Is that some kind of reverse-patriotism? "We're not going to be able to do it because we suck like some other countries that didn't succeed in doing it?"
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
Is that some kind of reverse-patriotism? "We're not going to be able to do it because we suck like some other countries that didn't succeed in doing it?"
Quote from drjekyllus:
You don't want to give your credentials because you don't have any. You are stooge, anti-American, Canadian left-wing nut job.
I'm actually a US citizen, although I can't see how that matters to this debate given that I've posted the breakdown on how the quoted satellite measures are incorrect.
Instead of lecturing the Americans on how they should run their country, why don't you focus on why Canada is failing to meet its Kyoto obligations.
Canada is failing to meet its Kyoto targets because it has radically increased its tarsands development.
Meanwhile, Germany, the UK and France have already achieved their target goals.
You don't think that the US can even outdo France?
Quote from bigdavediode:
I'm actually a US citizen, although I can't see how that matters to this debate given that I've posted the breakdown on how the quoted satellite measures are incorrect.
You mean the ones were you, a complete fraud with no credentials, actually had the arrogance and conceit to try to debunk a guy who was a senior scientist of climate at NASA. Is that what you are talking about?
Quote from drjekyllus:
You mean the ones were you, a complete fraud with no credentials, actually had the arrogance and conceit to try to debunk a guy who was a senior scientist of climate at NASA. Is that what you are talking about?
It's" where you" not "were you" and if you'd like my credentials you are welcome to come to my home and I'll photocopy them for you. I'll even offer you a cup of coffee. (Don't worry, the dog is friendly.) I haven't bothered to give them here because no aspect of my argument requires appeals to authority. In other words, I'm not asking you to believe me or trust my word for it -- you can see each dataset yourself, such as the monthly data I just posted.
Whether the guy is the King of the Universe, he's quoted incorrect satellite measures. And contrary to the facts posted by global warming deniers, he does not work for NASA (actually he works for the University of Alabama.)
Oh, and since you're into ad homs, he actually writes for a group funded by Exxon-Mobil.
If you'd like to see an entire article breaking down how badly he cooks numbers, you may enjoy this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
Quote from bigdavediode:
Thanks for the kind words.
When presented with specific efficiency improvements, everybody seems to get behind them (such as the new efficient incandescent bulbs brought on via legislation of bulb efficiency).
Somehow many people have lost focus on energy efficiency and how it means more money all around (seemingly due to blind opposition to everything governmental.)
Well lucky for the world ET is not a representative sample of the larger population.
Most here at ET have a lot of repressed control issues, and it makes them very angry that they can do nothing about it, so they lash out against things they feel repressed by, such as government, liberals, and all minorities.
Funny place, really.
Quote from bigdavediode:
It's" where you" not "were you" and if you'd like my credentials you are welcome to come to my home and I'll photocopy them for you. I'll even offer you a cup of coffee. (Don't worry, the dog is friendly.) I haven't bothered to give them here because no aspect of my argument requires appeals to authority. In other words, I'm not asking you to believe me or trust my word for it -- you can see each dataset yourself, such as the monthly data I just posted.
Whether the guy is the King of the Universe, he's quoted incorrect satellite measures. And contrary to the facts posted by global warming deniers, he does not work for NASA (actually he works for the University of Alabama.)
Oh, and since you're into ad homs, he actually writes for a group funded by Exxon-Mobil.
If you'd like to see an entire article breaking down how badly he cooks numbers, you may enjoy this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
"The scientists interpreting the satellite temperature record failed to account for decaying satellite orbits and as a result their results were wrong."
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/blinded-but-not-by-science/
" UAH satellite temperature PRIOR to the bias adjustment for satellite drift that caused it to erroneously show no trend"
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
No one here is denying the average trend of global warming since 10,000 BC, it is the aspect of man involved that is questionable. There was a consensus that the Earth was flat at one time (at least in the West), that did not make it so. So if anything AGW believers are FLAT-EARTHERS. CO2 has proven to be a lagging indicator over a long period of time.
http://www.kowabunga.org/2007/03/global_warming_loons_gone_wild_2.html
Quote from bigdavediode:
It's" where you" not "were you" and if you'd like my credentials you are welcome to come to my home and I'll photocopy them for you. I'll even offer you a cup of coffee. (Don't worry, the dog is friendly.) I haven't bothered to give them here because no aspect of my argument requires appeals to authority. In other words, I'm not asking you to believe me or trust my word for it -- you can see each dataset yourself, such as the monthly data I just posted.
Whether the guy is the King of the Universe, he's quoted incorrect satellite measures. And contrary to the facts posted by global warming deniers, he does not work for NASA (actually he works for the University of Alabama.)
Oh, and since you're into ad homs, he actually writes for a group funded by Exxon-Mobil.
If you'd like to see an entire article breaking down how badly he cooks numbers, you may enjoy this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
Wow correcting spelling on an internet forum, you are a truely knowledgable douchebag.
