has expanded is cherry picked bullshit.


Oh snowflake….it’s not a “claim”. It is a *fact* as proven by NASA satellites. Even left-wing NASA had no choice but to admit it. A 60% expansion (over 900,000 sq miles) is the complete opposite of what you liars “predicted”. No science could ever be that wrong. It’s literally impossible.


----------



## mamooth (May 28, 2021)

P@triot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 6) Again, Al Gore is not a climate scientist.
> ...



Don't project your side's tendency for hero-worship on to us. Gore isn't a scientist, so we don't talk about him.. Also don't project your weird sexual proclivities on to us. You clearly have a massive mancrush on the Gorebod. It's best not to speculate why.

Anyways, Gore Rule invoked. Any time some cultist invokes Gore, he forfeits the thread for his side. Those who can, they talk about the science. Those who can't, they run and deflect by raving about Gore. That's you doing that. Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including the USMB home game.



P@triot said:


> Oh snowflake….it’s not a “claim”. It is a *fact* as proven by NASA satellites. Even left-wing NASA had no choice but to admit it. A 60% expansion (over 900,000 sq miles) is the complete opposite of what you liars “predicted”. No science could ever be that wrong. It’s literally impossible.


This simple graphic illustrates how you're lying-by-cherrypicking.






Oh, one more thing.



> Because - like almost all sites - they don’t keep every page they ever posted, up and available. But you already knew that. You’re just desperate to keep the scam you were duped into believing, going.



Except your link doesn't even go to _Nature Climate Change_, which is a premier journal of peer-reviewed science. It goes to something called _The Western Journal_, which is a right-wing conspiracy website. Yet you claimed it went to the former. Lied, you did. No, _Nature Climate Change_ would not be posting a crazy gish gallop of crap. If you disagree, find the actual paper and post it. You made the claim, so it's up to you to back it up.

We all know what happened. Being that you're a brainless propaganda parrot, you blindly cut-and-paste something from a conspiracy website, and you didn't look at the links. You just _believed_. We also know you're a pouting manchild who can't admit to any mistake, so you won't admit to your mistake. Instead, you'll keep doubling down on your stupid, graduating it to deliberate dishonesty.

Please proceed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2021)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*This simple graphic illustrates how you're lying-by-cherrypicking.*

Why does your chart start in 1980?


----------



## mamooth (May 28, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why does your chart start in 1980?


Because 1979 is when the satellite record starts. I imagine they moved it to 1980 there just to be neat.

If you use different data types to go back furuther, you find that 1979 is not any sort of peak of a cycle. Ice decline was already on the way before that. The peak is more like 1960, and it's a pretty minor one compared to previous years.









						Nueva serie de extensión del hielo marino ártico en septiembre entre 1935 y 2014
					

(english version here) Acabamos de publicar en la Revista de Climatología (ISSN 1578-8768)  el artículo «Nueva serie de extensión del hielo marino ártico en septiembre entre 1935 y 2014»: – D…




					diablobanquisa.wordpress.com
				










So, if you're asking, no, I'm not cherrypicking.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why does your chart start in 1980?
> ...



* The peak is more like 1960, and it's a pretty minor one compared to previous years.*

What about 1860? 1760?


----------



## mamooth (May 28, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What about 1860? 1760?


I'm not interested in your games. If you have a point to make, then state it directly.


----------



## P@triot (May 28, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Don't project your side's tendency for hero-worship on to us. Gore isn't a scientist, so we don't talk about him..


Bwahahaha! Watching you try to distance yourself from your messiah is fuck'n _priceless_.

He flies in a private jet (giving off unimaginable C02 emissions) all over the world to tell us how the left has anointed him as the official spokesperson of the "Global Warming" scam.

And not a one of you stood up to deny it. Well, at least not until I owned your ass with this thread


----------



## P@triot (May 28, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Anyways, Gore Rule invoked. Any time *some cultist invokes Gore*, he forfeits the thread for his side. Those who can, they talk about the science. Those who can't, they run and *deflect by raving about Gore*.


Mammaries is openly admitting that the left *lies* to us, and thus we shouldn't believe them about anything (_especially_ the "Global Warming" scam), but he was too dumb to realize it so I had to point it out to him


----------



## P@triot (May 28, 2021)

mamooth said:


> No, _Nature Climate Change_ would not be posting a crazy gish gallop of crap.


Bwahahaha! It was there snowflake. We all saw it. You saw it too when it was originally posted (but you're just too dumb to remember it).

It's ok, Mammaries. If you were intelligent enough to remember beyond yesterday, you'd be a conservative


----------



## P@triot (May 28, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > This simple graphic illustrates how you're lying-by-cherrypicking.
> ...


You have to remember, Toddsterpatriot - simpletons are easily duped by simple graphics.

See Mammaries, you're trying to backpedal on the issue. We were told it would be completely melted by 2015. That's the issue. That's the discussion.

And what happened? By the end of 2014, it had expanded an astounding 60% (over 900,000 sq. miles). Proof that you were *lied* to.


----------



## basquebromance (May 28, 2021)

the rise of wind and solar during the Obama years, after decades of promise, was one of many of the Obama presidency succeses. Obama's energy record is one of promises made and kept with remarkable constintency. it is a demonstration of the value of persistent effort and measured risk-taking in the pursuit of a long-standing national goal

dealing with climate change or personally conserving energy is a sign of personal virtue of a citizen but not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.

here's that policy in summary: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

the nation that leads the clean energy economy is the one that will lead the global economy. if Trump doesn't recognize that, America will fall behind, my friends!

this whole climate change thing is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity, to steal humanity's wealth. my friends, as long as God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that the cold and heat would never cease as long as earth remains.

here's what we're gonna do, my friends. Trump needs to LIE to americans, and persuade them with narratives, like a novel, instead of data. my friends: a compelling story, even if it is a lie, can be more emotionally compelling than the dry recitation of truth.


----------



## P@triot (May 29, 2021)

basquebromance said:


> the rise of wind and solar during the Obama years, after decades of promise, was one of many of the Obama presidency succeses.


What exactly did it "succeed" in? Driving up energy costs? True, but is that something to be proud about? Limiting energy output and capacity? True again. But again, is that something to be proud about?


basquebromance said:


> Obama's energy record is one of promises made and kept with remarkable constintency. it is a demonstration of the value of persistent effort and measured risk-taking in the pursuit of a long-standing national goal


What exactly is "risky" about subsidizing a failed pursuit to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars?

