Top Scientists: "Warming Exagerated"

[itfitzme]

No, the standards that apply to me and others with a scientific university education who are capable of actual thinking, rather than emotional reasoning, is quite different than the standards that you apply and therefore apply to yourself. To begin with, I don't lie or misrepresent information. I don't put up a map of the Northern Elephant Seal as being representative of all elephant seals, especially knowing that the Southern Elephant Seal is the one used for temp measures.

Your just a desperate moron that misrepresents information so that you can "win at all costs" instead of seeking the actual science.

But, by all means, show how much science you know explaining what "degrees of freedom" means in evaluating scientific data.

Oh, yeah, you can't... your not capable of getting past "doo doo head". You basically are just jerking yourself off.

Win at all costs is the credo of all politics.

The IPCC is a political organization, so that doesn't make your case look very convincing.

Liberal politicians interpret that as govern as best you can. Conservatives, who basically are anarchists don't limit themselves in any way.

At all costs means just that.

What utter tripe. As your hero IdiotMe likes to say, stick your head in doo-doo. That's all you've said.

Still, no demonstration of your skill in science and mathematics.

 

[bripat9643]

So, here is the latest from the IPCC

Scientists more convinced mankind is main cause of warming | Reuters

Leading climate scientists said on Friday they were more convinced than ever that humans are the main culprits for global warming, and predicted the impact from greenhouse gas emissions could linger for centuries.

Explaining a recent slower pace of warming, the report said the past 15-year period was skewed by the fact that 1998 was an extremely warm year with an El Nino event - a warming of the ocean surface - in the Pacific.

It said warming had slowed "in roughly equal measure" because of random variations in the climate and the impact of factors such as volcanic eruptions, when ash dims sunshine, and a cyclical decline in the sun's output.

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, told Reuters the reduction in warming would have to last far longer - "three or four decades" - to be a sign of a new trend.

And the report predicted that the reduction in warming would not last, saying temperatures from 2016-35 were likely to be 0.3-0.7 degree Celsius (0.5 to 1.3 Fahrenheit) warmer than in 1986-2005.

Still, the report said the climate was slightly less sensitive than estimated to warming from carbon dioxide.

A doubling of carbon in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1F), it said, below the 2-4.5 (3.6-8.1F) range in the 2007 report. The new range is identical to the ranges in IPCC studies before 2007.

The report said temperatures were likely to rise by between 0.3 and 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5 to 8.6 Fahrenheit) by the late 21st century. The low end of the range would only be achieved if governments sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions

Basically what the IPCC says in this report is that everything they said in their last report is wrong. Yet, we are supposed to accept their prognostications as valid or accurate?

That's your conception of science, apparently: blindly following the sermons of a bunch of political arch bishops despite the fact that they are proven wrong time and time again.

 

[bripat9643]

Win at all costs is the credo of all politics.

The IPCC is a political organization, so that doesn't make your case look very convincing.

Liberal politicians interpret that as govern as best you can. Conservatives, who basically are anarchists don't limit themselves in any way.

At all costs means just that.

What utter tripe. As your hero IdiotMe likes to say, stick your head in doo-doo. That's all you've said.

Still, no demonstration of your skill in science and mathematics.

I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Still no data for the magical ocean energy graph, I see.

 

[itfitzme]

So, here is the latest from the IPCC

Scientists more convinced mankind is main cause of warming | Reuters

Leading climate scientists said on Friday they were more convinced than ever that humans are the main culprits for global warming, and predicted the impact from greenhouse gas emissions could linger for centuries.

Explaining a recent slower pace of warming, the report said the past 15-year period was skewed by the fact that 1998 was an extremely warm year with an El Nino event - a warming of the ocean surface - in the Pacific.

It said warming had slowed "in roughly equal measure" because of random variations in the climate and the impact of factors such as volcanic eruptions, when ash dims sunshine, and a cyclical decline in the sun's output.

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, told Reuters the reduction in warming would have to last far longer - "three or four decades" - to be a sign of a new trend.

And the report predicted that the reduction in warming would not last, saying temperatures from 2016-35 were likely to be 0.3-0.7 degree Celsius (0.5 to 1.3 Fahrenheit) warmer than in 1986-2005.

Still, the report said the climate was slightly less sensitive than estimated to warming from carbon dioxide.

