Global Warming: For Experts Only

[jem]

1. you lie again. the sentence says he has a b.s. and and M.S. in geology. How can you lie so stupidly? You do realize M.S. is a masters of science don't you?


2. if you read the link to the PBS article... the pbs articled linked to a journal. His article was had numerous citations. you are just lying your ass off.

3. Finally, you have not once even tried to argue or understand the science. Are you denying natural cycles and forces can and have caused the ice to melt?

its like you don't understand we have cycled through all this in past. Long before man made co2 was being created.

Typical crap source from you. You can't lie without them. Not even peer reviewed. By someone with a lowly BS in geo, that's an industry whore.

And you wonder why I call you a liar.

 

[futurecurrents]

1. you lie again. the sentence says he has a b.s. and and M.S. in geology. How can you lie so stupidly? You do realize M.S. is a masters of science don't you?


2. if you read the link to the PBS article... the pbs articled linked to a journal. His article was had numerous citations. you are just lying your ass off.

3. Finally, you have not once even tried to argue or understand the science. Are you denying natural cycles and forces can and have caused the ice to melt?

its like you don't understand we have cycled through all this in past. Long before man made co2 was being created.

So you can't even admit that he is unqualified hack that wrote a hack piece for his petro employers. It's obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80.

Sad.

 

[OddTrader]

Lizzie Wade Science Date of Publication: 03.31.16.

Tesla’s Electric Cars Aren’t as Green as You Might Think

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/

At this mine, those rare earths amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pulled out of the ground. The other 99.8 percent—now contaminated with toxic chemicals—is dumped back into the environment. That damage is difficult to quantify, just like the impact of oil drilling.

And, as in every stage of the process, mining has hidden emissions. Jiangxi has it relatively easy because it’s digging up clay, but many mines rely on rock-crushing equipment with astronomical energy bills, as well as coal-fired furnaces for the final baking stages. Those spew a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the process of refining a material destined for your zero-emissions car. In fact, manufacturing an electric vehicle generates more carbon emissions than building a conventional car, mostly because of its battery, the Union of Concerned Scientists has found.

“We’re shifting pollution, and in the process we’re hoping that it doesn’t have the environmental impact,” says Abraham. He believes that when you add all the environmental impacts, they still come out in favor of electric vehicles. (The Union of Concerned Scientists agrees; it found that even when you add in emissions from battery manufacturing, EVs generate half the emissions of a conventional car over the course of its life.) Still, consumers and investors should understand what it takes to make the materials that enable their green choices. “I don’t think there’s been much discussion of that,” Abraham says. “We can’t look at mining as an over-there thing and at Tesla as an over-here thing. They’re intricately linked.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

 

[jem]

who cares if he is a hack
al gore is a hack yet you cite his crap
skeptical science is run by a cartoonist yet you cite that site all the time.


its the science that matters.
his article showed by linking to other articles and journals that at least some of the melt is due to natural causes.

That you can't even discuss the science is telling.
you lie your ass off to avoid even discussing the science.

So you can't even admit that he is unqualified hack that wrote a hack piece for his petro employers. It's obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80.

Sad.

 

[LacesOut]

"BS" jerm, you DO know that's not as good as a doctorate right. Of course you do.

GEOLOGY jerm, you DO know that's not climate science right ? Of course you do.

RETIRED

WORKED FOR OIL COMPANIES jerm, you DO know that means he is biased right?

NOT A CLIMATOLOGIST So you know he's not an expert in these matters right? Yes you do.


IT'S NOT PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL, IT'S ON HIS OWN WEBPAGE so it has no credibility

You know this also.

But still you put this out there as if it's real science. IT ISN'T and either you know it and are a liar, or you are much dumber than I thought you were. Which you are not.

You are just a fucking liar.

Are you being compensated to lie like this ?

Lol. What a loser you are.
Only the geologists you select, with the conclusions that serve your bias, are acceptable...

 

[Wallet]

Lol. What a loser you are.
Only the geologists you select, with the conclusions that serve your bias, is acceptable...

I thought that had been established long long ago. If you're a climate denier, skeptic, whatever - regardless of credential, your voice means nothing and should be silenced at all cost.

 

[futurecurrents]

I thought that had been established long long ago. If you're a climate denier, skeptic, whatever - regardless of credential, your voice means nothing and should be silenced at all cost.

Nonsense. Climate deniers are all that you right wingers hear from. That's why you're so deluded and ignorant about the subject. The article jem posted is a perfect example of the crap you guys are fed and gullibly accept. Say bah sheep. Sad.

 

[futurecurrents]

Lol. What a loser you are.
Only the geologists you select, with the conclusions that serve your bias, are acceptable...

So you looked at this and actually think that article is worthy. Amazing.

Do really think that science papers end with

". More bluntly, it’s time to call off the dogs in global warming dogma and reinstitute a more free-thinking scientific approach of climate studies."

?


really?

Or that science papers come from the author's website, with no peer review? And the author works for the fossil fuel industry.


really?


More likely you do not care that the source is shit, it repeats what your team chants which is all that matters.

Sheep.

 

[jem]

you are such a liar.
The author linked to an NPR article.
The NPR article is based on a paper in nature.com which is peer reviewed.

your entire argument is anti science troll piece shot zero integrity argument of lies.

2. here is the main paragraph I cited.
click the first link..."here"
it goes to NPR.
see the NPR article it links to source material at the nature.com

you lying, zero integrity anti science troll.


"These research studies, conducted by reliable institutions, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that anomalous Arctic Sea Ice melting involves a complex interaction process between many natural forces, not just atmospheric forces (see here, here, and here). This is a major setback for climate scientists and politicians advocating man-made atmospheric global warming. Turns out that the poster child and supposedly 97% resolved a portion of the theory which states human CO2 emissions are the singular cause of anomalous Arctic Sea Ice melting is—in the vernacular—a lot of hot air."

So you looked at this and actually think that article is worthy. Amazing.

Do really think that science papers end with

". More bluntly, it’s time to call off the dogs in global warming dogma and reinstitute a more free-thinking scientific approach of climate studies."

?


really?

Or that science papers come from the author's website, with no peer review? And the author works for the fossil fuel industry.


really?


More likely you do not care that the source is shit, it repeats what your team chants which is all that matters.

Sheep.

 

[futurecurrents]

you are such a liar.
The author linked to an NPR article.
The NPR article is based on a paper in nature.com which is peer reviewed.

your entire argument is anti science troll piece shot zero integrity argument of lies.

2. here is the main paragraph I cited.
click the first link..."here"
it goes to NPR.
see the NPR article it links to source material at the nature.com

you lying, zero integrity anti science troll.


"These research studies, conducted by reliable institutions, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that anomalous Arctic Sea Ice melting involves a complex interaction process between many natural forces, not just atmospheric forces (see here, here, and here). This is a major setback for climate scientists and politicians advocating man-made atmospheric global warming. Turns out that the poster child and supposedly 97% resolved a portion of the theory which states human CO2 emissions are the singular cause of anomalous Arctic Sea Ice melting is—in the vernacular—a lot of hot air."

Oh wow. HE LINKED TO AN ARTICLE ON NPR!!!!

So why did he have to publish it on his own website and not in a peer reviewed journal.

I'll tell you why. Because it's shit. Like all of your sources of lies.