Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 29,113
- 5,627
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf
Doesn't back off in the slightest.
Doesn't back off in the slightest.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AR5 Synthesis Report released
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Sep 4, 2014
- 30,837
- 20,610
The Guardian just published its Pre-Approved Copy of the next batch of fear-mongering from the UN and EPA. On Page two they give high homage to one of their original liars. At the bottom of page 2 of the SYR is the following:
"This report is dedicated to the memory of Stephen H. Schneider 1945 – 2010"
His famous quote is:
“we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Lying by these people is acceptable. No true scientist accepts lying as acceptable.
But they pile on the lies unsupported by any true science.
Synthesis Report Home
"This report is dedicated to the memory of Stephen H. Schneider 1945 – 2010"
His famous quote is:
“we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Lying by these people is acceptable. No true scientist accepts lying as acceptable.
But they pile on the lies unsupported by any true science.
Synthesis Report Home
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Sep 4, 2014
- 30,837
- 20,610
A political report done by radical leftist politicians who want global control.
Another one for the round file.. More lies and deceit in an effort to take personal freedoms from all Americans while depriving others of the ability to care for themselves and be prosperous as a people in the third world.
Real humanitarians who want to kill 200 million people so that the earth is "sustainable"....
Another one for the round file.. More lies and deceit in an effort to take personal freedoms from all Americans while depriving others of the ability to care for themselves and be prosperous as a people in the third world.
Real humanitarians who want to kill 200 million people so that the earth is "sustainable"....
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 29,113
- 5,627
- Thread starter
- #4
Why don't you go through the report text - or the text of any of the many previous assessment reports - and find the names of those radical leftist politicians.
As has been pointed out to you before, there are scientists from a number of very conservative countries with high positions in the IPCC. There are universities and research institutions in such locations. Why would they be producing research results whose only purpose was to support a radical left wing agenda?
You are SO FUCKING STUPID IT IS BEYOND BELIEF ! ! ! ! !
As has been pointed out to you before, there are scientists from a number of very conservative countries with high positions in the IPCC. There are universities and research institutions in such locations. Why would they be producing research results whose only purpose was to support a radical left wing agenda?
You are SO FUCKING STUPID IT IS BEYOND BELIEF ! ! ! ! !
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Sep 4, 2014
- 30,837
- 20,610
The only fucking stupid moron is you..Why don't you go through the report text - or the text of any of the many previous assessment reports - and find the names of those radical leftist politicians.
As has been pointed out to you before, there are scientists from a number of very conservative countries with high positions in the IPCC. There are universities and research institutions in such locations. Why would they be producing research results whose only purpose was to support a radical left wing agenda?
You are SO FUCKING STUPID IT IS BEYOND BELIEF ! ! ! ! !
ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia and author of Taxing Air explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”
Crick you really are a fucking moron... Your refuse to see what is on the billboard in front of you.. You choose the moron and useful idiot route.
Source
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 29,113
- 5,627
- Thread starter
- #6
Why don't you go through the report text - or the text of any of the many previous assessment reports - and find the names of those radical leftist politicians.
As has been pointed out to you before, there are scientists from a number of very conservative countries with high positions in the IPCC. There are universities and research institutions in such locations. Why would they be producing research results whose only purpose was to support a radical left wing agenda?
You are SO FUCKING STUPID IT IS BEYOND BELIEF ! ! ! ! !
The only fucking stupid moron is you..
Then... you can find the name of the radical leftist politicians in the world's conservative nations and conservative universities and conservative research institutions that all find the world is getting warmer and that human activity is "incontrovertibly" the primary cause? Yes?
ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia and author of Taxing Air explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”
Crick you really are a fucking moron... Your refuse to see what is on the billboard in front of you.. You choose the moron and useful idiot route.
Source
Why are so many denier sources retired and geriatric?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,218
- 29,148
because they aged?Why don't you go through the report text - or the text of any of the many previous assessment reports - and find the names of those radical leftist politicians.
As has been pointed out to you before, there are scientists from a number of very conservative countries with high positions in the IPCC. There are universities and research institutions in such locations. Why would they be producing research results whose only purpose was to support a radical left wing agenda?
You are SO FUCKING STUPID IT IS BEYOND BELIEF ! ! ! ! !
The only fucking stupid moron is you..