A doubling of carbon in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1F), it said, below the 2-4.5 (3.6-8.1F) range in the 2007 report. The new range is identical to the ranges in IPCC studies before 2007.

The report said temperatures were likely to rise by between 0.3 and 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5 to 8.6 Fahrenheit) by the late 21st century. The low end of the range would only be achieved if governments sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions

Basically what the IPCC is says in this report is that everything they said in their last report is wrong. Yet, we are supposed to accept their prognostications as valid or accurate?

That's your conception of science, apparently: blindly following the sermons of a bunch of political arch bishops despite the fact that they are proven wrong time and time again.

You still haven't prove yourself to be capable of basic science and math. So far, all you have done specifically is post a lie about the Elephant Seal habitat and migration patterns. And you haven't proven that you can assess science.

And my question was, why should anyone believe you?

 

[itfitzme]

The IPCC is a political organization, so that doesn't make your case look very convincing.



What utter tripe. As your hero IdiotMe likes to say, stick your head in doo-doo. That's all you've said.

Still, no demonstration of your skill in science and mathematics.

I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Still no data for the magical ocean energy graph, I see.

In other words, you can't do it.

And that is all I've ever presented, proof that your a moron.

 

[bripat9643]

So, here is the latest from the IPCC

Scientists more convinced mankind is main cause of warming | Reuters

Leading climate scientists said on Friday they were more convinced than ever that humans are the main culprits for global warming, and predicted the impact from greenhouse gas emissions could linger for centuries.

Explaining a recent slower pace of warming, the report said the past 15-year period was skewed by the fact that 1998 was an extremely warm year with an El Nino event - a warming of the ocean surface - in the Pacific.

It said warming had slowed "in roughly equal measure" because of random variations in the climate and the impact of factors such as volcanic eruptions, when ash dims sunshine, and a cyclical decline in the sun's output.

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, told Reuters the reduction in warming would have to last far longer - "three or four decades" - to be a sign of a new trend.

And the report predicted that the reduction in warming would not last, saying temperatures from 2016-35 were likely to be 0.3-0.7 degree Celsius (0.5 to 1.3 Fahrenheit) warmer than in 1986-2005.

Still, the report said the climate was slightly less sensitive than estimated to warming from carbon dioxide.

A doubling of carbon in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1F), it said, below the 2-4.5 (3.6-8.1F) range in the 2007 report. The new range is identical to the ranges in IPCC studies before 2007.

The report said temperatures were likely to rise by between 0.3 and 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5 to 8.6 Fahrenheit) by the late 21st century. The low end of the range would only be achieved if governments sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions

Basically what the IPCC is says in this report is that everything they said in their last report is wrong. Yet, we are supposed to accept their prognostications as valid or accurate?

That's your conception of science, apparently: blindly following the sermons of a bunch of political arch bishops despite the fact that they are proven wrong time and time again.

You still haven't prove yourself to be capable of basic science and math. So far, all you have done specifically is post a lie about the Elephant Seal habitat and migration patterns. And you haven't proven that you can assess science.

And my question was, why should anyone believe you?

The psycho Chihuahua just can't let go of my pant leg. The bottom line is that Elephant seal data doesn't amount to a drop in the ocean. You keep harping on that because you don't have any other ammunition. Your job is defending con men like Trenberth. I pity you.

Just admit that Trenberth is nothing more than a magician who makes up charts with no data to back them, and you're suffering will be over.

 

[bripat9643]

Still, no demonstration of your skill in science and mathematics.

I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Still no data for the magical ocean energy graph, I see.

In other words, you can't do it.

And that is all I've ever presented, proof that your a moron.

No, you've presented proof that you're mentally unstable and eager to defend outright fraud and abracadabra as "science."

 

[itfitzme]

I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Still no data for the magical ocean energy graph, I see.

In other words, you can't do it.

And that is all I've ever presented, proof that your a moron.

No, you've presented proof that you're mentally unstable and eager to defend outright fraud and abracadabra as "science."

There is no fraud so there is nothing to "defend".

As well, there is no purpose in discussing science with you. You are scientifically illiterate and demonstrated as to misrepresent information.

Go troll somewhere else.

 

[bripat9643]

Still, no demonstration of your skill in science and mathematics.

I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Still no data for the magical ocean energy graph, I see.

In other words, you can't do it.

And that is all I've ever presented, proof that your a moron.