I guarantee that your dumb ass doesn't know that Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House in the late 1970's. Almost 50 fucking years later, and many trillions of federal government dollars, and it is _still_ *not* a viable solution on any level.


basquebromance said:


> he nation that leads the clean energy economy is the one that will lead the global economy. if Trump doesn't recognize that, America will fall behind, my friends!


Uh...*President Trump's* policies (of "drill baby, drill") not only produced an abundance of powerful, affordable energy for US citizens, but it made the United States #1 in the world in oil and natural gas production.

Facts matter. You're devoid of them. Have a seat, clown.


----------



## mamooth (May 29, 2021)

P@triot said:


> See Mammaries, you're trying to backpedal on the issue. We were told it would be completely melted by 2015.


No we weren't. You're just lying outright, because you lie more readily than normal humans breathe. 

You can show you're not lying, of course. Just show such a prediction in any IPCC work prior to 2015. We'll wait.

Remember, you lying about us only makes you look bad. If you could back up your cult propaganda, you wouldn't have to lie constantly. But you can't, so you do.


----------



## mamooth (May 29, 2021)

P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > No, _Nature Climate Change_ would not be posting a crazy gish gallop of crap.
> ...


You. Are. Lying.



P@triot said:


> You saw it too when it was originally posted (but you're just too dumb to remember it).


You. Are. Lying.

And everyone knows it

You linked to a kook right conspiracy blog, and claimed it was a link to _Nature Climate Change_. Outright lie on your part.

And you can't show us where this article supposedly published is in _Nature Climate Change_. You have _nothing_ to back up your BS, because it was just something your kook blog made up.

It's exactly as a I said. You're a brainless cult parrot who copied something from a conspiracy blog without verifying it. Because you're a particularly gutless pussy, you refuse to own up to any mistake, so you're doubling down on your stupid now. That escalates your sleaze from stupidity to deliberate dishonesty.



P@triot said:


> It's ok, Mammaries. If you were intelligent enough to remember beyond yesterday, you'd be a conservative


Since you lied about this and have no remorse for doing so, it's a given that you'll lie about anything. So why should anyone talk to you? You're just going to lie back at them.


----------



## P@triot (May 29, 2021)

Folks...I want you to note how dishonest Mammaries operates. First he lies about a well-known issue, and follows that up with accusing me of lying.


mamooth said:


> No we weren't. You're just lying outright, because you lie more readily than normal humans breathe.


No here is where things get interesting. In sentence one he infers I have no proof. However, he knows that I have proof. I've already posted it. It is indisputable. So immediately attempts to slip in a condition (in this case, the "IPCC"):


mamooth said:


> You can show you're not lying, of course. Just show such a prediction in any *IPCC* work prior to 2015. We'll wait.


Notice how she slips in the condition there (because she knows she is wrong)? I never made any claim about the IPCC. Everything I've posted as been 100% accurate, backed with indisputable links.

And this is where little boobs/little brains Mammaries loses her shit. See, I've allowed her to paint herself into a corner: since _every_ claim they've ever made has *never* come to fruition - she either has to admit that "Global Warming" was a scam designed to funnel power and money to the left, or she has to admit that the left is a bunch of liars who we shouldn't listen to (which means even if "Global Warming" were real, we should reject the lying left's claims about it and policies for it).

Catch-22. Mic-drop.


----------



## P@triot (May 29, 2021)

mamooth said:


> So why should anyone talk to you? You're just going to lie back at them.


For the same reason you do. I fill this board with 100% *fact*. That's why you keep coming back. You're terrified that people will become informed/enlightened by the links to articles which expose the bullshit you peddle.


----------



## P@triot (May 29, 2021)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > See Mammaries, you're trying to backpedal on the issue. We were told it would be completelymelted by 2015.
> ...


Oh...this one is really going to sting, small boobs/small brains Mammaries. This is from hard-left, propaganda site "Fact Check". You are soooo _fucked_ now. 


> *While Gore attributed these predictions to scientists*


See, left-wing Dumbocrat Al Gore has gone around the world claiming he is quoting scientists (as has Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, AOC, and many others). So either the "science" was fake, or the left *lies* to us (in which case we should never listen to them). Which one is it, Mammaries? We'll let you decide for all of us, because it doesn't make a difference to us either way! 








						Did Al Gore Predict Earth's Ice Caps Would Melt by 2014?
					

In the late 2000s, the former U.S. Vice President sometimes inaccurately represented studies that predicted the timeline for an ice-free Arctic.




					www.snopes.com


----------



## mamooth (May 30, 2021)

P@triot said:


> Folks...I want you to note how dishonest Mammaries operates.


Mmm. So tasty. Butthurt commie losers cry the most delicious tears.



P@triot said:


> No here is where things get interesting. In sentence one he infers I have no proof. However, he knows that I have proof. I've already posted it.


Suuure you have. Just like your Gish Gallop of crap came from _Nature Climate Science_. That's a topic that you no longer want to discuss, which happens every time you get busted for fraud.



P@triot said:


> Notice how she slips in the condition there (because she knows she is wrong)? I never made any claim about the IPCC. Everything I've posted as been 100% accurate, backed with indisputable links.


That's your trump card, telling the big lie that Gore represents all climate science? You are flailing. 

Can you even remember what you were originally crying about? I suppose it doesn't matter. For you, finding reasons to cry is the goal.

For me, the goal is smacking Trump cult commie sore-loser traitors and other domestic enemies of the USA. Obviosly, based on the quantity of tears I'm seeing here, I'm doing it well. Now, run back and ask Putin or your handlers how to respond to that.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Mmm. So tasty. Butthurt...


Is Mammaries calling butts delicious?


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2021)

Hahahaha!! Oh mamooth!! Hahahaha!! Taking screen shots so that when you try to deny this one because the link no longer works, I’ll be able to humiliate you all over again (as I _always_ do)!!








						Climate scientist admits key climate change metric is just something experts 'chose': 'Symbolic marker'
					

Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.What is the background?The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report in 2018...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2021)

P@triot said:


> Hahahaha!! Oh mamooth]!! Hahahaha!!


Are you okay? You sound hysterical. That is, craving my attention even more than usual.



P@triot said:


> Taking screen shots so that when you try to deny this one because the link no longer works, I’ll be able to humiliate you all over again (as I _always_ do)!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As usual, you're not making any sense. Why did you and your crank loser conspiracy blog think the article revealed something bad about climate science? Scientists chose 1.5C as one benchmark to list what bad things would happen at that point. Would you have been happier if they chose 1.6C and then explained how things would be a little worse? Of course choosing 1.5C was arbitrarry. Any choice is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean making a choice is bad.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Of course choosing 1.5C was arbitrarry. Any choice is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean making a choice is bad.


