'Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans'

"The results confirm the warming trend seen by other groups using different methods."

'Earth is warming, study concludes - Climate unit releases more data - Warming since 1995 'significant''

"A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures." BBC News - Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans


"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka

Yeah, the big problem of course is Muller was never a sceptic.

And there's the idiotic denier cult response to Dr. Muller's climate studies. LOLOLOL. Jeez, you twits are pathetic.

In fact, Dr. Muller was a skeptic in the proper scientific sense of withholding judgment until he felt persuaded by the evidence. The dingbat denier cultists have been bamboozled into thinking that 'skeptic' means a close-minded, anti-scientific, brainwashed dupe like themselves, picking and choosing their data to shore up an ideological position. There is actually an enormous difference between being a true 'skeptic' and being a brainwashed 'denier'.

When a reporter asked him recently if it's really accurate to say he was ever a sceptic, Muller replied: "I have considered myself only to be a properly sceptical scientist. Some people have called me a denier - no, that's completely wrong. If anything, I was agnostic. I just hope that some people like you will read my books and papers, and read what I say - not what people say I say.""

'There's plenty of room for scepticism' – climate study author Richard Muller
The BEST project's Prof Richard Muller on global warming, the meaning of 'scepticism', and the importance of transparency

Friday 3 August 2012

Yeah that must be why in all of his on-line lectures on the topic -- he leaps RIGHT INTO the politics of how to implement systems to COMBAT man-made global warming.. Because he's a skeptic.. Really?? Must not be familiar with this guy's public record..

He does one honest deed to attack Mann for screwing the AGW community with his over-zealous hockey stick crap and he's a skeptic? Us skeptics got to work harder than that to get street cred.. He attacked MANN BECAUSE that guy damaged the cause!!!!!!
 
Yeah, the big problem of course is Muller was never a sceptic.

And there's the idiotic denier cult response to Dr. Muller's climate studies. LOLOLOL. Jeez, you twits are pathetic.

In fact, Dr. Muller was a skeptic in the proper scientific sense of withholding judgment until he felt persuaded by the evidence. The dingbat denier cultists have been bamboozled into thinking that 'skeptic' means a close-minded, anti-scientific, brainwashed dupe like themselves, picking and choosing their data to shore up an ideological position. There is actually an enormous difference between being a true 'skeptic' and being a brainwashed 'denier'.

When a reporter asked him recently if it's really accurate to say he was ever a sceptic, Muller replied: "I have considered myself only to be a properly sceptical scientist. Some people have called me a denier - no, that's completely wrong. If anything, I was agnostic. I just hope that some people like you will read my books and papers, and read what I say - not what people say I say.""

'There's plenty of room for scepticism' – climate study author Richard Muller
The BEST project's Prof Richard Muller on global warming, the meaning of 'scepticism', and the importance of transparency

Friday 3 August 2012

Yeah that must be why in all of his on-line lectures on the topic -- he leaps RIGHT INTO the politics of how to implement systems to COMBAT man-made global warming.. Because he's a skeptic.. Really?? Must not be familiar with this guy's public record..

He does one honest deed to attack Mann for screwing the AGW community with his over-zealous hockey stick crap and he's a skeptic? Us skeptics got to work harder than that to get street cred.. He attacked MANN BECAUSE that guy damaged the cause!!!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....oh, fecalhead, are you still laboring under the illusion that you are a skeptic? LOLOLOLOL.....you are a braindead denier, not an actual skeptic, you poor clueless retard.

Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?

Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers

Climate Change Deniers: More Fraud Artists than Skeptics

Stern: Climate change deniers are 'flat-earthers'
 
:ack-1:

So you can't stay on topic.. Can't refute the facts I presented. And you want to plug a website that says..

Why Won’t Al Gore Debate Climate Change?
September 9, 2008 by greenfyre

Simple, the Deniers would win … because they have no evidence or facts on their side.
Huh? If they have no evidence or facts, how can they win a debate?

Easy, because a debate is not about being right, it is about winning by appearing to be right. The more the audience does not understand the issue, the easier it is to win. You just need one thing, it’s called “the Gish Gallop.”

