Climategate.com exposed as fraud!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[DiveCon]

It can also be proven, all day every day, that pathogens (i.e. viruses and bacteria) cause diseases, rather than "evil spirits".

Need we go on?

shhh, you'll confuse him more than he already is

here divemoroncon this link will explain global warming to you from the trusted experts at popular mechanics they debunk all the myths of yours and your ilk

Global warming extinction threat | Popular Mechanics

ah, the south african site
LOL


what a fucking IDIOT you are

 

[eots]

Greenhouse Graveyard: New Progress for Big Global Warming Fix

Carbon Sequestration as Global Warming Solution ? How Carbon Capture Could Prevent Global Warming - Popular Mechanics


Global Warming Solutions

Global Warming Solutions, Stop Global Warming - National Geographic

looks like national geographic " is in on it" as well

 

[Rambunctious]

Spidy,
Lets say it is warming for what ever reason, what do you think will happen? Are we all going to drown. Will the seas swamp the whole world in one generation. You see, even if the world is getting warmer the rate of warming is so small that the global effect will be minuscule.

Many meteorologist suggest a wait and see approach, lets see what the temperature readings are in 10 to 20 years. Only greedy power hungry politicians like Al Gore and the leaders of the financial black hole called the United Nations suggest we must act now or die.

Lets give the creator of all of this some credit. Would he make a world so fragile that temporary inhabitants could destroy it in only a half a dozen decades or so? I don't think so. This planet has been here long before us and will be here long after we are gone.

 

[DiveCon]

Greenhouse Graveyard: New Progress for Big Global Warming Fix

Carbon Sequestration as Global Warming Solution ? How Carbon Capture Could Prevent Global Warming - Popular Mechanics


Global Warming Solutions

Global Warming Solutions, Stop Global Warming - National Geographic

looks like national geographic " is in on it" as well

gawd damn, you are an asshole

 

[Oddball]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ROCK SOLID PROOF" IN SCIENCE
.

Let's start with the semantics.

What is "PROOF"...."rock solid" or otherwise??

C'mon............Let's go.........

Bring it.

C'mon, dickweed......


Define the terms.....In no uncertain terms.....


I defy you....

 

[Oddball]

And if it ain't "rock solid" how is it "science"?

Shit, dude, even rock manages to be "rock solid".

How would the simile work otherwise?

???

 

[code1211]

Climategate.com Should Not Be Trusted

Would you care to explain to me why Mars was heating at the same rate the Earth was over the last warming period? Nasa reported this in 2007.

OK, if you will explain why Uranus is getting colder.

Since only around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming, why aren't all 100 warming and why is Uranus cooling?

What the science says...

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.



The primary empirical evidence for long term, global warming on Mars comes from Fenton 2007. Fenton compared a composite snapshot of Mars from 1977 taken by the Voyager spacecraft to a 1999 image compiled by the Mars Global Surveyor (referencing work from Geissler 2005). The 1977 snapshot showed a brighter planet. In 1999, the planet had a lower albedo, with prominent darker regions in the southern mid and high latitudes. Using the albedo changes in a general circulation model, Fenton calculated a 22 year global warming trend of 0.65°C.

Figure 1: Snapshots of Mars 1977 (top) and 1999 (bottom). Image courtesy of Geissler 2005.

Fenton attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet's albedo. Martian dust plays a major role in the planet's climate (Kahn 1992). Solar variations are not the main driver of Martian climate.

Not disputing anyone's information or source. It's interesting that dust in the air on Earth causes cooling and dust in the air on Mars causes warming.

Apparently the abilities of dust vary by zip code.

 

[code1211]

Looks like news travels mighty slowly in Warmistmoonbatland!

Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at KNMI (the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) wrote:

In the past century the sea level has risen twenty centimetres. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise. It is my opinion that there is no need for drastic measures.
Fortunately, the time rate of climate change is slow compared to the life span of the defense structures along our coast. There is enough time for adaptation.

Quadrant Online - Ice-sheets and sea level

OK. So?

So the weak evidence is used as a spring board to conclude with a prediction of dire consequence. They ain't got the goods so they try to scare the unwitting into action.

If you've got the facts, then pound the facts. If you've got the law, then pound the law. If you've got nothing, then pound the table.

The table is taking a terrible beating from these guys.

 

[code1211]

Well, whose fault it it that Maple was given or gave only enough info to deceive?

The same source, NASA, reported that the reason for the warming was dust related, but that part was left out by the deniers in order to deliberately mislead gullible suckers into thinking the Sun was responsible for the warming.

Whose fault is it that gullible suckers NEVER check to see if they are getting THE WHOLE TRUTH from their sources BEFORE they mindlessly parrot the disinformation?

The most professional liars tell just enough "truth" to mislead, and then they shut up!

The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way.
Samuel Butler

Yet you support the conclusions of scientists who leave out all the info and select certain tidbits

fail

Now wait a minute there Slick!