Science *isn’t* “arbitrary”, princess. Science - real/actual science - is _precise_. This literally proves that “Global Warming” is a hoax.


> Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.


“Not rooted in provable science”. That summarizes the entire “Global Warming” hoax!


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2021)

Watching this guy work so hard to deny reality is equal parts funny and disturbing:


mamooth said:


> Scientists chose 1.5C as one benchmark to list what bad things would happen at that point.


Note the propaganda there? The climate scientist quoted in this article did not say “we picked this as a benchmark to list what bad things would happen at that point”. Here is what he actually said, word-for-word:


> Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.


See they cannot link any “list of what bad things would happen at that point” because they have no provable science of what will occur with a 1.5° change


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What about 1860? 1760?
> ...


his point was made and you are the fool.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2021)

P@triot said:


> Watching this guy work so hard to deny reality is equal parts funny and disturbing:
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> ...


they need the bartender and high school child to sing loudly we're gonna die!!!!!!!

Cause them two there, they are the cat's meow to a demofk.  can't make it up either.  it's so hilarious,

What's further funny, is they scream at us scientists, believe the scientists, from those who believe a bartender and high school child.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2021)

P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Of course choosing 1.5C was arbitrarry. Any choice is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean making a choice is bad.
> ...


No it doesn't. Not even remotely. You're just raving like a kook now. I mean, even moreso than usual. Do you even understand what you parrot? Probably not.

To show you understand, explain, in your own words, why scientists using round numbers like 1.5 or 2.0 to illustrate shows that global warming is a hoax. If they had used 1.6343 or 1.7601 instead, would that have proved it wasn't a hoax?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2021)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


arbitrary is not rounding up.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2021)

mamooth said:


> You're just raving like a kook now.


Watching you try to deny what even the scientists now admit is _priceless_. You’re going to ride that “Global Warming” *lie* to your grave. I guess your very fragile ego feels just too invested in the lie at the point to abandon it.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2021)

mamooth said:


> To show you understand, explain, in your own words, why scientists using round numbers like 1.5 or 2.0 to illustrate shows that global warming is a hoax.


Because they admitted that the “claims” of what will happen at that temperature is not even remotely rooted in science. It was all 100% made up.


> Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.


Watching you argue “the sky isn’t blue and the sun isn’t hot” is just entertainment at this point.








						Climate scientist admits key climate change metric is just something experts 'chose': 'Symbolic marker'
					

Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.What is the background?The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report in 2018...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot (Jun 3, 2021)

Imagine how wonderful our world would be if the left wasn’t so damn ignorant and submissive. If they would just question power and use an ounce of critical thinking, we would have more liberty, less pollution, more prosperity, etc.








						Are Electric Cars Really Green? | PragerU
					

Are electric cars greener than conventional gasoline cars? If so, how much greener? What about the CO2 emissions produced during electric cars' production?…




					www.prageru.com


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2021)

P@triot said:


> Because they admitted that the “claims” of what will happen at that temperature is not even remotely rooted in science. It was all 100% made up.



No, they didn't. Your claim there is 100% made up.

Remember, your inability to read and understand simple English only reflects badly on you. 

Now, what else did your masters tell you to say today? Run and check.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2021)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Because they admitted that the “claims” of what will happen at that temperature is not even remotely rooted in science. It was all 100% made up.
> ...


except



P@triot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > To show you understand, explain, in your own words, why scientists using round numbers like 1.5 or 2.0 to illustrate shows that global warming is a hoax.
> ...


----------



## P@triot (Jun 3, 2021)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Because they admitted that the “claims” of what will happen at that temperature is not even remotely rooted in science. It was all 100% made up.
> ...


Hahahaha! Mammaries...I know you think that pretending that reality isn't real is having some affect, but I assure you, it's not. The more you argue this, the more we get to bring to light the fact that the "Global Warming" scam was exposed.


> Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.


Which part of "*not rooted in provable science*" do you not understand? 








						Climate scientist admits key climate change metric is just something experts 'chose': 'Symbolic marker'
					

Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.What is the background?The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report in 2018...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot (Jun 3, 2021)

mamooth said:


> No, they didn't. Your claim there is 100% made up.


I'm not going to lie...watching you seethe over and over because I continue to bend you over my knee and discipline you with facts really does bring me joy.

You were conditioned to believe a failed ideology and because of that, you're committed to that failed ideology to the bitter end, facts and reality be damned.

Your frustration/aggravation/desperation is _palpable_...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2021)

P@triot said:


> I'm not going to lie...


Of course you are. After all, you keep doing it, over and over. The dude said nothing like your article claimed. You keep quoting what your conspiracy cult article claimed, instead of what the guy arctually said.

So, the usual question applies. Are you being deliberately dishonest, or are you just a cult imbecile?



> watching you seethe over and over because I continue to bend you over my knee and discipline you with facts really does bring me joy.



Your butthurt is boring. Do you think you're the first whiny pussy I've had pout-stalking me? Please try to come up with something more original. Put some effort into your butthurt, instead of just phoning it in.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Do you think you're the first whiny pussy I've had pout-stalking me?


#TheSeethingIsReal 

Even the scientists are admitting it was all made up. This is a terrible hill for you to die on. But man is it priceless for the rest of us!


----------



## DudleySmith (Jun 4, 2021)

Steven Koonin's book is out, and gives a detailed analysis of how the climate change scammers have massaged and lied about the data. It's so good the commies began smearing him without ever actually refuting anything he reported, a month before it was even going to hit the shelves.


Biography​
* Dr. Steven E. Koonin is a University Professor at New York University, with appointments in the Stern School of Business, the Tandon School of Engineering, and the Department of Physics. He founded NYU’s Center for Urban Science and Progress, which focuses research and education on the acquisition, integration, and analysis of big data for big cities.

Dr. Koonin served as Undersecretary for Science in the US Department of Energy under President Obama from 2009 to 2011, where his portfolio included the climate research program and energy technology strategy. He was the lead author of the US Department of Energy’s Strategic Plan (2011) and the inaugural Department of Energy Quadrennial Technology Review (2011). Before joining the government, Dr. Koonin spent five years as Chief Scientist for BP, researching renewable energy options to move the company “beyond petroleum.”

