T1B

Jsc810 wrote:Money? Trying to further the issue of global warming?

One and the same.

whatever happened to simple embezzlement?

Papa Willie wrote:Again - Algore worth $800k in 2000, now a billionaire. It's really that simple.

Damn, I sure missed my calling.

amusing.


considering the 30 straight days of 100 in Kansas and droughts across the plains and super droughts in Texas, I thought the climate change people would be silent these days.


I guess stupid doesn't take a holiday.

Bizzarofelice wrote:considering the 30 straight days of 100 in Kansas and droughts across the plains and super droughts in Texas,

WHOA!! In the middle of JULY? That's unprecedented...oh wait, no it isn't.

I guess stupid doesn't take a holiday.

I guess.

Bizzarofellice wrote: I guess stupid doesn't take a holiday.

No it doesn't. It's taken up permanent residence in St. Louis. Wake me when that li'l streak of yours sets a record.

So, what happened in the '40s - mini ice age?

Mikey wrote:So, what happened in the '40s - mini ice age?

c'mon, mikey, you're the board scientist and all, so you should know that the mini ice age was
the one that took up a fairly good chunk of the 2nd millenium. the 40s was the micro ice age, or is it nano? i always confuse those two.

the fact that the 30s get any run at all in the hotter than hades record category should pretty well refute the whole AGW dealio since we have put eleventy billion x more stuff into the atmosphere since the 30s than we did before. if you look at one of those cool hockey stick graph dealios that algore uses to get rich awaken us to the dangers of global warming, you would find that 1930 is pretty much at the stick end of the hockey stick blade. It would seem to me that if there is a correlation, there shouldn't be a high temp record more than a decade or two old.

strange

lots of people in this thread basing their decisions on emotions

yet none of them are women

1980 was the last time it was this hot for this long in Oklahoma.

Musta been the first time we had Global Warming.

Bizzarofelice wrote:lots of people in this thread basing their decisions on emotions

What decisions have been made and based on which emotion?

Bizzarofelice wrote:amusing.


considering the 30 straight days of 100 in Kansas and droughts across the plains and super droughts in Texas, I thought the climate change people would be silent these days.


I guess stupid doesn't take a holiday.

Yet here in the 303, it's been a much wetter than normal summer. Barely used the lawn sprinklers in July and August is forecast to be even wetter.

Good times, good times

man, people sure are freaking out in this thread.


when other climate science is released, they don't blink.


when something regarding the environment is mentioned on fox news, they have an emotional reaction.


read the article again and tell me where your victory is

Bizzarofelice wrote:read the article again and tell me where your victory is

Oh, I dunno.

Watching you melt in (near) record heat?

Bizzarofelice wrote:man, people sure are freaking out in this thread.

I dunno.

When someone inevitably throws out the "climate change my ass" card during a cold spell in the winter, I tend to regard them as a knee-jerk fucking halfwit.

I figure the same regards apply when someone uses a hot spell in summer to prove climate change.

Just trying to be fair to all parties of dipshits. That's all.

Bizzarofelice wrote:man, people sure are freaking out in this thread.

Who is freaking out here? It's a pretty standard thread about yet another global warming shill being outted as a blatant fraud. There was some light mockery of the situation and....you.

I'm not seeing any "emotional decisions" or "freaking out." Why don't you cite some examples for us?

R-Jack wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:man, people sure are freaking out in this thread.

I dunno.

When someone inevitably throws out the "climate change my ass" card during a cold spell in the winter, I tend to regard them as a knee-jerk fucking halfwit.

my point exactly

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:man, people sure are freaking out in this thread.

Who is freaking out here? It's a pretty standard thread about yet another global warming shill being outted as a blatant fraud.

you didn't read the article

Papa Willie wrote:Again - it's nothing more than humorous to me to see how pompous man is to think that HE is going to change everything (in roughly 50 years) that has been going on for 4 billion years.

what has been going on since the industrial revolution is the same as what happened all times prior? science says no. do you disagree, or did non-scientists convince you otherwise?

88 wrote: But I am a bit surprised that other scientists would be so quick to dismiss the study, which merely states that the collected data does not jive with what the computer models are programmed to forecast.

Why? Sommerville is one the stooges who wrote the IPCC report. Climate change alarmism is his gravytrain.

http://sppiblog.org/news/who-is-richard-somerville

http://www.sciencestorm.com/pi/Richard- ... 03342.html

You would think a true scientist would find such a study interesting, and perhaps utilize the information published in the paper to modify or test his or her own hypothesis.

A true scientist, yes. A fraudulant hack...not so much.

Wait -- someone's grant gravy was threatened, so they dismissed the grant-threat?

Shocking.

But I'd love for Bace to show all his pre-Industrial Revolution data that was so meticulously collected (HIDE THE DECLINE!!!!!.... USE MIKE'S "NATURE TRICK"), so we could compare it to the observed data observed data that was radically altered when it didn't match what the computer models forecast.

But take your time, Bace, I realize you need to dodge that not changing quickly rising ocean.

Dinsdale wrote: But I'd love for Bace to show all his pre-Industrial Revolution data ...

what?

Bizzarofelice wrote:strange

lots of people in this thread basing their decisions on emotions

yet none of them are women

You're sure on this one, bro? Can't smell the estrus under the f-5 button?

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Dinsdale wrote: But I'd love for Bace to show all his pre-Industrial Revolution data ...

what?

I know the Cultist aren't real big on factual data...


HIDE THE DECLINE!!!!!

"If we shut down 90% of the temp reporting stations in Canatucky, and replace them with ones in urban areas where it stay warm at night... WE WERE RIGHT!!!!"

