More Global Warming Fraud

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:15 am

Forget it, Bris Juice, they've flown the nest of reason. If you can find a sign of human intelligence in all their posts combined piled high (in an erotic effigy of Jean Harlow rimming Vivien Leigh), you let me know. Until then they're all shameless delinquents. Your acknowledgment of the Bhopal tragedy is appropriate, though its remembrance serves as well as an example of how a case of such obvious redress is so easily mocked.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:54 pm

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:88, your solar theory is bizarre at best.
Good god, you are one brainless tard. Climate and weather are driven by energy, dumbfuck.

Don't confuse him, mvscal. You might drive him to suicide. Wait... carry on.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 8:29 am

Hookers Are Killing Polar Bears and Now You Can't Water Your Lawn.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:34 pm

Diogenes wrote:Hookers Are Killing Polar Bears and Now You Can't Water Your Lawn.

mark steyn is one funny smart limey. that's why he moved to the colonies.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:24 pm

Time to carve you twits some new ones...

Global warming likely to be amplified by slow changes to Earth systems
December 20, 2009

Researchers studying a period of high carbon dioxide levels and warm climate several million years ago have concluded that slow changes such as melting ice sheets amplified the initial warming caused by greenhouse gases.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found that a relatively small rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels was associated with substantial global warming about 4.5 million years ago during the early Pliocene.

Coauthor Christina Ravelo, professor of ocean sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said the study indicates that the sensitivity of Earth's temperature to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is greater than has been expected on the basis of climate models that only include rapid responses.

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to increased atmospheric and sea-surface temperatures. Relatively rapid feedbacks include changes in atmospheric water vapor, clouds, and sea ice. These short-term changes probably set in motion long-term changes in other factors--such as the extent of continental ice sheets, vegetation cover on land, and deep ocean circulation--that lead to additional global warming, Ravelo said.

"The implication is that these slow components of the Earth system, once they have time to change and equilibrate, may amplify the effects of small changes in the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere," she said.

The researchers used sediment cores drilled from the seafloor at six different locations around the world to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels over the past five million years. They found that during the early and middle Pliocene (3 to 5 million years ago), when average global temperatures were at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than today, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was similar to today's levels, about 30 percent higher than preindustrial levels.

"Since there is no indication that the future will behave differently than the past, we should expect a couple of degrees of continued warming even if we held carbon dioxide concentrations at the current level," said lead author Mark Pagani, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale University.

Now this study is by real scientists, not Christer/Creationists and oil industry whores. Got it? Read it carefully.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:13 am

Hey Felch!

:)

What's up buddy?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:48 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Time to carve you twits some new ones...

Global warming likely to be amplified by slow changes to Earth systems
December 20, 2009

Researchers studying a period of high carbon dioxide levels and warm climate several million years ago have concluded that slow changes such as melting ice sheets amplified the initial warming caused by greenhouse gases.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found that a relatively small rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels was associated with substantial global warming about 4.5 million years ago during the early Pliocene.

Coauthor Christina Ravelo, professor of ocean sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said the study indicates that the sensitivity of Earth's temperature to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is greater than has been expected on the basis of climate models that only include rapid responses.

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to increased atmospheric and sea-surface temperatures. Relatively rapid feedbacks include changes in atmospheric water vapor, clouds, and sea ice. These short-term changes probably set in motion long-term changes in other factors--such as the extent of continental ice sheets, vegetation cover on land, and deep ocean circulation--that lead to additional global warming, Ravelo said.

"The implication is that these slow components of the Earth system, once they have time to change and equilibrate, may amplify the effects of small changes in the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere," she said.

The researchers used sediment cores drilled from the seafloor at six different locations around the world to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels over the past five million years. They found that during the early and middle Pliocene (3 to 5 million years ago), when average global temperatures were at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than today, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was similar to today's levels, about 30 percent higher than preindustrial levels.

"Since there is no indication that the future will behave differently than the past, we should expect a couple of degrees of continued warming even if we held carbon dioxide concentrations at the current level," said lead author Mark Pagani, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale University.

Now this study is by real scientists, not Christer/Creationists and oil industry whores. Got it? Read it carefully.

So, wayyyyyy back in the day, it was warmer?

hmmmmm. how could that be? there weren't rotten humans running around burning everything in sight.

and then, somehow, it cooled off, despite the fact that nobody was around to buy carbon credits.

please explain his to me, dr science.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:59 am

why not listen to somebody that works in the field as he explains to you exactly what it is they've found.....if you find some problems in his videos, then by all mean lay them out here and I'll relay the questions to him

Cupid · Post by **Cupid** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:12 am

Have you been e-mailing him claiming to be a chick?

Donder · Post by **Donder** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:29 am

A pansy trolling predominately male message boards as a chick will never not be funny.

It's common knowledge what you are, Felix. No shame. You can comfortably officially come out of the closet with your own public declaration if you'd like. Maybe ask AP for advice?

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:18 am

predominately male

I laughed....

Plato · Post by **Plato** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:13 pm

And you are?

Oh, Atomic Punk's assplug.

See you in another six weeks or so, groundhog.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:40 pm

Felix wrote:why not listen to somebody that works in the field...