Deniers claim no one will give them any info, so how can you know if any info was left out or selectively picked???

Deniers are either lying about not being given the data or lying about data being left out, but either way they are lying.

Trust not him that hath once broken faith; he who betrayed thee once, will betray thee again.
- Shakespeare.

Warming and cooling have both occurred throughout the planetary record. In every example, CO2 has changed as a result of the temperature changing.

During this interglacial, we are enjoying a temperature varience of about 2 degrees and are currently smack dab in the middle of that varience.

It is apparent that it has been at least this warm and the overwhelming body of evidence suggest much warmer, during this interglacial. We are moving in halting steps toward that temperature high which is lower than any of the previous interglacial highs.

This warming is not unprecedented and not unusual.

The warming we are talking about totals 0.7 degrees across 2000 years. That is not runaway warming. It is astonishing stability. If you'd rather, we can reach back 1000 years and find that warming has produced a 0.3 degree rise to date. 8000 years shows a 1.0 degree fall.

Those are the facts left out by the AGW alarmists and those are the facts that add perspective to this debate. These facts pull the rug out from any urge to panic and that is why they are left out.

It is the AGW Proponents that need to prove their case. Those who doubt their case are not burdened with any onis in this. We only await the proof that never comes.

If you have proof, you are free to present it.

 

[code1211]

Now wait a minute there Slick!

Deniers claim no one will give them any info, so how can you know if any info was left out or selectively picked???

Deniers are either lying about not being given the data or lying about data being left out, but either way they are lying.

Trust not him that hath once broken faith; he who betrayed thee once, will betray thee again.
- Shakespeare.

What are "deniers" denying, there Ed? About what are these so-called deniers lying?

You played this same dumb act on another thread.

They DENY that the Earth is warming. And one of their lies is shown above. How could you possibly have missed it???

I think what they are denying is the cause, not the effect. You will need to eliminate all other causes and isolate the cause to CO2 to win your point.

 

[code1211]

You played this same dumb act on another thread.

They DENY that the Earth is warming. And one of their lies is shown above. How could you possibly have missed it???

WRONG again dipshit

the earth has gone through warming/cooling cycles for it's entire existence

But it's stopped going through cooling cycles over the last 100 years.

We have warming cycles followed by FLAT cycles instead of the natural cooling cycles, with each new warming cycle starting about where the last warming cycle left off.

Natural cycles pretty much ignor the clocks of Mankind. Interglacials are measured with centuries as the base unit of measure. Evolution of species uses millenia. Continental drift works in millions.

Using 100 years to measure planetary developement is like using 12 hours to measure the development of a day. Pretty dark at midnight. My God! It's really, really bright at noon.

If this brightening continues, we'll all be blind by mid night tonight. Save us! Save us!

 

[code1211]

Greenhouse Graveyard: New Progress for Big Global Warming Fix

Carbon Sequestration as Global Warming Solution ? How Carbon Capture Could Prevent Global Warming - Popular Mechanics


Global Warming Solutions

Global Warming Solutions, Stop Global Warming - National Geographic

looks like national geographic " is in on it" as well

Steve Martin did a comedy routine that he started off by repeating, "You could have a million dollaras and never work another day in your life."

He goes on to say, "First: You get a million dollars."

This is the same thing that these sources are saying in terms of CO2. They assume that CO2 is the causer and adjusting CO2 is the solution. What is the problem? The cause has not yet been proven.

You are free to present proof.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It can also be proven, all day every day, that pathogens (i.e. viruses and bacteria) cause diseases, rather than "evil spirits".

Need we go on?

shhh, you'll confuse him more than he already is

here divemoroncon this link will explain global warming to you from the trusted experts at popular mechanics they debunk all the myths of yours and your ilk

Global warming extinction threat | Popular Mechanics

Three words from the Popular Mechanics link: Under the assumption

 

[edthecynic]

Would you care to explain to me why Mars was heating at the same rate the Earth was over the last warming period? Nasa reported this in 2007.

OK, if you will explain why Uranus is getting colder.

Since only around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming, why aren't all 100 warming and why is Uranus cooling?

What the science says...

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.



The primary empirical evidence for long term, global warming on Mars comes from Fenton 2007. Fenton compared a composite snapshot of Mars from 1977 taken by the Voyager spacecraft to a 1999 image compiled by the Mars Global Surveyor (referencing work from Geissler 2005). The 1977 snapshot showed a brighter planet. In 1999, the planet had a lower albedo, with prominent darker regions in the southern mid and high latitudes. Using the albedo changes in a general circulation model, Fenton calculated a 22 year global warming trend of 0.65°C.

Figure 1: Snapshots of Mars 1977 (top) and 1999 (bottom). Image courtesy of Geissler 2005.

Fenton attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet's albedo. Martian dust plays a major role in the planet's climate (Kahn 1992). Solar variations are not the main driver of Martian climate.