Dinsdale wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Dinsdale wrote: But I'd love for Bace to show all his pre-Industrial Revolution data ...

what?

I know the Cultist aren't real big on factual data...

so you agree that it is strange to harbor a belief not shared by 99.9% of climate scientists?

it is strange to not only stick to the .01%, especially when you know little about the subject, but to strongly argue the point as if you understand a lick of it? really?

the 99.9% have a better hold than you do, Dins. not that you don't have fun telling 99.9% that you're such much smarter than they are.

"99.9%," eh?

Even the IPCC themselves don't claim that big a number (their "survey" is mostly psychologists-BTW).

But far be it for Cultists to engage in hyperbole, eh?


What I find odd, is that those funded with government/grant money are mostly part of the nonexistent "consensus," while privately employed meteorologists seem to be largely "anti"...

More things to make you go HMMMMM?

And while I have your ear, could you give to me the exact date that science became a democracy, Flat-Earther?

TIA

Yeah, next he's going to tell us warts aren't caused by witchcraft!



Shove your "scientific evidence" up your ass!

Bizzarofelice wrote:so you agree that it is strange to harbor a belief not shared by 99.9% of climate scientists?

A. Your number is a ridiculous exaggeration.

B. Consensus opinion is a political tool and has nothing to do with science. It doesn't matter if 99.9% of scientists believe something that's demonstrably wrong. The observational data flat out do not support the conclusions derived from computer models. That isn't even arguable any longer.

The overwhelming scientific consensus in Galileo's time was the geocentric Ptolemaic system not the heliocentric Copernican system. The well funded proponents of Ptolemaic system reacted in the exact same way as the current batch of climate change alarmists and branded anyone who disagreed with them as heretics. Never mind the fact that the Ptolemaic system, like anthropogenic warming, could not be reconciled with actual observational data. Their gravy train was on the line and they lashed out against all who dared to disagree.

mvscal wrote:The well funded proponents of Ptolemaic system reacted in the exact same way as the current batch of climate change alarmists and branded anyone who disagreed with them as heretics.

No, it's cool, bro -- instead of "heretics," we call them "deniers" this time around... we're all good.


Their new (old) trick they've been ramping up (the laymen faction, anyway) is "where's your proof that it isn't happening."

Yup, you read it right.

Someone proposes a radical new, completely unproven, unpravable theory, and now the onus is on the "deniers" to disprove it.

Yeah, that meets the definition of "science," alright.

Popular vote is proof, and neighsayers are denigrated, decertified, and ridiculed.

Nah, no scam going on here... nothing to see, move along... oh, and BTW -- give me your money and I'll fix it.

mvscal wrote: B. Consensus opinion is a political tool and has nothing to do with science.

So you understand the science better than scientists in the field?



This is too easy.

mvscal wrote:It doesn't matter if 99.9% of scientists believe something

it's not what a scientist "believes" (you act like science is some faith based creed)

it's what can be observed and measured and the formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses...

you know, science

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:It doesn't matter if 99.9% of scientists believe something

it's not what a scientist "believes" (you act like science is some faith based creed)

Yes, that is exactly what APGW is.

it's what can be observed and measured and the formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses...

What can be observed and measured cannot be reconciled with the computer models used to pimp anthropogenic warming.

Alarmists have computer models. Skeptics have observational data.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

mvscal wrote: B. Consensus opinion is a political tool and has nothing to do with science.

So you understand the science better than scientists in the field?

Which scientists? I know algore told you that the "science is settled," but, and I hate to burst your bubble, he lied.

Bizzarofelice wrote: This is too easy.

What is?

You bending over backward trying to make yourself appear smart while getting reverse cowboyed by people who actually are?

Congrats. You must be quite limber.

War Wagon wrote:
You bending over backward trying to make yourself appear smart while getting reverse cowboyed by people who actually are?

I'm not bending. At all. This is easy. I go with the flow. Others have to work against the flow of 99.9% and against the fact that they ain't scientists to make their point. I just surround myself with the smart people and point to them.

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

mvscal wrote: B. Consensus opinion is a political tool and has nothing to do with science.

So you understand the science better than scientists in the field?

Which scientists?

99.9% of them. I take their word for it. Not Al Gore. Science. I look to science on such issues. Not Conservative media.

If I needed to find a pic of Obama eating a watermelon, I would look to Conservative Media. They research Obama eating watermelon more than they do science.

Bizzarofelice wrote:99.9% of them.

That figure is a lie as well as being totally irrelevant.

Bizzarofelice wrote: I go with the flow. Others have to work against the flow of 99.9% and against the fact that they ain't scientists to make their point. I just surround myself with the smart people and point to them.

In other words, you don't have your own opinions but instead regurgitate those friendly to your perception.

ok.

War Wagon wrote: In other words, you don't have your own opinions but instead regurgitate those friendly to your perception.

My perception is that scientists understand science better than me. Considering their great knowledge and extensive research into matters of which I know far les than they do, I would be stupid to act as if I knew better than they.

So... do you think you know more than they do, WW? Do you know more about science than the scientists?

Bizzarofelice wrote:
My perception is that scientists understand science better than me. Considering their great knowledge and extensive research into matters of which I know far les than they do, I would be stupid to act as if I knew better than they.

So... do you think you know more than they do, WW? Do you know more about science than the scientists?

Just look at you, smugly referring to "science" when we're talking about the weather. You speak of it in hushed tones, almost religiously.

I rely on the evidence of my senses, not some scientist who wants to get fucked up the ass.

Are you a theologic scientist, bacey?