How this works: as fast as possible you tell as many lies and distortions as possible, cram them into the available time. It really does not matter whether you know them to be lies or whether they are things you actually believe yourself. The important thing is to pack in as much outrageous nonsense as possible into the time available.

Now we know where you got your training.. :ack-1:

Except you have ONE HUGE problem.. The "audience" here DOES understand a bit of the issue.. So you really look silly TinkerBelle.


WONDERFUL LINKS there Einstein.........
 
Last edited:
:ack-1:

So you can't stay on topic.. Can't refute the facts I presented. And you want to plug a website that says..

Why Won’t Al Gore Debate Climate Change?
September 9, 2008 by greenfyre

Simple, the Deniers would win … because they have no evidence or facts on their side.
Huh? If they have no evidence or facts, how can they win a debate?

Easy, because a debate is not about being right, it is about winning by appearing to be right. The more the audience does not understand the issue, the easier it is to win. You just need one thing, it’s called “the Gish Gallop.”

How this works: as fast as possible you tell as many lies and distortions as possible, cram them into the available time. It really does not matter whether you know them to be lies or whether they are things you actually believe yourself. The important thing is to pack in as much outrageous nonsense as possible into the time available.

Now we know where you got your training.. :ack-1:

Except you have ONE HUGE problem.. The "audience" here DOES understand a bit of the issue.. So you really look silly TinkerBelle.


WONDERFUL LINKS there Einstein.........

trolling blunder lacks a brain thus it is reduced to cut and paste nonsense that it could never hope to understand in the first place.
 
So you can't stay on topic.. Can't refute the facts I presented.
And there's another one of your many delusions, fecalhead. You don't actually present any "facts", just your braindead 'opinions' that are actually just a parroting of the fossil fuel industry/denier cult propaganda and lies that your puppet-masters spoon into your sick little brain.

Neither you nor the walleyedretard would know a 'fact' if it bit you.
 
Last edited:
So you can't stay on topic.. Can't refute the facts I presented.
And there's another one of your many delusions, fecalhead. You don't actually present any "facts", just your braindead 'opinions' that are actually just a parroting of the fossil fuel industry/denier cult propaganda and lies that your puppet-masters spoon into your sick little brain.

Neither you nor the walleyedretard would know a 'fact' if it bit you.





staticslotmachine-4.png
 
So you can't stay on topic.. Can't refute the facts I presented.
And there's another one of your many delusions, fecalhead. You don't actually present any "facts", just your braindead 'opinions' that are actually just a parroting of the fossil fuel industry/denier cult propaganda and lies that your puppet-masters spoon into your sick little brain.

Neither you nor the walleyedretard would know a 'fact' if it bit you.

The carbon sink is TWICE as effective as suggested in your models, shouldn't that some effect on your "science" or is it really a Cult?
 
So you can't stay on topic.. Can't refute the facts I presented.
And there's another one of your many delusions, fecalhead. You don't actually present any "facts", just your braindead 'opinions' that are actually just a parroting of the fossil fuel industry/denier cult propaganda and lies that your puppet-masters spoon into your sick little brain.

Neither you nor the walleyedretard would know a 'fact' if it bit you.

The carbon sink is TWICE as effective as suggested in your models, shouldn't that some effect on your "science" or is it really a Cult?
Once again you demonstrate that you're just too stupid to understand what is going on. The article cited in the OP does not say that carbon sinks are "twice as effective". It says that some carbon sinks are temporarily still able to absorb a larger amount of the fossil carbon that mankind is pumping into the atmosphere although still only half of the amounts we're spewing. Climate models work with the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere and the research discussed in that article has almost no bearing on the predictive ability of the models. CO2 is still accumulating in the atmosphere at an accelerating rate.

Once again you scientifically ignorant denier cultists have been duped by propaganda and spin into believing some phony nonsense about the meaning of some scientific research.
 
And there's another one of your many delusions, fecalhead. You don't actually present any "facts", just your braindead 'opinions' that are actually just a parroting of the fossil fuel industry/denier cult propaganda and lies that your puppet-masters spoon into your sick little brain.

