MTP: Climate Change Discussion - no Deniers

[Ame®icano]

Good reading material: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Oceans are fundamental ecosystem stabilizer, and the strong bleaching events seem to have a negative impact on the rest of the ecosystem. It's good to know this has a lot more to do with things that seem less apocalyptic, but it doesn't change the reality that we need the reefs to not be bleaching to be in a good place. However, it doesn't appear to be any more bleaching than average. The environutz wont admit that bleaching is a natural part of a reef's process, and reefs are way stronger and more adaptable than we give it credit for, and bleaching is not really synonymous with destruction of the environment, though warm temperatures do seem to be synonymous with strong reef growth.

 

[Ame®icano]

From post one is this hilarious statement:

" They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled."

Anyone who says the science is settled is an idiot and ignorant on how science research runs in the real world.

This is what settled science looks like....

s - d / t speed = distance / time

v = d / t velocity - displacement / time

a = (vf - vi) / t or delta v / t acceleration is equal to (final v - initial v) / time (m/s2)

g = 10 m /s2 Gravity = 10 m/s2 (acceleration of a free falling object)

f = ms force = mass * acceleration

Run the experiments a million times and the results will always be the same...every f'ing time...run 10 climate models and you will get 10 results...they not only don't agree with observations, they don't even agree with each other....

The only thing that is settled is the fact that it is pseudoscience....if the science were settled, then there would be a greenhouse effect law...and you would still have skeptics...

They are too stupid to realize that their published 100+ modeling runs are ALL different in their results, which means it isn't credible. Can't decide which one is the "correct" one therefore accept them all!

Occasionally they reject few reports due to a typo or wrong punctuation.

 

[skookerasbil]

Good reading material: The Coral Bleaching Debate

Oceans are fundamental ecosystem stabilizer, and the strong bleaching events seem to have a negative impact on the rest of the ecosystem. It's good to know this has a lot more to do with things that seem less apocalyptic, but it doesn't change the reality that we need the reefs to not be bleaching to be in a good place. However, it doesn't appear to be any more bleaching than average. The environutz wont admit that bleaching is a natural part of a reef's process, and reefs are way stronger and more adaptable than we give it credit for, and bleaching is not really synonymous with destruction of the environment, though warm temperatures do seem to be synonymous with strong reef growth.

Lol....nobody cares about the bleaching of the coral. Public disinterest in sea level rise could not possibly be more pronounced so coral bleaching.....well....

 

[danielpalos]

No, YOU are uninformed. You demonstrated it quite clearly with your previous post.

I cited Wikipedia than posted the actual references to those comments. If you'd like to claim they're bogus, let me know. I can bring up the original citations

Dickwad

Wikipedia is an editable source, not reliable.

Wikipedia is usually easy enough for the right wing to read and understand.

That seems to be more of a requirement for you lefty's. Simple, and moronic, and if you don't like what it says edit it to conform to your personal beliefs. Pretty much describes you to a "T".

the right wing is worse. they make stuff up all the time. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

 

[Ame®icano]

No, YOU are uninformed. You demonstrated it quite clearly with your previous post.

I cited Wikipedia than posted the actual references to those comments. If you'd like to claim they're bogus, let me know. I can bring up the original citations

Dickwad

Wikipedia is an editable source, not reliable.

Wikipedia is usually easy enough for the right wing to read and understand.

That seems to be more of a requirement for you lefty's. Simple, and moronic, and if you don't like what it says edit it to conform to your personal beliefs. Pretty much describes you to a "T".

the right wing is worse. they make stuff up all the time. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

What exactly "general warfare clause" or anything you posted have to do with this topic?

Stop spamming every thread with your communist bullshit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where is that broiling red "hotspot"?

Been waiting for it to show up using Satellite data, but golly gee whiz it always manage to hide on us, even warmists/alarmists never answer that question with real Satellite data, they use bogus explanations that are stupid as hell, but warmists/alarmists like stupid as hell bogus rationalizations in their desperate attempt to keep their AGW delusion alive a bit longer until they reach socialist orgasm!

Here is what really looks like that utterly destroys the "hot spot" baloney the IPCC created years ago:

"The three diagrams above (using data from HadAT and HadCRUT4) show the linear trend of the temperature change since 1979 between 20oN and 20oS to be ca. 0.00089oC/month at the surface, 0.00095oC/month at 300 hPa, and -0.00009oC/month at 200 hPa, corresponding to 0.10698, 0.11414 and -0.01022oC/decade, respectively (see bar chart above).

Thus, these radiosonde and surface meteorological data from the Equatorial region do not at the moment display the signature of enhanced greenhouse warming. With the observed warming rate of about 0.10698oC/decade at the surface, a warming rate of about 0.21-0.31oC/decade would have been expected at the 200 and 300 hPa levels to comply with the prognosis on this derived from the CO2 hypothesis."

LINK

I think Dr Evans hit the mark in his explanation of the IPCC/AGW hypothesis failure.

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

 

[Crick]

You make a common mistake Billy Boy. The IPCC conducts NO research. It assesses research conducted by others. The tropospheric hotspot was not the creation of the IPCC. And I have to wonder why you choose to argue with model outputs presented in the First Assessment Report, when the Fifth was released over four years ago and the Sixth is in production.

 

[skookerasbil]

No, YOU are uninformed. You demonstrated it quite clearly with your previous post.

I cited Wikipedia than posted the actual references to those comments. If you'd like to claim they're bogus, let me know. I can bring up the original citations

Dickwad

Wikipedia is an editable source, not reliable.