Ohhh the old funded by 'big oil' BS. How many of the left-wing loonies you post are funded by Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or some other greeny group. The hero of you cause is getting paid big time off the global warming scam but I don't hear the crats complaining. In fact, it seems just about every single last one is dependant on government funds to research global warming. If the conclusions is 'no global warming exists' the funds will sort of dry up as well as their livelyhood. It is sure beneficial for them to keep the scam alive, so don't bring up funding.
You have no credentials, and no creditability so you can stick your appeal to authority argument up your ass. You have posted countless flawed statements since the debate began so its not like you are actually knowledgable about the topic. If you even have a degree at all it is in Underwater Basket Weaving or some other useless liberal arts type degree. It is certainly not in the sciences because you don't even comprehend the scientific method. Let me guess, you are unemployed and have nothing better to do except increase your skill at being a troll.
Quote from drjekyllus:
Wow correcting spelling on an internet forum, you are a truely knowledgable douchebag.
Ohhh the old funded by 'big oil' BS. How many of the left-wing loonies you post are funded by Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or some other greeny group. The hero of you cause is getting paid big time off the global warming scam but I don't hear the crats complaining. In fact, it seems just about every single last one is dependant on government funds to research global warming. If the conclusions is 'no global warming exists' the funds will sort of dry up as well as their livelyhood. It is sure beneficial for them to keep the scam alive, so don't bring up funding.
You have no credentials, and no creditability so you can stick your appeal to authority argument up your ass. You have posted countless flawed statements since the debate began so its not like you are actually knowledgable about the topic. If you even have a degree at all it is in Underwater Basket Weaving or some other useless liberal arts type degree. It is certainly not in the sciences because you don't even comprehend the scientific method. Let me guess, you are unemployed and have nothing better to do except increase your skill at being a troll.
In terms of debating points, obviously, Dave has won in a Lesnar-like whupping, and Dr. J has nothing left except his own flawed arguments and immature name calling.
Let's close this thread already
Quote from MRBRETTONWOODS:
"The scientists interpreting the satellite temperature record failed to account for decaying satellite orbits and as a result their results were wrong."
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/blinded-but-not-by-science/
That's correct. That's why the satellite measures didn't match ground instruments.
After it was corrected the satellites matched the ground temperatures and showed that warming was indeed occurring.
" UAH satellite temperature PRIOR to the bias adjustment for satellite drift that caused it to erroneously show no trend"
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
Also correct, "prior" means "before."
After, warming was shown.
No one here is denying the average trend of global warming since 10,000 BC, it is the aspect of man involved that is questionable.
It has already been proven that man is responsible for the specific extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
There was a consensus that the Earth was flat at one time (at least in the West), that did not make it so. So if anything AGW believers are FLAT-EARTHERS. CO2 has proven to be a lagging indicator over a long period of time.
http://www.kowabunga.org/2007/03/global_warming_loons_gone_wild_2.html
Far be it for me to correct kowabunga, but...
"A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation. But what it is not correct, is to say the temperature rose and then hundreds of years later the CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!) so for the majority of that time (90% and more) temperature and CO2 rose together. This means that this remarkably detailed archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for rising temperatures while also revealing it can be an effect of them."
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php
Quote from drjekyllus:
Wow correcting spelling on an internet forum, you are a truely knowledgable douchebag.
I just wanted to point out that my credentials beat your spelling.
Ohhh the old funded by 'big oil' BS.
Not BS, he's actually funded by big oil.
How many of the left-wing loonies you post are funded by Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or some other greeny group.
Zero. I've only cited scientific sources. In fact, I challenge you to show a single citation that I've made which is funded by any of the above.
The hero of you cause is getting paid big time off the global warming scam but I don't hear the crats complaining.
The hero of my cause is my niece, who I realized deserves the right to have a reasonable environment to live out her life in. And she's not making a dime.
In fact, it seems just about every single last one is dependant on government funds to research global warming. If the conclusions is 'no global warming exists' the funds will sort of dry up as well as their livelyhood. It is sure beneficial for them to keep the scam alive, so don't bring up funding.
That would have to be a massive conspiracy involving NASA, the NOAA, the CRU in the UK, the IPCC, a whole lot of governments, etc. etc.
I think it's much more likely that there's no conspiracy.
And as I've already pointed out, if Roy Spencer is paid, which he is, it doesn't matter considering he's quoted incorrect data.
You have no credentials, and no creditability so you can stick your appeal to authority argument up your ass.
Actually you have zero idea what my credentials are. It's amazing, though, that I've posted the month to month data and you didn't even look at it.
You have posted countless flawed statements since the debate began so its not like you are actually knowledgable about the topic.
In my defense I have not quoted a 96 year old man with dementia, an 80 year old man using 50 year old information, a dentist, a geologist, or a fellow who writes for Exxon-Mobil.
If you even have a degree at all it is in Underwater Basket Weaving or some other useless liberal arts type degree.
Let me guess... because after a lifetime of being a fiscal conservative, I'm a "liberal" (which is somehow bad.)
It is certainly not in the sciences because you don't even comprehend the scientific method. Let me guess, you are unemployed and have nothing better to do except increase your skill at being a troll.
I work in the sciences, if that helps you at all. (And yes, I trade.)