Human CO2 emissions flat

[mamooth]

And in the real world, denier beliefs keep plummeting. They're at -28 deficit now, the lowest since record keeping began.

That has to suck for the denier cultists here. They've devoted their entire lives to faithfully chanting cult propaganda, to enduring endless humiliation in the name of the cult, and it's all been for nothing. Now everyone, even the cultists, can see how the denier cult is collapsing. No wonder the hardcore denier cultists here always act so butthurt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And in the real world, denier beliefs keep plummeting. They're at -28 deficit now, the lowest since record keeping began.

That has to suck for the denier cultists here. They've devoted their entire lives to faithfully chanting cult propaganda, to enduring endless humiliation in the name of the cult, and it's all been for nothing. Now everyone, even the cultists, can see how the denier cult is collapsing. No wonder the hardcore denier cultists here always act so butthurt.

Science is still not done by "Consensus", cupcake

 

[mamooth]

Science is still not done by "Consensus", cupcake

It's done be facts, which all say you're a lying snowflake cultist.

I was just pointing out that the weepy troll bitch routine you've been doing here for years has failed, and that's got you hysterical.

So, all the facts say you're a fraud, and your trolling has failed.

Got a plan C?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science is still not done by "Consensus", cupcake

It's done be facts, which all say you're a lying snowflake cultist.

I was just pointing out that the weepy troll bitch routine you've been doing here for years has failed, and that's got you hysterical.

So, all the facts say you're a fraud, and your trolling has failed.

Got a plan C?

Fact it, you got caught fudging the data. The data was a denier so it got adjusted. That's not science

 

[mamooth]

Fact it, you got caught fudging the data. The data was a denier so it got adjusted. That's not science.

RealClimateScience? That conspiracy cult website? Really? Come on. At least _try_. We've had experts peddle fraud at us, so your amateur fraud attempts are insulting.

Your cult masters are right about one thing. Temperature adjustments to _land-only_ measurements do show more warming after corrections. Why?

<data:blog.pageTitle/>

1. Site location. Over time, stations have been been moved from warm urban locations to cooler locations outside the cities. Urbanization has driven things the opposite way of kook denier claims. Old stations ran hotter, and that needs to be corrected for.
2. Better station screens now. Old stations ran hotter, and that needs to be corrected for.
3. More irrigation now. Old non-irrigated areas were hotter, and that needs to be corrected for.

However, the opposite is true for the oceans. The adjustments cause much _less_ warming to show. And since there's a lot more ocean than land, when you combine them, the global data shows _less_ warming after the adjustments.

Scientists never show land-only temps. They always show combined land-ocean temps. So, according to your cult conspiracy yammering, the scientists have painstakingly adjusted the data to show ... less warming? Ruh-roh. Your conspiracy go boom, and someone would have to be completely retarded or pathologically dishonest to still cling to it.

The conspiracy website author you quoted lied in two ways.

He lied by pretending the changes to land data weren't done in good faith, and that they don't represent accurate science. He simply screamed fraud with no basis for doing so, which makes him a paranoid cult moron.

He also lied by pretending that scientists don't always use the combined land-ocean data which shows _less_ warming after adjustments. Interestingly, the only people who use the data they claim is fraudulent are ... deniers.

Not that you'll care about this science and truth stuff, Frank. You never have, and never will. You only care about being a loyal cult mouthpiece.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fact it, you got caught fudging the data. The data was a denier so it got adjusted. That's not science.

RealClimateScience? That conspiracy cult website? Really? Come on. At least _try_. We've had experts peddle fraud at us, so your amateur fraud attempts are insulting.

Your cult masters are right about one thing. Temperature adjustments to _land-only_ measurements do show more warming after corrections. Why?

<data:blog.pageTitle/>

1. Site location. Over time, stations have been been moved from warm urban locations to cooler locations outside the cities. Urbanization has driven things the opposite way of kook denier claims. Old stations ran hotter, and that needs to be corrected for.
2. Better station screens now. Old stations ran hotter, and that needs to be corrected for.
3. More irrigation now. Old non-irrigated areas were hotter, and that needs to be corrected for.

However, the opposite is true for the oceans. The adjustments cause much _less_ warming to show. And since there's a lot more ocean than land, when you combine them, the global data shows _less_ warming after the adjustments.

Scientists never show land-only temps. They always show combined land-ocean temps. So, according to your cult conspiracy yammering, the scientists have painstakingly adjusted the data to show ... less warming? Ruh-roh. Your conspiracy go boom, and someone would have to be completely retarded or pathologically dishonest to still cling to it.

The conspiracy website author you quoted lied in two ways.

