Global warming hoax fools millions

Quote from Trader666:

That's arbitrary, littledaviedumbass. And not his only manipulation.


Oh please. A baseless smear from a kook like YOU means nothing. Jaworowski has enough credibility to provide input on climate change to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and he's also a physicist.
More...

:) He also is a stamp collector and reads books, which are also things that are not climatology.

Here's why YOU'RE a kook. You shill for global warming yet you didn't recongize a chart of the Vostok data.
More...

Here's a short list (from the liberal hacks at NASA) of ice core data. If I pick one will you recognize it if the plot lines are unlabeled? You are aware that there are many ice cores, and they all reach the same conclusion, so for you to latch on to part of one set is rather sad.

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Keywords.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=Parameters|PALEOCLIMATE|ICE+CORE+RECORDS|CARBON+DIOXIDE&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb2

The rest of your post is just fantasy, so I'll just ignore it.
 
Oh please troll... then here's another:

"We are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."

-- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Quote from bigdavediode:

:) He also is a stamp collector and reads books, which are also things that are not climatology.
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

Oh please troll... then here's another:

"We are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."

-- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
More...

Yes, it is a good time for you to run from the topic.
 
And another:

"Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view"
and
"It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"

-- Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists
 
Projection won't save you littledaviedumbass. You've already made a total fool of yourself. Now let's see you dig yourself in even deeper by claiming all these scientists are kooks too :p

So here's another:

"The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."

-- Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes, it is a good time for you to run from the topic.
More...
 
And another:

"There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."

-- Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre
 
And another:

"The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment (June 2007), let alone human-caused warming."

-- Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
 
And another:

"The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."

-- Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
 
How about this little fraud littledaviedumbass:

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie
By David Theroux on Jun 18, 2010

As reported by Lawrence Solomon in the Financial Post, prominent climate scientist/alarmist Mike Hulme has now admitted that:

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia—the university of Climategate fame—is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on “Climate scenario development” for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Read more at: http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=6645
 
I'm sorry, but if you think you can distract from your catastrophe by throwing up a variety of discredited quotes and hoping that one will stick you obviously have a very low opinion of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top