In other words, I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

You can't defend your con man hero, so to deflect attention you try to administer a test.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[itfitzme]

I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Still no data for the magical ocean energy graph, I see.

In other words, you can't do it.

And that is all I've ever presented, proof that your a moron.

In other words, I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

You can't defend your con man hero, so to deflect attention you try to administer a test.

Who do you think you're fooling?

In other words, you can't. You wouldn't know how to calculate the standard deviation of a normal distributed population if I showed you what buttons to push on the calculator.

 

[PMZ]

No, the standards that apply to me and others with a scientific university education who are capable of actual thinking, rather than emotional reasoning, is quite different than the standards that you apply and therefore apply to yourself. To begin with, I don't lie or misrepresent information. I don't put up a map of the Northern Elephant Seal as being representative of all elephant seals, especially knowing that the Southern Elephant Seal is the one used for temp measures.

Your just a desperate moron that misrepresents information so that you can "win at all costs" instead of seeking the actual science.

But, by all means, show how much science you know explaining what "degrees of freedom" means in evaluating scientific data.

Oh, yeah, you can't... your not capable of getting past "doo doo head". You basically are just jerking yourself off.

Win at all costs is the credo of all politics.

The IPCC is a political organization, so that doesn't make your case look very convincing.

Liberal politicians interpret that as govern as best you can. Conservatives, who basically are anarchists don't limit themselves in any way.

At all costs means just that.

What utter tripe. As your hero IdiotMe likes to say, stick your head in doo-doo. That's all you've said.

Clearly conservatives can't distinguish science from politics. That explains a lot.

 

[PMZ]

So, here is the latest from the IPCC

Scientists more convinced mankind is main cause of warming | Reuters

Leading climate scientists said on Friday they were more convinced than ever that humans are the main culprits for global warming, and predicted the impact from greenhouse gas emissions could linger for centuries.

Explaining a recent slower pace of warming, the report said the past 15-year period was skewed by the fact that 1998 was an extremely warm year with an El Nino event - a warming of the ocean surface - in the Pacific.

It said warming had slowed "in roughly equal measure" because of random variations in the climate and the impact of factors such as volcanic eruptions, when ash dims sunshine, and a cyclical decline in the sun's output.

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, told Reuters the reduction in warming would have to last far longer - "three or four decades" - to be a sign of a new trend.

And the report predicted that the reduction in warming would not last, saying temperatures from 2016-35 were likely to be 0.3-0.7 degree Celsius (0.5 to 1.3 Fahrenheit) warmer than in 1986-2005.

Still, the report said the climate was slightly less sensitive than estimated to warming from carbon dioxide.

A doubling of carbon in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1F), it said, below the 2-4.5 (3.6-8.1F) range in the 2007 report. The new range is identical to the ranges in IPCC studies before 2007.

The report said temperatures were likely to rise by between 0.3 and 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5 to 8.6 Fahrenheit) by the late 21st century. The low end of the range would only be achieved if governments sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions

Basically what the IPCC says in this report is that everything they said in their last report is wrong. Yet, we are supposed to accept their prognostications as valid or accurate?

That's your conception of science, apparently: blindly following the sermons of a bunch of political arch bishops despite the fact that they are proven wrong time and time again.

We keep asking for proof, even any evidence, that you are right, and the IPCC is wrong. Nobody has revealed even a shred.

Are you goofy? Do you believe in Santa too?

Why do people in a situation to learn elect to stay with myths?

Your shamans must have strong medicine indeed.

 

[itfitzme]

I swear, the more I read their shit, the more sure I am that they are inbred morons. No one with a decent IQ and education would repeatedly post the mind numbing crap they post.

 

[PMZ]

In other words, you can't do it.

And that is all I've ever presented, proof that your a moron.

In other words, I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

You can't defend your con man hero, so to deflect attention you try to administer a test.

Who do you think you're fooling?

In other words, you can't. You wouldn't know how to calculate the standard deviation of a normal distributed population if I showed you what buttons to push on the calculator.

The simplest of science is well beyond him but he's going to teach the IPCC. I don't think that he has any idea how laughable that is.

Some village is short of an idiot.

 

[itfitzme]

In other words, I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

You can't defend your con man hero, so to deflect attention you try to administer a test.

Who do you think you're fooling?

In other words, you can't. You wouldn't know how to calculate the standard deviation of a normal distributed population if I showed you what buttons to push on the calculator.