He lied by pretending the changes to land data weren't done in good faith, and that they don't represent accurate science. He simply screamed fraud with no basis for doing so, which makes him a paranoid cult moron.

He also lied by pretending that scientists don't always use the combined land-ocean data which shows _less_ warming after adjustments. Interestingly, the only people who use the data they claim is fraudulent are ... deniers.

Not that you'll care about this science and truth stuff, Frank. You never have, and never will. You only care about being a loyal cult mouthpiece.

Right. The data had it coming because it was denier data.

 

[mamooth]

Right. The data had it coming because it was denier data.

^^^ Triggered by the data again.

Don't worry Frank. Everyone expected you to sulk, troll and run, so you didn't disappoint anybody by doing so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right. The data had it coming because it was denier data.

^^^ Triggered by the data again.

Don't worry Frank. Everyone expected you to sulk, troll and run, so you didn't disappoint anybody by doing so.

"The data refused to acknowledge the power of CO2 so we took it out back and altered it...." AGW Cult "scientists"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Adjusting data from 5 years ago because its "inaccurate " (refuses to validate AGW) but still insists they have data from 1880 accurate to a tenth of a degree.

AGW, funniest thing since Larson stopped "The Far Side"

 

[Billy_Bob]

And in the real world, denier beliefs keep plummeting. They're at -28 deficit now, the lowest since record keeping began.

That has to suck for the denier cultists here. They've devoted their entire lives to faithfully chanting cult propaganda, to enduring endless humiliation in the name of the cult, and it's all been for nothing. Now everyone, even the cultists, can see how the denier cult is collapsing. No wonder the hardcore denier cultists here always act so butthurt.

DO you ever dig into the pools to see who is being polled, the questions being asked, where they live and when it was taken?

Had you looked into this lying piece of crap you would have found they targeted millennials in colleges... In other words they went for their target audience of fools, who they are indoctrinating with falsehoods and lies...

But being the useful idiot you are, you parrot the shit and spread it like a manure spreader...

 

[mamooth]

DO you ever dig into the pools to see who is being polled, the questions being asked, where they live and when it was taken?

Obviously, yes. Duh. That's what defines us here in the rational and moral crowd, the way that we never believe on faith, the way always go straight to the hard data. I know, that way of logical and ethical thinking is totally alien to your cult, so you can't understand it.

https://www.climatechangecommunicat...ate-Change-American-Mind-October-2017-min.pdf

Had you looked into this lying piece of crap you would have found they targeted millennials in colleges... In other words they went for their target audience of fools, who they are indoctrinating with falsehoods and lies...

Check page 60 of that document. It shows the poll demographics. Those demographics say you're being a pathologically dishonest POS again.

But being the useful idiot you are, you parrot the shit and spread it like a manure spreader...

So Billy got busted for open fraud yet another time, and Frank thanked him for the fraud. Same old same old. Thanks, you two, for so clearly proving my point about how deniers almost always rely on open fraud.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014
By Helen Briggs
Environment Correspondent
BBCNews.com

Wind turbines in China [Caption for photo that did not come along]
China is now by far the world's biggest investor in renewable energy, far outstripping the US

The growth in global carbon emissions stalled last year, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

It marks the first time in 40 years that annual CO2 emissions growth has remained stable, in the absence of a major economic crisis, the agency said.

Annual global emissions remained at 32 gigatonnes in 2014, unchanged from the previous year.

But the IEA warned that while the results were "encouraging", this was "no time for complacency".

"This is both a very welcome surprise and a significant one," said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol.

An important factor could be that China's coal consumption fell in 2014, driven by their efforts to fight pollution, use energy more efficiently and deploy renewables"

Prof Corinne Le Quere
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
"It provides much-needed momentum to negotiators preparing to forge a global climate deal in Paris in December: for the first time, greenhouse gas emissions are decoupling from economic growth."

And IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said while the data was "encouraging", this was "no time for complacency" and "certainly not the time to use this positive news as an excuse to stall further action".

Changing patterns
Analysts attribute the slowdown in emissions to changing patterns of energy consumption in China and OECD countries.

Prof Corinne Le Quere, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, said: "An important factor could be that China's coal consumption fell in 2014, driven by their efforts to fight pollution, use energy more efficiently and deploy renewables.

"Efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere will have played a role, but there are also more random factors such as the weather and the relative price of oil, coal and gas."

The IEA said changing patterns of energy use in China and in OECD countries, including the shift towards more renewable energy, was having the desired effect of decoupling economic growth from greenhouse emissions.

The Paris-based organisation said that in the 40 years it had been collecting data on carbon dioxide emissions, annual emissions had stalled or fallen only three other times, which were all associated with global downturns:

After the US recession in the early 1980s
In 1992 after the collapse of the former Soviet Union
In 2009 during the global financial crisis.