For almost thirty years, Dr. Koonin was a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech. He also served for nine years as Caltech’s Vice President and Provost, facilitating the research of more than 300 scientists and engineers and catalyzing the development of the world’s largest optical telescope, as well as research initiatives in computational science, bioengineering, and the biological sciences.*

*In addition to the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Koonin’s memberships include the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and JASON, the group of scientists who solve technical problems for the US government; he served as JASON’s chair for six years. He chaired the National Academies’ Divisional Committee for Engineering and Physical Sciences from 2014 to 2019, and since 2014 has been a trustee of the Institute for Defense Analyses. He is currently an independent governor of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and has served in similar roles for the Los Alamos, Sandia, Brookhaven, and Argonne National Laboratories. He is a member of Governor Cuomo’s Blue Ribbon Commission to Reimagine New York in the post-COVID-19 era.

Dr. Koonin has a BS in Physics from Caltech and a PhD in Theoretical Physics from MIT. He is an award-winning classroom teacher and his public lectures are noted for their clarity in conveying complex subjects. He is the author of the classic 1985 textbook Computational Physics, which introduced methodology for building computer models of complex physical systems. He has published some 200 peer-reviewed papers in the fields of physics and astrophysics, scientific computation, energy technology and policy, and climate science, and has been the lead author on multiple book-length reports, including two National Academies studies.

Through a series of articles and lectures that began in 2014, Dr. Koonin has advocated for a more accurate, complete, and transparent public representation of climate and energy matters.*

From the reviews:




J. A May
_5.0 out of 5 stars_        An important book on climate change by a famous physicist
Reviewed in the United States on May 4, 2021

      "   Koonin explains the sorry state of climate science today. What the IPCC and U.S. government tell us about climate science is usually true, but in their effort “to persuade, rather than inform,” they leave out what doesn’t fit their narrative. They tell us enough to be alarmed, not enough to educate. It is this loss of scientific integrity that is alarming, not the climate.

*Much of the book is spent dispelling the myth that extreme weather events are increasing due to human-caused climate change. He relates that heat waves are not more common today than they were in 1900, tornados are not trending up, nor are droughts, hurricanes or flooding. Koonin criticizes the media for claiming that extreme weather is somehow related to human activities, when there is no evidence to support this.*

Koonin was President Obama’s Under Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy. Later in 2020, Obama declared we are in an “epistemological crisis.” Whether we agree with Obama on the issues or not, we agree that the U.S. is in a crisis with respect to truth and knowledge. Science is all about determining the truth in an objective and reproducible way. One’s feelings don’t matter, excuses don’t matter, consensus opinions don’t matter, what you call it (“global warming” or “climate change”) doesn’t matter, only what you present that can be reproduced independently matters. Unsettled is about getting science back on track, scientists should report what they know, what they don’t know, what they modeled, and what they observed. Nothing more, nothing less. "

Bold added by me. The left has less than zero credibility on any of this. Biden's 'initiatves' are nothing but scams to subsidize fake companies and embezzle Federal funds.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 5, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> "Koonin explains the sorry state of climate science today. What the IPCC and U.S. government tell us about climate science is usually true, but in their effort “to persuade, rather than inform,” they leave out what doesn’t fit their narrative. They tell us enough to be alarmed, not enough to educate. It is this loss of scientific integrity that is alarming, not the climate.
> 
> *Much of the book is spent dispelling the myth that extreme weather events are increasing due to human-caused climate change. He relates that heat waves are not more common today than they were in 1900, tornados are not trending up, nor are droughts, hurricanes or flooding. Koonin criticizes the media for claiming that extreme weather is somehow related to human activities, when there is no evidence to support this.*


Hey mamooth - you're pretty damn quite over there about these indisputable *facts*!

You were duped, sweetie. Perhaps next time you'll be a little more skeptical and engage in some actual critical thinking for yourself. But sadly, probably not.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 7, 2021)

P@triot said:


> Hey mamooth - you're pretty damn quite over there about these indisputable *facts*!



What facts? Koonin is just another denier shill who lies for money.

If you'd like to discuss any of his specific claims, feel free. Pick one.

You won't, of course. You're not capable of honest discussion.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 7, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Koonin is just another denier shill who lies for money.


Mammaries: “Scientists should be listened to at all costs, no matter what”

Also Mammaries: “*Dr. *Koonin - who has a *BS in Physics* from Caltech and a *PhD in Theoretical Physics from MIT* - is just a denier shill who lies for money”

Mammaries…he earned a fucking PhD from MIT. The faux “scientists” who have duped you couldn’t do that if they all worked together


----------



## DudleySmith (Jun 8, 2021)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Hey mamooth - you're pretty damn quite over there about these indisputable *facts*!
> ...


I could care less what you and your ilk think about anything, I posted the recommendation for the book for the benefit of lurkers, not because I give a shit what commies think. You aren't here to actually debate anything, just shill for your Commissars. And, the guy is not a 'Denier', whatever that is, he's a scientist who worked on the projects under the Obama administration, unlike you, who merely parrots what a collection of media hacks who aren't scientists tell you to.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 8, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> I could care less what you and your ilk think about anything, I posted the recommendation for the book for the benefit of lurkers,


Got it. You're not even pretending you can debate the issues. You're just a parrot.



DudleySmith said:


> not because I give a shit what commies think. You aren't here to actually debate anything,


Yet I'm the one who just asked you to debate the issue, and you're one who refused.

And Koonan isn't a climate scientist. I am more qualified to talk about climate science than he is, so your argument-from-authority faceplants.

Since you're so big on the "BUT... BUT... I HAD A LINK!" thing, let me give you some links refuting Koonan's garbage. You won't read them, of course, because your cult forbids you from looking at non-cult sources.









						Dissecting 'Unsettled,' a Skeptical Physicist’s Book About Climate Science - Inside Climate News
					

Physicist Steven Koonin, a former BP chief scientist and Obama administration energy official,  seeks to downplay climate change risk in his new book, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t and Why it Matters.” His critics say he often draws general conclusions from specific...




					insideclimatenews.org
				












						A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong
					

In Unsettled, Steven Koonin deploys that highly misleading label to falsely suggest that we don’t understand the risks well enough to take action




					www.scientificamerican.com
				












						Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ’Unsettled’
					

Scientists who reviewed the article found that it builds on a collection of misleading and false claims. For instance, Koonin states that “Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago”. Contrary to the claim, scientific studies using airborne and...




					climatefeedback.org
				






			https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.5.8217/full/
		




			https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/06/koonins-case-for-yet-another-review-of-climate-science/
		










						Kooninisms
					

Gavin Schmidt has a Realclimate post about a recent talk given by Steve Koonin. Somewhat bizarrely, Koonin has a response to Gavin’s post that he has posted on WUWT. Given that Koonin has no …




					andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com
				




Obviously, my offer still stands, if you want to debate any of Koonan's issues here. And just as obviously, you won't, because you can't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2021)

mamooth said:


> And Koonan isn't a climate scientist. I am more qualified to talk about climate science than he is, so your argument-from-authority faceplants.