A) The fact that he makes his living peddling this shit is a conflict of interest.
B) Anonymous you tube videos?
C) 9 minute long Anonymous youtube videos?

D) Do you need more?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:48 pm

mvscal wrote:
Because he's full of shit? Does he explain why the head of the CRU has resigned in disgrace?

He stepped down while an independant investigation is being conducted, that's a hell of a long ways from "resigned in disgrace".....but the "damning" evidence for some sort of conspiracy by the thousands of climatological scientists all over the world is still missing....

why do the village screechers keep using the same two mischaracterized emails over and over to prove some sort of global conspiracy? surely in the thousands of hacked emails, they could come up with something more

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:54 pm

Felix wrote:why do the village screechers keep using the same two mischaracterized emails over and over to prove some sort of global conspiracy? surely in the thousands of hacked emails, they could come up with something more

Why do PC whores always quote the likes of Limbaugh, Beck and Alex Whoever-the-fuck-that-was to try and discredit those sceptical of their dogma? And hide their bullshit in long, tediously drawn out videos?

BTW, Nick Frisco's on your side. You lose.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:05 pm

Diogenes wrote:Why do PC whores always quote the likes of Limbaugh, Beck and Alex Whoever-the-fuck-that-was to try and discredit those sceptical of their dogma? And hide their bullshit in long, tediously drawn out videos?

why is it you insist on attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message
oh I forgot, you're an uneducated dumbfuck that gets his scientific empirical data from talking head screeches

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:10 pm

Felix wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Why do PC whores always quote the likes of Limbaugh, Beck and Alex Whoever-the-fuck-that-was to try and discredit those sceptical of their dogma? And hide their bullshit in long, tediously drawn out videos?

why is it you insist on attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message

What messenger?

Aside from being pathetic and tedious, I have no idea who the PC whore in question is.

But Nicky thinks you're golden. It's all good.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:34 pm

Diogenes wrote:
A) The fact that he makes his living peddling this shit is a conflict of interest.

Yes, I see what you mean. Because somebody gets paid for their knowledge, that knowledge must be suspect. Makes sense.

We're better off believing the Limbaughs, Becks and morons like you who don't know what they're talking about, but are a lot more trustworthy. Of course the pundits don't make any money accusing scientists of conflicts of interest.

From now on I'll be looking for volunteer doctors, dentists, plumbers, electricians, etc.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:54 pm

Mikey wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
A) The fact that he makes his living peddling this shit is a conflict of interest.

Yes, I see what you mean. Because somebody gets paid for their knowledge, that knowledge must be suspect. Makes sense.

You might want to examine said 'knowledge' a little more closely. Especially if that 'knowledge' has no legitimate scientific basis and is being presented in 9 minute videos by anonymous douches.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:59 pm

Papa Willie wrote:http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
There's a list of over 31,000 American scientists who say Global Warming is shit.

Watch this. I know it sometimes might seem a little more dramatized for the effect of the story, but it makes perfect sense.

If nothing else, at least it's entertaining.

And I know who the fuck Jesse is.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:02 pm

mvscal wrote: Well, that certainly seems to be the case for anybody with even the most remote and indirect ties to the oil industry.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine? Tough shit.

Got a link to where I made that assumption?

Didn't think so. I'll wait for your reply offline.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:02 pm

Papa Willie wrote:http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
There's a list of over 31,000 American scientists who say Global Warming is shit.

Watch this. I know it sometimes might seem a little more dramatized for the effect of the story, but it makes perfect sense.

It's a good thing he went "alone" in such an uber secret meeting broadcast on T.V.

How fucking cheesy.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:08 pm

Mikey wrote:
mvscal wrote: Well, that certainly seems to be the case for anybody with even the most remote and indirect ties to the oil industry.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine? Tough shit.
Got a link to where I made that assumption?

Any Nick Frisco post.

If you're picking spokesmen for the skeptics...

Mikey wrote:We're better off believing the Limbaughs, Becks....

Nicky is your mouthpiece.

You dipshits made the rules...

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:38 pm

Mikey, at what point do you stop ignoring that virtually every "big name" supporting this theory stands to gain significant wealth or power via cap and trade and the green scare tactics?

Just as one example, Al Gore is currently lobbying DC to get them to adopt a no-bid deal for factory carbon-measuring software made by a company to which he contributes millions in venture capital funds?

Follow the money. Dems and Republicans always take $$ from opposite sides. If the GOP is with big oil, then who is giving the major $$ to support the green agenda? Hint: It ain't the Sierra Club.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:47 pm

Careful OCMike, what I stated earlier when Obama first won is coming to pass.

You oppose anything these "people" stand for and you're racist.

Just ask Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The people that oppose "universal healthcare public option lets get started on this eugenics thing right away kill babies YEAH !!!! we're overpopulated, holy christ this bill is too fucking huge to read but I'll vote for it if I can keep my job get my state more money and you won't blackmail me about my mistress Rahm" .... Health Bill ....

Are RACISTS.

You don't want to be a RACIST do you ?

DO YOU ?