Wikipedia is usually easy enough for the right wing to read and understand.

That seems to be more of a requirement for you lefty's. Simple, and moronic, and if you don't like what it says edit it to conform to your personal beliefs. Pretty much describes you to a "T".

the right wing is worse. they make stuff up all the time. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

100% right s0n. We dont dabble in a world of perpetual theory like the left does 100% of the time. Liberalism is a mental disorder and thank God only about 22% of the country thinks that way or it would be full-on Cowboys and Lefties by now!

 

[skookerasbil]

You make a common mistake Billy Boy. The IPCC conducts NO research. It assesses research conducted by others. The tropospheric hotspot was not the creation of the IPCC. And I have to wonder why you choose to argue with model outputs presented in the First Assessment Report, when the Fifth was released over four years ago and the Sixth is in production.

Dang s0n.....talk about faulty thinking. Nobody thinks like you....what you said in that post. Holy fuck. Haven't you ever stopped to recognize that you are the only regular in this forum for years that is a climate crusader? You just cant see how others assess your presentation of ideas....the whole "IPCC only assesses....".....narrative. Very few see the world in your terms s0n. It's not your fault, of course......comes with the territory with ocd thinking.....I can spot it 1,000 miles away because it is what I do for the past 34 years!

 

[Billy_Bob]

You make a common mistake Billy Boy. The IPCC conducts NO research. It assesses research conducted by others. The tropospheric hotspot was not the creation of the IPCC. And I have to wonder why you choose to argue with model outputs presented in the First Assessment Report, when the Fifth was released over four years ago and the Sixth is in production.

Appeal to your authorities.... That's all you got... How can I respond to this level of stupid?

Geeky Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.
What Is Appeal to Authority Fallacy? (Cognitive Fallacy)


I can back up my position with empirically observed facts and cognitive thought process. Something Crick is incapable of doing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.

Geeky Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.
What Is Appeal to Authority Fallacy? (Cognitive Fallacy)


Have you any facts to share or are you being obtuse and continuing in your fantasy world where dissension is not allowed?

 

[westwall]

So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.

Soothing? No...we're laughing at you clowns. It appears you hysterical cry baby's are the ones who need the soothing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.

Soothing? No...we're laughing at you clowns. It appears you hysterical cry baby's are the ones who need the soothing.

He probably record that circle jerk in the OP and has it on endless loop reaffirming his fantasy world..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.

Geeky Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.
What Is Appeal to Authority Fallacy? (Cognitive Fallacy)


Have you any facts to share or are you being obtuse and continuing in your fantasy world where distention is not allowed?

Of course I can find the facts to share. The global scientific community did not come to an overwhelming consensus without a compelling mountain of mutually supportive evidence. Your implications to the contrary are embarrassingly stupid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Soothing? No...we're laughing at you clowns.

Yes, and that is how you idiots soothe each other. You huddle together on anonymous internet sites and point and cackle from the safety of your little bubble. Because, as we both know, you would all be laughed out of the room in the company of serious, educated people.

So, here you are...soothing each other. Where you belong. There are no longer any seats at the table for you people, sorry.

 

[westwall]

So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.

Geeky Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.
What Is Appeal to Authority Fallacy? (Cognitive Fallacy)


Have you any facts to share or are you being obtuse and continuing in your fantasy world where distention is not allowed?

Of course I can find the facts to share. The global scientific community did not come to an overwhelming consensus without a compelling mountain of mutually supportive evidence. Your implications to the contrary are embarrassingly stupid.

First off it ain't the global scientific community, it is a small subset known as climatologists. The only thing they have going for them is they are pushing a fraud that just happens to help the rich get richer, and the politicians get more power. So, they get all of the press. But the rest of the scientific community is holding our noses and the excrement they peddle.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.

Geeky Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.
What Is Appeal to Authority Fallacy? (Cognitive Fallacy)


Have you any facts to share or are you being obtuse and continuing in your fantasy world where distention is not allowed?

Of course I can find the facts to share. The global scientific community did not come to an overwhelming consensus without a compelling mountain of mutually supportive evidence. Your implications to the contrary are embarrassingly stupid.

Too Funny:

Your too ignorant of the science to even make the argument... Idiot!

 

[westwall]

Soothing? No...we're laughing at you clowns.

Yes, and that is how you idiots soothe each other. You huddle together on anonymous internet sites and point and cackle from the safety of your little bubble. Because, as we both know, you would all be laughed out of the room in the company of serious, educated people.

So, here you are...soothing each other. Where you belong. There are no longer any seats at the table for you people, sorry.

What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims. All you can do is point like the monkey you are and go "oooh oooooh oooooh!"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First off it ain't the global scientific community, it is a small subset known as climatologists.

First off, that's false denier fantasy, as every major scientific body in the world across every field of physical science endorses the scientific consensus on climate change. So no, you just pulled that out of your ass.

The only thing they have going for them is they are pushing a fraud

Haha, this is such an embarrassingly stupid conspiracy theory. You should feel embarrassed of yourself for saying it at all, much less believing it. And the real money is behind climate science denial, but those liars just can't seem to manage to make the science say what they want it to say. So, instead, they focus their efforts on sowing doubt and lies about the science. And, naturally, these efforts are focused most on our country, which is why there are so many denier fools here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims

Of course I can. Any child with Google can. Haha, you just repeated the stupid lie that scientists managed to come to overwhelming consensus without evidence. And that is why you morons are here, crying on each others' shoulders, instead of producing science or being invited to any serious discussion about the science.