The simplest of science is well beyond him but he's going to teach the IPCC. I don't think that he has any idea how laughable that is.

Some village is short of an idiot.

Why does he seem an awful lot like SlackSack? Are they all just stupid? Is that it?

 

[PMZ]

In other words, you can't. You wouldn't know how to calculate the standard deviation of a normal distributed population if I showed you what buttons to push on the calculator.

The simplest of science is well beyond him but he's going to teach the IPCC. I don't think that he has any idea how laughable that is.

Some village is short of an idiot.

Why does he seem an awful lot like SlackSack? Are they all just stupid? Is that it?

It seems like they have to change names fairly often to erase the last, and start a new, trail of tears.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, you can't. You wouldn't know how to calculate the standard deviation of a normal distributed population if I showed you what buttons to push on the calculator.

The simplest of science is well beyond him but he's going to teach the IPCC. I don't think that he has any idea how laughable that is.

Some village is short of an idiot.

Why does he seem an awful lot like SlackSack? Are they all just stupid? Is that it?

Have you ever seen kids on the playground talking about some kid they hate behind his back because they haven't got the guts to confront him directly? That's what you and PMS remind me of.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, you can't do it.

And that is all I've ever presented, proof that your a moron.

In other words, I don't take tests administered by mentally unstable idiots suffering from delusions of grandeur.

You can't defend your con man hero, so to deflect attention you try to administer a test.

Who do you think you're fooling?

In other words, you can't. You wouldn't know how to calculate the standard deviation of a normal distributed population if I showed you what buttons to push on the calculator.

Once again, no data to support the magical ocean energy graph. Whether I can calculate a standard deviation is irrelevant to the point that you're fraudulent heroes don't have the data to support their hysterical Chicken Little proclamations of doom.

 

[bripat9643]

Win at all costs is the credo of all politics.

The IPCC is a political organization, so that doesn't make your case look very convincing.

Liberal politicians interpret that as govern as best you can. Conservatives, who basically are anarchists don't limit themselves in any way.

At all costs means just that.

What utter tripe. As your hero IdiotMe likes to say, stick your head in doo-doo. That's all you've said.

Clearly conservatives can't distinguish science from politics. That explains a lot.

Sure we can. What the IPCC does is politics. The people who run it and publish their reports are all politicians. The scientists are just there for ornamentation.

 

[bripat9643]

So, here is the latest from the IPCC

Scientists more convinced mankind is main cause of warming | Reuters

Leading climate scientists said on Friday they were more convinced than ever that humans are the main culprits for global warming, and predicted the impact from greenhouse gas emissions could linger for centuries.

Explaining a recent slower pace of warming, the report said the past 15-year period was skewed by the fact that 1998 was an extremely warm year with an El Nino event - a warming of the ocean surface - in the Pacific.

It said warming had slowed "in roughly equal measure" because of random variations in the climate and the impact of factors such as volcanic eruptions, when ash dims sunshine, and a cyclical decline in the sun's output.

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, told Reuters the reduction in warming would have to last far longer - "three or four decades" - to be a sign of a new trend.

And the report predicted that the reduction in warming would not last, saying temperatures from 2016-35 were likely to be 0.3-0.7 degree Celsius (0.5 to 1.3 Fahrenheit) warmer than in 1986-2005.

Still, the report said the climate was slightly less sensitive than estimated to warming from carbon dioxide.

A doubling of carbon in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1F), it said, below the 2-4.5 (3.6-8.1F) range in the 2007 report. The new range is identical to the ranges in IPCC studies before 2007.

The report said temperatures were likely to rise by between 0.3 and 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5 to 8.6 Fahrenheit) by the late 21st century. The low end of the range would only be achieved if governments sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions

Basically what the IPCC says in this report is that everything they said in their last report is wrong. Yet, we are supposed to accept their prognostications as valid or accurate?

That's your conception of science, apparently: blindly following the sermons of a bunch of political arch bishops despite the fact that they are proven wrong time and time again.

We keep asking for proof, even any evidence, that you are right, and the IPCC is wrong. Nobody has revealed even a shred.

Are you goofy? Do you believe in Santa too?

Why do people in a situation to learn elect to stay with myths?

Your shamans must have strong medicine indeed.

We've posted an abundance of evidence that that IPCC is wrong. The IPCC itself just published a massive admission that everything it said in previous reports is wrong.