Then... you can find the name of the radical leftist politicians in the world's conservative nations and conservative universities and conservative research institutions that all find the world is getting warmer and that human activity is "incontrovertibly" the primary cause? Yes?
ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia and author of Taxing Air explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”
Crick you really are a fucking moron... Your refuse to see what is on the billboard in front of you.. You choose the moron and useful idiot route.
Source
Why are so many denier sources retired and geriatric?
Mad Scientist
Feels Good!
- Sep 15, 2008
- 24,196
- 5,431
What were you expecting them to say OP?
"Yeah it's all fake. Go ahead and cut off the funding and we'll submit our resignations in disgrace!"
"Yeah it's all fake. Go ahead and cut off the funding and we'll submit our resignations in disgrace!"
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,661
- 69,797
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf
Doesn't back off in the slightest.
Sounds like Bernie Madoff's accountant
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 29,113
- 5,627
- Thread starter
- #12
Not one single meaningful comment from the deniers yet.
Who wants to tell us that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared?
Who wants to tell us that it used to but, as a Turn-of-the-Century Resolution, it decided to stop?
Who wants to tell us that all of the thousands of climate scientists from all the nations of the world are all left wing radicals, communists, socialists and criminals intent on destroying the world's economies?
Who wants to tell us that all the thousands of climate scientists from all the nations of the world have conspired together to construct and push a complete fabrication to make themselves rich from research grants?
Who wants to tell us that the scientists would be okay were it not that none of the world's governments can resist their evil hunger for power and are coercing scientists to push a fabrication intended to increase their control over their populations?
Who wants to tell us that only AGW-supportive papers get published in the world's. peer-reviewed science journals because AGW conspirators have gained control of them all and are censoring the real scientists attempting to reveal the hoax?
Who wants to tell us that infrared radiation is all absorbed in the first ten feet of atmosphere?
Who wants to tell us that absorbing energy will not cause matter's temperature to increase?
Who wants to tell us that emitting increasing amounts of energy indicates matter has chosen to cool?
Who wants to tell us there's no such thing as photons?
Who wants to tell us that all matter is aware of the state of all other matter out to the limits of the universe?
Who wants to tell us that matter can willfully control its own radiation?
Who wants to tell us that the amount of added CO2 dissolved in the world's oceans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is inadequate to have caused any discernible acidification?
What wants to tell us that until the ocean's pH crosses below 7, it hasn't yet grown acidic?
Who wants to tell us that adding CO2 to the ocean doesn't create carbonic acid but sodium bicarbonate - that the ocean creates its own antacids?
Who wants to tell us that the ocean's cannot simultaneously grow warm and acidic?
Who wants to tell us that infrared radiation doesn't warm the ocean but cools it evaporatively by essentially boiling off the top few microns?
Who wants to tell us that the cooling sun is the cause of our warming?
Who wants to tell us that changes in our cloud cover caused by changes in cosmic radiation is responsible for our warming?
Who wants to tell us that human CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to natural CO2 emissions?
Who wants to tell us that everyone who believes AGW to be a valid theory should commit suicide to reduce human emissions?
Did I miss any? Oh yeah...
Who wants to explain why, in attempting to counter a simple theory with mountains of evidence like AGW, deniers are apparently forced to shotgun this cornucopia of different hypotheses, none of which can pass even basic scientific muster?
Who wants to tell us that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared?
Who wants to tell us that it used to but, as a Turn-of-the-Century Resolution, it decided to stop?
Who wants to tell us that all of the thousands of climate scientists from all the nations of the world are all left wing radicals, communists, socialists and criminals intent on destroying the world's economies?
Who wants to tell us that all the thousands of climate scientists from all the nations of the world have conspired together to construct and push a complete fabrication to make themselves rich from research grants?
Who wants to tell us that the scientists would be okay were it not that none of the world's governments can resist their evil hunger for power and are coercing scientists to push a fabrication intended to increase their control over their populations?
Who wants to tell us that only AGW-supportive papers get published in the world's. peer-reviewed science journals because AGW conspirators have gained control of them all and are censoring the real scientists attempting to reveal the hoax?
Who wants to tell us that infrared radiation is all absorbed in the first ten feet of atmosphere?
Who wants to tell us that absorbing energy will not cause matter's temperature to increase?
Who wants to tell us that emitting increasing amounts of energy indicates matter has chosen to cool?
Who wants to tell us there's no such thing as photons?