Neither you nor the walleyedretard would know a 'fact' if it bit you.

The carbon sink is TWICE as effective as suggested in your models, shouldn't that some effect on your "science" or is it really a Cult?
Once again you demonstrate that you're just too stupid to understand what is going on. The article cited in the OP does not say that carbon sinks are "twice as effective". It says that some carbon sinks are temporarily still able to absorb a larger amount of the fossil carbon that mankind is pumping into the atmosphere although still only half of the amounts we're spewing. Climate models work with the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere and the research discussed in that article has almost no bearing on the predictive ability of the models. CO2 is still accumulating in the atmosphere at an accelerating rate.

Once again you scientifically ignorant denier cultists have been duped by propaganda and spin into believing some phony nonsense about the meaning of some scientific research.

Models COULD be wrong by up to 2X.. From the abstract to the paper in the OP..

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html


One of the greatest sources of uncertainty for future climate predictions is the response of the global carbon cycle to climate change1. Although approximately one-half of total CO2 emissions is at present taken up by combined land and ocean carbon reservoirs2, models predict a decline in future carbon uptake by these reservoirs, resulting in a positive carbon–climate feedback3. Several recent studies suggest that rates of carbon uptake by the land4, 5, 6 and ocean7, 8, 9, 10 have remained constant or declined in recent decades. Other work, however, has called into question the reported decline11, 12, 13

Here we use global-scale atmospheric CO2 measurements, CO2 emission inventories and their full range of uncertainties to calculate changes in global CO2 sources and sinks during the past 50 years. Our mass balance analysis shows that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly by about 0.05 billion tonnes of carbon per year and that global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4?±?0.8 to 5.0?±?0.9 billion tonnes per year, between 1960 and 2010. Therefore, it is very unlikely that both land and ocean carbon sinks have decreased on a global scale. Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions

We'll KNOW more about HOW wrong the assumptions have been shortly.. But the authors cite MULTIPLE studies suggesting that the Carbon Sinks have "remained CONSTANT or DECLINED"

If I had the numbers in those quoted studies, I could tell you whether this a factor of 2 -- less or more..

For further evidence, here's just a SAMPLING of papers suggesting DECLINING carbon sinks..

IPCC Final Report | Arkansas Climate Awareness Project

CO2 Concentrations Rise as Emissions Increase, Sinks Decrease
Growth of Atmospheric CO2 Faster than Expected


Atmospheric carbon dioxide growth has increased 35% faster than
expected since 2000. Levels of greenhouse gases are rising about 2.5
times faster this decade than they did during the 1990s due to rapid
economic growth, increases in carbon intensity and a decline in the
efficiency of ocean and land CO2 sinks.


[[ “Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth fromeconomic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks” ---Publication of the National Academy of Sciences, October 20071]]

CO2 Saturation of Southern Ocean Will Increase the Rate of Rising
Temperatures


Atmospheric CO2 levels may rise faster and bring about rising
temperatures more quickly than previously anticipated, according to
a new analysis that finds the Southern Ocean (ocean areas below the
60°S latitude), the earth’s biggest carbon sink, has become
CO2-saturated. The ocean hasn’t absorbed any additional CO2 since
1981, but CO2 emissions have increased by 40% since that year.


[[“Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate
Change” Science, June 22, 20072]]

North Atlantic Carbon Sink Has Reduced Uptake by Half

Oceans are leaving CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic climate
change has upset the ocean-processes that allow normal carbon
uptake. Reduced heat loss has slowed North-Atlantic ocean
circulation, which consequently inhibits absorption.
Ocean sinks
have increased in the past as atmospheric CO2 increased. Study
scientists said they knew this would slow, but they are surprised at
the rate at which it has occurred.

[["A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North
Atlantic” -- Journal of Geophysical Research, Nov. 20073]]

Rising Ozone Stifles Plant Absorption of CO2

Rising levels of ozone pollution over the coming century will erode
the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 at higher levels increases the likelihood of
expressed climate disruption.