Why? What are your qualifications?


----------



## DudleySmith (Jun 9, 2021)

mamooth said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> > I could care less what you and your ilk think about anything, I posted the recommendation for the book for the benefit of lurkers,
> ...


lol you're a running  joke; your hero Obama thought he was a real scientist, tard. And no, you can't debate the issue at all, because all you got is noise from other stupid ignorant ass clowns who are clueless about empiricism and science.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jun 9, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > And Koonan isn't a climate scientist. I am more qualified to talk about climate science than he is, so your argument-from-authority faceplants.
> ...



A note from his Mom.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 9, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> lol you're a running  joke; your hero Obama thought he was a real scientist, tard.



On energy matters, dumbass, not climate. Koonin had and has no climate science experience.

Obviously, you didn't know that. Like the rest of your herd, you can only bleat what the cult tells you to bleat.

Basically, Koonin let money and ideology handicap him. He would only selectively look at info that confirmed his ideological bias. I am not so handicapped. I look at all the info, especially denier info. That puts me way ahead of him. I don't deliberately cherrypick, so my output is superior.



DudleySmith said:


> And no, you can't debate the issue at all, because all you got is noise from other stupid ignorant ass clowns who are clueless about empiricism and science.


Yet you're the one who wets himself and runs each time I challenge you to debate specific issues.

Don't worry. You're not the most gutless cult loser I've ever encountered. You'd have to spend years crying and running to earn that title. But who knows, if you keep working at it, you might rise into the top ten.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jun 9, 2021)

mamooth said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> > lol you're a running  joke; your hero Obama thought he was a real scientist, tard.
> ...



This from a tard whose 'climate change' Prez is running around buying a big giant beach house on an island while his stupid dope addled fans make idiots out of themselves over fake 'science' and 'disappearing polar ice caps' and other rubbish; clearly Obama isn't the least worried about his own bullshit. Not one of your links refuted anything Koonin has said, but you morons lack the brains to notice that fun fact. You can't debate anything, you're just another halfwit with high self-esteem and parroting 'talking points' exploded long ago, multiple times already, like the shills you are. Get a new shtick, dumbass.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 9, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> This from a tard whose 'climate change' Prez is running around buying a big giant house on an island while his stupid dope addled fans make idiots out of themselves over fake science'.


I keep asking you to debate the science, and you keep deflecting with these weird butthurt political rants.



DudleySmith said:


> Not one of your links refuted anything Koonin has said,


Hey, maybe we're getting somewhere. So which of Koonin's supposed points would you like to discuss specifically? Since you claim to have read the rebuttals and you say that you know why they're wrong, this is your big chance to display that knowledge.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2021)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to lie...
> ...


again, why didn't you just quote the piece that backs your desperation?


----------



## DudleySmith (Jun 12, 2021)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Because it doesn't exist; he knows his stupid claims aren't supported by science and thinks that because it all flies in the left wing echo chambers it's supposed to fly everywhere else, and has tantrums when anybody points out he's a moron and doesn't know squat.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 12, 2021)

P@triot said:


> The indisputable evidence that "Global Warming" is a scam literally piles up to the heavens now. Each one is a bigger bombshell than the previous one. The truth always comes out in the end...
> 
> 
> > A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician claims to reveal that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets after temperatures were recorded, calling into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.
> ...


AGW is Bernie Madoff posing as science


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 12, 2021)

Co2 in the Ordovician period, about 500 million years ago, varied between 3,000ppm to 8,000ppm. The average temp then was approx 10c above today's level.

The reason why the vast majority of climate predictions do not materialize, is because the climate is a very complex system. Alarmists climate theory of "co2 = end of the world" is far too simplistic.

So the emphasis has moved away from predictions to what's just happens is Man Made Climate Change (MMCC). So climate alarmists claim that when the rain is heavy, "That's mmcc". Yesterday was a little colder than usual, "That's mmcc". The sky was purple last week, "That's mmcc". But ask for a prediction..........silence.

Edit - my degree, many a moon ago, is in geology.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 12, 2021)

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Hey mamooth - you're pretty damn quite over there about these indisputable *facts*!
> ...



Thank you for conceding that you have no answer to the book you never read, when will you ever tone down your prejudice?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 12, 2021)

Mamooth writes this howler at post 739:

"...And Koonan isn't a climate scientist. I am more qualified to talk about climate science than he is, so your argument-from-authority faceplants.

Since you're so big on the "BUT... BUT... I HAD A LINK!" thing, let me give you some links refuting Koonan's garbage. You won't read them, of course, because your cult forbids you from looking at non-cult sources."

You have more than this?



> *Dr. *Koonin - who has a *BS in Physics* from Caltech and a *PhD in Theoretical Physics from MIT*



Yet YOU who claim you are more qualified than him, *yet instead of saying it in your own words* post sources from the following: Inside Climate News (blog), Scientific American (blog) and Climate feedback (blog) which indicate YOU can't address Koonans alleged errors on your own, reason why I feel confident in calling you a liar.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jun 12, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Mamooth writes this howler at post 739:
> 
> "...And Koonan isn't a climate scientist. I am more qualified to talk about climate science than he is, so your argument-from-authority faceplants.
> 
> ...


Koonin's critics never actually refute what he says, they just post innuendo and try to create the illusion they're 'refuting' something without every actually addressing his specific criticisms of their  methodologies. It's the same dishonest lying they use in all their other 'scientific' claims such as all their idiotic rubbish about homosexuality and phony sociological nonsense about black cultural dysfunction.

Koonin didn't make any errors in his premises; they were about pointing out the lies about the facts re the data collected and then used to purvey false information and conclusions to fir a political agenda. This ass clown Mamooth has zero clue what Koonin is exposing.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 14, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Mamooth writes this howler at post 739:
> 
> "...And Koonan isn't a climate scientist. I am more qualified to talk about climate science than he is, so your argument-from-authority faceplants.


