Agu

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Well, fellows, I have shown what the overwhelming consensus is in the scientific community is stating. You fellows have shown what Watts, Limpballs, and like idiots are flaping yap about with no scientific backing at all.

Their consensus 30 years ago was the world was going to enter a new ice age. They were wrong then, what makes you think they have it right this time? These crooks are no better than ostriches.

Walleyes, your lie concerning that has been destroyed so many times. God, do you ever tire of lying?

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Well, fellows, I have shown what the overwhelming consensus is in the scientific community is stating.

Or more likely, you are deluding yourself into thinking that because you don't have the mental fortitude to avoid being brainwashed by the Global Warming Cult.

Where have you shown this "overwhelming consensus"??????

Well let us see. Virtually all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state in their policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Now just show me one National Academy of Science, even Outer Slobovia, that states otherwise.

 

[daveman]

LOL. Well, fellows, I have shown what the overwhelming consensus is in the scientific community is stating. You fellows have shown what Watts, Limpballs, and like idiots are flaping yap about with no scientific backing at all.

Answer the question.

Okay. So what makes an industrial engineer and economist qualified?

Bear in mind the absolute and utter fact that had he been a skeptic, you would be attacking those same degrees. You know it. I know it. Don't pretend otherwise.

Answer the question, Old Rocks. You can pretend it's not there, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Kinda like the MWP.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Daveboy, fuck you. The statement was that the head of the IPCC was a railroad engineer. I showed that was just another Walleye lie.

 

[daveman]

Hey Daveboy, fuck you.

Pass. I don't date outside my species.

The statement was that the head of the IPCC was a railroad engineer. I showed that was just another Walleye lie.

So? Are you pretending you wouldn't discard his degrees as worthless if he was a skeptic?

You would. You know it. I know it. Don't bother denying it.

 

[westwall]

LOL. Well, fellows, I have shown what the overwhelming consensus is in the scientific community is stating. You fellows have shown what Watts, Limpballs, and like idiots are flaping yap about with no scientific backing at all.

Their consensus 30 years ago was the world was going to enter a new ice age. They were wrong then, what makes you think they have it right this time? These crooks are no better than ostriches.

Walleyes, your lie concerning that has been destroyed so many times. God, do you ever tire of lying?

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming

Fine, show us a SINGLE article from any publication warning about the impending warmth. Just one. It they indeed outnumbered the coldists by 6 to 1 that should be easy. Here's a couple from the coldists side. Took me 12 seconds.

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

DER SPIEGEL*33/1974 - Katastrophe auf Raten

 

[westwall]

LOL. Well, fellows, I have shown what the overwhelming consensus is in the scientific community is stating.

Or more likely, you are deluding yourself into thinking that because you don't have the mental fortitude to avoid being brainwashed by the Global Warming Cult.

Where have you shown this "overwhelming consensus"??????

Well let us see. Virtually all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state in their policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Now just show me one National Academy of Science, even Outer Slobovia, that states otherwise.

And they've all been corrupted by money and the pursuit of grants and they have debased climate science, destroyed the peer review process, destroyed honest scientists who did not adhere to the faith and brought all the other sciences down with them. So blah blah.
I don't give a crap about some doofus' opinion like a Keith Briffa who can't even reproduce his own work. That's not science, that's hand waving.

 

[westwall]

Hey Daveboy, fuck you. The statement was that the head of the IPCC was a railroad engineer. I showed that was just another Walleye lie.

Oooohh, getting testy aren't we now. The fact is doofus, that yes, he was a railroad engineer or what do you think a engineer working for the Diesel works was working on, the toilets?

And for the record there is not one damned thing wrong with being a railroad engineer (you do realise that he was designing the machinery not operating the engines right? Or is that beyond your comprehension?) however, you will scream to the high heavens if a non-climatologist should dare to have an opinion about the climate yet your Grand High Pooba is a railroad engineer , not a climatologist, so I was just wondering how you rationalise that fact away?

 

[Muhammed]

LOL. Well, fellows, I have shown what the overwhelming consensus is in the scientific community is stating.

Or more likely, you are deluding yourself into thinking that because you don't have the mental fortitude to avoid being brainwashed by the Global Warming Cult.

Where have you shown this "overwhelming consensus"??????

Well let us see. Virtually all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state in their policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Why?

 

[daveman]

Hey Daveboy, fuck you. The statement was that the head of the IPCC was a railroad engineer. I showed that was just another Walleye lie.

Oooohh, getting testy aren't we now. The fact is doofus, that yes, he was a railroad engineer or what do you think a engineer working for the Diesel works was working on, the toilets?

And for the record there is not one damned thing wrong with being a railroad engineer (you do realise that he was designing the machinery not operating the engines right? Or is that beyond your comprehension?) however, you will scream to the high heavens if a non-climatologist should dare to have an opinion about the climate yet your Grand High Pooba is a railroad engineer , not a climatologist, so I was just wondering how you rationalise that fact away?

Like this:

 

[Old Rocks]

Their consensus 30 years ago was the world was going to enter a new ice age. They were wrong then, what makes you think they have it right this time? These crooks are no better than ostriches.

Walleyes, your lie concerning that has been destroyed so many times. God, do you ever tire of lying?

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming

Fine, show us a SINGLE article from any publication warning about the impending warmth. Just one. It they indeed outnumbered the coldists by 6 to 1 that should be easy. Here's a couple from the coldists side. Took me 12 seconds.