DO YOU ?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:57 pm

OCmike wrote:Mikey, at what point do you stop ignoring that virtually every "big name" supporting this theory stands to gain significant wealth or power via cap and trade and the green scare tactics?

When do you stop believing the scare tactic being pounded by the deniers that virtually every "big name" supporting this theory stands to gain significant wealth, etc?

Simply not true.

Sure there are a lot that would stand to gain via cap and trade. They can all eat shit and die as far as I'm concerned, but they also don't represent all of the scientists that are working on it.

And why do you underline the word theory? You of all people (I assume) should realize that 100% of anything that science has "proven" is "theories".

Gravity
Evloution
E=mc2
acceleration = mass x velocity
the laws of thermodynamics
etc.
etc.

These are all theories. And a lot of big names make a lot of money based on the assumption that they're true. Does that make them any less true?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:59 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Careful OCMike, what I stated earlier when Obama first won is coming to pass.

You oppose anything these "people" stand for and you're racist.

Just ask Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The people that oppose "universal healthcare public option lets get started on this eugenics thing right away kill babies YEAH !!!! we're overpopulated, holy christ this bill is too fucking huge to read but I'll vote for it if I can keep my job get my state more money and you won't blackmail me about my mistress Rahm" .... Health Bill ....

Are RACISTS.

You don't want to be a RACIST do you ?

DO YOU ?

DO YOU ?

Strawman much?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:13 pm

Mikey wrote:Strawman much?

Why not. Worked for your side.

It's Christmas so, Merry Christmas you old fart.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:18 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Mikey wrote:Strawman much?
Why not. Worked for your side.

It's Christmas so, Merry Christmas you old fart.

Happy Undifferentiated Non-Religious Holidays to you too, you person of undetermined yet perfectly viable age.

(don't want to offend anybody...)

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:19 pm

Mikey wrote:
OCmike wrote:Mikey, at what point do you stop ignoring that virtually every "big name" supporting this theory stands to gain significant wealth or power via cap and trade and the green scare tactics?
When do you stop believing the scare tactic being pounded by the deniers that virtually every "big name" supporting this theory stands to gain significant wealth, etc?

Simply not true.

Sure there are a lot that would stand to gain via cap and trade. They can all eat shit and die as far as I'm concerned, but they also don't represent all of the scientists that are working on it.

And why do you underline the word theory? You of all people (I assume) should realize that 100% of anything that science has "proven" is "theories".

Ptolemaic Cosmology
Evloution
Phrenology
Bloodletting
etc.
etc.

These are all theories. And a lot of big names make a lot of money based on the assumption that they're true. Does that make them any less true?

Good point.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:22 pm

So those are the ones that you go by.

How come I'm not surprised.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:26 pm

Mikey wrote:So those are the ones that you go by.

Actually you're the one who will swallow whatever the current PC version of 'science' is without questioning.

Did I just say "science" and "without questioning" in the same sentence?

Way too 21st century.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:32 pm

Diogenes wrote:
Mikey wrote:So those are the ones that you go by.

Actually you're the one who will swallow whatever the current PC version of 'science' is without questioning.

Did I just say "science" and "without questioning" in the same sentence?

Way too 21st century.

Actually you're the one who will deny any evidence that refutes your pre-conceived notion of what the world "should" look like.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:35 pm

Mikey wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Mikey wrote:So those are the ones that you go by.

Actually you're the one who will swallow whatever the current PC version of 'science' is without questioning.

Did I just say "science" and "without questioning" in the same sentence?

Way too 21st century.
Actually you're the one who will deny any evidence that refutes your pre-conceived notion of what the world "should" look like.

Link?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:36 pm

Diogenes wrote:
Link?

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... 7&start=80

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:39 pm

Mikey wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Actually you're the one who will deny any evidence that refutes your pre-conceived notion of what the world "should" look like.
Link?

Mikey wrote:http://www.theoneboard.com/board/search ... 6&sr=posts

^^^^^^^^

Don't bother.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:40 pm

Okay, you're fast.

Predictable, but fast.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:45 pm

You probably tell that to all the boys.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:49 pm

Mikey wrote:You probably tell that to all the boys.

Quit projecting.

Still haven't seen where pointing out the conflict of interest of PC 'science' whores and the shortcomings of tedious 9 minute long anonymous videos makes me a foe of science.

titlover · Post by **titlover** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:06 pm

Mikey wrote:
OCmike wrote:Mikey, at what point do you stop ignoring that virtually every "big name" supporting this theory stands to gain significant wealth or power via cap and trade and the green scare tactics?
When do you stop believing the scare tactic being pounded by the deniers that virtually every "big name" supporting this theory stands to gain significant wealth, etc?

Simply not true.

Sure there are a lot that would stand to gain via cap and trade. They can all eat shit and die as far as I'm concerned, but they also don't represent all of the scientists that are working on it.

And why do you underline the word theory? You of all people (I assume) should realize that 100% of anything that science has "proven" is "theories".

Gravity
Evloution
E=mc2
acceleration = mass x velocity
the laws of thermodynamics
etc.
etc.

These are all theories. And a lot of big names make a lot of money based on the assumption that they're true. Does that make them any less true?

gravity is a Law. :?