Got it. I told the simple truth, so you're triggered hard.

Why?

First, cult fanatics despise simple truth.

Second, you rely almost entirely on argument-from-authority fallacies. You know you're helpless if you can't use such fallacies, so you react with rage when I do shoot down such fallacies.


Sunsettommy said:


> Yet YOU who claim you are more qualified than him,


And I explained why. I look at all the data, he dishonestly cherrypicks (as do you), which makes me better.

My challenge goes oiut to you as well. Pick a single topic that you think Koonan had some stellar insights into, and discuss it in your own words.

You won't, of course. You're not capable of it. Like your denier pals here, you're fundamentally gutless. All you can do is parrot cult talking points.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 14, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Koonin's critics


Koonan's critics are slapping around the cowardly deniers with particular ease. Come on, at least make it a challenge.

Over and over, I challenge you pajama bois to actually discuss the issues. Over and over, you all have sobbing meltdowns about how mean I am for pointing out that you all refuse to debate.

My offer to debate still stands. Pick a topic that you think Koonan is right about, explain it in your own words, and we'll debate it.

You can continue  running now.


----------



## ding (Jun 14, 2021)

mamooth said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> > Koonin's critics
> ...


Ok, let's debate the fact that we are in the middle of an ice age and our present temperature and sea level are below the peaks of previous interglacial cycles.

Go.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 19, 2021)

Psst...Mammaries...if Kamala Harris and Al Gore _actually_ believed that "Global Warming" was going to kill their children, they wouldn't hop on a private jet 17x's per day. They are laughing their ass off at you as the pop the cork on their $4,000 bottle of Cristal. Your ignorance made it all possible for them.








						'The irony is unreal': Video shows VP Kamala Harris walking toward airplane so she can jet over to Nevada to talk about the 'climate crisis'
					

As the Biden administration peddles climate alarmism and pushes for the U.S. and the world to act to combat the "crisis," many people noted the potent irony of a tweet on Vice President Kamala Harris's feed that featured a video of Harris preparing to board an airplane so that she could fly to...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Koonan's critics are slapping around the cowardly deniers with particular ease. Come on, at least make it a challenge.


Guam


----------



## DudleySmith (Oct 20, 2021)

P@triot said:


> Psst...Mammaries...if Kamala Harris and Al Gore _actually_ believed that "Global Warming" was going to kill their children, they wouldn't hop on a private jet 17x's per day. They are laughing their ass off at you as the pop the cork on their $4,000 bottle of Cristal. Your ignorance made it all possible for them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obama's new house:






Clearly he knew he was lying his ass off when he ran around babbling GW.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 22, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Obama's new house:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bingo!! If you _actually_ believe that "sea levels are rising", you *don't* buy a multi-million dollar ocean-front property. Not a chance in hell. It's indisputable proof that Obama knows this is all a fucking scam.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 22, 2021)

Global Warming is a scam and everyone with an ounce of common sense knows it.


> In reality, electric vehicles and other zero-emission cars accounted for only 2% of car sales in 2019 and tax credits have *disproportionately benefitted corporations and wealthy Americans living in California*.
> 
> California is home to 42% of electric vehicles—perhaps unsurprising as the state is banning the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles starting in 2035 as part of its radical climate agenda.


It started off as a way to make Al Gore and his pals multi-billionaires (mission accomplished). Once they realized just how mindless their minions are, and thus how easy the are to dupe, it became clear to them that it could also be leveraged for power and to prop-up the failure of progressive policy.








						Proposed Electric Vehicle Tax Credits Benefit Unions—Not Environment
					

President Joe Biden wants to micromanage the economy by using the tax code to subsidize electronic vehicles.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Ringo (Oct 22, 2021)

The decline of Europe...
"...study found that 6 per cent of parents confessed to feeling remorse about having had children. One 40-year-old mother said she regretted having her kids ‘because I am terrified that they will be facing the end of the world due to climate change’...








						Having a child is the grandest act of climate destruction
					

About four years ago, my wife and I, who are both in our thirties, briefly thought we were having a baby. For the next few nights my dreams were of nuclear flashes lighting up the sky, of the earth cracking open and of waves lapping at the front door. Humans are swiftly making the planet […]




					www.spectator.co.uk


----------



## P@triot (Oct 25, 2021)

Ringo said:


> One 40-year-old mother said she regretted having her kids ‘because I am terrified that they will be facing the end of the world due to climate change’...


That is _hilarious_. Typical European dolt.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 25, 2021)

Steve Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science in the Obama Administration. Facts Matter. “Global Warming” is a scam.








						Is There Really a Climate Emergency? | PragerU
					

The climate is the most complex system on Earth. Is it really possible to project with any precision what it will be like 20, 40, or even 100 years from now?…




					www.prageru.com


----------



## P@triot (Oct 26, 2021)

Still think “Global Warming” is “real”? 








						EXCLUSIVE: Al Gore’s Home Devours 34 Times More Electricity Than Average U.S. Household
					

The former vice president hypocritically calls for Americans to reduce energy consumption in new film.




					dailycaller.com


----------



## P@triot (Oct 28, 2021)

Bwahahaha!! Everyone is waking up to the fact that “Global Warming” is a scam.








						Greenpeace co-founder joins climate change skeptics
					

Polar bears would not exist today without climate change, and they may even be thriving because of current climate trends. That's what the co-founder of Greenpeace told scientists, economists, and academics who took part in an international conference challenging alarmist claims about global…




					www.washingtonexaminer.com


----------



## P@triot (Nov 3, 2021)




----------



## Stryder50 (Nov 3, 2021)

First, we need to distinguish between Natural climate change versus human-caused/anthropogenic climate change.  The latter is unproven and a scam, the former is an ever ongoing process.

Here's a couple of examples of the distortions and propaganda being put out recently;
Beware: Gaia may destroy humans before we destroy the Earth​


			Beware: Gaia may destroy humans before we destroy the Earth
		

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The science everyone needs to know about climate change, in 6 charts​




__





						The science everyone needs to know about climate change, in 6 charts
					





					www.msn.com
				



^^^ Rather distorted science, almost non-science.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 21, 2021)

So all of the first that the left screamed was “evidence” of “Global Warming” were fires intentionally set by a liberal college professor.