Not disputing anyone's information or source. It's interesting that dust in the air on Earth causes cooling and dust in the air on Mars causes warming.

Apparently the abilities of dust vary by zip code.

Don't you CON$ think you are milking the dumb act a little bit too much????????????

It's not the dust in the AIR, it's the dust on the GROUND!!!!!!!!
The quote clearly said SURFACE DUST!
How could you have possibly missed it??????????

 

[edthecynic]

Yet you support the conclusions of scientists who leave out all the info and select certain tidbits

fail

Now wait a minute there Slick!

Deniers claim no one will give them any info, so how can you know if any info was left out or selectively picked???

Deniers are either lying about not being given the data or lying about data being left out, but either way they are lying.

Trust not him that hath once broken faith; he who betrayed thee once, will betray thee again.
- Shakespeare.

Warming and cooling have both occurred throughout the planetary record. In every example, CO2 has changed as a result of the temperature changing.

During this interglacial, we are enjoying a temperature varience of about 2 degrees and are currently smack dab in the middle of that varience.

It is apparent that it has been at least this warm and the overwhelming body of evidence suggest much warmer, during this interglacial. We are moving in halting steps toward that temperature high which is lower than any of the previous interglacial highs.

This warming is not unprecedented and not unusual.

The warming we are talking about totals 0.7 degrees across 2000 years. That is not runaway warming. It is astonishing stability. If you'd rather, we can reach back 1000 years and find that warming has produced a 0.3 degree rise to date. 8000 years shows a 1.0 degree fall.

Those are the facts left out by the AGW alarmists and those are the facts that add perspective to this debate. These facts pull the rug out from any urge to panic and that is why they are left out.

It is the AGW Proponents that need to prove their case. Those who doubt their case are not burdened with any onis in this. We only await the proof that never comes.

If you have proof, you are free to present it.

None of your above OPINIONS are proven. Only people who see what they want to see, see temp leading CO2 the same way you saw SURFACE dust as dust in the AIR on Mars.

The only thing you have to base your temp claims on is PROXY data, and proxy data has been shown to be in error where it overlaps direct instrument measurement. Not only that, the proxy data comes from very limited areas of the globe so no global conclusions can be honestly drawn from the very limited data. But that doesn't stop deniers from drawing the conclusions they want in order to muddy the waters.

 

[edthecynic]

WRONG again dipshit

the earth has gone through warming/cooling cycles for it's entire existence

But it's stopped going through cooling cycles over the last 100 years.

We have warming cycles followed by FLAT cycles instead of the natural cooling cycles, with each new warming cycle starting about where the last warming cycle left off.

Natural cycles pretty much ignor the clocks of Mankind. Interglacials are measured with centuries as the base unit of measure. Evolution of species uses millenia. Continental drift works in millions.

Using 100 years to measure planetary developement is like using 12 hours to measure the development of a day. Pretty dark at midnight. My God! It's really, really bright at noon.

If this brightening continues, we'll all be blind by mid night tonight. Save us! Save us!

I love it. 100 years is not long enough to show a warming trend, but 2, 4, 7, 11, or 15 years is long enough to show the cooling trend deniers claim. Every one of the short time periods I just listed has been claimed by one denier or another to be proof the Earth is cooling not warming.

 

[Meister]

100 years is not long enough to show a trend with any accuracy when heating and cooling is over 100,000 of years, yet you fearmongers want to say it is. You all are just a bunch of the sky is falling crowd.
It's all being exposed as a hoax and you can't let go. But I wouldn't expect anything less from you, and your posse

 

[edthecynic]

100 years is not long enough to show a trend with any accuracy when heating and cooling is over 100,000 of years, yet you fearmongers want to say it is. You all are just a bunch of the sky is falling crowd.
It's all being exposed as a hoax and you can't let go. But I wouldn't expect anything less from you, and your posse

To deniers, 100 years is not long enough to show a warming trend, but no period of time is too short to show a cooling trend.

Global Cooling Theory - Bing

 

[Oddball]

Which doesn't rebut the fact that 100 years isn't long enough to show a warming trend.

Ever stop and think that you warmist cargo cultists are merely getting your own flawed logic thrown back in your faces?

 

[code1211]

OK, if you will explain why Uranus is getting colder.

Since only around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming, why aren't all 100 warming and why is Uranus cooling?

Not disputing anyone's information or source. It's interesting that dust in the air on Earth causes cooling and dust in the air on Mars causes warming.

Apparently the abilities of dust vary by zip code.

Don't you CON$ think you are milking the dumb act a little bit too much????????????

It's not the dust in the AIR, it's the dust on the GROUND!!!!!!!!
The quote clearly said SURFACE DUST!
How could you have possibly missed it??????????

He needed a 22 year circulation model to calculate the effect of dust that's on the ground? That's an interesting take on his conclusions.