Greenhouse gas emissions may finally be decoupling from economic growth
Full details of the IEA report will be released in June, ahead of UN negotiations to sign a new international climate change agreement at talks in Paris in December.

Countries are aiming to reach agreement on a deal that will come into force from 2020.

The aim is to limit the increase of the average global surface temperature to no more than 2C (3.6F) compared with pre-industrial levels, to avoid "dangerous" climate change.
***************************************************************************************

This tickles me pink for several reasons:

How many times have we heard from the deniers here that all our efforts were pointless because China and India would never follow along. Yet here they are most determinedly in the lead.

And how many times have we heard that slowing fossil fuel consumption would destroy the world's industrial economies. Apparently not.

That's good news, but it's not enough.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And in the real world, denier beliefs keep plummeting. They're at -28 deficit now, the lowest since record keeping began.

That has to suck for the denier cultists here. They've devoted their entire lives to faithfully chanting cult propaganda, to enduring endless humiliation in the name of the cult, and it's all been for nothing. Now everyone, even the cultists, can see how the denier cult is collapsing. No wonder the hardcore denier cultists here always act so butthurt.

Science is still not done by "Consensus", cupcake

Not one single person has presented that as the reason the accepted theories are accepted. What are you, 12?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And in the real world, denier beliefs keep plummeting. They're at -28 deficit now, the lowest since record keeping began.

That has to suck for the denier cultists here. They've devoted their entire lives to faithfully chanting cult propaganda, to enduring endless humiliation in the name of the cult, and it's all been for nothing. Now everyone, even the cultists, can see how the denier cult is collapsing. No wonder the hardcore denier cultists here always act so butthurt.

DO you ever dig into the pools to see who is being polled, the questions being asked, where they live and when it was taken?

Had you looked into this lying piece of crap you would have found they targeted millennials in colleges... In other words they went for their target audience of fools, who they are indoctrinating with falsehoods and lies...

But being the useful idiot you are, you parrot the shit and spread it like a manure spreader...

Haha, look at the denier moron, who knows less than nothing about any of this, calling scientists liars and incompetent. Imagine the nerve of an uneducated slob, trying to critique mountaons of scientific work. Imagine the delusion it takes to walk around with a questionable GED, and call people incompetent who have dedicated their lives to learning about and researching these topics.

 

[saveliberty]

Can we call this the 2017 CO2 hockey stick yet?

 

[Billy_Bob]

And in the real world, denier beliefs keep plummeting. They're at -28 deficit now, the lowest since record keeping began.

That has to suck for the denier cultists here. They've devoted their entire lives to faithfully chanting cult propaganda, to enduring endless humiliation in the name of the cult, and it's all been for nothing. Now everyone, even the cultists, can see how the denier cult is collapsing. No wonder the hardcore denier cultists here always act so butthurt.

DO you ever dig into the pools to see who is being polled, the questions being asked, where they live and when it was taken?

Had you looked into this lying piece of crap you would have found they targeted millennials in colleges... In other words they went for their target audience of fools, who they are indoctrinating with falsehoods and lies...

But being the useful idiot you are, you parrot the shit and spread it like a manure spreader...

Haha, look at the denier moron, who knows less than nothing about any of this, calling scientists liars and incompetent. Imagine the nerve of an uneducated slob, trying to critique mountaons of scientific work. Imagine the delusion it takes to walk around with a questionable GED, and call people incompetent who have dedicated their lives to learning about and researching these topics.

Your ignorance is stunning... Wait... no its not.. Its what I expect from clueless drone...

 

[mamooth]

Your ignorance is stunning... Wait... no its not.. Its what I expect from clueless drone...

Billy, why did you lie about the survey?

Did you lie deliberately, or were you just a cult moron repeating stupid stories that you cult had fed you?

 

[saveliberty]

I must have missed the part where you can identify Natural CO2 from manmade CO2. Where do you look for the little labels?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I must have missed the part where you can identify Natural CO2 from manmade CO2. Where do you look for the little labels?

"I must have missed the part where you can identify Natural CO2 from manmade CO2."

Yes, you certainly did. This is, of course, because you never bothered to look for this information, and would probably just call scientists "liars" if you had.

 

[saveliberty]

I must have missed the part where you can identify Natural CO2 from manmade CO2. Where do you look for the little labels?

"I must have missed the part where you can identify Natural CO2 from manmade CO2."

Yes, you certainly did. This is, of course, because you never bothered to look for this information, and would probably just call scientists "liars" if you had.

Feel free to provide the link on how you can tell one CO2 molecule from another moron.