						Ex-college professor charged with setting California fires
					

A federal grand jury has indicted a former college professor for allegedly starting four wildfires in Northern California that threatened to trap firefighters as they battled a massive fire nearby




					abcnews.go.com


----------



## P@triot (Nov 30, 2021)

We all knew that the “Global Warming” *scam* had nothing to do with California fires. Anyone with the smallest ounce of common sense knew it. Unfortunately, the left lacks common sense and are easily so duped.








						Photographer Who Captured Migrant Photos Says Whips Weren't Used By Agents
					

"Some of the Haitian men started running, trying to go around the horses. I've never seen them whip anyone," said the photographer.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2021)

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Against this we have a bunch of fruitloops on an anonymous message board claiming that all these scientists don't know a thing about what they studied and researched for decades. Oh, who to believe? LOL


----------



## P@triot (Mar 28, 2022)

Facts matter. The so-called "green energy" industry is far more detrimental to the planet (and just flat-out impractical).








						How Much Energy Will the World Need? | PragerU
					

Are we heading toward an all-renewable energy future, spearheaded by wind and solar? Or are those energy sources wholly inadequate for the task? Mark Mills,…




					www.prageru.com


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 28, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Against this we have a bunch of fruitloops on an anonymous message board claiming that all these scientists don't know a thing about what they studied and researched for decades. Oh, who to believe? LOL



Get over it climate gook your consensus obsession makes clear you are an idiot!

You have been told of many examples of consensus FAILURES of past centuries yet you persist because that is all you can run on while hard evidence of the AGW failure is abundant.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Against this we have a bunch of fruitloops on an anonymous message board claiming that all these scientists don't know a thing about what they studied and researched for decades. Oh, who to believe? LOL


just explain how one day here in Chitown it's 65 degrees and the next day it's 19 degrees with the same sun shining?  Please, I'm all eyes.


----------



## ReinyDays (Mar 28, 2022)

P@triot said:


> Facts matter. The so-called "green energy" industry is far more detrimental to the planet (and just flat-out impractical).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You think my clothes line in my backyard is worse for the environment than my electric clothes dryer? ...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 28, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> You think my clothes line in my backyard is worse for the environment than my electric clothes dryer? ...



Well at least the odors from your drying clothes will kill flies and mosquitos?


----------



## Ringo (Mar 30, 2022)




----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 30, 2022)

Go green.....get the big bumpy cucumber....

Germany Scrambles To Ration Gas After Refusing To Make Payments In Rubles | ZeroHedge


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

Ringo said:


>


Let's see.  Does 30,000 + 5,000 + 25,000 = 500,000?  Hmm...  no, it does not.  You seem to have slipped an exta zero in there.  And I have to point out that EV batteries are NOT the world's largest consumers of cobalt, nickel or copper by a long shot.  And what makes you think getting lithium from the Earth is so much worse than a dozen other mineral extraction processes we've been using since well before any of us were born?  Of course it's bad.  We should move to hydrogen power.  But it's WA-A-A-A-A-Y better than burning the gasoline and diesel fuel those batteries will replace.  Eventually, we'll have fusion power plants producing hydrogen for combusion.  Till then, this is a good transitional step.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> And what makes you think getting lithium from the Earth is so much worse than a dozen other mineral extraction processes we've been using since well before any of us were born?


1. "Global Warming" is a scam. It's been proven. Your first clue was when they had to _rebrand_ it to "Climate Change" after record-cold weather proved it was a scam.

2. The #1 source of electricity is coal. Do you have an idea how dirty coal is? Your precious electric cars adds more pollution than anything we've seen in 100 years.

Best you sit this one out.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2022)

jc456 said:


> just explain how one day here in Chitown it's 65 degrees and the next day it's 19 degrees with the same sun shining?  Please, I'm all eyes.


Old Rocks , Crick , no explanation?


----------



## P@triot (May 15, 2022)

New Government Study Finds Cleaner Air Leads to More Atlantic Hurricanes
					

A new study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal agency focused on the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere, found that cleaner air is leading to more hurricanes. The study was written by Hiroyuki Murakami and published in Science Advances on...




					www.thegatewaypundit.com


----------



## Crick (May 15, 2022)

P@triot said:


> 1. "Global Warming" is a scam. It's been proven. Your first clue was when they had to _rebrand_ it to "Climate Change" after record-cold weather proved it was a scam.
> 
> 2. The #1 source of electricity is coal. Do you have an idea how dirty coal is? Your precious electric cars adds more pollution than anything we've seen in 100 years.
> 
> Best you sit this one out.


Anthropogenic global warming is not a scam.  It is a widely accepted scientific theory.  The semantical distinction between global warming and climate change is utterly irrelevant.  And please show us the record breaking cold weather:


----------



## ding (May 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> Anthropogenic global warming is not a scam.  It is a widely accepted scientific theory.  The semantical distinction between global warming and climate change is utterly irrelevant.  And please show us the record breaking cold weather:
> 
> View attachment 645236


Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending upon which datasets they use.  





_Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2022)

P@triot said:


> 1. "Global Warming" is a scam. It's been proven. Your first clue was when they had to _rebrand_ it to "Climate Change" after record-cold weather proved it was a scam.
> 
> 2. The #1 source of electricity is coal. Do you have an idea how dirty coal is? Your precious electric cars adds more pollution than anything we've seen in 100 years.
> 
> Best you sit this one out.


Coal is currently the #3 source for electricity.  From the EIA

*U.S. utility-scale electricity generation by source, amount, and share of total in 20211*
Preliminary data as of February 2022


*Energy source**Billion kWh**Share of total**Total - all sources*4,116*Fossil fuels (total)*2,50460.8%Natural gas1,57538.3%Coal89921.8%Petroleum (total)190.5%Petroleum liquids110.3%Petroleum coke70.2%Other gases3110.3%*Nuclear*77818.9%*Renewables (total)*82620.1%Wind3809.2%Hydropower2606.3%Solar (total)1152.8%Photovoltaic1122.8%Solar thermal30.1%Biomass (total)551.3%Wood370.9%Landfill gas100.2%Municipal solid waste (biogenic)60.2%Other biomass waste20.1%Geothermal160.4%*Pumped storage hydropower*4-5-0.1%*Other sources*5120.3%1 Utility-scale electricity generation is electricity generation from power plants with at least one megawatt (or 1,000 kilowatts) of total electricity generating capacity. Data are for net electricity generation.
2 Small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems are electricity generators with less than one megawatt (MW) of electricity generating capacity, which are not connected at a power plant that has a combined capacity of one MW or larger. Most small-scale PV systems are at or near the location where the electricity is consumed and many are net metered systems. The smaller ones are usually installed on building rooftops.
3 Other gases includes blast furnace gas and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.
4 Pumped storage hydroelectricity generation is negative because most pumped storage electricity generation facilities use more electricity than they produce on an annual basis. Most pumped storage systems use fossil fuels or nuclear energy for pumping water to the storage component of the system.
5 Other (utility-scale) sources includes non-biogenic municipal solid waste, batteries, hydrogen, purchased steam, sulfur, tire-derived fuel, and other miscellaneous energy sources.















						Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
					






					www.eia.gov


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> Coal is currently the #3 source for electricity.  From the EIA
> 
> *U.S. utility-scale electricity generation by source, amount, and share of total in 20211*
> Preliminary data as of February 2022
> ...



*Coal is currently the #3 source for electricity.  From the EIA*







Coal is number 2. LOL!


----------



## jc456 (May 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> Coal is currently the #3 source for electricity.  From the EIA
> 
> *U.S. utility-scale electricity generation by source, amount, and share of total in 20211*
> Preliminary data as of February 2022
> ...


dude,  your own list shows Coal as #2.  As I always assumed, you fking can't read.


----------



## ding (May 16, 2022)

Pumped storage hydroelectricity generation is negative because most pumped storage electricity generation facilities use more electricity than they produce on an annual basis. Most pumped storage systems use fossil fuels or nuclear energy for pumping water to the storage component of the system.


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Coal is currently the #3 source for electricity.  From the EIA*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stand corrected.  But so, still, does poster P@triot


----------



## P@triot (Jul 12, 2022)

50 fuck’n years of liberal Chicken Littles screaming “the sky is falling”. Half a century later, not a single prediction has come to fruition. Not one.

It was never actual science. It was always a scam.








						The Infamous 1972 Report That Warned of Civilization's Collapse
					

The Limits to Growth argued that rampant pollution and resource extraction were pushing Earth to the brink. How does it hold up 50 years later?




					www.wired.com


----------



## jc456 (Jul 12, 2022)

P@triot said:


> 50 fuck’n years of liberal Chicken Littles screaming “the sky is falling”. Half a century later, not a single prediction has come to fruition. Not one.
> 
> It was never actual science. It was always a scam.
> 
> ...


And we’re deniers


----------



## P@triot (Jul 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> I stand corrected.  But so, still, does poster P@triot


I love how you act like #2 (*if* true) is some kind of big win 

Coal is so fuck’n filthy. And your electric cars will ensure that the use of coal is increased 10-fold.

The only way your pure idiocy works is if you also demand that nuclear power make up more than 90% of all electricity. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 12, 2022)

P@triot said:


> I love how you act like #2 (*if* true) is some kind of big win
> 
> Coal is so fuck’n filthy. And your electric cars will ensure that the use of coal is increased 10-fold.
> 
> The only way your pure idiocy works is if you also demand that nuclear power make up more than 90% of all electricity. 🤦‍♂️


Not remotely true. It is scrubbed very thoroughly in America.  In third world crapholes, not so much.
Lots of soot in the air of China. I was there in 1991.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 13, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Not remotely true. It is scrubbed very thoroughly in America.  In third world crapholes, not so much.
> Lots of soot in the air of China. I was there in 1991.



This is what Patriot seems to have missed in the article he linked to ... pollution was getting real bad in 1972 ... the air in the US cities was as bad as the air is in Beijing today ... you know, killing people ... the rivers in Cleveland, Ohio were burning ... massive starvation in The Sahal ... birth defects were nasty:  The Rock, Eminem, Gwyneth Paltrow were all born in a DDT laced environment ... (big, white and stupid, HAW haw) ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> Anthropogenic global warming is not a scam.  It is a widely accepted scientific theory.  The semantical distinction between global warming and climate change is utterly irrelevant.  And please show us the record breaking cold weather:
> 
> View attachment 645236


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Not remotely true. It is scrubbed very thoroughly in America.  In third world crapholes, not so much.
> Lots of soot in the air of China. I was there in 1991.


Compared to wind and solar, even thoroughly scrubbed, it's filthy.  And, of course, the scrubbers aren't doing anything about the CO2 emitted.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> Compared to wind and solar, even thoroughly scrubbed, it's filthy.  And, of course, the scrubbers aren't doing anything about the CO2 emitted.


CO2 is irrelevant to Earth's climate


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CO2 is irrelevant to Earth's climate


well technically we need it for oxygen.  The point missed by every demofk trying to end CO2.  Dude, it's hilarious, they want us to stop breathing is the play.  Listen to the lady in this clip off Russell Brand.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2022)

There is *nothing* “green” about electric cars.








						South America's 'lithium fields' reveal the dark side of electric cars
					

Demand for lithium-ion batteries is unprecedented - but is mining the chemical harmful to the environment?




					www.euronews.com


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2022)

P@triot said:


> There is *nothing* “green” about electric cars.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude, demofks love the con!


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 20, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Dude, demofks love the con!


*"Thank you for the con job.  May I have another?" - Dimofk*


----------



## P@triot (Yesterday at 2:40 PM)

Facts matter…








						Confessions of an Environmentalist | PragerU
					

Imagine you dedicated your life to environmentalism and all of its assumptions. Then imagine you realize those assumptions are all wrong. What would you do?…




					www.prageru.com


----------



## P@triot (Today at 6:13 AM)

Facts matter…








						theglobalwarmingfraud
					






					theglobalwarmingfraud.wordpress.com


----------



## Crick (Today at 6:26 AM)

P@triot said:


> Facts matter…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which facts do you think matter?  I've looked at your last two links.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Today at 8:19 AM)

P@triot said:


> Facts matter…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unless you are a Democrat........


----------



## Crick (Today at 9:21 AM)

ChemEngineer said:


> Unless you are a Democrat........


Unless you're ChemEngineer


----------



## ding (Today at 4:56 PM)

Crick said:


> Unless you're ChemEngineer


Actually I'd say unless you believe the government has a well thought out plan to replace fossil fuels with renewables.  It's going to be a clusterfuck.


----------



## ReinyDays (57 minutes ago)

ding said:


> Actually I'd say unless you believe the government has a well thought out plan to replace fossil fuels with renewables.  It's going to be a clusterfuck.



Republicans are NOT going to interfere with the Free Market processes ... that's a tried and true plan ... 400 years of the finest economic minds ... some would complain that it's over-thunked ... but I think Bubba is on to somethin' here ... *some* in government have a well thought out plan ...


----------