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

DER SPIEGEL*33/1974 - Katastrophe auf Raten

OK, both are common media articles, so I will point out the same;

Kevin Grandia | 1956 New York Times Article Warned of Warmer Climate

Seems that the idea that human activity is causing climate isn't new at all. The headline in the October 28, 1956 edition of the New York Times warns:

WARMER CLIMATE ON THE EARTH MAY BE DUE TO MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE AIR"

You can download the entire article at the end of this post.

Here are some quotes I've pulled:

Of the three gases that check radiation, carbon dioxide is especially important even though the atmosphere contains only 0.03 per cent of it by volume."

Despite nature's way of maintaining the balance of gases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being artificially increased as we burn coal, oil and wood for industrial purposes."

In a few centuries the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere will be so large that it will have a profound effect on our climate."

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/warm1956gilbertplassNYT.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Svante Arrhenius

The global warming hypothesis originated in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist, developed the theory that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels would cause global temperatures to rise by trapping excess heat in the earth’s atmosphere. Arrhenius understood that the earth’s climate is heated by a process known as the greenhouse effect. While close to half the solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface is reflected back into space, the remainder is absorbed by land masses and oceans, warming the earth’s surface and atmosphere. This warming process radiates energy, most of which passes through the atmosphere and back into space. However, small concentrations of greenhouse gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide convert some of this energy to heat and either absorb it or reflect it back to the earth’s surface. These heat-trapping gases work much like a greenhouse: Sunlight passes through, but a certain amount of radiated heat remains trapped. Source:
conif.com Svante Arrhenius received the Nobel Prize in 1903 for his studies of electrolytic dissociation in solutions, work which was on the borderland of physics and chemistry. Two years later he assumed the directorship of the Nobel Institute for Physical Chemistry, a post he held until his death. His proclivity for interdisciplinary topics led him to apply principles from physical chemistry to immunology and to advance theories of cosmology and the origin of life (Worlds in the Making, 1908). His broad scientific interests and his position in the Nobel Institute placed him at the center of international communities of physical and life scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

It found a lone advocate. In 1938 an English engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar, tried to revive the old idea. An expert on steam technology, Callendar apparently took up meteorology as a hobby to fill his spare time.(14) Many people, looking at weather stories from the past, had been saying that a warming trend was underway. When Callendar compiled measurements of temperatures from the 19th century on, he found they were right. He went on to dig up and evaluate old measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. He concluded that over the past hundred years the concentration of the gas had increased by about 10%. This rise, Callendar asserted, could explain the observed warming. For he understood (perhaps from Hulburt's calculation) that even if the CO2 in the atmosphere did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more gas would change the height in the atmosphere where the absorption took place. That, he calculated, would make for warming.

As for the future, Callendar estimated, on flimsy grounds, that a doubling of CO2 could gradually bring a 2°C rise in future centuries. He hinted that it might even trigger a shift to a self-sustaining warmer climate (which did not strike him as a bad prospect).(15) But future warming was a side issue for Callendar. Like all his predecessors, he was mainly interested in solving the mystery of the ice ages.

 

[westwall]

Walleyes, your lie concerning that has been destroyed so many times. God, do you ever tire of lying?

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming

Fine, show us a SINGLE article from any publication warning about the impending warmth. Just one. It they indeed outnumbered the coldists by 6 to 1 that should be easy. Here's a couple from the coldists side. Took me 12 seconds.

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

DER SPIEGEL*33/1974 - Katastrophe auf Raten

OK, both are common media articles, so I will point out the same;

Kevin Grandia | 1956 New York Times Article Warned of Warmer Climate

Seems that the idea that human activity is causing climate isn't new at all. The headline in the October 28, 1956 edition of the New York Times warns:

WARMER CLIMATE ON THE EARTH MAY BE DUE TO MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE AIR"

You can download the entire article at the end of this post.

Here are some quotes I've pulled:

Of the three gases that check radiation, carbon dioxide is especially important even though the atmosphere contains only 0.03 per cent of it by volume."

Despite nature's way of maintaining the balance of gases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being artificially increased as we burn coal, oil and wood for industrial purposes."

In a few centuries the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere will be so large that it will have a profound effect on our climate."

Resetting the boundaries are we? I believe the implied time frame was from the 1970's as that is the time frame of the scientists involved in the current fraud and the ones specifically referenced in my post and in yours. Or is that too hard for you? If you wish we can go back over the decades with the New York Times which, with great regularity, reports that it's cold, then it's warm, then it's cold, then it's warm etc. etc. etc.

Kind of like maybe the world is operating on a cycle huh.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not one, but several. You lost. Period.

 

[Liability]

Not one, but several. You lost. Period.

Which Mayan Gods do YOU pray to Moldy Cocks?

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't pray. Waste of time.

 

[Liability]

Don't pray. Waste of time.

So is your faith in the patently absurd AGW bullshit.

But that doesn't even slow you down.

And your fellow AGW Faithers opened your silly conference with a prayer to a fucking Mayan God.

You tools are so pathetic, it's embarrassing to watch you.

 

[westwall]

Not one, but several. You lost. Period.

No, I didn't, you altered the conditions. Kind of like little kids who change the rules of the game when it goes against them. How about coming up with some from the time frame referenced? Or are you just going to admit that the timeline below shows unequivocally that the climate runs in cycles.

I find it quite interesting that the NYT articles follow the North Atlantic Oscillation quite nicely don't you? I see no correlation between CO2 and the climate cycles at all. Do you?

NYT timeline courtesy of Midnight Marauder.