To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[jc456]

I'm thinking I should write a Frank-simulator script. It wouldn't be hard. Make some lists of his stock nonsense phrases, then have the script choose from them randomly and piece them together.

Hmm. Maybe that's what Frank is. That is, there is no actual person behind the account, just a script generating semi-random nonsense.

In climate news, NASA GISS shows the November 2015 global average temperature anomaly at +1.05C, the hottest November ever, and just behind the October 2015 anomaly of +1.06C. 2015 will shatter the old record for hottest year, barring a sudden supervolcano or major asteroid impact.

And that's why the "no warming!" cranks look completely insane and pathologically dishonest now. Seriously deniers, just stop faking the data. Nobody is falling for it.

all ad hominem. no evidence, no raw data sets, all manufactured. Frank posted up a chart. What's wrong with the chart, can you answer that?

You discussing NASA GISS after this in 2010?

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

Excerpt:
"Press Release From: KUSI-TV
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com."

 

[jc456]

Frank, can you post up the true intentions of the IPCC?

Thanks,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wasn't Mammooth the one telling us that NOAA was right to retroactively adjust the data?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, can you post up the true intentions of the IPCC?

Thanks,

IPCC told us that they're using AGW as a wealth redistribution scheme

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore - See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

 

[jc456]

Frank, can you post up the true intentions of the IPCC?

Thanks,

IPCC told us that they're using AGW as a wealth redistribution scheme

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore - See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

still waiting for the left libturds to explain that quote. still crickets.

 

[Crick]

Wasn't Mammooth the one telling us that NOAA was right to retroactively adjust the data?

The corrections and adjustments made to NOAA's temperature data and that of Hadley, GISS, NCDC and every other holder, are making the data more accurate. Of course they're right. And, as you've been told repeatedly, the net result of the adjustments being made is REDUCING the amount of warming observed.

What this has shown as clear as a bell is that you folks are a bunch of idiots and that you don't have an argument to make. Never did.

 

[Crick]

Frank, can you post up the true intentions of the IPCC?

Thanks,

IPCC told us that they're using AGW as a wealth redistribution scheme

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore - See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Frank, what authority does the IPCC have to redistribute anyone's wealth?

Whose wealth do you believe the IPCC has redistributed and how and when did they do it?

If you can't answer these questions and yet you once again pull out this quote from Edenhofer and make these asinine claims, I'll have to take you down ANOTHER notch on the Smarts Curve (and there isn't much room under your current position).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, can you post up the true intentions of the IPCC?

Thanks,

IPCC told us that they're using AGW as a wealth redistribution scheme

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore - See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Frank, what authority does the IPCC have to redistribute anyone's wealth?

Whose wealth do you believe the IPCC has redistributed and how and when did they do it?

If you can't answer these questions and yet you once again pull out this quote from Edenhofer and make these asinine claims, I'll have to take you down ANOTHER notch on the Smarts Curve (and there isn't much room under your current position).

Did you see what just happened in Paris?

They all agreed the USA should redistribute its wealth

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm thinking I should write a Frank-simulator script. It wouldn't be hard. Make some lists of his stock nonsense phrases, then have the script choose from them randomly and piece them together.

Hmm. Maybe that's what Frank is. That is, there is no actual person behind the account, just a script generating semi-random nonsense.

In climate news, NASA GISS shows the November 2015 global average temperature anomaly at +1.05C, the hottest November ever, and just behind the October 2015 anomaly of +1.06C. 2015 will shatter the old record for hottest year, barring a sudden supervolcano or major asteroid impact.

And that's why the "no warming!" cranks look completely insane and pathologically dishonest now. Seriously deniers, just stop faking the data. Nobody is falling for it.

You write code, Admiral?

Amazing

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wasn't Mammooth the one telling us that NOAA was right to retroactively adjust the data?

The corrections and adjustments made to NOAA's temperature data and that of Hadley, GISS, NCDC and every other holder, are making the data more accurate. Of course they're right. And, as you've been told repeatedly, the net result of the adjustments being made is REDUCING the amount of warming observed.

What this has shown as clear as a bell is that you folks are a bunch of idiots and that you don't have an argument to make. Never did.

LOL@ "more accurate!"

LOL

How the fuck do you retroactively make the readings "more accurate"?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wasn't Mammooth the one telling us that NOAA was right to retroactively adjust the data?

The corrections and adjustments made to NOAA's temperature data and that of Hadley, GISS, NCDC and every other holder, are making the data more accurate. Of course they're right. And, as you've been told repeatedly, the net result of the adjustments being made is REDUCING the amount of warming observed.

What this has shown as clear as a bell is that you folks are a bunch of idiots and that you don't have an argument to make. Never did.

BULL SHIT!

Arbitrary adjustments and "must meet our expectations" are all bull shit code words for 'we must shove the agenda forward' No matter how many times we show that the adjustments are bull shit, contrived, and baseless you post up your appeal to authority as proof..

Take your appeals to authority and shove them up your anti-science ass.

The morons are out in force and the idiots are close behind!

 

[sealybobo]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

 

[sealybobo]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Politicians met in Paris dofous...

Again no link to back up your asinine blanket statement?

It took me 3 seconds ...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Check this out


JAPANESE SPACE AGENCY AGREES WITH SKEPTICS ON CLIMATE CHANGE - Principia Scientific Intl


Japanese climate satellite data supports climate realist Professor Murry Salby in rejecting global warming theory; humans are not responsible for measured increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) affirm evidence in Report from Japanese Aerospace exploration agency (JAXA).The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has revealed that its climate satellite IBUKI data shows that the growth in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is coming from third world under developed forested equatorial regions of Africa and South America.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Oh look Chinese don't


Climate change concern among Chinese citizens plummets, research finds

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Ok since you are to lazy to get facts and just spout opinions from your butt.


Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


70% of the folks in Afghanistan don't believe in the AGW cult

66% of the folks in Cambodia don't believe in the AGW cult

69% of the folks in Chad don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Denmark don't believe in the AGW cult

46% of the folks in Egypt don't believe in the AGW cult

41% of the folks in Germany don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iceland don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iraq don't believe in the AGW cult

53% of the folks in Norway don't believe in the AGW cult

61% of the folks in Saudi Arabia don't believe in the AGW cult

71% of the folks in South Africa don't believe in the AGW cult

82% of the folks in Tanzania don't believe in the AGW cult

52% of the folks in the United Kingdom don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Vietnam don't believe in the AGW cult

 

[westwall]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Because consensus is the language of politics, not science, and those who are pushing the fraud directly benefit from it. What you are advocating is the same as a drug maker churning out "studies" that support their product, all the while knowing it is crap, like all those male supplements we get barraged with, but they churn them out because they make money on them.

Color me unsurprised you're not educated enough to understand that.

 

[Crick]

Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall? How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall? Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?

CON-FUCKING-SENSUS

From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.

Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.