Why would we do that? If that happens it's only because of the liberals, somehow.
It's handy to have a catch-all scapegoat. And if they are to blame it's only because they weren't REAL Republicans.
Global warming hoax fools millions
- Thread starter wilburbear
- Start date
Why would we do that? If that happens it's only because of the liberals, somehow.
It's handy to have a catch-all scapegoat. And if they are to blame it's only because they weren't REAL Republicans.
First of all, that report is still riddled with bullshit which is what happens when science is politicized. But it's still a step in the right direction away from eco-fascism and toward objectivity.
As to your question, the answer is simple littledaviedumbass... the misrepresentation is yours since you quoted it out of context. Here's the very next sentence that you conveniently left out:
The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.
You also left out gaping holes in our knowledge that are admitted in the report, holes that pretty much render forecasts useless... such as:
The future strength of the uptake of CO2 by the land and oceans (which together are currently responsible for taking up about half of the emissions from human activity â see paragraph 26) is very poorly understood, particularly because of gaps in our understanding of the response of biological processes to changes in both CO2 concentrations and climate.
How can one make an accurate forecast of future temperature increases, allegedly from CO2 level increases, if the future strength of the uptake of CO2 by the environment "is very poorly understood"?
Not to mention that CO2 concentrations went to 440 ppmv around 1820,about 390 ppmv around 1855, and to about 440 ppmv around 1940 and the world didn't come to an end.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why you're such a dumbass
As to your question, the answer is simple littledaviedumbass... the misrepresentation is yours since you quoted it out of context. Here's the very next sentence that you conveniently left out:
The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.
You also left out gaping holes in our knowledge that are admitted in the report, holes that pretty much render forecasts useless... such as:
The future strength of the uptake of CO2 by the land and oceans (which together are currently responsible for taking up about half of the emissions from human activity â see paragraph 26) is very poorly understood, particularly because of gaps in our understanding of the response of biological processes to changes in both CO2 concentrations and climate.
How can one make an accurate forecast of future temperature increases, allegedly from CO2 level increases, if the future strength of the uptake of CO2 by the environment "is very poorly understood"?
Not to mention that CO2 concentrations went to 440 ppmv around 1820,about 390 ppmv around 1855, and to about 440 ppmv around 1940 and the world didn't come to an end.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why you're such a dumbass
Ah, I see. So the original claim of the article that you believed which was that Britain "has now joined the ranks of the denier nations" is false -- but... uh... something about how nothing is known for certain. (Insert more arm waving.)
I suppose that, given there can be no absolute certainty, the wise choice would be to come up with three estimates of outcomes: a worst case, a moderate prediction and a best case scenario exactly as the IPCC and other reports have done. The best case scenario is not a good scenario.
Now, regarding your ad-homs, you need to improve those. Writing "Ur a dumbas" on every post might not be showing how clever you really are. Clearly only an erudite man of high esteem and as astute as yourself could create "Ur a dumbass," or the always crafty, "No U R!" How about something childishly mocking my made up Internet pseudonym? Oh right, you already did that.
Let me give you an example: "Trader666 is the kind of guy who would argue with his mother about what color of helmet he needs to wear that day" or "Trader666 would be a teabagger if only he could pass the exam that they keep giving him -- "Name" and "Phone."
It's a lot more than that, littledaviedumbass. The future strength of the uptake of CO2 by the environment "is very poorly understood." What part of that don't you understand? And what about past CO2 concentrations of 440 ppmv and 390 ppmv in the 1800s and 440 ppmv around 1940?
"Writing 'Ur a dumbas' on every post"? I've never written that. Show a link to even one post, liar.
Is your goal to lose more credibility with each and every post you write, littledaviedumbass?
"Writing 'Ur a dumbas' on every post"? I've never written that. Show a link to even one post, liar.
Is your goal to lose more credibility with each and every post you write, littledaviedumbass?
Ummm... okay.
Well, firstly, tell us what specific measurement showed 440 ppm in 1940 or the 1800's. (You can't, of course, without telling us two pieces of information: one that it was collected in a polluted city and two, that it was a one-off measurement not confirmed by other measurements.)
It's a simple question: cite the measurement. Cite your claim. Not just to an kook author, but to an actual measurement.
"Ummm... okay"? Oh please.
You wrote the following which is a fabrication and makes you a liar.
Writing "Ur a dumbas" on every post might not be showing how clever you really are.
You even embellished your lie with:
Clearly only an erudite man of high esteem and as astute as yourself could create "Ur a dumbass," or the always crafty, "No U R!"
It's not a "specific measurement" littledaviedumbass, it's AVERAGES. Here are two sources, the first of which was a statement written for a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation so don't even try to call Jaworowski a kook.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2008/Z_J_Climate_Report.pdf
Is your mission to lose more credibility with each and every post you write? You're doing an excellent job of it!
You wrote the following which is a fabrication and makes you a liar.
Writing "Ur a dumbas" on every post might not be showing how clever you really are.
You even embellished your lie with:
Clearly only an erudite man of high esteem and as astute as yourself could create "Ur a dumbass," or the always crafty, "No U R!"
It's not a "specific measurement" littledaviedumbass, it's AVERAGES. Here are two sources, the first of which was a statement written for a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation so don't even try to call Jaworowski a kook.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2008/Z_J_Climate_Report.pdf
Is your mission to lose more credibility with each and every post you write? You're doing an excellent job of it!
Your second link cites the link you posted originally (Beck) but doesn't tell us what measurements and your first claim is, yes, a kook and cites no specifics.
Again, cite your claim. All we're looking for is where the measurements were taken (ie. in a city?) and if they were confirmed by other GLOBAL measurements (they weren't). I'll just ignore the fact that CO2 measuring has improved in accuracy since the 1800's and we'll start with your forthcoming citation and ignore that Beck didn't understand how to reject outliers.
Cite away.
That's a good one! You've shown here that you're an ignorant, stupid, lying troll and you actually think I'm going to chase down your rabbits?
Do your own digging. I cited two papers by a reputable scientist. If you want any more, get off your lazy, dumb ass and research it yourself.
Dig away, littledaviedumbass.
Do your own digging. I cited two papers by a reputable scientist. If you want any more, get off your lazy, dumb ass and research it yourself.
Dig away, littledaviedumbass.
Quote from Trader666:
That's a good one! You've shown here that you're an ignorant, stupid lying troll and you actually think I'm going to chase down your rabbits?
Do your own digging. I cited two papers by a reputable scientist. If you want any more, get off your lazy, dumb ass and research it yourself.
Dig away, littledaviedumbass.
No, you cited a claim made by Beck, then cited another guy who cited Beck. Here -- let's play a game:
Let's say that Beck wanted you to average measurements done in London in the 1800's, around the time of the industrial revolution --you would obviously agree that those CO2 measures should be rejected from any global generalizations.
<img src = "http://cc.owu.edu/~rdfusch/the_smoke_at_widnes_the_midlands.jpg">