Who wants to tell us that all matter is aware of the state of all other matter out to the limits of the universe?
Who wants to tell us that matter can willfully control its own radiation?
Who wants to tell us that the amount of added CO2 dissolved in the world's oceans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is inadequate to have caused any discernible acidification?
What wants to tell us that until the ocean's pH crosses below 7, it hasn't yet grown acidic?
Who wants to tell us that adding CO2 to the ocean doesn't create carbonic acid but sodium bicarbonate - that the ocean creates its own antacids?
Who wants to tell us that the ocean's cannot simultaneously grow warm and acidic?
Who wants to tell us that infrared radiation doesn't warm the ocean but cools it evaporatively by essentially boiling off the top few microns?
Who wants to tell us that the cooling sun is the cause of our warming?
Who wants to tell us that changes in our cloud cover caused by changes in cosmic radiation is responsible for our warming?
Who wants to tell us that human CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to natural CO2 emissions?
Who wants to tell us that everyone who believes AGW to be a valid theory should commit suicide to reduce human emissions?
Did I miss any? Oh yeah...
Who wants to explain why, in attempting to counter a simple theory with mountains of evidence like AGW, deniers are apparently forced to shotgun this cornucopia of different hypotheses, none of which can pass even basic scientific muster?
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Sep 4, 2014
- 30,837
- 20,610
Not one single meaningful comment from the deniers yet.
Who wants to tell us that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared?
Who wants to tell us that it used to but, as a Turn-of-the-Century Resolution, it decided to stop?
Who wants to tell us that all of the thousands of climate scientists from all the nations of the world are all left wing radicals, communists, socialists and criminals intent on destroying the world's economies?
Who wants to tell us that all the thousands of climate scientists from all the nations of the world have conspired together to construct and push a complete fabrication to make themselves rich from research grants?
Who wants to tell us that the scientists would be okay were it not that none of the world's governments can resist their evil hunger for power and are coercing scientists to push a fabrication intended to increase their control over their populations?
Who wants to tell us that only AGW-supportive papers get published in the world's. peer-reviewed science journals because AGW conspirators have gained control of them all and are censoring the real scientists attempting to reveal the hoax?
Who wants to tell us that infrared radiation is all absorbed in the first ten feet of atmosphere?
Who wants to tell us that absorbing energy will not cause matter's temperature to increase?
Who wants to tell us that emitting increasing amounts of energy indicates matter has chosen to cool?
Who wants to tell us there's no such thing as photons?
Who wants to tell us that all matter is aware of the state of all other matter out to the limits of the universe?
Who wants to tell us that matter can willfully control its own radiation?
Who wants to tell us that the amount of added CO2 dissolved in the world's oceans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is inadequate to have caused any discernible acidification?
What wants to tell us that until the ocean's pH crosses below 7, it hasn't yet grown acidic?
Who wants to tell us that adding CO2 to the ocean doesn't create carbonic acid but sodium bicarbonate - that the ocean creates its own antacids?
Who wants to tell us that the ocean's cannot simultaneously grow warm and acidic?
Who wants to tell us that infrared radiation doesn't warm the ocean but cools it evaporatively by essentially boiling off the top few microns?
Who wants to tell us that the cooling sun is the cause of our warming?
Who wants to tell us that changes in our cloud cover caused by changes in cosmic radiation is responsible for our warming?
Who wants to tell us that human CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to natural CO2 emissions?
Who wants to tell us that everyone who believes AGW to be a valid theory should commit suicide to reduce human emissions?
Did I miss any? Oh yeah...
Who wants to explain why, in attempting to counter a simple theory with mountains of evidence like AGW, deniers are apparently forced to shotgun this cornucopia of different hypotheses, none of which can pass even basic scientific muster?
Well Crick has offered to show us what changes 120ppm have made and can define the exact amount of temp that man has induced. Cant wait for the math, methods, and data he will present to prove that CAGW is not a lie...
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 29,113
- 5,627
- Thread starter
- #15
Well Crick... can define the exact amount of temp that man has induced.
How about you find a quote of me saying that. And when you can't, admit you lied. Or you could save us all time and go straight to the admission.
This:
tells us that adding CO2 will cause warming. And given the physics of the situation, it'd be more useful and informative if, instead of saying "added 120 ppm", you said "43% increase"
Similar threads
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 347
- Replies
- 169
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 414
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 220
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8505
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 482
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-