[[“Carbon sinks threatened by increasing ozone” -- Nature, July, 26, 20074]]

Still contend there's no news here Princess?? I'm getting tired of playing -- when I'm doing ALL the work.. ((Except for your occasional random Wiki dumps.)) Unless my buds are being entertained by this primadonna display of yours -- I'm inclined to just watch the tantrums..
 
"The results confirm the warming trend seen by other groups using different methods."

'Earth is warming, study concludes - Climate unit releases more data - Warming since 1995 'significant''

"A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures." BBC News - Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans


"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oijXobDCQ]CO2 or Blackhole Sun You decide - YouTube[/ame]
 
"The results confirm the warming trend seen by other groups using different methods."

'Earth is warming, study concludes - Climate unit releases more data - Warming since 1995 'significant''

"A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures."
BBC News - Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans


"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oijXobDCQ]CO2 or Blackhole Sun You decide - YouTube[/ame]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....tooo funny, little retard, just tooooooo funny.

Someone quotes actual climate scientists and you respond with a braindead youtube video.....LOLOLOLOL......thanks for demonstrating the validity of that quote from Mark Slouka. Don't know who he is but he pretty much nailed it. And you immediately embody it.....toooo funny, you poor, poor imbecile...
 
"The results confirm the warming trend seen by other groups using different methods."

'Earth is warming, study concludes - Climate unit releases more data - Warming since 1995 'significant''

"A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures."
BBC News - Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans


"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oijXobDCQ]CO2 or Blackhole Sun You decide - YouTube[/ame]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....tooo funny, little retard, just tooooooo funny.

Someone quotes actual climate scientists and you respond with a braindead youtube video.....LOLOLOLOL......thanks for demonstrating the validity of that quote from Mark Slouka. Don't know who he is but he pretty much nailed it. And you immediately embody it.....toooo funny, you poor, poor imbecile...





How about addressing flacaltenn's points there junior.
 

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....tooo funny, little retard, just tooooooo funny.

Someone quotes actual climate scientists and you respond with a braindead youtube video.....LOLOLOLOL......thanks for demonstrating the validity of that quote from Mark Slouka. Don't know who he is but he pretty much nailed it. And you immediately embody it.....toooo funny, you poor, poor imbecile...
How about addressing flacaltenn's points there junior.
Fecalhead doesn't have any actual "points" except for the one on top of his head. And neither do you, you poor walleyedretard. Neither of you have any idea what is going on.
 

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....tooo funny, little retard, just tooooooo funny.

Someone quotes actual climate scientists and you respond with a braindead youtube video.....LOLOLOLOL......thanks for demonstrating the validity of that quote from Mark Slouka. Don't know who he is but he pretty much nailed it. And you immediately embody it.....toooo funny, you poor, poor imbecile...

How about addressing flacaltenn's points there junior.

You know he can`t except for making "LOLOLOLOLO" noises. Even apes have more brains and notice when other apes fucked up. The only way he`ld realize if we hooked him up like that:
Nervenzellen im vorderen Teil des Gehirns erkennen Fehler - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Studie mit Affen Forscher entdecken Hirnareal für Fehlerwarnung



Translation:
Researches discovered the brain area where apes process errors and learn from them.



image-331043-panoV9free-inff.jpg
"der präfrontale Kortex, der Teil des Frontallappens ist, weil dort eine Vielzahl von Sinneswahrnehmungen verarbeitet wird. Sie laufen hier mit Gedächtnisinhalten zusammen und werden emotional bewertet. Aufgrund dieser Informationen steuert das Gehirn das Handeln."


He doesn`t have a functional pre-frontal Kortex, that`s why he can only make "LOLOLOLO" noises when the rest of what he`s got can`t come up with a suitable pre-programmed left wing chant or slogan
 
@Westwall
Did You notice how CNN, the Associated Press etc promoted Hansen to "Top NASA scientist"
doomsdayprophets.jpg


You know, the same "Top NASA scientist" who "proved a warming trend" with satellite data and never realized that satellite orbits decay till a "dumb sceptic" pointed that out...and then the same "NASA top scientist"
compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it.
 
Last edited:
So you can't stay on topic.. Can't refute the facts I presented.
And there's another one of your many delusions, fecalhead. You don't actually present any "facts", just your braindead 'opinions' that are actually just a parroting of the fossil fuel industry/denier cult propaganda and lies that your puppet-masters spoon into your sick little brain.

Neither you nor the walleyedretard would know a 'fact' if it bit you.

The carbon sink is TWICE as effective as suggested in your models, shouldn't that some effect on your "science" or is it really a Cult?
He wouldn`t know about it.
1.) because cult members are de facto intellectually "challenged" else they would`nt have joined up to begin with
2.) because once they are in that occult any information outside the doctrine can`t be true.
While the computer "climate models" have to be "corrected" yet again, precisely because of what You just told this idiot:

CO2-Senke in südlichen Meeren untersucht - SPIEGEL ONLINE
30.07.2012
Klima


Wie die südlichen Meere Treibhausgas schlucken


image-382118-panoV9free-phim.jpg


Die Ozeane nehmen gigantische Mengen an Kohlendioxid auf - insbesondere auf der Südhalbkugel. Die Mechanismen haben Forscher jetzt nach eigenen Angaben entschlüsselt - und hoffen nun auf wertvolle Erkenntnisse über die Folgen des Klimawandels.
Quick translation of the key points
Only now are "climate researchers" beginning to understand why especially the southern oceans absorb a gigantic amount of CO2. Especially so south of the 40.th Lat.
Der "Spiegel" , it`s noteworthy to mention is a strongly left leaning publication links in this article to essentially the same info published in English here:
Localized subduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere oceans : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group
The Southern Ocean makes a substantial contribution to this oceanic carbon sink: more than 40% of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ocean has entered south of 40° S. The rate-limiting step in the oceanic sequestration of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the transfer of carbon across the base of the surface mixed layer into the ocean interior, a process known as subduction. However, the physical mechanisms responsible for the subduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide are poorly understood. Here we use observationally based estimates of subduction and anthropogenic carbon concentrations in the Southern Ocean to determine the mechanisms responsible for carbon sequestration. We estimate that net subduction amounts to 0.42 ± 0.2 Pg C  yr−1 between 35° S and the marginal sea-ice zone. We show that subduction occurs in specific locations as a result of the interplay of wind-driven Ekman transport, eddy fluxes and variations in mixed-layer depth. The zonal distribution of the estimated subduction is consistent with the distribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ocean interior. We conclude that oceanic carbon sequestration depends on physical properties, such as mixed-layer depth, ocean currents, wind and eddies, which are potentially sensitive to climate variability and change.
But don`t expect this idiot to come back with anything other than "LOLOLOLO"

Even the "Green" Party + the SPD socialists in Germany know now that they have been had by "climatologists"...after wasting billion$ upon billion$ into "renewable energy" which can`t cut the mustard unless they either scrap it or put 100X football field size pump basins on almost every hilltop in Germany
 
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....tooo funny, little retard, just tooooooo funny.

Someone quotes actual climate scientists and you respond with a braindead youtube video.....LOLOLOLOL......thanks for demonstrating the validity of that quote from Mark Slouka. Don't know who he is but he pretty much nailed it. And you immediately embody it.....toooo funny, you poor, poor imbecile...

How about addressing flacaltenn's points there junior.

You know he can`t except for making "LOLOLOLOLO" noises. Even apes have more brains and notice when other apes fucked up. The only way he`ld realize if we hooked him up like that:

He doesn`t have a functional pre-frontal Kortex, that`s why he can only make "LOLOLOLO" noises when the rest of what he`s got can`t come up with a suitable pre-programmed left wing chant or slogan

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL = I'm laughing at your stupidity and brainwashed cluelessness, PoopBrain, and your moronic youtube video.

It is easy to see that what you've got going for you is a sort of 'pre-frontal Kotex™' that unfortunately absorbed the half dozen or so brain cells you inherited from your extremely retarded ancestors.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top